Findings Of Fact The Hearing Officer finds the following facts: Respondent is the holder of Beverage License No. 26-957,2-COP and the licensed premises encompass the bar known as "The Harem". Sergeant Thomas R. Genest, a Jacksonville Police Officer, went in The Harem on November 1, 1974. Upon entering he saw Georgiann Smith and Annie Pearl Williams, both of whom worked as topless dancers in The Harem and were at that time dressed as topless dancers. At the time Sergeant Genest entered the bar Smith was dancing topless at the bar between the legs of a male patron simulating intercourse with the patron. Williams was similarly dancing topless between the legs of a male patron, simulating intercourse and allowing the patron to place his hands on her buttocks and thighs. Sergeant Genest had no independent recollection of Virginia Lou Roberts or any acts in which she might have been engaged on November 1, 1974, in The Harem. On March 6, 1975, Detective H. R. Hall of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office Vice Squad, was working The Harem undercover. While in The Harem he saw Maria Jenkins, Essie Mae Parks and Gaynell Moore, who were dressed as topless dancers and working as topless dancers in the bar. Jenkins was dancing topless between the legs of a male patron and rubbing her body against him as she danced. Parks was dancing topless between the legs of a male patron, who had his hands on her buttocks as she rubbed her vagina against his mid-section. Moore was dancing topless between the legs of a male patron who had his hands on her buttocks as she rubbed her vagina against his mid-section. At all times pertinent to this proceeding Georgiann Smith, Annie Pearl Williams, Maria Jenkins, Essie May Parks and Gaynell Moore were agents, servants or employees of the licensee.
Findings Of Fact Central Florida Clubs Number 2 was the holder of the State of Florida Alcoholic Beverage License-Number 58-696 for the period October 1, 1976 through September 30, 1977. DABT seeks to assess a civil penalty against Central Florida Clubs Number 2 or to suspend or revoke its beverage license on the grounds that nine (9) violations of Section 847.011, Florida Statutes, occurred on the premises of the Central Florida Clubs Number 2 on May 11, 1977. On that date, dance routines involving topless female dancers touching male customers in a sexually suggestive manner occurred on the premises. No evidence was introduced purporting to establish that any of the dancers were agents or employees of Central Florida Clubs Number 2. Accordingly, it is found as a matter of fact that the dancers were not agents or employees of Central Florida Clubs Number 2. No evidence was introduced purporting to demonstrate whether to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appealed to prurient interest. Accordingly, it is found as a matter of fact that to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material presented at the Booby Trap taken as a whole did not appeal to prurient interest. No evidence was introduced purporting to establish that David Lee Feller was an agent or employee of Central Florida Clubs Number 2., Accordingly, it is found as matter of fact that David Lee Feller was not an agent or an employee of Central Florida Clubs Number 2.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Quinto Patio Bar, Inc., d/b/a Quinto Patio Bar, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-02231, series 2-COP, for the premises known as Quinto Patio Bar, 1552 West Flagler Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. In August 1987, a joint task force was formed consisting of police officers from Metropolitan Dade County and the City of Miami, as well as investigators of the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) , to investigate narcotics complaints against numerous business establishments in Dade County. Among the businesses targeted was the licensed premises at issue in this case. On August 27, 1987, DABT Investigator Oscar Huguet and City of Miami Investigator Pedro Pidermann, operating undercover, entered the licensed premises in furtherance of the aforesaid investigation. Accompanying Investigators Huguet and Pidermann was a confidential informant (CI), who would accompany them on subsequent visits. During the course of this visit, and three other visits that predated September 5, 1987, the investigators familiarized themselves with the licensed premises, and became acquainted with the employees and patrons of the bar. On September 5, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann, in the company of the CI, returned to the licensed premises. Upon entering the premises, the investigators proceeded to play a game of pool and directed the CI to see if any drugs were available in the bar. The CI walked to the bar, spoke with employee Maria, and accompanied her back to the pool table. At that time, Maria offered to sell the investigators a gram of cocaine for $50. Investigator Pidermann handed Maria a $50 bill, Maria removed a clear plastic packet of cocaine from her pants' pocket and handed it to the CI, and the CI handed it to Investigator Huguet. Huguet held the packet up to the light at eye level, and then commented that it "looks like good stuff." This transaction took place in plain view, and in the presence of several patrons. On September 16, 1987, Investigator Huguet and the CI returned to the licensed premises and seated themselves at the bar. Huguet struck up a conversation with the barmaid Maria, and asked whether she had any cocaine for sale. Maria responded that the individual (later identified as Bandera) who brings in the "stuff" had not come in yet, but to come back the next day. Huguet told Maria he would return the next day and to reserve two grams for him. On September 17, 1987, Investigator Huguet and the CI returned to the licensed premises to make the purchase of cocaine arranged the previous day. Upon entry, Maria told Huguet that the man (Bandera) who sold the cocaine had just left through the front door. Huguet gave the CI $100, and told him to follow the individual and make the purchase. These conversations occurred in the presence of Yolanda, another employee of the licensed premises. After the purchase from Bandera, the CI returned to the bar and handed Investigator Huguet 4 clear plastic bags of cocaine. Huguet examined the bags at eye level and in the presence of Maria, and placed them in his shirt pocket. On September 18, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann, together with the CI, returned to the licensed premises and began playing pool. A short time later Bandera entered the bar and, upon being motioned over by the CI, approached the investigators. Upon greeting Bandera, Huguet asked him how much cocaine $100 would buy. Bandera replied "two grams", whereupon Huguet borrowed $50 from Pidermann to which he added $50 from his pocket, and tried to hand it to Bandera. Bandera, who had not previously met the investigators, told him no, to meet him in the restroom. Huguet met Bandera in the restroom, and purchased two grams of cocaine for $100. Upon exiting the restroom, Huguet observed Maria looking at him, held up the two clear plastic bags of cocaine, and mouthed the words "thank you" to her. On September 24, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann, together with the CI, returned to the licensed premises. During the course of this visit, Bandera was observed seated at the bar conversing with Maria. Pidermann and the CI approached Bandera, and asked whether he had any cocaine for sale. Bandera responded yes, and invited Investigator Pidermann to the restroom to consummate the transaction. Pidermann met Bandera in the restroom and purchased two grams of cocaine for $100. Upon exiting the restroom, Investigator Pidermann displayed the cocaine to Investigator Huguet and the CI above the bar. This display occurred in plain view and in the presence of several patrons. On September 25, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann, together with the CI, returned to the licensed premises and proceeded to play pool. A short time later, Bandera entered the bar, approached the pool table, and placed two clear bags of cocaine on top of the pool table in front of Investigator Huguet. Huguet asked Bandera how much the cocaine would cost and he stated $100. Huguet gave Bandera the money, picked up the packets and held them at eye level for examination. This transaction took place in plain view, in the presence of numerous patrons, and was observed by employee Asucercion. On October 2, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann returned to the licensed premise. During the course of this visit, Huguet engaged Maria in