The Issue Whether or not on or about October 7, 1977, The Casino, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, did sell an alcoholic beverage, to-wit: beer, in a place located at 4465 49th Street North, St Petersburg, Florida, a premises not covered by its beverage license as described in the application therefor, contrary to Section 562.06, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about October 7, 1977, The Casino, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, did conspire with James Tarpey to carry out an act, to- wit: sale of alcoholic beverages without a license, which would be or is in violation of the provisions of the Beverage Law, contrary to Section 562.23, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At the time the current Notice to Show Caused Administrative Complaint was brought by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, the Respondent, The Casino, Inc. , was the holder of a Series 2-COP license, No. 62-545, to trade as Satan's Den at the location 4495 49th Street, St. Petersburg, Florida. Although the license most recently issued to the Respondent expired on September 30, 1978, the matter was in litigation at the time of the expiration and the license remaining in effect pending the outcome of this hearing. 1/ The facts in dispute reveal that on October 7, 1977, Severage Officer William R. Wiggs went to a business location at 4465 49th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida, being operated by the Respondent. Then Wiggs arrived at the door, he was charged $3.00 to enter that building and was told that while he was in the building any alcoholic beverage he consumed would be free. He entered the building and was served an alcoholic beverage on four occasions by an employee or employees of the Respondent. The proximity of the building at which Beverage Officer Wiggs was served alcoholic beverages on October 7, 1977, to the actual licensed premises location is shown in the Petitioner's Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence. This exhibit is a diagram of the licensed premises and the building in question, roughly depicting their position in reference to each other and to 49th Street. The rectangular figure marked with an X shows the location 4465 49th Street North and the rectangular figure marked with a zero depicts the licensed premises shown by the records of the Petitioner and on the face of the license. Subsequent to his visit, Officer Wiggs requested a search warrant to be issued by the County Court of Pinellas County, Florida, and that warrant was issued which allowed a search of the building at 4465 49th Street North. The warrant was executed on October 11, 1977, and those matters returned in inventory are shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the inventory. Among the items which were obtained from the building were beer, wine and whiskey. The facts in the case also show that beer had been delivered to the location at 4465 49th. Street North to the Respondent trading as Satan's Den and the deliveries were made in the beginning of October, 1977, around the time of Officer "Wiggs' initial trip to that location and the time of the execution of the search warrant. On October 13, 1977, James Tarpey, President of the Respondent corporation, called the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in the person of Norman J. Stephens and stated to Stephens that the beer which had been seized at the time of the execution of the search warrant was property which Tarpey owned.
Recommendation Based upon the violation as established, it is RECOMMENDED that the license of the Respondent, The Casino, Inc., License 62-545, Series 2-COP, be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th 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
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the Notice to Show Cause filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondent, Jose Manuel Acosta, was doing business at 425 Northwest 12th Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida, as La Romanita Cafeteria under a series 2-COP alcoholic beverage license number 23-03308. Orlando Huguet is an investigator with the Petitioner, DABT, and has had prior experience with the Coral Gables Police Department and as an investigator with the United States Air Force. During the course of his employment with the DABT, he has been involved in several undercover operations and is fully familiar with the appearance and properties of crack (rock) cocaine. He is also aware that it is a very addictive drug and that it is usually packaged in small cellophane bags but may come in other containers or not be packaged at all. During the period of mid-August to mid-October, 1987, Mr. Huguet, along with other law enforcement investigators (LEI) of DABT and agents with the Metropolitan Dade County Sheriff's Department and the Miami Police Department were involved in an undercover investigation of Respondent's place of business as part of an investigation of drugs in bars in Dade County. During the investigation, they would enter the premises in the afternoon or evening and attempt to purchase crack cocaine from the licensee, employees or patrons of the establishment. La Romanita's is primarily frequented by Spanish speaking customers. On August 28, 1987, Huguet entered La Romanita in an undercover capacity in the evening along with a confidential informant (CI). This confidential informant was utilized by Huguet in several undercover investigations. Huguet and the CI took seats at the bar counter and ordered drinks. Huguet observed the licensee, Jose Manuel Acosta, standing in front of him, behind the counter. Huguet overheard the CI ask Acosta if he (Acosta) had any drugs for sale today. Acosta commented that he had run out of drugs, but to try him tomorrow. Acosta continued to discuss drugs with Huguet, the CI, and other patrons. Subsequently, a black Latin male named Miguel approached Huguet and the CI and inquired if they were looking for drugs. Later on Huguet purchased cocaine ("perico" in Spanish) from Miguel outside the licensed premises. On August 29, 1987, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Huguet and the CI entered the licensed premises and observed the owner, Jose Manuel Acosta, sitting drown at a table with another man identified as Flaco. Huguet and the CI engaged Acosta in conversation which revealed that Acosta would provide one- half ounce of cocaine to the CI and Huguet at a future date. Subsequently, Huguet and the CI left the premises. On September 3, 1987, Huguet and the CI entered the establishment in the evening and approached the bar counter area and engaged in general conversation with a barmaid. Huguet observed a white Latin male, Tobacito, walk to the end of the bar counter, open a brown paper bag, and