The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend, revoke, and/or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license. The primary grounds for the proposed disciplinary action are that the licensee has permitted patrons on the licensed premises to sell cocaine on numerous occasions in violation of various statutory provisions. The specific allegations are set forth in a Notice To Show Cause dated February 27, 1989. An Emergency Order Of Suspension was served on the Respondent on February 27, 1989. The Respondent requested an emergency hearing, which was conducted on March 7, 1989. Both parties offered evidence at the hearing. Following the hearing the parties requested and were allowed until March 17, 1989, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The Petitioner filed a timely proposed recommended order. The Respondent has not filed any post-hearing documents. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Ocean Drive Hotel Corporation, d/b/a/ Ocean Haven Restaurant, is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License Number 23-3568, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Ocean Haven Restaurant, which is located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. The licensed premises are located in a neighborhood which is somewhat less than wholesome; a neighborhood in which there is a substantial amount of illegal drug related activity. It is a neighborhood in which it is not uncommon for police officers to observe people who have been previously arrested for drug violations. The Respondent corporation owns the licensed premises, as well as the hotel premises of which the licensed premises are a part. The Respondent corporation is owned by Mr. Heriberto Velasco. Mr. Velasco is the president of the Respondent corporation and he is the manager of both the hotel and the restaurant businesses. Mr. Velasco lives in the hotel with his wife, his mother, and one of his sons. Mr. Velasco takes most of his meals in the restaurant which comprises the licensed premises, and usually visits the licensed premises at least three times a day for that purpose. There is no evidence that he regularly spends any other time supervising activities in the restaurant. There are four employees in the restaurant that comprises the licensed premises. Two of those employees are Gloria E. Berlioz and Antonia Rodriguez de Alcina. The latter is also known by the name of Nora. Ms. Berlioz and Ms. Alcina have both been employees on the licensed premises for a year or two. Ms. Alcina is employed as a waitress. Ms. Berlioz is employed as a cook. During the course of an undercover investigation during the months of January and February of 1989, the following transactions involving controlled substances took place within the licensed premises: On January 10, 1989, a patron known as Loraine sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 18, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 19, 1989, an unknown white Latin male patron sold cocaine to a patron named Tommy. On January 25, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 26, 1989, an unknown Latin male patron sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 6, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 7, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet in two separate transactions. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also sold cocaine to Investigator Lerra. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet, in two separate transactions. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also delivered cocaine to an unknown white male patron. On February 22, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in the preceding paragraph, the people involved in the transactions discussed the subject of drug transactions in normal conversational tones of voice. During the majority of those conversations, either Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have heard the conversations. During some of the conversations, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter, within two or three feet from the conversations. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, the drugs involved in the transactions were openly displayed on the table top or on the counter top in front of the participants to the transactions. In each of the transactions involving purchases by Investigator Huguet, the investigator attempted to be obvious about what he was doing by holding the drugs in front of his face to inspect them before putting the drugs in his pocket. During the vast majority of those transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have observed the transactions. During some of the transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter within two or three feet from the drug transactions. One of the drug transactions took place while Mr. Heriberto Velasco was standing several feet away. All of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place within the licensed premises during business hours when employees and patrons were present on the licensed premises. None of the employees ever called the police or asked any of the parties to the drug transactions to leave the licensed premises. Mr. Heriberto Velasco was aware that the licensed premises are located in a neighborhood in which there is a high level of illegal drug activity. Nevertheless, he did not take any special precautions to prevent or detect drug activity on the licensed premises other than to tell the employees to let him know if they saw any drug activity. Mr. Heriberto Velasco has never asked the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for assistance or suggestions with respect to preventing or eliminating drug activity on the licensed premises, even though the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco advises all licensees of the availability of such assistance. Mr. Heriberto Velasco did not have actual knowledge that drug transactions were taking place on the licensed premises. He is opposed to drug trafficking and he has not knowingly permitted sales of drugs in his hotel or on the licensed premises. He has instructed his employees in the hotel and in the restaurant to call him if they observe any drug related activity so that he can throw out anyone involved in such activity. He has thrown people out of the hotel when he suspected they were involved in drug related activities. The employees in the licensed premises never told him about any drug related activity on the premises. Mr. Velasco never observed any activity on the licensed premises that he thought was drug related activity. Mr. Velasco does not know what crack cocaine looks like. Mr. Eric Velasco is the 20-year-old son of Mr. Heriberto Velasco. The son lives at the hotel with his parents and helps with the management of the hotel and restaurant to the extent he can between going to college and working at another near-by job. Mr. Eric Velasco has never observed any activity in the licensed premises that appeared to him to be drug related activity. He does not know what crack cocaine looks like. In brief summary, the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place in plain view within the licensed premises. The open exchanges of drugs and money in conjunction with the open conversations about drug transactions demonstrate a persistent pattern of open and flagrant drug activity. The subject drug transactions were sufficiently open that they would have been noticed by a reasonably diligent licensee.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in this case revoking the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 23-3568, series 2-COP, for the premises located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1096 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Further, some details proposed in this paragraph are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Accepted in substance, with many subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21: Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by Respondent (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Gino P. Negretti, Esquire 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondent P R of Brevard County, Inc., doing business as Shark Lounge, was the holder of Florida Alcoholic Beverage License Series 4-COP No. 15-00177 for the Shark Lounge, located at 411 North Orange Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida. On March 15, 1984, Terry A. Altman, a special agent for the U.S. Treasury Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), in an undercover capacity and in the company of Investigator Gloria Smith of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), also in an undercover capacity, entered the Shark Lounge at approximately 2:00 a.m. They had been there before on March 12, 1984, when an employee of the Respondent, the bouncer Harry Haynes, had offered to sell marijuana to Smith. On this March 15th visit, they