general conversation and inquired as to the whereabouts of Bandera. Maria advised Huguet that Bandera was probably at the Yambo Bar, and that if he wanted cocaine to see him there. Investigator Huguet left the licensed premises and went to the Yambo Bar, located approximately one block away. There he met with Bandera and told him that he wanted to purchase cocaine but that Pidermann had the money at the Quinto Patio Bar. Bandera told Huguet he would meet him out back of the licensed premises. Huguet returned to the Quinto Patio Bar and spoke with Investigator Pidermann in the presence of employee Asucercion. Huguet told Pidermann that for $100 Bandera would supply the cocaine. Pidermann gave Huguet the money, and Huguet went out back to purchase the cocaine from Bandera. After the purchase from Bandera, Investigator Huguet returned to the bar and placed two clear plastic bags of cocaine on the bar counter in front of Investigator Pidermann and Asucercion. Pidermann picked up the cocaine, examined it, and placed it in his pocket. On October 3, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann returned to the licensed premises and seated themselves at the bar. While the investigators were being served by Maria and an unidentified barmaid, Huguet inquired as to the whereabouts of Bandera. Maria replied that he was probably at the Yambo selling cocaine. Investigator Huguet left the licensed premises, met Bandera at the Yambo Bar, and arranged the same drug deal they had made the previous day. Huguet returned to the Quinto Patio Bar and spoke with Investigator Pidermann in the presence of Maria. Huguet again told Pidermann that for $100 Bandera would supply the cocaine. Pidermann gave Huguet the money, and Huguet went out back to purchase the cocaine from Bandera. After the purchase from Bandera, Investigator Huguet returned to the bar and seated himself next to Pidermann. In front of Maria and the unidentified bar maid, Huguet wrapped the two clear plastic bags of cocaine in a napkin and handed them to Pidermann. All of the events summarized in the preceding paragraphs took place at the licensed premises during normal business hours. At no time did respondent's employees express concern about any of the drug transactions. In fact, the proof demonstrates that the employees knew that cocaine was being sold, delivered, or possessed on the licensed premises on a regular, frequent, and flagrant basis. Ms. Dominga Lora (Lora), is the sole corporate officer of the licensee and owner of 100 percent of its stock. According to her, she is generally always on the licensed premises, and usually is seated at a small table by the pool table. Notwithstanding the fact that the lighting within the premises is good, Lora averred that she had no knowledge of any drug transactions on the premises and, in fact, doubted that any did occur. Lora's testimony is not credible. The proof is clear and convincing that the drug transactions previously discussed did occur on the licensed premises, and that they occurred in an open manner visible to patrons and employees alike. If reasonably diligent, Lora had to observe that drug transactions were occurring on the licensed premises but failed to make any reasonable effort to prevent them. Under the circumstances, it is concluded that Lora knew such sales occurred or negligently overlooked them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 23-02231, series 2-COP, issued to Quinto Patio Bar, Inc., d/b/a Quinto Patio Bar, for the premises located at 1552 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of May, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Rene Valdes 1830 N.W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Daniel Bosanko, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined for alleged multiple violations of the Beverage Law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked for multiple violations of the Beverage Law. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 1983, 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 22nd day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Howard M. Rasmussen, Department of Business Regulation Director 725 South Bronough Street Division of Alcoholic Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Aaron A. Green, Esquire Tallahassee, Florida 32301 410 S.E. 4th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32602 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not on or about August 9, 1978, Beach Park Motel, Inc., a vendor, licensed under the Beverage Law, its agent, servant, or employee, one Ruth Ira Holmes, did unlawfully offer to commit prostitution, lewdness or assignation, for the sum of $40.00 U.S. currency, with Beverage Sergeant R. A. Boyd, contrary to Subsection 796.07(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about August 22, 1978, Beach Park Motel, Inc. , a vendor, licensed under the Beverage Law, its agent, servant, or employee, one Diana Alice Baumbach, did unlawfully offer to commit prostitution, lewdness or assignation for the sum of $40.00 U.S. currency, with Beverage Officer B. A. Watts, contrary to Subsection 796.07(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about September 6, 1978, Beach Park Motel, Inc., a vendor, licensed under the Beverage Law, its agent, servant, or employee, one Diana Alice Baumbach, did unlawfully offer to commit prostitution, lewdness, or assignation for the sum of $50.00 U.S. currency, with Beverage Officer C. E. Lloyd, contrary to Subsection 796.07(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about September 6, 1978, Beach Park Motel, Inc., a vendor, licensed under the Beverage Law, on its above-described licensed premises, by its agent, servant, or employee, or entertainer, one, Diana Alice Baumbach, did unlawfully beg or solicit a patron, customer, or visitor, Beverage Officer C. E. Lloyd to purchase a beverage, to-wit; "CHERRY DELIGHT", for such employee, servant, agent or entertainer, in violation of Section 562.131, Florida Statutes. (The charging document, i.e., Notice to Show Cause, originally contained other allegations found in its Counts 1 and 5; however, those counts were withdrawn by the Petitioner in the course of the hearing and are therefore removed from consideration through this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact The Respondent in this cause is Beach Park Motel, Inc. , a closely held corporation. This corporation is a holder of Beverage License No. 15-002265, Series 4-COP, to trade as Beach Park Motel at a business premises located at 4290 Ocean Beach Boulevard, Coco Beach, Florida. This license is held with Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, which organization has responsibility for the licensure and regulation of those several business entities within the State that sell alcoholic beverages. This case is here presented for consideration on the basis of a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint which contains six counts, Counts 1 and 5 having been withdrawn. The details of the remaining counts are as set forth in the issues statement of this Recommended Order. On August 9, 1978, Officers Richard Boyd and Bethel Watts, Jr., of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, went to the licensed premises at 4290 Ocean Beach Boulevard, Cocoa Beach, Florida, for purposes of investigating alleged prostitution activities at the licensed premises. They entered the premises and took a seat at the bar around 9:30 p.m. While seated there, they observed Ruth Ira Holmes performing as an entertainer in the bar by dancing. This person, Holmes, was also referred to by a stage name, "Nina". Holmes then left the stage and approached Officer Boyd, who was sitting in a separate location from Officer Watts. This contact between Holmes and Boyd occurred thirty or forty minutes after the officers had arrived at the licensed premises. There ensued a discussion between Boyd and Holmes on the subject of purchasing marijuana. (The allegation concerning the Respondent's participation in this alleged possession and sale of marijuana has been withdrawn.) Holmes then went around the service bar and picked up her purse from behind the bar. Boyd and Holmes then left the interior of the licensed premises. Once outside Holmes produced two envelopes with a substance which appeared to be marijuana and the officer also observed in her purse a larger bag which had a substance of similar appearance. Boyd asked how much the contents of the larger bag would cost and gave her $25.00, purchasing those contents. The witness then returned the small envelopes to her purse. Boyd asked Holmes what she was doing after work and she replied, "Are you asking for a 'date'?" Boyd responded, "Yes" and