retrieve two pieces of suspected crack cocaine. Tobacito gave the suspected cocaine to a white Latin male in an open manner and the white Latin male gave Tobacito $20.00. Subsequently, Huguet instructed the CI to try to make a drug purchase from Tobacito. The CI approached Tobacito who reached into the same brown paper bag and took two pieces of rock ("piedra" in Spanish) cocaine and gave them to the CI in exchange for $20.00. Huguet witnessed this entire transaction and took the cocaine from the CI immediately after the drug transaction. Tobacito approached the table where Huguet and the CI were sitting, which is located on the east side of the premises. Tobacito negotiated a drug transaction with Huguet for $10.00 and then left the licensed premises, returning shortly thereafter with the cocaine. When Huguet received the piece of crack cocaine from Tobacito, he held it up to eye level, examined it, and then placed it in his front pocket. A short time later Huguet walked over to the bar counter, took a seat next to a patron named Warapito, and engaged in a general conversation about drugs. Warapito bragged that he sold the best rocks in town and stated they would enhance Huguet's sexual performance. During this conversation, Huguet retrieved the rock cocaine he had previously purchased and dropped it on the floor in front of several patrons. Warapito and another patron retrieved the cocaine and returned it to Huguet. This incident was observed by an employee, Papo, who is the son of the licensee, Jose Manuel Acosta. Thereafter, Tobacito came over to Huguet and Warapito and began to argue with Warapito over who sold the best rock cocaine. This conversation took place in front of several patrons and Papo. On September 4, 1987, Huguet entered La Romanita in the early afternoon and took a seat at one of the tables on the east side of the premises. Huguet engaged in conversation with an employee, Pepito, relative to cocaine. Pepito stated that he could get one-half ounce, but that he would have to make a phone call first since it was not on the premises. During this time, Huguet noted that Pepito did the duties and functions of an employee (serving patrons, working behind the counter, using the cash register and taking orders). Pepito proceeded to make the phone call and a short time later the licensee, Jose Manuel Acosta, entered the licensed premises carrying a large box which he gave to Pepito who took the box to the storage room. Within seconds Pepito exited the storage room, came to Huguet's table and handed him a baggie of cocaine wrapped in toilet paper. Huguet put the baggie on the table and unwrapped it to conf irm that it was cocaine. Huguet rewrapped the baggie, placed it in his right front pocket and handed Pepito $320.00. During this entire transaction, Huguet observed the licensee go by his table several times. On September 16, 1987, Huguet entered La Romanita at approximately 9:20 p.m. and observed that there were several patrons and two Latin female employees on duty. Huguet took a seat at a table located in the southeast area of the licensed premises and engaged in conversation with patron Tobacito. Huguet and Tobacito negotiated a cocaine transaction and Huguet gave $20.00 to Tobacito who exited the licensed premises, returning a short time later. Tobacito gave the crack cocaine to Huguet who held it up to eye level to examine. At this point, a patron, Jacquin, who was sitting at an adjacent table, offered Huguet a piece of aluminum foil in which to wrap the crack cocaine. Huguet took the foil from Jacquin and wrapped it around the cocaine. This transaction was observed by several patrons, as well as the two female employees. On September 18, 1987, Huguet entered the licensed premises and took a seat at the bar counter where he struck up a conversation with patron Tobacito. Tobacito asked Huguet if he wanted anything and Huguet responded that he was willing to purchase some cocaine. Tobacito stated that he had only one piece of crack cocaine left, but was willing to sell it for $20.00. Huguet agreed and Tobacito then left the licensed premises. Huguet approached Warapito and engaged in general conversation about cocaine. Warapito took a small piece of rock cocaine from his pocket and offered it to Huguet for $22.00. Huguet gave Warapito the $22.00 and in return received the rock cocaine. This transaction was observed by employee, Isabel, who had been waiting on the two patrons. Huguet noted that Isabel performed the functions and duties of an employee (waiting on customers, working behind the counter and using the cash register). A short time later Tobacito entered the licensed premises and handed Huguet a piece of rock cocaine. Huguet placed the cocaine on top of the bar counter and proceeded to examine it in plain view of employee Isabel. Huguet then placed the cocaine in a napkin, put it in his right front pocket, and paid Tobacito $20.00. On September 24, 1987, Huguet entered La Romanita and took a seat at the bar counter. Warapito approached Huguet and asked if he needed any rocks (cocaine). Huguet stated that he did and gave Warapito $20.00. This conversation took place in front of employee, Papo. Papo proceeded to leave the bar counter area, enter the women's restroom and lock the door. Another employee, identified as Chino, noted Papo's actions and advised Huguet that if Huguet ever wanted to "shoot up, snort up, or smoke up," that Chino would let him have the key to the women's bathroom. Huguet noted that Chino performed the duties and responsibilities of an employee (serving customers, working behind the counter and using the cash register). A short time later, Warapito reentered La Romanita and gave Huguet a large piece of rock cocaine. Huguet placed the cocaine on top of the bar counter, examined it, and proceeded to wrap it in a napkin in front of employees Chino and Alisa. Huguet stated that Alisa also performed the duties of an employee (waiting on customers, working behind the counter and using the cash register). Tobacito subsequently approached Huguet and handed him two pieces of rock cocaine which Huguet placed on top the bar counter and examined. He then wrapped the cocaine in a napkin. Alisa and Chino were in a position to observe this transaction as well. A short time later, Warapito and Tobacito began to argue over who sold the better rock cocaine. A few minutes later Huguet paid Tobacito $20.00 for the cocaine he had received and exited the licensed premises. On September 29, 1987, Huguet entered La Romanita and approached Tobacito who was sitting on a bar stool next to the counter. Tobacito told Huguet that he was sorry but that he had run out of rocks (cocaine). Huguet then called Warapito over to where he was sitting and asked him if he had any drugs. Warapito replied that he could get Huguet