spoke with an employee by the name of Sherry, and Smith asked if Haynes was there. When Haynes showed up, Smith asked him if he had been able to obtain any of the marijuana he had mentioned previously, whereupon Haynes told her that cocaine was easier to get than marijuana. However, Haynes made some telephone calls and shortly thereafter requested that Altman come outside with him. Altman complied, at which time Haynes requested $30. Altman paid the $30 to Haynes and then went back inside the bar. A little later, Haynes came in and motioned Altman and Smith to come outside, where Haynes handed Altman a plastic envelope containing a green leafy substance. Upon subsequent laboratory analysis, this substance was determined to be marijuana. On March 22, 1984, Altman and Smith went back to Respondent's lounge, where Smith saw Haynes behind the bar. At this time, she asked Haynes if she could get cocaine, and Haynes indicated that he had already ordered some for her. At approximately 2:00 a.m., Haynes came in and told Altman to go outside with him. Haynes quoted a price of $50 a half gram for the substance. Altman paid Haynes the $50 and went back inside, while Haynes went someplace else. A few minutes later, Haynes came back into the bar and requested that Altman again come outside. When he did so, Haynes handed him a small plastic bag of a white powder, suspected to be cocaine, which Altman took back into the lounge and gave to Smith. Sitting at the table and making no effort to conceal her actions, Smith held the package up to the light, tapped the bag to get the substance to one corner, and then put it into her purse. Haynes at that time guaranteed the quality of the substance and offered to get them more in the future if they so desired. This substance was subsequently analyzed and determined to be cocaine. Thereafter, on March 24, 1984, Smith, in the company of undercover agent Jenkins, entered the lounge at about 9:30 p.m. She introduced Jenkins to Haynes and asked Haynes if he could get some cocaine for them. Haynes replied that he could do so but that his source would not be in until later in the evening. At approximately 3:30 the following morning, while Haynes was busy attempting to break up a fight which had just started, an individual identified as Haynes' source entered the bar, and Haynes pointed out Smith to him. This source, identified as Ric, came to Smith and gave her what was subsequently identified as cocaine in a plastic bag, for which she paid him $50. By this time, the lights, which had previously been turned out in an attempt to help stop the fight, were back on, and there was no attempt on the part of Ric to conceal the transaction. Later in the evening, Haynes asked Smith if she had been taken care of. Again, on April 8, 1984, Altman entered the Shark Lounge at approximately midnight. He approached Haynes, who was acting as a bouncer at the entrance, and asked to buy a half gram of cocaine. Haynes asked Altman to step outside and agreed to procure the cocaine for Altman if he would front the money for it. Altman paid Haynes $60 in cash at the Shark Lounge, and, pursuant to the agreement between the parties, the cocaine was subsequently delivered later that afternoon at the Canaveral Pier. The transfer of money from Altman to Haynes took place near the door in front of an independent security guard hired by Respondent. Haynes explained the transfer as being a payoff of a bet. On April 17, 1984, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Smith and Altman again entered the Shark Lounge and engaged Haynes in conversation, at which time Smith indicated that she wanted some more cocaine. Haynes replied he would get it, and Altman gave him $40 to purchase a half gram of cocaine. It was understood between them that Smith and Altman would be back the following evening to pick up the cocaine. When they did come back at approximately 11:45 p.m. on April 18, Haynes, who was out in the parking lot, motioned Altman to get into an Oldsmobile car, which Altman did. Haynes then removed the package of cocaine from the car's ashtray and attempted to give it to Altman, saying that it was good stuff. Altman, however, indicated that Smith had paid for it and that Haynes should give it directly to her. The two men then got out of the car and approached Smith, who was standing near the outside of the door to the lounge. Haynes attempted to give Smith the cocaine at that time, but she would not accept it and instead went into the lounge to use the restroom. As Haynes and Altman followed Smith into the lounge, Haynes pressed the cocaine onto Altman, indicating that he wanted to get rid of it. When Smith came back from the restroom a few moments later, Haynes told her he had already given the cocaine to Altman, who took it out of his pocket and put it in Smith's lap. She examined the cocaine and put it in her purse in full view of the other patrons of the bar. This substance, delivered by Haynes to Aliman and in turn to Smith, was subsequently identified as cocaine. Neither agent went back to the bar until April 26, 1984, at approximately 1:30 a.m., when Altman and Smith, in the company of Special Agent Eslinger of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), entered the bar. They contacted Haynes, who was working as a bartender at the time, and Smith asked him to get a half gram of cocaine for her. Haynes agreed to do this and told her to check with him the next day to see if he had procured it. At the time of her request, Smith gave Haynes $50 for the cocaine. No further contact was had until late in the evening of April 30, 1984, when Altman, Smith, and an unidentified confidential informant entered the lounge. Smith asked Haynes at that time if he had obtained the cocaine she had paid for on April 26, and Haynes said that he had. This conversation took place near the door, where Haynes was working as a bouncer. Haynes took a plastic envelope containing a white powder from his right front pocket and gave it to Smith, who brought it back to the table and showed it to Altman. Later, pursuant to Smith's invitation, Haynes came to their table and said that over the weekend he had obtained some sensinilla, some speed, and another substance. Smith said she would like to have some speed, and Haynes said he could get 30 capsules of it for $15, which she gave to him. At this point, Haynes showed Smith a package of a black substance which he identified as hashish and offered to sell to her for $5. Smith did not buy any, however, and she, Altman, and the informant departed the lounge after telling Haynes they would be back for the speed the next night. The white powdery substance that Smith obtained from Haynes that night was subsequently tested and found to be cocaine. When Smith went back to the lounge on May 4, 1984, at 11:00 p.m., this time with Eslinger alone, she contacted Haynes, who was working as the bouncer. Haynes told her he had the speed which she had paid for previously on April 30 and told them to go sit down. Shortly thereafter, Haynes motioned for Smith to come over to the door area, and, when she did so, he briefly stepped outside the lounge and then immediately came back. When he returned, Haynes put a package inside Smith's purse, which she saw and which he stated was only 25 capsules instead of the 30 she had paid for. At this point, Smith asked Haynes if she could pay him $50 in advance for a half gram of cocaine, which Eslinger would pick up the following day at the Canaveral Pier. When Haynes agreed, Smith gave him the $50 while they were inside the bar. Thereafter, she and Eslinger left. The capsules which Smith received from Haynes that night in the lounge did not contain amphetamines or any other determinable controlled substance. When Altman and Smith next returned to the bar on June 3, 1984, they found Haynes standing by the entrance. About a half hour after they went in, Smith asked Haynes if he had any cocaine and, when he replied in the affirmative, gave him $50 in advance for a half gram of cocaine. The arrangements made at that time were that the cocaine would be picked up on June Somewhat later, when Altman and Smith were leaving, Haynes told Smith not to leave yet, that his source was getting the cocaine out of his car. Altman and Smith waited, and a few minutes later Haynes came up to Smith at the bar and dropped into her purse a small plastic bag which contained a white powdery substance subsequently identified as cocaine. When Haynes dropped the bag into her purse, Smith took it out and examined it in plain view at the bar, which was well lighted, before putting it back into her right-hand pocket. Shortly thereafter, Altman and Smith left. The packages containing cocaine, which Smith held up to the light to examine, were approximately an inch and a half by an inch and a half in size. Although other employees were in the immediate area at the time that she held the packages up, and Altman does not know hew they