The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s alcoholic beverage license Number 39-01036, Series 4-COP, for the premises located in the 900 block of Franklin Street in Tampa, Florida, should be disciplined in some manner because of the matters alleged in the Notice to Show Cause entered herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Petitioner, DABT, was the state agency responsible for the issue of alcoholic beverages licenses in Florida and the regulation of the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in this state. Respondent, Bay Entertainment, Inc., now known as Freedom Rings Entertainment, Inc., operated a night club, Solar, in the 900 block of Franklin Street in Tampa. There is some disagreement as to whether the facility was located at 911 Franklin Street or at 913 Franklin Street. The confusion is irrelevant to the issues for consideration since there is no indication a different club was operating at the second location, and there is no question regarding the identity or the licensure of the facility where the indicated misconduct was alleged to have taken place. The operation was licensed by the Petitioner under alcoholic beverage license number 39-01036, 4-COP. DABT S/A Elaine Paven first went to Solar on December 13, 1996 at approximately 11:55 p.m.. At the time, she was accompanied by S/A Murray and a confidential source. After paying the cover charge to the doorman, the party was directed to the second floor of the facility where the bar was located. From that location, they could look down to the first floor where another bar and the dance area were located. When Paven and her party went to the bar, she observed Tiffany Middlesexx, a transvestite and known narcotics user, sitting on the bar against the wall. Several male dancers, either wearing only a G-string or nude with a towel over their privates were performing. Paven and Murray went up to Middlesexx and asked to buy cocaine. Middlesexx asked them how much they wanted, and Paven gave the confidential source twenty dollars to buy some. The source gave the money to Middlesexx who, in return, gave the source a white powder which, in turn, was delivered by the source to Paven. All during this transaction, employees of the facility were routinely working in the immediate area. Other patrons appeared to be buying from Middlesexx as well, though Paven drew this conclusion only from her observation of individuals who approached Middlesexx as her source did. Paven has no direct knowledge of whether cocaine or any other proscribed drug was transferred from Middlesexx to the other patrons or whether money was transferred. In addition, however, as Paven and her party were leaving the club that night, she observed another known cocaine dealer, not further identified, enter the club. Paven next went to Solar on December 21, 1996. Tiffany Middlesexx was again sitting on the bar as before. Paven approached Middlesexx and asked for cocaine. In response, Middlesexx asked how much Paven wanted, and Paven transferred twenty dollars to Middlesexx. With that, Middlesexx took a packet of white powder out of the purse he/she was carrying and gave it to Paven. Paven saw several other similar transactions by Middlesexx that evening, during which Solar employees were present and could have observed them, and at no time did any club employee attempt to interfere with or prevent the purchases. That same evening, up on the second floor of the bar, Paven overheard a conversation between two other patrons who were discussing obtaining Ecstasy, also a proscribed narcotic. In addition, she observed patrons exiting the rest rooms snuffing and rubbing their noses which, to her, based on her training and experience, was indicative of drug use. Paven next went to the club on the evening of January 10, 1997, arriving just before 10:00 p.m. and staying until after midnight. During that period, however, she left for a short while and returned. Sometime that evening, during a conversation with Dennis, a bartender on the second floor, he told her that the club took a liberal and permissive approach toward drugs, and that the owner usually stayed on the first floor. Paven also went to the first floor that evening and, while in the restroom, notwithstanding signs posted prohibiting more than one person in a stall at a time, observed patrons go into the stalls in groups, and heard snuffing sounds coming from them which to her, under the circumstances, indicated the use of narcotics, usually cocaine. She did not observe and use however, nor did she confiscate for testing any of the substances involved. On her return to the second floor that evening, Ms. Paven met with another patron, identified as Darren, who spoke in general of the use of narcotics in clubs. She recalls no specific reference to the use of narcotics at Solar, however. Before she left the club that night, in another conversation with Dennis, the bartender, she mentioned she was going to get “party favors,” and he used the word, “stuff.” Both, in the vernacular of the drug milieu, relate to narcotics. That same night, though early in the morning of January 11, 1997, Paven additionally saw Tempo, also a transvestite male and a known cocaine dealer, on the second floor of the club. Another transvestite male, Gilda, was also there, at the bar, with Tony, who identified himself as an off-duty employee there, at the time, as a patron. Paven approached Tempo and offered him/her $20.00 for which, in return, she received a plastic bag of a substance later identified as cocaine. Dennis, the bartender, was standing