cocaine but would need $30.00 up front. Thereupon, Huguet handed him the money and Warapito exited the premises. This conversation took place in front of several patrons and an employee, Papo, who was standing behind the counter making change from the cash register. A short time later, Warapito entered La Romanita and handed Huguet two pieces of rock cocaine. Huguet took the cocaine, held it up to eye level to examine in front of several patrons and an employee, Chino, and then placed the cocaine in a napkin he had retrieved from the counter. On September 30, 1987, Huguet entered the premises and met with Warapito. Warapito offered to sell Huguet one gram of cocaine for $50.00 but stated that he would need the money up front. Huguet gave Warapito the money whereupon Warapito exited the premises. A short time later Huguet approached the bar counter and took a seat next to Tobacito. Tobacito advised Huguet that if he (Huguet) wanted any drugs that he (Tobacito) had two pieces of rock cocaine left and would sell them for $20.00. Huguet agreed to buy the cocaine whereupon Tobacito exited the premises. A short time later, Tobacito returned and presented the cocaine to Huguet in front of employees Alisa and Chino. Huguet took the two pieces of rock cocaine, examined them and made the comment that they were very dirty. Tobacito exclaimed that he had dropped the cocaine on the way back to La Romanita because he had been frightened when he had observed police officers nearby. Huguet then paid Tobacito the $20.00. A short time later, Warapito returned to the premises and stated that he had been unable to find any cocaine and returned the $50.00 to Huguet. On October 1, 1987, Huguet entered La Romanita and proceeded to the juke box area of the premises to have a conversation with Warapito. Warapito advised Huguet that he would try to obtain one gram of cocaine for him for $50.00. Huguet and Warapito discussed the drug purchase in further detail. Standing next to Huguet and Warapito was Jose Manuel Acosta, the licensee, who was in a position to hear the conversation. Subsequently, Warapito told Huguet that he thought he was a police officer. Huguet denied this allegation and then departed the licensed premises. On October 6, 1987, at approximately 12:15 p.m., Huguet entered La Romanita and approached Tobacito and Warapito at the bar where they were talking to employee Papo. Tobacito asked what Huguet wanted and Huguet responded that "twenty" would do. Huguet gave Tobacito the money and Tobacito exited the premises. Warapito subsequently told Huguet that he (Warapito) was going to secure a half gram for a friend of his and asked if Huguet wanted any cocaine as well. Huguet replied that he would like one gram and gave Warapito $50.00. A short time later, Tobacito reentered La Romanita and handed Huguet two rocks of cocaine in front of Papo. Huguet examined the cocaine at eye level, took a napkin from the bar counter and wrapped up the cocaine. A few minutes later, Warapito reentered La Romanita and gave Huguet back his money stating that he had been unable to locate any cocaine. All of the events referred to herein, with the exception of the drug purchase on August 28, 1987, took place on the licensed premises during business hours when other employees and patrons were present on the licensed premises. None of the employees or patrons who sold or delivered cocaine to Officer Huguet, or allowed others to do so, ever expressed any concern about any of the drug transactions and took no action to prevent or discourage drug transactions. The licensee, Jose Manuel Acosta, stated that he was neither present during most of the dates set out in the Notice to Show Cause nor did he hear or observe any drug transaction. He denied ever meeting or speaking with Officer Orlando Huguet about any cocaine transactions. He knew that drugs were easily obtainable in the area of town in which La Romanita was located, but did not believe that he had any drug problems on his premises. In light of the detailed testimony of Officer Huguet, which was recorded in his report, stating he and the CI spoke with Mr. Acosta on two occasions about purchasing cocaine and that on one other occasion Mr. Acosta was in a position to observe a cocaine transaction, Mr. Acosta's statements are not credible. Mr. Acosta did not perform polygraph examinations or background checks on his employees and did not use a security guard on the licensed premises. The premises contained no signs or other form of documentation revealing to patrons the policy of the management relative to drug possession, sale or usage. Instead, the only sign on the licensed premises stated that customers should not detain themselves if they were not going to consume. Mr. Acosta denied that Pepito, Isabel or Chino were his employees. Instead, he stated that he employed his wife, his son Papo, other relatives and occasionally people to help him lift things on his licensed premises. He did admit that Alisa was his employee for several weeks. His only policy concerning drugs was to tell his employees that it was illegal and to call "911" if there was a problem. He noted that he had received letters from the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco but did not read them because he did not know English. At all times material to this case, Papo, Pepito, Isabel, Chino and Alisa were employees on the licensed premises of La Romanita. They performed the functions and duties of employees in that they served customers, worked behind the counter, waited on tables and used the cash register. The great majority of drug transactions related herein took place in plain view on the licensed premises of La Romanita. The exchanges of drugs and money in conjunction with the open conversations engaged in by employees, patrons and Officer Huguet demonstrated a persistent pattern of open and flagrant drug activity. The instances occurring at La Romanita were sufficiently open to put a reasonably diligent licensee on express notice that drug sales were occurring on the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the alcoholic beverage license held by Respondent, Jose Manuel Acosta, No. 23-03308, series 2-COP, be REVOKED. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1988.