could have avoided seeing what Smith was doing, Altman cannot say for sure that the employees did see it, nor can Smith. No other employees of the Respondent were involved in any of the drug deals except for Haynes. No other employees were in the immediate area when the sales were made. Neither Smith, Altman, nor Eslinger engaged in any discussion of drugs with any other employee of the bar on the numerous times they were in there. Smith contends that she first went into the bar on March 12, 1984, with Altman to pick up some drugs offered at another bar. She started talking to a male at her right and asked him if he knew where she could get some grass. This individual said yes and went to make a phone call. Later, he identified himself as Harry Haynes and said that he worked there as a bouncer but was not on duty on that particular night. The drugs were not delivered that night, either. On March 14, at 2:00 a.m., Altman and Smith again went into the lounge. Smith approached Sherry, the bartender, and asked for Haynes, who was not there. Smith told Sherry that Haynes was to get her some grass, and, in Smith's opinion, Sherry did not react to this disclosure at all. Sherry, on the other hand, denies any conversation with Smith about drugs. She indicated that Smith came to her frequently and asked for Haynes but never mentioned drugs in any capacity. Had Smith done so, Sherry states, she would have asked her to leave. This last comment stands to defeat Sherry's credibility, however. It is unlikely that the comment was made. It is also unlikely that an experienced bartender, as Sherry is, would react by asking a repeat patron to leave for mentioning that Haynes was to get marijuana. Sherry is the only one in the bar, except for Haynes, to whom Smith mentioned drugs, although she had a conversation about drugs with Haynes in front of Ric, who is apparently also a bouncer. When Smith asked about that, Haynes said that it was okay. There is a divergence of opinion regarding the reputation of the Shark Lounge as a source of drugs. Randy Arles, a Melbourne Beach police officer on loan to the Cocoa Beach Police Department Vice Squad since mid-March of 1984 and operating undercover, was contacted previously by a confidential informant who indicated there was cocaine traffic at the Shark Lounge. Based on that information, Arles and another officer went in to try to make a buy but were unsuccessful because, as it was explained to him, his identity as a police officer had been disclosed. Information reaching him from such street sources as confidential informants and prostitutes indicated that the Shark Lounge was known as a place to buy cocaine and that Haynes, the bouncer, was the seller. This latter information, however, is hearsay testimony and, with the exception of that relative to Haynes, cannot serve as the basis for a finding of fact. The identity of Haynes as the seller is corroborated by other independent admissible evidence, however. On the other hand, Officer Charles B. Autry, who has been with the Cocoa Beach Police Department for 14 years, has come into contact with the Shark Lounge and its owner on several occasions and has been inside the lounge four or five times. To his knowledge, it is a well-run establishment, and he has never in his 14 years been called there while on duty. The owner is very businesslike and very cooperative. He runs a tight ship and encourages the police to come inside both while on and off duty. In Officer Autry's opinion, considering today's morality, any place where crowds congregate has the potential for drugs, including the Shark Lounge, which he would not class as a nuisance. This opinion was also held by Major Gary Hummel, who has been with the Cocoa Beach Police Department for 14 years. He has been in the Shark Lounge on many occasions and knows the owner personally. He considers Mr. Autry to be an upright businessman who is not himself involved in drugs. The lounge in question here is one of only two lounges in Cocoa Beach that Hummel will patronize and take his wife. Both socially and professionally, he knows of no employees who sell drugs at the lounge, but the employees know he is a police officer, and this may have some bearing on their behavior in his presence. Hummel believes the owner is tough and knows that he will fire any employee for being drunk on duty. He also discharges employees for even the slightest infractions of rules. This bar is not a nuisance in his opinion but is a good clean place where many of the Cape workers go. These sentiments were reinforced by the proffered testimony of Officers William MacDonald and Al Otto of the Cocoa Beach Police Department, who both have been in the Shark Lounge frequently both socially and professionally. They have been encouraged to come in by the owner and find the lounge to be a clean, well-run, drug-free operation. Sharon LeVaugh (Sherry) has worked at the lounge as a bartender for six and a half years and runs the floor operation. Her immediate supervisor is the owner, Mr. Autry, who, to her knowledge, has a strict policy against drugs. Anyone using them, whether it be an employee or a patron, is immediately put out of the place. There is a low turnover of employees at the Shark Lounge, because it is a good place to work. During the six and a half years she has worked there, Sherry has never seen drugs used at the bar. She had no idea that Harry Haynes was dealing in drugs and doesn't think anyone else did. The Shark Lounge is dark inside like a normal lounge. The crowd which patronizes it is made up of regulars, both young and old, with repeat patronage common. A lot of business comes from Space Center employees, and police are encouraged to come in frequently. Friday and Saturday nights are quite busy, with 200 to 300 people in attendance. The bar offers live music seven nights a week, and the music is a noisy rock and roll band. Chad J. Milkint, the manager of the Shark Lounge, has worked there for a little over a year. Before that, he worked at another bar in the area for three years and has been in the lounge business both in Florida and outside the state for more than 11 years. When Milkint was hired, the owner was very clear about the "no drug policy," and he has followed it closely. He has, on occasion, thrown people out for being intoxicated either on drugs or alcohol. There is, he claims, a practical reason for this. If a patron is intoxicated, he is not buying drinks, and they are in business to sell drinks. Milkint did not know Haynes was using drugs or selling them. If he had, he would have fired him immediately. It was not at all unusual for Haynes to go outside as part of his job. In fact, Haynes' duties included a patrol of the outside area around the bar three or four times a night. Milkint admits he did no background check on Haynes except to check with his former employer, who gave Haynes a favorable recommendation. Haynes was a part-time employee who worked two or three days a week as a backup to the main barmen in addition to his duties as a bouncer. In a normal week, Haynes would work approximately 20 hours and had been employed sporadically by the bar for only five or six months. During the period of employment at the lounge, Haynes also worked at the Canaveral Pier. When Milkint checked with the beverage manager there, he was told that Haynes' performance was satisfactory. Milkint is frequently in the bar and observes what goes on. He denies ever seeing anyone check baggies by tapping or holding them up to the light, as described by Altman and Smith. He does not believe his employees saw that, either, because he feels that if they had seen it they would have reported it. The owner also supervises on a day-to-day basis, and in Milkint's opinion the operation is a good, ethical, well-run establishment. The employees are good, the entertainment is good, and the drinks are good and sold at fair prices. Milkint does not know how he could have prevented the sales by Haynes that took place there. Gary C. Autry, sole stock owner of the Shark Lounge, has owned the establishment for eight years. He used to work more in the bar than he does now, but a recent blood condition has developed that has made him curtail his activities. When Autry came down with this condition, he hired Milkint as a manager and an individual by the name of Mike Harris as an assistant. He has known both of them for years and knew both had previous lounge experience. When he hired them, Autry told them immediately that his policy was "no drugs whatsoever." Although he cannot spend as much time in the establishment as he used to, Autry is nonetheless there seven days a week and closely supervises his operation. His bouncers are trained to handle drugs and work with the police. Had Autry known Haynes was selling or using drugs, Haynes would have been dismissed immediately. When he hires employees, he asks them their habits. He believes that because of his policies his turnover of employees is as low as it is.