behind the bar right there and, in Paven’s opinion, could not have failed to observe the transaction occur. Tony was, in fact, not an employee. He had been employed at the club as a bar back before the club opened for business but was injured within the first few minutes on the job and never returned to work. Agent Paven again went to the club at 10:45 p.m. on January 17, 1997, but left shortly after arriving and did not return until early on the morning of January 18, 1997. At that time Dennis was on duty as bartender and a group of individuals, known to Paven as drug dealers, including Tempo, Tony, and Brittany, were also present. At approximately 1:15 a.m. that morning, while up on the second floor, Paven was approached by Tony who told her he was leaving and offered to get her “something” before he left. Paven gave Tony $20.00, after which he went over to a group at the end of the bar and immediately came back with a bag of a powdered substance which he gave to her. He then asked her to save him a “bump,” which, in the drug culture, means a hit of cocaine. That same evening, Paven observed three male dancers performing down on the first floor. Two of these were nude. As she watched, she saw patrons approach the dancers and give them tips to be allowed to fondle their private parts. Dennis came downstairs while this was going on, jumped on the bar, and removed his shirt, and lowered his pants to reveal his buttocks and, presumably, his genitals, to the patrons. Dennis admits to climbing on the bar, removing his shirt, and displaying his buttocks, but denies revealing his genitals. Paven also observed some of the dancers leave the stage and approach patrons who would then touch the dancers’ genitals. Galiano, a known cocaine user, was there that night, going back and forth from Tempo to Brittany, and into a back room reserved for employees. Paven observed her at the time, snuffing and rubbing her nose, though she did not observe any direct use of any substance. Later that evening, in a discussion with Paven at the bar on the second floor, Galiano denied having any cocaine to sell but offered Paven a line of cocaine if she would come downstairs to the restroom. When Paven went downstairs with Galiano, she was given the line of substance, thereafter pretending to use it but in reality not doing so. While on the first floor, Paven asked Tempo if she had any coke. In response, Tampo said she was out, but had an order for more in and was waiting for delivery. On January 25, 1997, Paven was in Solar looking for Tiffany Middlesexx. Tony approached her and asked if she wanted any cocaine. Paven said she did and gave Tony $20.00. Approximately five minutes later, Tony came back and gave her a bag with a substance in it which was purported to be cocaine. He then suggested he and Paven go somewhere for a “bump.” Taking Paven upstairs, Tony then poured some of the substance out onto the back of her hand for her to snort it. He did the same for himself and actually ingested it, while Paven dumped hers out. That same night Tony told Paven not to go to a second bar mentioned because a raid was planned. Also the same night, Tiffany Middlesexx and Tempo were present at the club, as was the club’s chief of security, Tim, who was known to Paven as a drug dealer. Paven also observed nudity by the dancers, and sexual fondling of the male dancers for tips by some patrons, and she heard discussions between patrons about getting cocaine from elsewhere, but she did not observe any transfers take place. Agent Paven returned to the club on January 28, 1997, a slow night for business. She observed one of the male dancers dancing on top of the first floor bar and witnessed several instances where the dancer squatted in front of a patron who, it seemed to Paven, committed fallatio on him in front of other patrons. This was repeated with several patrons while Paven, as well as Agent Murray, who was also present, watched. Paven brought this to the bartender’s attention, but the bartender denied seeing anything untoward. On February 1, 1997, at approximately 1:34 a.m., Paven again entered Solar and proceeded to the first floor bar area. Tiffany Middlesexx was again sitting in his/her regular spot on top of the bar, and Paven asked if he/she had any cocaine for sale. In response, Tiffany Middlesexx offered Paven three bags for $50.00 or single bags for $20.00 each. When Paven handed over $50.00, Middlesexx opened up his/her purse and took out three bags of cocaine which was transferred to Paven. All this time, another patron was waiting and made a purchase when Paven was through. Paven also observed several other identical transactions take place with other patrons that same evening though she cannot say with certainty what substance was passed. Since the procedure was the same, it is likely the substance transferred to the other patrons was also cocaine, and it is so found. Middlesexx subsequently left the premises while Paven was still there. On February 8, 1997, Paven went back to Solar, arriving at 12:45 a.m. She went to the first floor and again observed Tiffany Middlesexx sitting in the regular spot on the bar. Paven approached Middlesexx and asked for cocaine and subsequently gave Middlesexx two $20.00 bills, in return for which she received two bags of cocaine. At this time, other employees of the Respondent were present behind the bar, and in Paven’s opinion heard and observed the transaction. Paven also watched a white male buy four bags of apparent cocaine from Middlesexx from no more than five feet from where the transaction took place. After making