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulation of establishments licensed for the sale of alcoholic beverages in the State of Florida. Robert DeCosey is the sole owner and operator of the Respondent. At all times material to this case, the Respondent held Special Restaurant License No. 63-05489, Series 4-COP/SRX. Pursuant to law, the Respondent must derive at least 51 percent of his gross sales from food and non-alcoholic beverages in order to maintain the license, and the Respondent is required to maintain sufficient records to document such sales. The Petitioner conducted an audit for the period of April 1, 2008, through July 31, 2008. Based upon information that the Respondent provided to the auditor, the auditor estimated that 41.2 percent of the Respondent's gross revenue came from the sales of food and non- alcoholic beverages. The sales information provided to the auditor by the Respondent lacked supporting documentation and was not reliable. The Respondent maintained no verifiable information regarding his gross sales during the audit period. The Respondent provided no credible information regarding inventory levels, and, accordingly, the auditor was unable to calculate the Respondent's expenses. Sales prices were not provided during the audit, and, therefore, the calculation of revenue was little more than speculative. At the hearing, the Respondent testified that the "business model" he utilized focused on "special events" and that he did not open the restaurant on a routine basis. He testified that food was available during the events and served buffet-style. There was no documentation to support the testimony, and it has been rejected. The Respondent testified that he rented the facility during non-business hours to patrons who wanted to bring in their own food and alcoholic beverages, some of whom may have left food or alcohol behind after the private event concluded. He also testified that he opened the facility for events during which no food was available. Although the Petitioner asserted subsequent to the hearing that such practices were violations of state beverage law, the violations were not alleged in the Administrative Complaint and are outside the scope of this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking the special license held by Urban Hospitality Ventures, Inc., d/b/a DeCosey's Restaurant and Lounge. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert DeCosey Urban Hospitality Ventures, Inc., d/b/a DeCosey’s Restaurant and Lounge 2349 Lake Debra Drive, No. 617 Orlando, Florida 32835 Michael B. Golen, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 40 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John R. Powell, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Emergency Order of Suspension and Notice to Show Cause and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating licensed alcoholic beverage establishments. At all times material to the allegations in this case, the Respondent, Marsbar of Kendall, Inc., doing business as Marsbar, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-00706 which is a series 4-COP license. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Marsbar was located at 8505 Mills Drive, R-2, in Miami, Dade County, Florida. At all times material to the allegations in this case, the following persons were officers and/or shareholders of the Respondent corporation: Mark Vasu, Shannon Miller, David Lageschulte, Gerald Joe Delaney, and Henry Long. Others having a direct or indirect interest in the company are: Bonnie M. Vasu, Carole W. Vasu, Paul Lynch, Jonathan G. Delaney, and Douglas Long. Prior to the issuance of the Emergency Order of Suspension which is at issue in this proceeding, the Department conducted an investigation of alleged acts of recurring, illegal narcotic activity on the licensed premises. In furtherance of such investigation, Special Agent Bartelt, Detective Fernandez, and Detective Robertson entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity for the purpose of purchasing illegal substances. In this regard Special Agent Bartelt observed the two detectives as they attempted to acquire illegal substances from persons within the licensed premises. The investigation at Marsbar began on April 5, 1997, and was concluded on June 12, 1997. In total, the detectives made eight purchases of a substance which was later tested and determined to contain cocaine. Respondent did not object to, nor dispute the accuracy of, the lab reports received into evidence which confirmed the substances contained cocaine. As to the purchase which occurred on April 5, 1997, Detective Robertson approached a male bathroom attendant and represented to him that "Anthony" had sent him. He then asked the attendant for drugs and, by implication in the language of such transactions, requested cocaine. The attendant referred him to a patron of the bar who he described as a man in a black shirt with a black cap. Detective Robertson attempted to locate the patron as he had been described and even asked a security person if he had seen the male. When the security person denied having seen any drug dealers, Detective Robertson went back to the attendant for clarification who then pointed out an individual known in this record as "Juan." After transferring $20.00 to Juan, Detective Robertson received a small plastic bag containing less than one-half gram of cocaine. Upon receipt of the bag, Detective Robertson held the bag at approximately waist level and "flicked" it to verify the amount of the contents. This was done in an inconspicuous manner and simulated the procedure the detective felt was used by drug purchasers to examine the amount of the substance being procured. Although this transaction took place eight or ten feet from a bartender, there is no evidence that the transaction was witnessed by any person other than those participating in the buy. On April 19, 1997, Detective Fernandez went to the female restroom attendant and asked for drugs. After being advised to return later, Detective Fernandez observed an unknown male hand the attendant a plastic bag. In exchange for $25.00, the attendant then delivered a plastic bag containing approximately one-half gram of cocaine to Detective Fernandez. Although Detective Fernandez observed a bartender enter and exit the restroom during the events described in this paragraph, there is no evidence that the bartender observed any or part of the transactions which took place. On May 8, 1997, or the early morning of May 9, 1997, Detective Robertson again approached the male bathroom attendant at Marsbar and requested drugs. On this occasion the attendant, in exchange for $20.00, sold the detective approximately one-half gram of cocaine in the men's restroom. Although there were other patrons of the bar within the restroom, there is no evidence that any of them witnessed the transaction. On May 9, 1997, Detective Fernandez also sought to purchase drugs through the female restroom attendant. Although there were numerous patrons entering and exiting the facility, there is no evidence that anyone observed Detective Fernandez exchange $25.00 for approximately one-half gram of cocaine which was delivered in a small plastic bag. On May 16, 1997, Detective Fernandez purchased two bags of cocaine for $30.00 each from the female restroom attendant following the same