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to derive at least 51 percent of its gross revenues from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages, in violation of Sections 561.20(2)(a)4 and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and failed to maintain its business records in English, in violation of Section 561.29(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61A-3.014(3), Florida Administrative Code. If so, an additional issue is what penalty the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco should impose.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has held license number 16-15136, series 4-COP SRX. Pursuant to this license, Respondent operated a Brazilian restaurant known as Flavor of Brazil at 4140 North Federal Highway in Fort Lauderdale. On July 20, 1999, a special agent of Petitioner inspected the restaurant to determine, among other things, the percentage of Respondent’s gross receipts derived from food and nonalcoholic beverages. In response to a request, the agent received large numbers of original customer tickets, which record the food and beverage items ordered by each customer. In response to a request to visit the agent at her office and provide a statement, the president of Respondent hand wrote a statement explaining: “Records were wiritten [sic] in Portuguese. Basically because most of our staff speak and write Portuguese (being that they are Brazilians). But this problem has already been corrected.” The customer tickets are written in a language other than English, presumably Portuguese. For a person unfamiliar with the language in which the customer tickets are written, it is impossible to determine from these customer tickets which items are alcoholic beverages and which items are food and nonalcoholic beverages. A 4COP-SRX Special Restaurant License form signed on January 26, 1999, by Respondent advises that the license requires that at least 51 percent of the gross revenues of the licensee must be derived from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. The form warns: “Since the burden is on the holder of the special restaurant license to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for the license, the records required to be kept shall be legible, clear and in the English language.”
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)3 and revoking Respondent’s license without prejudice to Respondent's reapplying for another CRX special license at any time after 90 days following the effective date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3227 Kenneth W. Gieseking Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Flavor of Brazil 4768 North Citation Drive, No. 106 Delray Beach, Florida 33445
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether Respondent's beverage license should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for permitting prostitution activity on his licensed premises. At the formal hearing the Petitioner called as witnesses John Harris, Kelvin Davis, Carlos Bauxalli, Lewis Terminello, Hugo Gomez, Louis Viglione, Keith Bernard Hamilton, and Alfonso Scott Julious. Respondent called as witnesses Isaac Dweck, Gary Arthur, Irene Madden, Collins Jones, Mary Scott, Debbie Heenan, Judy Pearson, Joe E. Clements, Cecil Rolle, and the Respondent himself, Eddie Lee Pittman. Petitioner offered and had admitted a videotape which was viewed during the hearing. Respondent offered and had admitted one exhibit. Petitioner also offered a composite exhibit containing police reports relating to the licensed premises for the years 1981 and 1982. That composite exhibit was admitted as hearsay to corroborate the testimony of the police officers relating to the reputation of the licensed premises. These police records were of very limited probative value and no finding of fact was based upon these records. Neither party submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding the Respondent, Eddie Lee Pittman, was the holder of beverage license No. 23-371, Series 2-COP. The license is issued to the licensed premises at 1772 N.W. 79th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida, and was originally issued to Respondent on October 6, 1965. On the evening of March 22, 1983, Beverage Officer Kelvin Davis visited the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn, in an undercover capacity to investigate possible prostitution activity in the licensed premises. Officer Davis was accompanied by Beverage Officer Eddie Bauxalli. After entering the licensed premises Officer Davis was approached by a white female named Elnora Moore who engaged him in conversation. The conversation led to a discussion of voter registration cards and Ms. Moore stated that a voter registration card could get you out of jail on a misdemeanor charge. Officer Davis asked why she needed a card for that purpose and Ms. Moore said because of solicitation. She then asked Officer Davis if he would like to be solicited and asked how much money he had. He responded that he had twenty dollars and she said that would get him a "straight." "Straight" is slang or street language for sexual intercourse. He agreed to the price but told her he also had a friend (Officer Bauxalli). Ms. Moore offered to service both men for $100. Officer Davis and Officer Bauxalli agreed to this offer and the three of them prepared to leave. The conversation between Ms. Moore and Officer Davis took place next to the bar where the officers were seated. This was approximately three to five feet from the cash register where the bartender on duty was working. The conversation took place in a normal tone of voice. As Officers Davis and Bauxalli and Ms. Moore began to leave, a white female named Peggy Schultz yelled across the bar to Officer Bauxalli and asked where he was going. Officer Bauxalli yelled back that he was going to have a good time. In response, Ms. Schultz yelled back "How can you have a good time without a date?" Officer Bauxalli responded that he would figure something out. At this point Ms. Schultz walked over to Officer Bauxalli. Ms. Schultz asked Officer Bauxalli if he wanted a "date" and he asked what is a "date." She responded that a "date" is a "straight" for $20 or a "straight" and a "blow job" for $25. He agreed to a "date" and Ms. Schultz then told him to drive around to the back and she and Ms. Moore would meet them at the back door. She also stated that the owner did not like the girls to go out the front door. Officers Bauxalli and Davis then left the bar, drove around to the back door of the licensed premises and picked up Ms. Moore and Ms. Schultz, who were waiting just inside the back door of the lounge. While Officers Bauxalli and Davis were in the licensed premises, the bar was pretty crowded and there was a lot of noise from people talking. At the time Ms. Schultz solicited Officer Bauxalli, she spoke in a normal tone of voice while they stood approximately four or five feet from the cash register on the bar. Ms. Schultz was dressed in a low-cut blue silky dress that was made of a material which you could easily see through. She was wearing only panties underneath the dress. The owner, Mr. Pittman, was observed in the licensed premises on the evening of March 22, but there was no evidence that he observed or overheard any of the discussions between the two beverage officers and Ms. Schultz and Ms. Moore. On the evening of September 17, 1983, at approximate1y. 10:A5 p.m., Beverage Officer Louis J. Terminello went to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Immediately upon entering the licensed premises he was approached by a white female named Michelle Orfino. The bar was pretty crowded and there were a number of females in the bar and poolroom area who by their dress appeared to be prostitutes. These women were mingling with the men at the bar and in the poolroom area. A number of couples were exiting through the back entrance. When Ms. Orfino approached Officer Terminello, she walked up to him and asked if he was looking for a "date." He asked her what a "date" was and she said "a blow job." She then asked if he wanted one and Officer Terminello responded "yes." She told him the price would be $20 plus $5 for the room. As they had been talking Officer Terminello, accompanied by Ms. Orfino, walked into the poolroom area. After agreeing to the price, Officer Terminello took Ms. Orfino by the arm and started to walk out the front door of the lounge. She stopped him and said that they had to use the back door because Eddie does not allow them to leave through the front door. She then told him to drive around back and Officer Terminello responded that his car was just outside the back door. She then walked with him out the back entrance and into the parking lot. As they walked to his car Officer Terminello observed the Respondent, Eddie Pittman, in the parking lot. After driving away, Officer Terminello placed Ms. Orfino