his purchase, that same white male showed the bags he had purchased to his friends and the group departed. Later that evening, on the second floor of the club, Paven purchased one zip-lock bag of what appeared to be cocaine from Tempo because Tempo did not want to deal on the first floor. Paven paid Tempo $20.00 for it. At no time during any of the above mentioned visits did any of the Respondent’s employees or management try to stop the purchases. The only warnings Paven heard were to watch out for the police. Paven claims she didn’t see any signs prohibiting drug activity in the club, nor did she observe club employees prohibit sales to other patrons. On any given night she was there, Paven would observe six or seven individuals on the premises who were known to her, from prior buys or sales, some of which took place within Solar, to be drug dealers. The parties stipulated that the substances purchased by Paven from individuals inside the club was cocaine. While Paven denied seeing any signs prohibiting the use or sale of drugs in the club other than in the restroom, she admits there were some signs at the entry, but even then, she cannot be sure of what the signs there said. Another sign in the bathroom prohibited more than one person in a stall at the same time. There is no doubt that the noise level in the club when the music was playing and the club was full was considerable. Club employees contend that it would have been impossible for them to hear any of the conversations between Paven and any of the individuals from whom she bought drugs because of it, because they even had to bend over the bar to hear patrons’ orders for drinks. However, Paven and Murray both insist they were able to hear and contend the bartenders, while possibly not able to hear the exact conversations taking place during the buys, could not have failed to observe what was going on. The noise certainly did not dissuade anyone from buying or selling. In addition, Paven observed security personnel hired by management passing through the club from time to time. These individuals would stop and talk to patrons and would attempt to prevent patrons from jointly occupying the restroom stalls. This served to halt drug sales while the security officer was present, but the activity resumed when the officers left. Most of the drug transactions which took place between Agent Paven and Middlesexx or Tempo were witnessed from three to four feet away by Agent Murray as well. Murray notes that whenever Paven tried to make a buy from Middlesexx, there was always someone in line before them, and Murray also observed what appeared to be drug purchases by other patrons from Middlesexx. Usually a bartender was in the immediate area of the purchase transaction. Murray cites, by way of exception, the incident on January 25, 1997, when Tony took Agent Paven to another area of the bar. Though Murray observed anywhere from six to seven drug dealers on the premises, known to her as such from prior investigations, at no time did she ever see an employee of the club, or a member of management, try to interfere with a transaction, nor did anyone ever state that such activity was illegal. It seemed as though the only concern expressed by anyone employed by the club related to the potential for the use of undercover police. Murray also observed male dancers at the club engaged in conduct which, it appeared to her, was salacious and obscene. It appeared to her than some patrons committed actual acts of fellatio on the dancers who would squat on the bar or dance floor in front of them. On at least one occasion, Murray changed her location at the bar so as to be able better to see what was going on. In her opinion, there was no doubt as to the nature of the activity. Notwithstanding the allegations of both Paven and Murray regarding the obscene activity, Diane M. Smith, the owner of the dance group which performs at Solar, categorically denies that any such activity took place involving her employees. Normally, she claims, she was present whenever her dancers performed. At any given time, she had three dancers active. One was on the center podium, one on one of the bars, and one was on break. Her dancers would wear jeans for the first set and shorts, or possibly a T-back, for the second set. She adamantly asserts there was no nude dancing or lewd or lascivious conduct permitted. She would not permit it, and management knew that. Her dancers performed from approximately 11:30 p.m., until 2:00 a.m., and at all times, there were two chaperones present. She was also often present before and after the show, and she never saw any conduct as described by Paven or Murray. This relates to drug activity as well as activity regarding the dancers. In fact, she claims, management made it very clear that drug activity was not permitted in the club. Jeffery Winemiller, who has a college degree and who attended medical school for two years before personal commitments brought him back to the Tampa area from California, was working at Solar as a bartender the night the Emergency Order of Suspension was entered. Mr. Winemiller has attended Responsible Vender training several times and is aware of how to check among patrons for drug use and abuse. He usually worked on the first floor at the rectangular bar on Friday and Saturday nights, and occasionally on other nights as well. Mr. Winemiller contends that while he worked at Solar, he never witnessed any drug activities or any oral sex being conducted on the premises. He claims there were signs at the front door and in the rest rooms warning against the use