procedure described above. Again, there is no evidence that anyone in or near the restroom observed the transactions. Detectives Fernandez and Robertson went to Marsbar again on May 30, 1997 for the purpose of purchasing illegal drugs. Using the same methods described above, Detective Fernandez was unable to purchase cocaine on this date. Detective Robertson, however, after beginning a conversation inside Marsbar, was able to purchase cocaine in the parking lot outside the club. This transaction resulted from contact made with a club patron known in the record as "Alex." This individual and the female restroom attendant introduced Detective Robertson to another patron known in this record as "Al" who later delivered the cocaine in the parking lot. Another male, "Manolito" in this record, approached Al and demanded cocaine he had allegedly been sold but had not received. Conversation regarding the pending sales took place in the licensed club, but it is unknown whether any employee of Marsbar heard the nature of the transactions discussed. A presumably drunken outburst from one bar patron suggests he understood a drug transaction was being discussed. It is undisputed that the actual exchange took place off the licensed premises. Finally, on June 12, 1997, Detective Fernandez returned to Marsbar and for $30.00 was able to purchase approximately one- half gram of cocaine. This purchase, like the others by Detective Fernandez, was through the female restroom attendant and occurred in or near the restroom facility. There is no evidence anyone observed the transaction. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Marsbar was a popular club which was well attended on the nights of this investigation. The audio system for the club, though especially dominating on the dance floor, distributed music throughout the licensed premises. As to the lighting system for the club, at all times material to this investigation, it would have been set at its lowest levels of illumination throughout the licensed premises. Consequently, only the restrooms would have been well lit. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the restroom attendants were not employees of Marsbar or its management company but were contract personnel through a third party valet service operated by David Cook. Marsbar paid Cook to provide restroom attendants. This contract was terminated on June 13, 1997, when Respondent learned of the attendants' alleged involvement in the illegal transactions described above. Further, Marsbar notified Cook of its intention to assist in the prosecution of such individuals. Marsbar is managed by a company known as Chameleon Concepts. In order to effectively identify and minimize potential losses for Marsbar, Chameleon Concepts contracted with a company whose purpose was to audit operations to ensure the overall integrity of the business operation. This auditor, a forensic fraud examiner, was to identify losses or potential losses due to fraud, embezzlement, policy or procedure violations, or other improprieties. Thus, effective October 1, 1996, Marsbar was voluntarily being reviewed by an independent company for potential improprieties. The auditor for the company, John Capizzi, found no violations of policy, alcoholic beverage rules, or regulations. Prior to the investigation of this case, Marsbar employees have been required to participate in responsible vendor programs. Marsbar management routinely conducts meetings wherein responsible vendor practices are discussed. Marsbar and Chameleon Concepts have developed written employee handbooks and policies which specifically admonish employees regarding illegal substances on the licensed premises. Marsbar employees and managers are instructed to advise the management of any suspected illegal substances on the licensed premises. In the past, Marsbar has participated in campaigns designed to retain false identification used by suspected underage drinkers to gain entrance to licensed premises. The testimony of Mr. Vasu, regarding efforts of the company to comply with all rules or regulations of the Department, has been deemed credible and persuasive regarding Marsbar's position on illegal drug transactions. Management would not condone or allow illegal drug sales if they were known to it. None of the officers or shareholders of Marsbar were aware of the illegal drug transactions occurring on the licensed premises. Cocaine is a controlled substance, the sale of which is prohibited by Florida law. None of the purchases described herein were of such a nature or were so conspicuously transacted that a reasonable person would have known illegal sales were taking place. None of the patrons of the club who testified for Respondent were aware that illegal drug sales took place within the licensed premises. Neither of the detectives making the purchases acted in a flagrant or open manner. Moreover, neither of the detectives attempted to verify whether or not bartenders, security guards, or managers employed by Marsbar were aware of the restroom attendants' illegal activities. In addition to selling illegal drugs, the restroom attendants handed out towels to club patrons and offered for sale personal toiletry items at tables maintained within the restroom. For a club patron to have money to purchase such items or tip the attendant would be reasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the Emergency Order of Suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Louis J. Terminello, Esquire Chadroff, Terminello & Terminello 2700 Southwest 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133-2728 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The first issue presented is whether Respondent failed to derive at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages during the period of September 1, 1999 through October 31, 1999, contrary to Section 561.20(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61A-3.0141, Florida Administrative Code. The second issue presented is whether during the period of November 1, 1999, through October 31, 1999, Respondent failed to maintain and/or produce separate records of all purchases and gross retail sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages and all purchases of gross retail sales of alcoholic beverages, to wit: numerous register summaries, Z tapes, contrary to Section 561.20(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61A-3.0141, Florida Administrative Code. The third issue presented is whether during the period of April 1, 1999, through May 31, 1999, the Respondent failed to maintain and/or produce separate records of all purchases and gross retail sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages and all purchases of gross retail sales of alcoholic beverages, to wit: records provided failed to include cash bar sales, contrary to Section 561.20(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61-3.0141(3) (a)2, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the beverage law of the State. Chapters 561-568, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Dawson, Fabrizzi, & Fletcher, Inc., d/b/a C.J. Oscars, operated a licensed restaurant business located at 1502 Miramar Street, Cape Coral, Florida, 33904. The corporate officers are Charles Dawson, president; Albert N. Fabrizzi, Vice-President; and Jack Allen, manager of C. J. Oscars. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent applied for and was holding a series SRX4COP Alcoholic Beverage License Number 46-04601, which authorized the sale of beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on the licensed premises of the restaurant business. The designation "SRX" identifies a beverage license issued to a business operating [primarily] as a restaurant. Respondent's SRX license authorized the sale of alcoholic beverages on the premises, so long as at lease 51 percent of the gross revenue is derived from the sale of non-alcoholic beverages and food. Respondent was made aware of the 51 to 49 percent gross revenue requirement when Charles Dawson applied for the SRX license. Indeed, the application for the SRX license,1 signed by Charles Dawson, specifically noted these requirements and the necessity to maintain a record of compliance. Accordingly, Charles Dawson knew, or should have known, that he would need purchase and sale records to show, upon demand, the SRX-imposed percentage requirements were met by the licensee. Required statutory and rule compliance are made known to each SRX license holder and are strictly imposed upon each licensee.2 Section 561.20(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61A-3.0141, Florida Administrative Code, clearly and unequivocally states that records of all purchases and gross retail sales are required to be kept, in legible English language, by each licensee and are made available upon demand by the DABT. To enforce the above requirements, DABT performs periodic audits of all restaurants holding a special SRX license. As a part of that audit process, Special Agents from DABT conduct undercover visits and announced visits, as is its normal custom and practice. Between May and October 1999, Steven Tompkins, District Supervisor, Fort Myers office, DBAT, testified to making undercover visits to C.J. Oscars Restaurant on five to fifteen different occasions. During one or more of those visits, he observed Monday night drink specials where patrons who spent $5.00 on any combination of food/drink were given a plastic cup along with their initial order. Thereafter, and for the remainder of the evening, drinks were sold to cup holders for $0.25 per drink. On several other occasions, he observed money paid at the bar for cash sales of alcoholic drinks go directly into the pocket of the bartender, Mr. Allen. On other occasions, he observed Mr. Allen ring-up money on the bar cash register for both food and alcoholic drinks. On occasions while he sat at the bar, he observed cash sale money rung up on the cash register and the actual receipt of the sale thrown into an ice bucket under the bar. Mr. Tompkins, based upon his 25 years of experience, his observations, personal purchases and knowledge of the business operation, believed that Respondent was selling more alcoholic beverages than food. Ms. Debra Martin initially visited Respondent's restaurant on or about May 19, 1999, and after identifying herself as an agency employee requested access of food purchase records for April and May 1999 and was informed that the requested records were kept off premises.3 Ms. Martin testified that during September 1999 she requested bank statements and guest checks. Respondent could not provide guest check, and informed Ms. Martin that some guest checks were no longer kept. Ms. Martin's request for "Z" tapes went unanswered at that time. The Agency introduced in evidence Respondent's income statement4 for the four-month period, January 1, 1999, through May 31, 1999, which indicated that Respondent sold 51.20 percent alcohol and 48.80 percent food during that four-month period of time. David Cary (Respondent's bookkeeper) testified that C.J. Oscars had opened the business the third week of March 1999, and Respondent's income statement related to the nine-week period from the third week of March 1999 to May 31, 1999. Mr. Cary testified that C.J. Oscars had met its required sale percentages for the eight-week period of April 1, 1999, through May 31, 1999. Jack Allen, III, manager of C.J. Oscars, and Michael Batson, register expert, both testified that register Z tapes record each register transaction in sequential numbering, with the initials G.T., meaning grand total. Both witnesses testified that the register records a running total of the purchases entered and this information is recorded on the Z tapes of each register. Mr. Allen, regarding missing Z tapes, testified that during a new employee training, the trainee would practice register operation by running a Z tape, and he limited a new employee's training sessions to use of only two Z tapes. Mr. Allen concluded his testimony by stating that cash bar receipts were often thrown into a bucket on the bar, and as bar manager he would check the cash receipts against other records each morning, tally totals by pencil, and throw the cash receipts away. Special Agent, Jim Lanza testified that of the Z tapes provided by Respondent, in response to the Agency demands, he organized into charts.5 The charts showed which Z tapes were missing, to wit: September 2, 1999, beginning with Z tape number 134 which was provided; the following sequentially number tapes were missing, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141. For October 1, 1999, beginning with Z tape number 228 which was provided, the following are examples of missing tapes, 229, 230, 232, 233. Mr. Lanza's charts, using the grand total of the beginning lower-numbered Z tape as the base, subtracted the beginning grand total from the next sequential grand total provided, with the resulting difference reflecting unreported sales. From this charting sequence, Mr. Lanza concluded that Respondent's unreported sales from missing Z tapes was $65,133.08 for the months of September 2, 1999, through October 31, 1999. Charles Dawson testified in agreement with the testimony of his bar manager, Mr. Allen, regarding the use of Z tapes, the training of new employees, and cash receipts having been placed in a water bucket on the bar and later being thrown away. Mr. Dawson's additional reasons for the missing Z tapes, while questionable, demonstrated a persistent and recurring pattern of a lack of diligence or a practiced disregard for consequences. According