under arrest. Ms. Orfino was dressed in a very low-cut latex body suit. For at least three nights prior to September 17, Officer Terminello, while on surveillance, had observed a continuous pattern of a patron entering the bar, coming back out and driving his car to the rear entrance. A woman would then come out the back door, get in the car and they would drive away. Twenty minutes or so later the car would come back and the girl would get out and go back in. After the arrest of September 17, Officer Terminello returned to the bar in the early morning hours of September 18 to arrest two other women for prostitution. The Respondent had not been advised of the arrests on September 17. On the evening of September 15, 1983, Beverage Officer Louis Viglione went to the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn. After entering the licensed premises he took a seat at the bar near the rear entrance. Shortly after entering, he was joined by two black females named Veronica and Angie. He purchased a beer for each of the two women and the three of them engaged in conversation about good times, good loving, and Pink House. The Pink House is a boarding house in the area where the licensed premises is located and is used by prostitutes for "dates." A "date" is a slang or street term used commonly by prostitutes to refer to sexual intercourse or other sexual acts for pay. During this conversation, Veronica stated that one hour with her would cost $40 or $50 and Angie stated that she charged $100 an hour. As an excuse, Officer Viglione then stated that he did not have enough money because he wanted two women at once. He remained in the lounge approximately one more hour and left. On this particular evening Veronica was wearing a short white dress and Angie was wearing a blue print dress with white stockings. Both were dressed in what Officer Viglione described as normal dress. Several other women in the lounge were dressed in a very provocative manner and appeared by their dress to be prostitutes. The lounge was approximately 3/4 full of patrons, but it was not particularly noisy or boisterous. There were also several women outside the front and rear entrances of the licensed premises who appeared to be prostitutes. The area where the licensed premises is located is an area which has a visible concentration of prostitutes and has a reputation as an area where prostitution is prevalent. At approximately 9:30 p.m. on September 16, 1983, Beverage Officer Keith Bernard Hamilton entered Eddie's Dive Inn. Upon entering the lounge, Officer Hamilton took a seat at the west end of the bar. There were approximately 40 or 50 male patrons in the lounge and at least 30 women. The women were scantily dressed in very revealing clothes and were observed by Officer Hamilton to be moving around the bar stopping and talking with the men. Several of the women left the bar after talking to one of the men who also left the bar. While seated at the bar, Officer Hamilton was approached by a young black female named Anna. Anna had been talking to a white male seated next to Officer Hamilton. She asked Officer Hamilton what he was interested in tonight. He asked what she had and she asked if he wanted to fuck. She also stated that for $35 plus $5 for the room she would give him a "suck and fuck." He said he would wait for a while and Anna left but returned several times during the evening. After Anna left, another woman walked up to Officer Hamilton and asked if he dated. He was short with her and she moved over and began talking to the white male seated next to him. A few minutes later, Officer Hamilton went to the bathroom and was stopped by a black female named Carol Lawrence. Ms. Lawrence stated that she needed money and asked if he could help her out. Officer Hamilton asked what did she have and Ms. Lawrence responded "a suck and fuck for $35." Officer Hamilton agreed to this but said he wanted to wait a while. She then left, but approached him at least three more times that evening. On the evening of September 16, 1983, there were three security guards at the licensed premises. They primarily remained outside where they regulated the crowd outside the lounge. One of the guards told one of the females that she shouldn't leave with a guy but should wait inside the rear door. The guard did not object to the woman and man leaving in the man's car. On this particular evening, the Respondent was present at the licensed premises until approximately 11:00 p.m. He was in and out of his office during the course of the evening. On September 17, 1983, at approximately 9:30 p.m. Officer Hamilton returned to the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn. When Officer Hamilton entered the lounge, the Respondent was seated at the bar. The activity in the bar was about the same as the night of September 16, and there was a smaller crowd. There were about 20 women in the bar. These women were walking around the bar talking to the men. There was a man seated next to Mr. Pittman who was being kissed by one of the women. After kissing the man she moved on and began talking to another male patron. Shortly after entering the lounge one of the women in the lounge looked at Officer Hamilton and winked. Later, when Officer Hamilton was in the rear of the lounge near the bathrooms, be observed this same woman standing near the rear entrance. He asked her where she was going and she responded that she would be back. She then offered him a "suck and fuck" for $20 plus the cost of the room. As she walked out the rear entrance Officer Hamilton agreed to the offer. That same evening Officer Hamilton was again approached by Anna whom he had met the previous evening. She asked if he was ready and again told him the price of a "suck and fuck." He agreed and she told him to leave out the front door and she would wait around back. Officer Hamilton left the lounge and drove his car to the rear entrance where Anna was waiting just inside the screened door of the back entrance. On the evening of September 15, 1983, at approximately 9:15 p.m., Beverage Officer Alfonso Scott Julious entered the licensed premises. There were several men seated inside the bar and several women were walking around the bar. The women were dressed casually and some were wearing short dresses which were low cut in the front. After entering the licensed premises Officer Julious observed women from time to time leave the bar with a man and then come back. Each of the women exited through the rear door. At approximately 9:45 p.m. Officer Julious was approached by a white female named Gail Sylvia James. She asked if he wanted a "date" and he said what is a "date." She then said that she would "fuck him and suck him" for $30. He responded that he would be around for a while and would get back to her. Officer Julious left the lounge at approximately 10:30 p.m. During the evening Officer Julious had overheard other men being solicited and observed at least five men leave with women. On this evening Officer Julious considered the women's dress to be casual, nice dresses. Officer Julious returned to the licensed premises at approximately 9:00 p.m. on September 16, 1983. After entering the lounge he was approached by a white female named Patricia. She asked him if he wanted a "date" and he asked "what is a "date?" She then said she would fuck him for $30. Officer Julious responded that he would be around and would get back to her. Some time later in the evening Gail James, whom he had met the previous night, approached Officer Julious and asked if he was ready for a "date." She said she would go half and half, "suck and fuck" for $30. He told her he would be around for a while. Officer Julious was also approached by a woman named Mindy Jo Gelfin, who asked if he wanted a "date." He asked "What is a date?" and she responded "half and half, fuck and suck" for $40. He also did not accept this offer. Officer Julious left the licensed premises at approximately 10:45 p.m. On Saturday, September 17, 1983, Officer Julious returned to the licensed premises at approximately 9:05 p.m. The Respondent, Eddie Lee Pittman, was in the lounge. Immediately after entering the licensed premises, Officer Julious was approached by Mindy Gelfin, who asked if he was ready for a "date." Officer Julious stated that he would be around all night and Mindy said she would come back. Later, Mindy returned and asked if he was ready and he responded "yes." He asked if they could go to the Holiday Inn and she asked if he was a cop. Officer Julious said "Do I look like a cop?" She then asked if she could pat him down. He said "yes" and she patted him down. She then said that she wanted to go in a friend's car. She borrowed the car and drove to the Holiday Inn where she was arrested. At the time of her arrest Mindy Jo Gelfin was residing with Collins Winston Jones and his girlfriend. At the time of the final hearing, Mindy Gelfin was continuing to live at Mr. Jones' residence. Mr. Jones' girlfriend