Holmes stated, "You mean 'that'?" and thrust her body at him. Boyd asked her what it was going to cost and she replied that for $40.00 she would do anything he wanted. He accepted her offer and she gave him the key to Room 224, which was a key to the motel part of the Respondent's establishment. Holmes checked to make sure that no one was observing them and they proceeded to the motel room. When they reached the room, he gave her two twenty dollar bills. She placed the money in her purse and took off her clothing with the exception of a "G" string and stated to him, "Let's get started." Boyd moved-toward the door of the motel room, after which he produced his law enforcement officer's identification badge and officers of the Brevard County Sheriff's Department took Holmes into custody. Howard Warren, President of the Respondent corporation, was seen at the licensed premises that night. Later, in connection with an investigation of her activities, a statement was given to Officers Boyd and Watts by Ruth Ira Holmes in which she indicated to the officers that she had been employed in the licensed premises known as the "Booby Trap" to work as a dancer and Howard Warren, then President of the Respondent corporation, had hired her. Her rate of pay was $2.50 per hour. She further stated that she had been employed for about seven months and was paid at the end of each week by check from Howard Warren. The Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence is a series of checks written by Howard Warren and made payable to Ruth Ira Holmes beginning on July 7, 1978, with the last check being drawn on September 1, 1978, and one of the checks being drawn on August 1, 1978. The observation of Holmes' dancing on the licensed premises on the night in question, the statement that she was an employee paid by Howard Warren and the series of checks drawn by Howard Warren to Ruth Holmes, also known as Ruth Ira Holmes, are sufficient to show that Ruth Ira Holmes was employed as a dancer by the Respondent to work at the licensed premises in such capacity on August 9, 1978. This determination is further borne out by the Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 5 admitted into evidence which are copies of the payroll accounts of the Respondent showing that Ruth Holmes was an employee and by part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6, which is a motel registration card showing Ruth Holmes to be registered in the same room, 224, spoken to before and shows her occupation to be dancer. Officer Watts returned to the licensed premises on August 22, 1978, and again operating in an undercover capacity. While seated at the bar, he was approached by Diana Baumbach, also known as 'Misty'. Baumbach asked Watts if he were having a good time and he told her that things were rather slow and that he had been led to understand that the "Booby Trap" was a place where the action was. Baumbach responded by telling Watts that she could provide him some action for $40.00, either a "blow job"/fellatio or "screw"/intercourse. During this conversation Baumbach indicated that she worked in the licensed premises. She also stated in the course of the conversation that when a certain girl who was dancing had finished her performance it would be Baumbach's turn. Baumbach was wearing a long sleeved jacket and bikini panties and after this initial discussion with Watts went to the dance area and performed for the crowd. Baumbach returned to the location of the officer and stated she was ready to go. They walked through the rear of the bar and she took him to Room 206 in the motel part of the Respondent's complex. They entered Room 206 and Baumbach stated that she wanted her $40.00 and Watts gave her two twenty dollar bills. Baumbach took off her coat and Watts stated that he wanted to check to see if anyone was outside. He opened the door and allowed an officer of the Cocoa Beach Police Department to enter the room and Baumbach was arrested. On September 6, 1978, Officer C. E. Lloyd of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco went to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity to investigate alleged prostitution at that location. He entered the licensed premises and took a seat at the bar in the area of the dance floor. After being seated, he was approached by Diana Baumbach, who asked him if she could sit down. She inquired if Lloyd would buy her a drink and he complied with that request and bought the drink. She then asked Lloyd if he "messed around" and his answer was, "Sometimes." She stated that she would give him a "blow job"/fellatio for $30.00 or "all the way"/intercourse for $50.00. She then stated that she could not go right away because the master of ceremonies was going to call her up to dance. She danced two times in front of the audience. The dancing she did was a topless routine. She returned to Lloyd's location and asked if he knew his way around and stated that he should go up to Room 216 and that she would follow up. When he arrived at Room 216 in that part of the Respondent's establishment, Baumbach was already there. They went inside the room and Baumbach again advised Lloyd that the price was $50.00. She took her clothes off and he took off his shoes and then went to the door, at which point he advised Baumbach that she was being arrested and she was arrested. Lloyd later spoke with Howard Warren about the solicitation for prostitution that had occurred on the part of Baumbach as a follow up to his investigation and the arrest of Baumbach. Baumbach, on the occasions of August 22, 1978, and September 6, 1978, at which points she solicited Officers Watts and Lloyd, respectively, for the purposes of committing prostitution, was an employee, agent and entertainer of the Respondent in the sense of the dance performances she gave for the benefit of the patrons in the licensed premises. This determination of employment is supported by the testimony of Carol Sue Warren, daughter of Howard Warren and manager of the "Booby Trap" during August and September, 1978, who testified that Baumbach was an employee of the Respondent at time which corresponds to August 22, 1978, and September 6, 1978. Moreover, the rendezvous between Ruth Ira Holmes and Officer Boyd on August 9, 1978; the rendezvous between Diana Alice Baumbach and Officer Watts on August 22, 1978, and the rendezvous between Diana Alice Baumbach and Officer Lloyd which occurred on September 6, 1978; all these meetings for purposes of committing prostitution in the motel which is a part of the Respondent's establishment located at 4290 Ocean Beach Boulevard, Cocoa Beach, Florida, were types of activities known by the officials of the Respondent to be taking place. This knowledge on the part of the officials of the Respondent covered the period of August 9, 1978, through September 6, 1978, and pertained not only to the solicitation to commit prostitution, lewdness or assignation and the occurrence of such prostitution, lewdness and assignation on the part of Ruth Ira Holmes and Diana Alice Baumbach but also pertained to such activities by other employees or dancers who worked in the licensed premises during this period of time. This knowledge on the part of the Respondent's officials, and in particular its president, Howard Warren, was not part of a pattern of conduct which actively condoned activities of prostitution by the employees and/or dancers who worked at the licensed premises, in fact the owners had a stated policy of not allowing prostitution or soliciting drinks or activities involved with drugs on the part of their female employees or others who might be dancing in the licensed premises and the Respondent's representatives had fired certain of the female employees in the past when they had been discovered committing acts of prostitution. Nonetheless, the Respondent in the person of Howard Warren stated that he did not wish prostitution in the licensed premises but didn't feel he could really effectively stop it and went further by rehiring Ruth Ira Holmes as an employee of the Respondent after she had been discovered committing acts of prostitution. Holmes, after returning as an employee, then continued her activities as a prostitute. Diana Alice Baumbach had also been employed by the Respondent and had been fired several times during the course of her employment, one of those firings occurring after her arrest for the prostitution incident involving Officer Watts that occurred on August 22, 1978. She was then rehired and was an employee of the Respondent on September 6, 1978, when she committed a further act of soliciting for prostitution which occurred with Officer Lloyd. Baumbach was also represented by Howard Warren as attorney following an arrest. Both Holmes and Baumbach were allowed to remain as tenants in the Respondent's motel, the same motel where the prostitution had occurred, and were allowed to do so following their arrests in August of 1978, for prostitution offenses.