to Mr. Dawson, he read and signed the SRX license affidavit, but now claims he did not understand, nor did anyone explain to him what "specific type of records" he was required to keep.6 As to cash bar sales receipts, Mr. Dawson testified that they were added together with other sales, stapled to the guest checks for a running total, compared with the Z tapes totals and cash in register totals, and then thrown away. Regarding the missing Z tapes, Mr. Dawson testified that one of his registers had broken down, and was repaired and when back in operation, the Z tape numbering system was sequentially misaligned and returned to zero; thus, the missing Z tapes. On another occasion, lighting struck a register causing it to jam and render two or more Z tapes unreadable; they were thrown away. During the few days the registers were down, either he or Mr. Allen would go to each register drawer, at the end of the business evening, take the cash totals, and give that information to Mr. David Cary, bookkeeper. Charles Dawson, owner, knew of the mandatory requirement to maintain records of all gross sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages, separate records of all gross purchases of alcoholic purchases, and separate records of all gross retail sales of alcoholic beverages. Charles Dawson, by his actual participation in the wrongful destruction of records, permitted, approved, and condoned the continuous destruction by Ray Allen of cash sale receipts of alcoholic beverages and the destruction of register Z tapes resulting from the sale of food and alcoholic beverages by C. J. Oscars.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and a review of the penalty guidelines in Rule 61A-2.022, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order revoking Respondent's Alcohol Beverage License SRX4COP Number 46-04601. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 13th day of April, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Applicant, Ester Woods Vickery, applied for a beverage license for the premises known as "Vickery's Grocery" located one mile south of Bear Creek on U.S. Highway 231, Bay County, Florida. Said application was denied by the Petitioner for the following reason: "Husband of applicant who has a direct or indirect interest In the business has been convicted of felonies in the past 15 years." Respondent requested a hearing contending that she is the sole owner of the business and that her husband has no direct or indirect interest in the business and is merely one of her paid employees. The Petitioner contends that the business was bought using funds from an account of Mrs. Vickery, the money of which was obtained from the sale of property owned jointly by Mr. and Mrs. Vickery. The Petitioner further contends that it is a man's obligation to support his wife and that Mr. Vickery's sole support is his work with Vickery's Grocery; that the conviction of Mr. Vickery of felonies during the past 15 years which involved the sale of "moonshine liquors" makes it mandatory under Section 561.15 and Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, that the application for a beverage license be denied. It was admitted by the Respondent that Esther Woods Vickery is married to a person who has been convicted of felonies in the past 15 years. It was also admitted by the Respondent that Mr. and Mrs. Vickery owned jointly property from which timber was cut and sold and the profit was deposited in a savings account in the name of Mrs. Vickery. The savings account from which money was drawn to purchase Vickery's Grocery was in Mrs. Vickery's name alone. Said savings account was established at some time before the purchase of Vickery's Grocery. The business was purchased from Mr. Hickman, the owner of the premises, who testified that he had leased the premises to Mrs. Vickery; that he had made all negotiations concerning the lease and the selling of the business with Mrs. Vickery and that he had not dealt in any way with Mr. Vickery in regard to the sale of the property. Mr. Hickman lives near the grocery business and testified that Mrs. Vickery runs the business herself. Mr. Vickery, the husband of the Respondent, is shown on the payroll to be on the payroll of Mrs. Vickery and draws a specified salary payment for work in the business which involves the sale of gas and oil and well as groceries. The Hearing Officer further finds: That the Respondent, Esther Woods Vickery, is the sole owner of the establishment known as "Vickery's Grocery" and that the husband of Mrs. Vickery is an employee of the establishment and has no direct or indirect interest in the business.
Recommendation Approve the application for a beverage license of Esther Woods Vickery for the business premises "Vickery's Grocery", providing she meets all other requirements than those which are the subject of the disapproval of her application and of this hearing. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of May, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Franklin R. Harrison, Esquire 406 Magnolia Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Charles Nuzum, Director Division of Beverage Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issues for resolution in this proceeding are whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in an administrative complaint, as amended, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Mano's, Inc., doing business as Sea Port (Mano's) is now and has at all relevant times been a licensee of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) holding a 4 COP SRX special restaurant license. Mano's operates a restaurant and lounge located in Cape Canaveral, Brevard County, Florida. Mano's license requires that at least 51 of its gross retail sales be served from food and non-alcoholic beverages. Mano's license application clearly acknowledges this and the requirement that it maintain a bona fide restaurant with 4000 square feet of floor space and seating for 200 patrons. Raymond Joseph Cascella is the president, sole corporate officer, and sole stockholder of Mano's. Attached to his license application dated May 14, 1991, is his sketch of the licensed premises. The instructions on the application provide that the sketch must include all specific areas which are part of the premises sought to be licensed. The sketch provided by Mr. Cascella includes the bar, restrooms, dining rooms, and kitchen. On September 10, 1996, Sam Brewer, then a special agent with DABT, conducted an inspection of Mano's licensed premises. Special Agent Brewer found several violations on his visit; he spoke with Mr. Cascella and gave Mr. Cascella a copy of the inspection report and three notices related to the violations. The violations observed and noted by Special Agent Brewer were improper display of the