had allowed her to move in. Mr. Jones is the manager of Eddie's Dive Inn. On September 29, 1983, Detective Hugo Gomez of the Metropolitan Dade County Police Department went to the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn. Detective Gomez was accompanied by Detectives Manny Gonzalez and Ray Gonzalez. Detective Gomez stood at the west end of the bar and his two partners sat at the bar next to him. After they ordered a beer, they were approached by a white female named Catrina Gibides. She sat down between the two officers who were seated. She asked what they were doing and told Detective Gomez he looked like a cop. He then pulled up his pants legs to show he was wearing no socks and she said "you can't be a cop" and grabbed his groin. She then began playing with Manny Gonzalez's leg and asked if they wanted a "date." She was wearing a very loose chiffon type outfit and her breasts were barely covered. The officers who were seated had been pretending not to speak English and Ms. Gibides asked Detective Gomez to ask Manny Gonzales if he wanted to go across the street to a motel with her. She said that she would perform intercourse and fellatio for $25 plus $5. She then called over another white female named Lisa Brown, who also began talking about going across the street to a motel. Lisa Brown said her price was $25 plus $5 for the room. They then discussed going in different cars. During these conversations the bar was crowded and Eddie Pittman was in the lounge approximately 8 to 10 feet from where the officers were located. It was pretty loud in the bar. There were also barmaids working behind the bar. Isaac Dweck is a regular patron of Eddie's Dive Inn. He goes there primarily on Sunday afternoons to watch football and shoot pool. He is almost never in the licensed premises after 9:00 p.m. and averages going to the lounge four or five times a month. He has never been solicited for prostitution in the lounge and has never overheard someone else being solicited. Gary Arthur goes to Eddie's Dive Inn two or three times a week and generally leaves some time between 7:30 and 9:00 p.m. Once or twice he has stayed until 11:00 or 12:00 p.m. He has never been solicited for prostitution and has never overheard anyone else being solicited. He has been going to Eddie's Dive Inn for five or six years. The Respondent has a policy against drugs, fighting, solicitation, and profanity and also has a dress code. He employs 11 full-time employees at the lounge and three or four of these employees are security guards who work at front and back doors. The Respondent has a closed circuit television system with cameras on the cash register and pool room area. The screen is in Respondent's office. Over the past 12 years the manager, Collins Jones, has barred 12 or 13 women from the bar after he heard them soliciting in the bar. In the twenty years he has operated Eddie's Dive Inn, the Respondent has barred approximately 20 women from coming into the licensed premises because of prostitution. Once the women are arrested for prostitution, they are barred from the premises. There are signs posted in the bar prohibiting soliciting. Irene Madden works as a barmaid at Eddie's Dive Inn. She has been instructed to not serve known prostitutes and that if she heard someone soliciting she should diplomatically ask them to not do that and inform Mr. Pittman or the manager. Mary Scott works as a barmaid at Eddie's Dive Inn. She has heard women solicit in the lounge for prostitution. She does not have the authority to ask someone who solicits for prostitution to leave the premises. She does have authority to ask people to leave who are in violation of the dress code. In September, 1972, the Respondent was charged in an administrative proceeding against his license with permitting prostitution on the licensed premises. He was also charged criminally with permitting prostitution. Respondent paid a $350 administrative fine and his license was placed on probation for the remainder of the license year. He pleaded guilty to the criminal charge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, and imposing a civil penalty of $1,000 and suspending Respondent's beverage license for a period of ninety (90) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Department of Business Regulation Regulation 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Arthur M. Garel, Esquire 40 Southwest 13th Street Miami, Florida 33130 Howard Milan Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not on or about May 25, 1977, the Respondent licensed under the beverage laws and/its agent, servant, or employee, employed by salary or on a contractual basis to entertain, perform or work upon the licensed premises, to wit: Lisa Palov Clark, aka Di Di Bang Bang, did beg or solicit a customer or patron, to wit; Deputy Ernest Weaver, on the Respondent's licensed premises, to purchase a beverage, alcoholic or otherwise, for Respondent, its agent, servant, or employee or entertainer, contrary to Section 562.131(1) F.S. There was noticed for hearing a second count to the Notice to Show Cause which was not heard due to the motion to withdraw the count, made by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Golden Dolphin Number One, doing business as Golden Dolphin, is the holder of license number 15-229, Series 2-COP, held with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. This license is for operation at a location at 6107 North Atlantic Avenue, CAPS Canaveral, Florida. The operative period of the license is from October 1, 1976 through September 30, 1977. A copy of the license may be found as part of Petitioner's composite exhibit #1 admitted into evidence. On May 25, 1977, Lisa Palov Clark, also known as Di Di Bang Bang, was actively employed on the licensed premises, by the licensee. Ms. Clark's employment was as an entertainer, specifically a dancer. On the subject evening of May 25, 1977, Officer Ernest Weaver of the Brevard County, Florida Sheriff's Office, and Beverage Officer Eugene P. Fogle, entered the licensed premises around 9:00 p.m. and took seats in separate locations. They observed the floor shows being presented on the licensed premises, which shows were nude dancers and striptease. One of the dancers was Lisa Palov Clark. After completing her dance, Ms. Clark went to the dressing- room area of the licensed premises and then returned to the area occupied by the patrons. When she returned, she approached the table at which Officer Weaver was seated. She approached him without being requested by Officer Weaver either orally or by gesture. When she arrived at the table, she made the comment to Officer Weaver either to the effect "Can I have a drink?" or "Won't you let me order something?". Officer Weaver in his testimony at the hearing was uncertain of the exact statement made by Ms. Clark. Subsequent to the aforementioned comment, in whatever form it took, Ms. Clark stated that she felt hot and that her neck was wet. These comments were directed to Officer Weaver. During the course of this conversation, a waitress came and stood by the table at which Officer Weaver was seated. The waitress did not participate in the conversation between Ms. Clark and Officer Weaver. Officer Weaver, in response to Ms. Clark's comments, asked what she would like to drink, and Ms. Clark indicated that she would like champagne, one drink of which costs $2.75 and a pony bottle cost $6.00. The waitress then stated, "What will it be?" and Officer Weaver said, "Bring one of the $6.00 bottles." The waitress brought a bottle and at least one glass. The bottle was placed on the floor between Officer Weaver and Ms. Clark. The glass was positioned in the place at which Ms. Clark was seated and a drink was poured for her. Officer Weaver paid $6.00 plus a tip to the waitress. (There was some discussion about a possible second bottle which was purchased, but the recollection of witnesses was not sufficient to establish the existence of such a second bottle of champagne.) There was no testimony about the knowledge of the activities between Officer Weaver, Ms. Clark, and the waitress, from the point of view of any of the officers, directors, or owners of the licensed premises. Moreover, it was not established that any manager in charge of the licensed premises observed the interchange between Officer Weaver, Ms. Clark and the waitress. The facts as established, constitute a sufficient basis to show that the employee of the licensee, to wit, Lisa Palov Clark, employed on the licensed premises to entertain, perform or work, did beg or solicit a patron or customer on the licensed premises to purchase a beverage in violation of Section 562.131, F.S. However, even though the employee violated this law, the licensee was not culpable based upon any willful intent, negligence or lack of due diligence. See Trader Jon Inc. vs. State Beverage Department, 119 So.2d 735 (1st DCA 1960). Additionally, the testimony indicated that the licensee in the person of Milton Seidman had instructed the employee Ms. Clark not to solicit drinks. Finally, to penalize the licensee under s. 561.29, F.S., there must be a showing of more than an isolated incident as is the case here. See Taylor v. State Beverage Department, 194 So.2d 321 (2d DCA, 1967).