Recommendation In consideration of the facts found herein, the Conclusions of Law reached and those matters offered in mitigation, it is RECOMMENDED that the license of the Respondent, Beach Park Motel, Inc. d/b/a Beach Park Motel, be REVOKED. 4/ DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Florida corporation doing business in Tampa, Florida, and is the bolder of alcoholic beverage license number 39-482, 4-COP. Respondent's licensed premises are located at 2309 North Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. The license was suspended by Petitioner's Emergency Order of Suspension issued July 22, 1982. On March 25, 1982, Beverage Officer Freese entered Respondent's licensed premises in an undercover capacity after paying a $1 cover charge. Freese proceeded to a circular room located upstairs in the licensed premises. This room had a small bar in the center, a small dance stage in front of the juke box, and bench-type seats located around the perimeter of the room. Shortly after entering the licensed premises, Freese was approached by a female dancer known as Diane. She sat down next to Freese without invitation and asked Freese if she could call the waitress over. Upon inquiry by Freese, Diane informed him that the reason for calling the waitress was because Freese had a drink and she did not. When Freese asked if that meant she wanted a drink, her reply was yes, and she thereafter ordered a drink. The drink was later served and Freese was charged $4 (Count 1). At approximately 10:45 p.m. on March 25, 1982, a female dancer known as Caryl seated herself next to Freese without invitation and inquired, "Who is going to buy me a drink?" After Freese agreed to buy her a drink, she stated that she was not supposed to solicit drinks because the premises had lost its license for such action in the past. Caryl ordered her drink from a waitress who returned with the drink, placed it in front of her, and charged Freese $4 (Count 2). At approximately 11:55 p.m. on March 25, 1982, a female dancer known as Mercedes was seated next to Freese and asked him if she could call the waitress over. When Freese asked why, the dancer replied that she needed a certain brand of mixed drink, and called the waitress to the table. She then ordered a drink for herself, which the waitress brought and placed in front of Mercedes. The waitress charged Freese $4 for the drink (Count 3). On March 26, 1982, Freese and a Confidential Informant entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. After paying the $1 cover charge they proceeded to the same circular room as on the previous occasion. At approximately 9:45 p.m. Mercedes again seated herself next to Freese and remarked that both she and Freese were dry and that she would call the waitress over. When asked by Freese if that meant she wanted him to buy her a drink, she summoned a waitress named Darlene to the table and ordered a drink for herself. Upon returning to the table, the waitress placed Mercedes' drink in front of her and charged Freese for the drink. The total charge for the two drinks was $6, and Mercedes later informed Freese that all of the dancers got doubles when ordering drinks (Count 4). On March 31, 1982, Officer Freese and the Confidential Informant again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. After paying the cover charge of $1 each, Officer Freese again proceeded to the upstairs circular room of the lounge. At approximately 8:25 p.m., the dancer Mercedes again joined Officer Freese at the table. After paying Mercedes $5 for dancing, Mercedes asked Freese if she could call the waitress over. Freese replied, "It's up to you," and Mercedes called a waitress known as Marty to the table and ordered a mixed drink for herself. Upon delivering the drink to Mercedes, the waitress informed Freese that the cost of the drink was $4 (Count 5). At approximately 9:00 p.m. on March 31, 1982, Mercedes again asked Freese, "May I call the waitress over?" Freese replied, "It's your turn to buy." Mercedes replied that it was not her turn and ordered a mixed drink for herself from the waitress. The waitress charged Freese $6 for this drink (Count 6). At approximately 9:40 p.m. on March 31, 1982, Mercedes again asked Freese if she could call the waitress over. After Freese told her that it was her turn to buy this time, Mercedes replied that it was his turn to buy. She again called the waitress over and ordered a drink for which Freese was charged $4 (Count 7) At approximately 11:00 p.m. on March 31, 1982, Freese was in the presence of two dancers, Mercedes and another dancer known as Cheryl. At this time, Mercedes again asked Freese if she could call the waitress over. After Freese asked Mercedes if she was buying this time, she replied, "I do the dancing." In response to this remark, Freese stated, "I guess that means that I pay for all the drinks," to which Mercedes indicated yes. Mercedes ordered a drink from the waitress Marty, who returned with the drink, placed it in front of Mercedes and charged Freese for the drink (Count 8). On April 7, 1982, Officer Freese entered the licensed premises with a Confidential Informant in an undercover capacity. Upon entering the licensed premises, they proceeded to the circular bar upstairs and seated themselves at a small table. At approximately 8:45 p.m., the dancer Mercedes, while seated at the table with Freese, asked him if she could order another drink. She ordered a drink from a waitress who served her the drink and then charged Freese $4 for it (Count 9). On April 7, 1982, at approximately 9:15 p.m., the dancer known as Caryl was seated at the table with Freese. She turned to him and stated, "Mike, I need a drink." When Freese inquired as to what she had said, Caryl replied, "Will you get me a drink?" (Count 10). On April 8, 1982, Officer Freese and a Confidential Informant again entered the licensed premises and proceeded to the upstairs bar. At approximately 8:40 p.m. the female dancer known as Mercedes was seated at the table with Officer Freese. While tipping her empty glass toward Freese, Mercedes asked if she could call the waitress. She then ordered a drink for herself, which was delivered to her by the waitress who charged Freese for the drink (Count 11). At approximately 9:15 on April 5, 1952, Officer Freese and a Confidential Informant were joined by another female dancer known as Caryl, who proceeded to ask, "Who is going to buy me a drink?" While a waitress known as Darlene was standing in front of Caryl, Caryl asked Freese, "Mike, will you buy me a drink?" She then ordered a mixed drink for herself, which was delivered to her, and the waitress charged Freese for the drink (Count 12). On May 13, 1982, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Beverage Officers Freese and Hodge entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and proceeded upstairs to the circular room. Shortly after seating themselves, they were joined by a dancer known as Stephanie. At approximately 9:45 p.m. the officers were approached by a waitress known as Doris. Hodge ordered a beer and upon inquiry by the waitress if there would be anything else, Hodge replied in the negative. However, Stephanie stated to the waitress that she would have a mixed drink. While waiting for the drinks to be delivered, Stephanie informed Hodge that she could not ask for a drink because it would be soliciting and she could be thrown into jail for that. After paying for the drinks, Hodge made a remark as to the cost of the drinks to which Stephanie replied, "That's how the house makes its money, off the drinks, and we make ours off the lap dances. That's what this upstairs is about, drinking and dancing." (Count 13) At approximately 11:00 p.m. on May 13, 1982, Freese was approached by a dancer known as Linda, who asked if she could dance for him. While lap dancing for Freese, Linda asked, "Can I get a drink, too?" Freese asked if she wanted him to buy her a drink and she replied, "Yes, will you buy me a drink?" Linda then called the waitress, ordered a drink which was delivered to her at Freese's table, and he was charged $4 for Linda's drink (Count 14). On May 18, 1982, Beverage Officers O'Steen and Freese entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and proceeded to the upstairs lounge. At approximately 8:35 p.m., Freese was approached by a female dancer known as Darlene, who asked to dance for him. After informing Darlene that he did not want a dance, she asked