facility license (in the office rather than conspicuously displayed), insufficient seating (160 seats rather than 200), and failure to maintain sales receipts or other records to document that the 51 percent non- alcoholic beverages and food requirement was met. One of the notices provided to Mr. Cascella stated that no later than September 25, 1996, he must bring to the Rockledge DABT office records pertaining to total sales of food, non- alcoholic, and alcoholic beverages for the period June 1, 1996, through September 10, 1996. Mr. Cascella came to the Rockledge office on September 25, 1996, but the records he brought were computerized summaries of credit card transactions and did not reflect a break-out of sales of alcoholic beverages and non-alcoholic beverages and food. There were no guest receipts nor register tapes (also called "z-tapes") provided. On September 30, 1996, Special Agency Brewer issued another notice to Mano's. The notice, signed by Mr. Cascella, directs the licensee to produce these records to the Rockledge DABT district office no later than October 15, 1996, or administrative changes would be brought against the alcoholic beverage license: All records relating to gross retail sales of food and non-A/B and all records relating to gross retail sales of A/B (including source documents) (i.e., Z-tapes, waitress order checks), for the period June 1, 1996 thru September 10, 1996. All records relating to purchases of food and non-A/B and all records relating to purchases of A/B, for the period June 1, 1996, thru September 10, 1996. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4) Mr. Cascella returned to the Rockledge office on October 15, 1996, with a box of papers. These papers were records of purchases made from different vendors but there were no records of any retail sales by Mano's. In spite of letters to Special Agent Brewer from Mano's counsel promising full compliance and in spite of Mr. Cascella's several efforts, Mr. Cascella never produced all of the required records for the relevant period (June 1, 1996 through September 10, 1996). At the hearing in this proceeding Mr. Cascella submitted a large plastic ziplock bag stuffed with register receipts from June 1, 1996, through September 10, 1996. Mr. Cascella thought he had shown these or copies to Special Agent Brewer but was not sure. Mr. Cascella also conceded that the tapes were not complete, as they were only from the cash register at the bar, and none were from the register in the restaurant. Thus, the receipts reflected mostly liquor sales for each day, and very little food. (Transcript pp. 231-238) On February 7, 1997, Special Agent Brewer sent an official notice to Mano's informing the licensee that DABT intended to file administrative charges for failure to produce records as requested, in violation of Section 561.29(1)(j), Florida Statutes. On March 8, 1997, Special Agent Brewer, two other DABT agents, and several officers or agents from other law enforcement agencies appeared at Mano's licensed premises in Cape Canaveral. Mr. Cascella, who lived upstairs with his wife, was summoned by the bartender and came downstairs immediately. Mr. Cascella was very upset and told the officers that they had no right to be there without a search warrant. Throughout the inspection he remained very vocal and argumentative. Special Agent Brewer was looking for food items as part of his inspection and he requested that Mr. Cascella grant access to a locked area within the kitchen, a walk-in cooler or freezer. When Mr. Cascella refused, Special Agent Brewer informed him that the refusal was a violation of the law and he could be arrested. Eventually during the inspection the agents gained access to the area only after they cut the lock. Mr. Cascella was arrested for his refusal to stop interfering with the inspection and for his persistent and obstreperous comments during the agents' questioning of the bartender. Between October 1996, and December 1996, Jane Davis, an auditor with DABT conducted a surcharge audit of Mano's for the period July 1, 1993, through June 30, 1996. Mr. Cascella was cooperative and had the records available for Ms. Davis' review. She did not conduct an SRX audit requested by Special Agent Brewer, as she was being transferred from Rockledge to Lakeland and she could not take on the task of reviewing all of the Z- tapes for a long period of time. The surcharge audit Ms. Davis conducted was for a purpose different from the determination of percentage of alcohol sales and non-alcohol sales; her audit period, and consequently the records she reviewed, were not the June 1, 1996, through September 10, 1996, period addressed in the notices of violation issued by Special Agent Brewer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the agency enter its final order finding that Respondent violated Rule 61A-3.0141, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 562.41(3), Florida Statutes, and imposing civil penalties of $250 and $1,000, respectively, for a total of $1,250. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 29th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Martin, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Allen C. D. Scott, II, Esquire Scott & Sheppard, P.A. 101 Orange Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
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 relevant to this case, Bennie L. Terry was the holder of license No. 26-2105, Series No. 2-APS, a license issued by the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, which allowed the sale of wine and beer for takeout, i.e., package sales only at the licensed premises in Jacksonville, Florida. A routine inspection was made of that premises on February 21, 1983, at 10:00 a.m. At that time, the license premises was open for business. Robert Terry, father of the licensee was in charge of the licensed premises on the date in question. In the course of the inspection, a 200 milliliter bottle of gin was found in a cooler which was located in the bar proper. In addition, other gin and whiskey was found in the living quarters of Robert Terry, which is found within the diagram description of the extent of the licensed premises. Gin and whiskey are spirituous liquors not allowed for sale under the terms of the license held by Respondent. By way of explanation, Respondent established that the whiskey and gin found in his father's bedroom was there for the benefit of a private club which held meetings in the licensed premises once a week. Respondent knew of the placement of the whiskey and gin in the bedroom and the conduct of the meetings and had allowed these matters to transpire. Subsequent to the date of the inspection, several other inspections have been conducted and no violations have been detected related to Respondent Terry's license.