Recommendation It is recommended that the licensee, Golden Dolphin Number One, d/b/a Golden Dolphin, operating under licensee number 15-229, to do business at 6107 North Atlantic Avenue, CAPS Canaveral, Florida, be relieved of the necessity to make further answer to the Notice to Show Cause which is the subject of this hearing. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence D. Winson, Esquire Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Lawrence M. Litus, Esquire 231 East New Haven Melbourne, Florida 32901
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined on grounds that (1) illicit drugs were sold and delivered on its premises by its agents and employees, and (2) its premises was used for the selling and delivery of illicit drugs.
Findings Of Fact Butch Cassidy's Saloon Licensee, 1431 Corporation, owns a business known as Butch Cassidy's Saloon located at 1431 North Federal Highway, Dania, Florida. In connection with its operation of Butch Cassidy's, Licensee holds alcoholic beverage license No. 16-02422 series 2-COP. Under this license, Licensee sells beer and wine for on-premises consumption. Soft drinks and sandwiches are also served. The entertainment consists of female nude dancers who perform to juke box music. Licensee is owned by Don Austin and George Sherman. Austin and Sherman operate and manage Butch Cassidy's Saloon; they alternate work shifts so that, except for short temporary absences, one or the other is always on the premises. The premises contain a bar, a stage and runway for the female dancers, two dressing rooms, a business office, and rest rooms. It is dimly lit, though not completely dark; the lighting is most pronounced above the pool tables and along the length of the dance stage. II. Sale or Delivery of Controlled Substances on Premises On August 10, 1981, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Beverage Officer L. Terminello entered Butch Cassidy's Saloon ("the premises") with a confidential informant. After sitting at the rear of the premises, he asked "Connie," a female dancer employed by Licensee, if she' could sell him some quaalude tablets; she answered affirmatively. Several minutes later, she returned and handed him five tablets; he paid her $15. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the tablets by the Broward County Sheriff's Office revealed the presence of diazepam. (Testimony of Terminello; P-16.) On August 12, 1981, at approximately 9:40 p.m., Officer Terminello again entered the premises and sat at a table at the rear. After some initial conversation, a customer known as "Jerry" asked him if he would buy some ludes"; Terminello agreed. Jerry placed the tablets on Terminello's table. Terminello picked them up and gave him $3 for each tablet. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the tablets revealed the presence of diazepam. (Testimony of Terminello; P- 15.) Later on that evening (August 12, 1981), Connie, in response to Officer Terminello's request, sold him another quaalude tablet for $2. The transaction took place, again, at a table located opposite the stage, at the rear of the premises. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the tablet revealed the presence of diazepam. (Testimony of Terminello; P-17.) On August 15, 1981, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Officer Terminello again entered the premises and sat at a table at the rear. He asked a female dancer known as "Dusty" (who was employed on the premises) whether she had any cocaine or quaaludes. She said she had none but offered, instead, a marijuana cigarette which she took from her pocketbook and handed him. He left her a tip of $1 for the cigarette. This drug transaction occurred in the vicinity of the pool table, an area which is well-lighted in relation to other parts of the premises. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the cigarette confirmed that it contained cannabis. (Testimony of Terminello; p-18.) On August 19, 1981, at approximately 10:40 p.m., Officer Terminello reentered the premises and sat at another table in the vicinity of the pool table. He again asked Dusty, a female dancer, if he could buy some cocaine. She said he might be able to purchase some from "Don," the doorman, but that he sold a lot of cocaine by "stepping on it"--a street term for cutting cocaine. She told him that another dancer, known as "Renee," could provide better cocaine; he decided to wait for Renee. While waiting, he asked Dusty if she would sell him some quaalude tablets; she agreed and delivered two tablets to him at his table. He paid her $3 each. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the tablets revealed the presence of diazepam. (Testimony of Terminello; P-19.) Dusty then asked Terminello if he wanted to smoke a "joint," meaning a marijuana cigarette. They then walked outside to the parking lot and smoked the cigarette. Subsequent laboratory analysis indicated that the cigarette contained cannabis. (Testimony of Terminello; P-20.) Later that evening, at about 1:00 a.m., Officer Terminello returned to the premises and contacted Dusty for the cocaine promised earlier. Dusty went over and talked to Renee, then returned to Terminello's table near the pool table. She told him that the cocaine would cost $80. He handed her $80 which she placed in her pocketbook. Shortly thereafter, she returned from a dressing room and handed him a plastic bag containing white powder. This exchange took place in an area where there were 15-20 patrons; several of them were 2-3 feet from Terminello. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the powder revealed the presence of cocaine. (Testimony of Terminello; P-21.) A short time later, Renee asked Officer Terminello if he wanted to purchase more cocaine; he replied that he would buy another one-half gram. After completing her performance on the dance floor, she agreed to sell him one- half gram for $40. At her request, he placed $40 in her garter belt; shortly thereafter, she returned from the dressing room and handed Terminello a white zip-lock bag of white powder. This transaction took place in a relatively well- lighted area, with a clear line-of-sight to the dance stage and bar. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the powder revealed the presence of cocaine. (Testimony of Terminello; P-22.) Officer Mike Berk of the Broward County Sheriff's Office entered the premises (with Terminello) at approximately 12:30 a.m., on August 20, 1981. After sitting at a table near the dance stage, he asked a female dancer (employed by Licensee) known as Robin" if he could buy some quaaludes; she handed him one white tablet. This exchange took place in a relatively well- lighted area of the bar. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the tablet revealed the presence of diazepam. (Testimony of Berk; P-23.) On August 29, 1981, at approximately 11:45 p.m., Beverage Sergeant George Miller entered the premises, sat at a table near the dance stage, and asked a female dancer (employed by Licensee) known as "Jackie" if she could get him some quaaludes. She asked him to wait. Approximately an hour later, she indicated that she could obtain some quaaludes; she approached the bartender (employed by Licensee) known as "Rusty." He removed a tablet from his pocket, laid it on the bar, and cut it in half. He handed one-half of the tablet to Jackie who returned to the table and handed it to Miller. Subsequent laboratory analysis ,of the one-half tablet revealed the presence of diazepam. (Testimony of Miller; P-24.) On September 2, 1981, Sergeant Miller reentered the premises, sat at a table near the dance stage and was joined by a female dancer (employed by Licensee) known as "Candy." From her seat, she shouted to Dusty, the bartender (who was approximately 10 feet away) : "Make some calls for some ludes, I want to get f cked up." (Testimony of Miller.) On September 10, 1981, at approximately 8:15 p.m., Beverage Officer Mike Imperial entered the premises, sat at the bar and asked Connie (a female dancer) if there were any "ludes" around. She replied that she didn't know but she would check. She then asked Jackie who, in turn, said she would check with "Ann," another female dancer employed by Licensee. Jackie then returned and said that no one had any quaaludes. Connie then told Imperial that she would be off-duty the next day but that she would leave six quaaludes for him with Tom, the bartender. She then told the bartender that she would leave something with him to give to Imperial (and his companion) the next day. (Testimony of Imperial.) The next day, September 11, 1981, at approximately 