him if he would buy her a drink. Darlene then summoned a waitress over to the table and ordered a mixed drink for herself. The waitress delivered the drink to Darlene and charged Freese for it (Count 15). At approximately 10:25 p.m. on May 18, 1982, Freese was again approached by Darlene and asked, "How about a drink?" When Freese asked Darlene if she was buying, she responded "No, you are." Darlene then summoned the waitress and ordered a drink which was delivered to her at Freese's table. Freese paid for the drink (Count 16). On May 19, 1982, Officers Hodge and Freese entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and proceeded to the circular lounge upstairs. At approximately 8:45 p.m., a dancer known as Diane asked Freese, "Can I call the waitress?" to which Freese replied, "Does that mean that you want me to buy you a drink?" After Diane replied affirmatively, she summoned the waitress over and ordered a drink which was later delivered to her at Freese's table. Freese was charged $4 for the drink (Count 17). On May 19, 1982, at approximately 8:55 p.m., the dancer Mercedes approached the officers' table and seated herself between them. Mercedes then asked Hodge if she could call the waitress over. She thereafter ordered a drink which was delivered to her at the officers' table by the waitress Darlene, who charged Hodge $4 for the drink (Count 18). At approximately 9:10 p.m. on May 19, 1982, Diane was still seated at the officers' table and asked Freese if she could call the waitress again. Diane then called the waitress to the table and ordered a mixed drink for which Freese was charged (Count 19). At approximately 9:50 p.m. on May 19, 1982, Diane asked Hodge "Do you want to buy me a drink now, or do you want me to wait until after I dance?" In response to this, Hodge asked Diane if she wanted him to buy her a drink, to which Diane replied, "yes." While Diane was dancing, the waitress brought her drink to the table and charged Hodge $4 for it (Count 20). On July 6, 1982, Officers Freese and Hodge again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and proceeded to the upstairs lounge. At approximately 8:55 p.m., the dancer Stephanie, who was then seated at the officers' table, said to Hodge, "Will you buy me a drink?" She thereafter ordered a drink for which Hodge was charged (Count 21). At approximately 9:15 p.m. on July 6, 1982, Officers Hodge and Freese were seated in the upstairs portion of the lounge. At this time, they were accompanied by the dancers Caryl and Stephanie. During the course of a conversation, Hodge asked Freese if he was buying the next drinks, and Stephanie said, "What about me?" A waitress was present during this conversation and asked Freese if he intended to buy the dancer Caryl a drink also. Both Stephanie and Caryl each ordered mixed drinks which were delivered to the officers' table and were paid for by the officers (Count 22). At approximately 11:00 p.m. on July 6, 1982, the dancer Stephanie was seated with the officers at their table. At this time, she asked Freese, "Are you going to buy me a drink?" Upon Officer Freese replying "Yes," Stephanie ordered a mixed drink from the waitress who brought the drink to Stephanie and charged Officer Freese $4 (Count 23). On July 8, 1982, Officers Freese and Hodge entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and proceeded to the upstairs lounge. At approximately 7:25 p.m., they were approached by a woman known as Judy, who asked if she could join them for a drink. She then stated, "Mine only costs $2. They cost $4 for the girls on the night shift." Judy then ordered a drink which was delivered to her at the officers' table and was paid for by Freese (Count 24). At approximately 7:35 p.m. on July 8, 1982, Judy inquired of Hodge if he was ready for another beer and then said to Freese, "Can I get another one?" She then ordered a drink from the waitress known as Cathy, and the drink was paid for by Officer Freese (Count 25). At approximately 9:45 p.m. on July 8, 1982, Officers Freese and Hodge were seated at a table with a dancer known as Dorothy. At this time, Freese was approached by a waitress who asked him if he needed another drink, at which time Freese looked at Dorothy, and she said, "I'm drinking 7 and 7." The waitress delivered the drink to Dorothy, and it was paid for by Freese (Count 26). On July 19, 1982, Officer Hodge was again in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and was seated in the upper level of the lounge. At approximately 9:15 p.m. the dancer Stephanie, who was sitting with Hodge asked, "Are you going to buy me a drink?" Upon Hodge agreeing to do so, Stephanie called to a waitress known as Darlene to bring her a mixed drink. Hodge paid for this drink (Count 27). On April 1, 1982, Officer Freese and the Confidential Informant were in the circular lounge in the upper portion of the licensed premises. At approximately 9:00 p.m., the dancer Caryl seated herself between the Confidential Informant and Freese. After the Confidential Informant inquired of Caryl if she had a bag of marijuana she had earlier promised them, Caryl stated that she did and would retrieve it. She then proceeded to a small dance stage and retrieved a large bag from which she transferred something into her handbag. Upon returning to the table, Caryl handed the marijuana to the Confidential Informant and was paid $10 by Freese (Count 25). On May 13, 1982, Officers Hodge and Freese entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. At approximately 11:10 p.m., the dancer known as Mercedes joined the officers and entered into a conversation with Freese. During the conversation, Mercedes discussed her use of cocaine and how it affected her. Freese inquired if she was in possession of any cocaine, to which she replied, "No, but I can get you some," and informed him that it would cost $45 for a half gram. At approximately 11:45 p.m., Mercedes delivered a small, clear, plastic package to Hodge containing a white powdery substance, later proven to be cocaine. The delivery of the cocaine occurred on the licensed premises while the officers were seated in the upstairs lounge (Count 29) On July 7, 1982, Officers Hodge and Freese were again in the licensed `premises. They engaged the dancer Stephanie in a conversation concerning the availability of drugs. She informed them that she was in possession of a fourth of an ounce of marijuana and would sell each of the officers two marijuana cigarettes for $5. At approximately 12:30 a.m. on this date, she advised Freese that she needed $10, since she was going to roll their marijuana cigarettes. At approximately 12:50 a.m. Stephanie returned to the officers' table and delivered two hand-rolled marijuana cigarettes to Freese and one to Hodge. This transaction took place on the licensed premises in the upstairs portion of the lounge (Counts 30 and 31). On July 8, 1982, Officers Hodge and Freese were again in the licensed premises. At approximately 7:20 p.m., Freese was approached by the dancer Linda, who inquired if he still wanted a gram of cocaine which she had agreed to sell to him on July 7, 1982. At approximately 9:30 p.m., Linda approached Hodge and Freese in the upper portion of the lounge. She handed Freese a small, amber, glass vial containing a half gram of cocaine for which he paid her $50. She also delivered a one dollar bill containing half a gram of cocaine to Hodge for which he paid her $45. After the deliveries were made, Linda informed Freese that she could obtain cocaine for him at any time as long as he gave her a day's notice (Counts 32 and 33). On July 14, 1982, Officer Freese was again in the licensed premises and took delivery of approximately one gram of cocaine from the woman known as Linda. Linda was not working as a dancer at the time, but was downstairs working as a bartender. Prior to the delivery of the cocaine to Freese, for which he paid $90, Linda requested that she be allowed to ingest part of the cocaine and proceeded to the dancers' restroom. Upon returning she gave Officer Freese the gram of cocaine contained in a plastic bag with the seal broken (Count 34). On July 15, 1982, Officers Freese and Hodge returned to the licensed premises accompanied by Special Agent Rick Look from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. On this occasion, Agent Look took possession of approximately one-eighth of an ounce of cocaine from the bartender Linda. The delivery was made in the parking lot of the licensed premises where Linda delivered the cocaine to Look in return for $275. The arrangements for this transaction had been made the night before inside the licensed premises (Count 35). On July 20, 1982, Officer Hodge was again in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. At approximately 8:50 p.m., the bartender Linda delivered approximately one gram of cocaine to Officer Hodge in return for $90. On this same date, Linda also delivered approximately one-eighth of an ounce of cocaine to Special Agent Look in return for payment of $280. The deliveries to Look and Hodge both took place in the downstairs portion of the licensed premises in the vicinity of the bar (Counts 36 and 37). The testimony of Respondent's employees established that the dancers in the upper portion of the lounge are not on Respondent's payroll and, in fact, pay Respondent for the privilege of dancing upstairs. Their compensation is obtained through tips they receive from customers for their dances. It was shown that the upstairs dancers are informed as to the rules of the club which prohibit solicitation of drinks and possession of drugs. These dancers have access to the various portions of the lounge, including the dressing room and the restrooms. Their schedules are controlled by the manager, who also hires and fires them. From the testimony of the dancer Stephanie, whose real name is Peggy Knight, it was shown that dancers generally knew that certain other dancers were selling drugs on the premises, that several of the dancers were using drugs and that they regularly ingested such drugs in the women's restroom. The reason for using this room was the double entrance, which could be locked from the inside so as to prevent intrusion. Testimony of the president of the licensee corporation, 2001, Inc., established that Respondent paid a $10,000 fine and served a two weeks' suspension in 1991 as a result of violations of Section 561.131, Florida Statutes. The president occasionally visits the licensed premises, but had not been to the upstairs portion of the lounge for almost two years.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty as charged in Counts 1 through 12, 14 through 25 and 27 through 37 of the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint and suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of one year. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 10th day of February, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Golden Dolphin was the holder of the State of Florida Alcoholic Beverage license number 15-229 for the period October 1, 1976, through September 30, 1977. DABT seeks to assess a civil penalty against the Golden Dolphin or to suspend or revoke its beverage license on the grounds that seven violations of Section 847.011(4), Florida Statutes, occurred on the premises of Golden Dolphin on June 9, 10 and 11, 1977. During that period of time, various dance routines depicting sexual acts, representing sexual acts or suggesting or encouraging sexual arousal occurred on the premises. No evidence was introduced purporting to establish that any of the performers were agents, servants or employees of Golden Dolphin. Accordingly, it is found, as a matter of fact, that the performers were not agents, servants or employees of Golden Dolphin. No evidence was introduced purporting to demonstrate whether, to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appealed to prurient interests. Accordingly, it is found, as a matter of fact, that to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material presented at the Golden Dolphin, taken as a whole, did not appeal to prurient interests.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondent FCB, Inc., d/b/a Unicorn Liquors Fantasy Show Bar (Show Bar) was the holder of Florida Alcoholic Beverage License Series 4-COP, No. 15-00398 for the Fantasy Show Bar located at 104 Cleveland Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida. During the course of an ongoing investigation by the United States Division of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, (DATF); the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA); and the Florida Department of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, investigators and agents of all three agencies had been in the Cocoa Beach area since the end of February, 1984, regarding a list of some twenty (20) bars and lounges in the area about which complaints, regarding drugs had been received. During this time, using a investigator, Beverage Officer Smith had made friends with one of the dancers at the Show Bar, a woman named Janice Becker, who use the stage name "Angel." At approximately 10:30 p.m. on April 3, 1984, Smith and DATF Agent Altman, working together in an undercover capacity, entered the Show Bar. The bar was more well lit than most bars and they were able to see quite clearly. They took seats near the runway and shortly afterwards observed what to them appeared to be a surreptitious transfer of contraband from one dancer to another. The subject of the transfer, a small clear envelope of a white powdery substance was wrapped by both dancers in a napkin when not in their purses except for the time it fell to the floor and was observed by Altman. One dancer then handed money to the other in return. When Smith approached one of the two dancers involved, Nora, and asked for some cocaine for herself, Nora indicated she had none available but tried unsuccessfully to get some from another dancer, Lynn. Just at this time, Angel came up and engaged in a discussion regarding cocaine with Smith and Altman. She stated that she had some cocaine herself that she would give them after she danced for some customers. Some thirty (30) minutes later Angel came back and placed a folded $1.00 bill in Altman's hand. Altman gave the hill to Smith who immediately took it into the 1dies' restroom where she opened it and found a white powdery substance later properly determined to be cocaine. When Altman asked Angel what he owed her for the substance, she replied that it was a gift from her. She also stated that if he needed more in the future she could make it available in quantities of one half (1/2) or one (1) gram and would deliver to their residence or to the Show Bar. Altman and Smith again went into the Show Bar at about 10:30 p.m. on April 10,1954. When they entered, Angel came up to them and said she could not get the cocaine that Smith had previously ordered by phone for delivery at the Show Bar. Angel said that Barbie, another dancer at the bar, could get it in quantities of one half (1/2) to one (1) gram for $50.00 and $100.00 respectively. When Smith asked for one (1) gram and asked Angel what she wanted for her trouble, Angel said she would take a "line". Angel then made a call from a pay phone after which she told Smith the cocaine would be delivered by her source, Tony, within a short while. Angel then went off to dance after a short conversation and, when finished, returned to Smith and Altman and asked them for $100.00 for the cocaine. When Altman paid her, she went over to another table where she talked with a male identified as Tommy. After speaking with him for a few minutes, she came back and said that since Tony had not contacted him, he did not have a full gram. When Altman heard this, he took back the $100.00 bill and gave Angel $50.00 for one half (1/2) gram. Angel went back to Tommy's table, then went into the dancer's dressing room, and returned to Altman and Smith's table where she made delivery of the substance later identified as cocaine. When Altman asked Angel if she needed a blade to take her "line", she replied that there was a blade in the dressing room that all the girls used. Altman and Smith came back to the Show Bar early on the evening of April 19, 1984. When they came in, Nora, one of the dancers they had seen involved in the surreptitious exchange on April 3, came up to Smith and asked her if she wanted any. When Smith indicated she did, they all went into the main bar and ordered drinks. During this time Nora mentioned she had given some cocaine to Barbie, another dancer. When Smith asked Nora how much she was charging, she was told $50.00 for one half (1/2) gram. Nora then told Smith to come with her into the restroom where when the transfer was made. Smith gave Nora $50.00 and Nora gave Smith a substance later identified as cocaine. On April 27, 1984. Smith and Altman, this time accompanied by DEA Agent Eslinger, entered the Show Bar at about 11:15 p.m. This time they were approached by a dancer, Samantha, with whom they discussed cocaine use in general, but made no buy. Somewhat later, a female patron known to Smith as Deosia, came up to Smith and indicated she had some good "stuff" for sale. Smith was then told to go to the restroom and Deosia would get some cocaine for her. When she got there, Smith paid Deosia $80.00 and the two women left. On the way out of the restroom, Deosia stopped to talk