7:20 p.m., Officer Imperial reentered the premises and spoke with Tom, the bartender. Tom told him that Connie had not arrived yet, that he would check around the bar but that he doubted anyone had quaaludes because it was too early. Imperial then departed the premises. (Testimony of Imperial.) The next day, September 12, 1981, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Officer Imperial (accompanied by a confidential informant) returned to the premises. They sat at the bar, where Tom, the bartender, told them that the quaaludes were not then available but would be there soon. Shortly thereafter, Tom went to the rest room, then returned to the bar and handed Imperial ten white tablets wrapped in a bar napkin. Tom then handed the informant (who accompanied Imperial) a loose tablet and openly stated, "Here's one for the road." Subsequent laboratory analysis of the tablets revealed the presence of methaqualone. (Testimony of Imperial; P-25.) On September 23, 1981, at approximately 8:30 p.m., Beverage Officer Imperial (with his confidential informant) reentered the premises, sat at the bar, and asked a female dancer (employed by Licensee) known as "Gail" if there was any "pot" around. She replied that she would see if she could find him some; later, she returned and handed the confidential informant two cigarettes. Subsequent laboratory analysis of the cigarettes revealed the presence of cannabis. (Testimony of Imperial; P-26.) On September 28, 1981, at approximately 4:10 p.m., Officer Imperial reentered the premises and sat at the bar. He observed an unidentified female dancer (employed by Licensee) approach Tom, the bartender, and ask if he had a "joint." Tom replied that he had one, then removed a partially smoked cigarette from his wallet and handed it to the dancer. She placed it in her mouth and asked him for a light; he replied, "Don't do that here, I'm already on probation." The dancer then departed, saying that she would smoke it in the dressing room. Several patrons were nearby when this exchange took place. (Testimony of Imperial.) III. Open, Persistent, and Recurring Nature of Illicit Drug Activity on the Premises The illicit drug transactions described were open, persistent, and recurring; they took place in fairly well-lighted areas of the premises. The actions of Licensee's employees who engaged in such activities can fairly be described as practiced and routine. When undercover law enforcement officers asked for illicit drugs, the employees actively cooperated in an effort to accommodate them. The drug activity on the premises was not isolated or limited to one or two employees; it was pervasive during the evening hours, involving at least six different employees or agents. Drugs were either available on the premises or readily obtainable. During the course of the two-month investigation, at least ten illicit drug transactions took place on the premises. (Testimony of Terminello, Imperial, Berk, Miller.) However, no evidence was presented which established that, during the time in question, illicit drugs were actually used on the premises. Several customers testified that they had never seen anyone selling, buying, or using drugs on the premises, that no one had ever approached them attempting to buy or sell drugs. 2/ (Testimony of Leighton, Redgate, Johns, Smith, Bushmann.) George Sherman and Don Austin, owners and operators of the bar, testified that they had a policy against the use or sale of drugs on the premises; that they advised new employees of this policy, posted a sign in the dressing room restating the policy, 3/ and fired employees who violated it. However, the practiced and recurring nature of the drug transactions demonstrates that their anti-drug policy was not diligently and aggressively implemented. The drug transactions took place in a relaxed atmosphere of permissiveness. The employees made little effort to conceal the transactions; drug use was openly discussed and joked about. Neither George Sherman nor Don Austin were personally involved in any of the drug transactions in question. However, they failed to aggressively monitor and supervise their employees; they failed to effectively emphasize that drug activity on the premises would not be tolerated. Their lack of diligence in this regard allowed their employees to develop an attitude which fostered illicit drug activity on the premises. (Testimony of Sherman, Austin, Terminello, Berk, Miller, Imperial.) The open, persistent, and practiced nature of the drug transactions on the premises supports an inference that, if Austin and Sherman did not know that they were occurring, they should have known with the exercise of reasonable diligence. (Testimony of Terminello, Berk, Miller, Imperial.) During the 4 1/2 years it has operated the premises, the Licensee has not been found guilty of violating the beverage law or any other law of this State. (Testimony of Sherman, Austin.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco suspend respondent's beverage license for 120 days. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1981.
Findings Of Fact In December, 1982, DABT issued an alcoholic beverage license (Lic. no. 15-1163, Series 4-COP SRX) under its SRX classification to respondent to operate a restaurant with liquor sales on the premises. The restaurant was known as "Thee Doll House Beach," at 199 East Cocoa Beach Causeway, in Cocoa Beach, Florida. A requirement of the license was that revenue from sales of alcoholic beverages equal or exceed 51 percent of gross sales. Respondent opened "Thee Doll House Beach" for business in January, 1983. The business operated as a buffet restaurant, with a fixed-price, "all- you-can-eat" menu. Meals consisted of a hot entree, chosen from baked ham, roast beef and turkey; a selection of four or five hot vegetables; a large salad bar; two soups; and a desert tray, with pies, pastries and cakes. The business also offered alcoholic beverages for sale in the restaurant and at a bar. A "Las Vegas-style" show was presented nightly at eight o'clock, although the restaurant opened at noon. The first month's (January 1983) sales of food only reached 40.6 percent of gross sales, and subsequent efforts of the respondent to reach 51 percent were never successful. The initial price of a buffet meal was $4.95 per person, which attracted a sizeable number of patrons, many of them senior citizens. However, the respondent found that due to the extensive food menu and the cost of preparation and service, it was losing money on each meal sold. So it increased its meal price to $5.95, which resulted in a drastic drop in business, apparently due to the inability of senior citizens to pay the higher price. It was in this particular group that the most noticeable decrease in attendance occurred. The respondent took various steps to increase its food sales. "Early- bird" specials were introduced at a lower price; extensive newspaper, radio and television advertising was utilized to promote the buffet. Nevertheless, at the end of 1983, the business had shown an overall food sales of only 31 percent. Monthly percentage figures are as follows: DATE FOOD/NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERCENTAGE ALCOHOLIC PERCENTAGE January 1983 40.5 59.5 February 1983 27.1 72.9 March 1983 37.3 62.7 April 1983 33.5 66.5 May 1983 31.9 68.1 June 1983 29.1 70.9 July 1983 27.5 72.5 August 1983 23.9 76.1 September 1983 24.1 75.9 October 1983 23.4 76.6 November 1983 23.6 76.4 December 1983 23.3 76.7 The respondent's problems were compounded by the fact that it was operating in a difficult, if not depressed market, where financial conditions had limited the discretionary income available to restaurant-going consumers. Other restaurants in the area were having to cut back operations or terminate business altogether. During the year in question, the respondent held itself out to be a restaurant, not a lounge, and its primary emphasis in advertising, in its internal business operation and in its physical layout, emphasized food sales as opposed to liquor sales. During the time period in question the price of a meal at Thee Doll House Beach was significantly below its fair market value. The respondent attempted to increase its food sales by lowering prices, which, in turn, decreased the percentage of gross food sales. According to the evidence, a reasonable price for the menu offered, based on a comparison with other restaurants in Central Florida, would have been $8-$10. Using those price figures, the percentage of food sales to gross revenues at Thee Doll House Beach would have exceeded 60 percent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's beverage license be revoked but that such action be vacated if respondent surrenders its license for cancellation within 10 days of entry of DABT's final order. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard L. Wilson, Esquire 1212 East Ridgewood Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