with a male she identified as Doug and asked him for some cocaine. Smith went back to her table from which she saw Doug leave the premises, only to return ten (10) minutes later. Somewhat later, Deosia came to Smith's table and gave her two small packages subsequently identified as cocaine, from which, she said, she had taken out her "lines" as a finder's fee. The three investigators came back to the Show Bar the following night, April 28, hoping to find Nora and Deosia, and sat at a table. Shortly thereafter, Deosia came up and said she had started to work there as a dancer that night. She sat down beside Smith and told her she could get her one-eighth (1/8) ounce of cocaine and that it was much cheaper to buy it that way. The agents discussed among themselves, in front of Deosia who then went and made a phone call; returning shortly to say the deal had been set up. She then wrote out the address where they could pick up the cocaine and asked for and received from Eslinger a $20.00 fee for setting up the deal. The officers subsequently went to the address which Deosia had given them where they paid for and received a substance subsequently identified as cocaine. When Smith, Altman and Eslinger next went back to the Show Bar on the night of May 2, 1984, they were approached by the dancer, Samantha, who sat down next to Smith. They talked for a while about who had cocaine available and Samantha left to go dance. After she left, two males known to the agents to be drug dealers came up and sat down to talk. While they were there, Deosia came up and Smith asked her if she could get one eighth (1/8) of an ounce of cocaine. Deosia started to talk with one of the two men (Hair) and later asked Smith if she had $225.00. When Smith said she did, Deosia told her to come to the restroom where Smith gave Deosia $225.00. Deosia than talked to Hair after which she told Smith the cocaine was available for pick-up at a near by bottle club. After some discussion, it was decided that Altman would go with Deosia to get the cocaine and Smith and Eslinger would wait at the Show Bar. While Smith and Eslinger were waiting, another dancer, named Brandy, came up to Smith and engaged her in a discussion about cocaine transactions. When Deosia came back with Altman, she asked Smith to come into the restroom with her. In there, she pulled a substance later identified as cocaine out of her waistband, cut out her "line" which she "snorted" right there, and turned over the rest to Smith. Smith also bought cocaine from Brand, a dancer at the Show Bar, when she and her associates went in on the nights of May 4, 1984. Brandy told Smith she had fronted $50.00 for cocaine for her earlier in the evening when the source had come in. Smith gave Brandy $50.00 whereupon Brandy got up and went to the dressing room. When she came back five (5) minutes later, she gave Smith a folded $1.00 bill which contained what was later identified as cocaine. In a discussion there at the table, Brandy said, in response to an inquiry by Smith, that she could get cocaine in one eighth (1/8) ounce quantities and more. Smith gave her $50.00 for more cocaine to be delivered later. During their discussion, Brandy indicated that before coming to work at the Show Bar, she did not use cocaine but that she does now because it was so prevalent there. The three agents did not come back to the Show Bar again until the night of June 5, 1984. When they entered that night, they were met at the front door by a gentlemen they knew as Jim Knox who had previously been identified as the assistant manager of the club. Knox asked them to join him at his table which Smith did, while Eslinger and Altman stopped to talk with another patron. While Smith was sitting at Knox's table with Knox, Brandy came up and asked her if she wanted to buy some cocaine, to which Smith said she would buy one half (1/2) gram. Brandy left and shortly came back and sat down next to Smith and told her her source was going to another club to get the cocaine. Smith then gave Brandy a $50.00 bill and continued her conversation with Knox who had been sitting there all along. Shortly thereafter, Knox left and Brandy came back and placed a match box on the table indicating that the cocaine was in it. She then left to dance. Smith picked up the match box, opened it, and took out a plastic bag containing a white powder which was subsequently identified as cocaine. Lowell M. Tatum, a certified polygraph operator was asked by Fred Burgett, owner of the Show Bar, about eight or nine months prior to the hearing to do a series of polygraph examinations of his employees covering such areas as prostitution, drugs, thefts of merchandise, and the like. As a result he ran tests of the managers and cashiers, bouncers, waitresses and dancers, several times per month, with questions relating to the examinee's knowledge of the use or sale of drugs on the premises. These examinations were run more than once on each person and the results were furnished to Mr. Burgett. As a result of these examinations, management became aware of the possibility of drugs in the Show Bar and the suspects were discharged. John W. Lageman was hired as manager by Mr. Burgett approximately three and a half months before the closure. He was briefed on management's policies which included a strict prohibition against drugs and underage drinkers. When he was hired, he was not made aware of any problem regarding prostitution or drugs nothwithstanding Mr. Burgett's feeling, as indicated by his testimony, that in any bar of this size, there will always be some drug and prostitution activity. His instructions were to terminate any employee found involved in prostitution or drugs and to call the police when he had information a patron was dealing in drugs. Whenever he did that, however, the police would not arrest the offender but let him go. Mr. Burgett, who is a full time employee of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration at Kennedy Space Center and who operated this and another bar as an investment, has been in the bar business for twelve years. In that time he has never had a beverage citation in any capacity. Just recently, he contends, a representative of Department of Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco advised him his operation was "fine". In order to combat what he recognizes as the very real risk of drugs and prostitution in any bar, he has arranged for not only the polygraph tests mentioned above, but also stress analysis of his employees, and uses spotters from outside the club. His anti-drug/prostitution efforts cost him about $1,000.00 per month. Nora was fired because she was suspected of prostitution and Samantha and her cousin Sonya also left. The management got information on Brandy's actions on June 8th, 1984 and were about to discharge her. Coincidently, the Emergency Order of Closure was served before that could be done. There is some sort of program within Department of Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco to assist licensed holders to keep out drug activity and prostitution. Notice of this policy was contained in a letter dated March 8, 1984 from the Director of Department of Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco to all licensees. Unfortunately, Kevin Ashcroft, an agent in the Department of Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco office in Rockledge, Florida, did not know much about their program and could not recall providing any assistance to any licensee in the area. He contends that while Respondent's efforts are laudatory, they are insufficient per se because they did not work and, therefore, Respondent must be liable. It is his opinion that it is the responsibility of the licensee to insure that whatever steps he takes are successful. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the proceedings. In subparagraphs 1 - 3 and 5 - 7 of the Notice to Show Cause, the Petitioner alleges that on diverse occasions during April through early June, 1984, employees of the Respondent either sold or delivered a controlled substance, cocaine, to State or Federal agents, on the licensed premises in violation of Sections 893.13 and 576.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1983). Section makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise transfer controlled substances of which cocaine is one. Section 561.29(1)(a) provides that a liquor license may be disciplined upon the showing of: Violation by the licensee or his its agents, officers, servants, or employees, on the licensed premises, or elsewhere while in the scope of employment; of any of the laws of this state or of the United States, or violation of any municipal or county regulation in regard to the hours of sale, service, or consumption of alcoholic beverages, or engaging in or permitting disorderly conduct on the licensed premises, or permitting another on the licensed premises to violate any of the laws of this state or of the United States; except that whether or not the licensee or his or its agents, officers, servants, or employees have been convicted in any criminal court of any violation as set forth in this paragraph shall not be considered in proceedings before the division for suspension or revocation of a license except as permitted by chapter 92 or the rules of evidence. The testimony of Agent Smith, uncontradicted by the Respondent, is sufficient to support a conclusion that these violations, as alleged, took place. In Subparagraph (4) of the Notice To Show Cause, Petitioner alleges that on April 28, 1984, an employee of Respondent aided and abetted the sale or delivery of cocaine to the agent as alleged. The additional statutory provision cited here is Section 777.011, Florida Statutes, which makes the aider and abettor of an offense punishable as a principal. The other statutes allegedly violated here are the same as discussed in the paragraph next above. Again, the evidence presented by the Petitioner, uncontradicted by the Respondent, clearly establishes the violation. In paragraph 8 of the Notice To Show Cause, Petitioner alleges that during the period alleged and described in the Findings of Fact, supra, Respondent maintained a public nuisance on its licensed premises by maintaining it as a place used for the keeping, selling, and delivery of controlled substances in violation of Section 823.10, Florida Statutes. The evidence taken as a whole indicates the licensed premises repeatedly served as the locus for the sale and delivery of cocaine, a controlled substance, by several different employees of the license holder, and this allegation has clearly been established. The same evidence also clearly establishes the violation alleged in subparagraph of the Notice To Show Cause. The prosecuted conduct here is a violation of Section 893.13(2)(5), Florida Statutes, which makes it a misdemeanor of the first degree to keep a place which is used for the selling of controlled substances and, as well, a violation of Section 561.29(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes. Once it is established, as here, that the offenses alleged, in fact occurred, the questions then remains as to what, if anything, can and should be done about it. It is clear that the Petitioner has the authority to discipline a license holder when it finds that either the licensee or its agents have violated certain laws of the State on the licensed premises. 23 A showing of only one isolated violation, when combined with a showing that the licensee otherwise took pains to obey the law, would not normally support a revocation or, perhaps, even discipline. If, however, the evidence shows that the law has been repeatedly and flagrantly violated by the licensee's employees, an inference arises that the violations were fostered, condoned or negligently overlooked by the licensee; Pauline v. Lee, 147 So.2d 359 (Fla. 2nd DCA, 1962); Lash, Inc., v. State, Department of Business Regulation, 411 So 2d 276 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982). A licensee, therefore, has the obligation to maintain sufficient intelligence with regard to its own establishment so as to know, at least generally, what its employees are doing, and its failure of proper management; G&H of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State, Department of Business Regulation, (371 So2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In this case, the evidence shows that not merely one but several of the dancers employed by the licensee not only used but also dealt in cocaine. Though some effort was made to conceal these transactions by wrapping the cocaine in dollar bills or napkins, or by effecting the transfers in the ladies' restroom, many were consummated in the lounge and by far the greatest part of the negotiations were carried on there. Respondent made much of his effort to keep drugs out of the licensed premises but it is obvious that either he failed to get the word to his assistant manager, Jim Knox, or that gentleman did not take it seriously. No doubt Respondent did make some effort in that direction but as an owner who did not spend his full time as management, he failed to insure that those he left in charge supported his policies. This is not, however, to adopt the attitude of Mr. Ashcroft that if efforts do not work, they are inadequate. The law does not impose that strict a degree of liability. Consequently, while the Respondent had the responsibility to properly supervise its establishment and clearly failed to do so here, and though the sales were repeated and by several different employees, it cannot be said that the Respondent's negligence justifies revocation under the circumstances of this case. See also Rex Allen Jones, t/a Happy Hour v. State, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Case No. AO-132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), Opinion filed March 30, 1984. RECOMMENDED ACTION Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent FCB, Inc. d/b/a Unicorn Liquors Fantasy Show Bar, pay a fine of $5,000.00. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10 day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10 day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James R. Dressler, Esquire 110 Dixie Lane Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact As a result of an application submitted August 11, 1986, the 2-COP license at Hollywoods Bar in St. Petersburg, Florida, was transferred from Norbert Prevost to Josephine Sauvageot (Exhibit 5). On April 17, 1987, DABT agents Ray and McQueen visited Hollywoods Bar to check the bar's records. Upon entering the bar, McQueen identified himself to Respondent and asked to look at the records. She produced only a diary. Shortly thereafter, Respondent's husband, John Sauvageot, came over to answer questions Respondent was unable to answer. Mr. Sauvageot produced additional records which the agents proposed to seize and so advised the Sauvageots. Mr. Sauvageot became loud and belligerent and appeared to be playing to the customers in the bar. He told the agents he wouldn't release the records and grabbed the records he had handed to McQueen and returned them to a locker in another room. Respondent testified that she told her husband to surrender the records to the agents, but if she did, she evidently did not have the authority to have this order carried out. An owner would be expected to have such authority. These agents returned to Hollywoods Bar on October 7, 1987, for a routine inspection. Upon entering, they went to the bar and asked the bartender who the owner was, and she pointed out John Sauvageot. The barmaid was also hired and trained by John Sauvageot. When approached by the agents and told the nature of the visit, John Sauvageot told the agents his wife Josephine Sauvageot was the owner. Inspection of records revealed a bank checking account was not used with bills being paid in cash or money order. When a list of employees was requested, one was not produced. Subsequently, Respondent, through her attorney, produced a list containing the names of eight people, four of whom were not shown to have a surname (Exhibit 7). Respondent contends that she has limited education, completing only through the fifth grade, and does not read and write well. Her husband does most of the record-keeping of the bar, helped her fill out the application for the 2-COP license, and his brother, Brett Sauvageot, loaned $6000 to start the business. Respondent testified that employees were paid in cash on a daily basis. It appears that social security taxes and workmens' compensation were not paid. At least no evidence was submitted to show that such funds were withheld and forwarded to the proper authorities to comply with applicable statutes. On an application for a loan from Sun Bank of Tampa Bay in the amount of $2000, John Sauvageot listed as income $1000 a month from Hollywoods Bar in the position of Manager (Exhibit 2). Electrical service, TV cable, telephone and sewer and water service for Hollywoods Bar was in the name of John Sauvageot at all times relevant hereto. Ads placed in the St. Petersburg Times soliciting a concessionaire to operate a food service at Hollywoods Bar were placed by John Sauvageot, and the ad directed inquiry to be directed to "John". John Sauvageot was convicted of grand larceny, a felony, in West Virginia in 1977 (Exhibit 11) and was sentenced to imprisonment from 1 to 10 years.