of drugs in addition to signs prohibiting entrance to persons under age and prohibiting more than one person in a restroom stall at any one time. Neither the men’s nor the women’s restroom had entry doors. Only the women’s restroom had doors on the stalls. Tiffany Middlesexx is a known drag queen - a performer in his/her 50’s, who is very well known in the transvestite community. Whenever he/she comes into Solar, he/she would have an entourage of from three to six people with him/her. Middlesexx would usually position himself/herself on the L-shaped bar on the first floor across from the dance podium on a space which was cleared for him/her. According to Winemiller, normally a bartender would not be working in that immediate location. As Winemiller recalls, Friday nights are rather quiet until after midnight, when up to seven hundred people might be in the club. During the period from midnight to club closing, a bartender might serve several hundred drinks and would be too busy to note what any particular patron was doing. In addition, as he described it, the noise level was high, and he would not be able to overhear any patron conversations. Specifically, Winemiller contends, he did not see Middlesexx or any of the other dealers described by Paven and Murray sell drugs in the bar, nor did anyone ever tell him anyone was selling drugs. As told to him, ownership policy on drugs was no tolerance. Any drug activity was to be reported to management or to security. By the same token, no lewd sexual activity was permitted either. Mr. Winemille claims he does not know Tiffany Middlesexx, Tony, or Tempo to be drug dealers. He claims not to use drugs himself and professes not to know who does. As a result of this raid and the closing of the club, he is now out of a job. In addition, his loan of $35,000 to Mr. Engerer to start up the operation is in jeopardy, though Winemiller contends he is not concerned about this. Donald Bentz, an employee of the Tampa AIDS Network has been in Solar on several occasions as a part of his work. He knows Mr. Engerer well and was a regular customer from May 1996, when the club opened, until it closed. During that period, he went there at least once a week and claims he never saw drug activity or lewd acts being carried on there. Mr. Bentz goes to several gay-oriented clubs as a part of his job and has put on fund raising functions with some of them. Because of his organization’s non-profit status and the thrust of its activities, it is careful with whom it operates and carefully checks out any operation before becoming involved with it. Mr. Bentz knows Tiffany Middlesexx as a transgendered performer who is popular in the gay/transgender community. On several of the occasions when he has been at Solar, Mr. Bents has seen signs permitting only one person at a time in the rest rooms and recalls seeing a sign stipulating no drugs allowed at the entrance. In addition, he has seen security personnel routinely checking for drugs. Though Bentz has heard rumors that Middlesexx deals drugs, he claims never to have seen it at Solar nor did he ever see anyone do or talk about illicit drugs on the premises. In his opinion, both Mr. Engerer and Mr. Winemiller considered drugs to be out of bounds at Solar. They wanted a long-term, drug-free relationship with the gay community. In Bentz’ opinion, if either member of management heard of drugs or lewdness going on at Solar, it would have been stopped. Dennis Fleming worked part time as a bartender at Solar between August 1996 and February 1997, usually on Friday and Saturday nights, and on a couple of evenings during the week. He, too, took Responsible Vendor training. As he recalls it, the noise level in Solar when it is crowded is very high, which makes it impossible to overhear patrons’ conversations. He knows Tiffany Middlesexx, who usually sat not far from where he worked the bar. During all the time Fleming worked at Solar, he claims, he never saw Middlesexx sell drugs to anyone inside or near the club. Though he knows Tony from that individual’s brief employment at the club and his subsequent patronage, he doesn’t know if Tony deals drugs The same is true for Tim. Fleming claims not to know Tempo. His periodic conversations with management reinforced the explicit no-drug policy which is expressed to the public by the signs posted about the building. Though he admits to having danced at the club, removed his shirt, and unbuttoned his pants, he denies having ever removed his pants or lowered or removed his underpants. Steven Stamberger was employed at night as a security officer at Solar from July 1996 to its closing. His post was at the entrance door where he checked identification for age and searched back packs of patrons to look for contraband. According to Mr. Stamberger, while doing this he never discovered any drugs being carried by any patrons. Mr. Stamberger also contends there were signs posted at the front entrance which indicated that drugs were not allowed on the premises. There were also signs in the bathrooms to that effect. From time to time each night he would walk through the club on the way to the bathrooms, and he claims never to have seen any drug activity during any of those walk-throughs. He also admits to knowing Tiffany Middlesexx and Tempo but denied knowing whether either sold drugs. He claims no one discussed it with him, but he knows that drugs are not tolerated on the premises. Mr. Stamberger recalls having seen an act of oral sex being committed in the VIP room one time. When he saw it, he went over to the parties, interrupted the activity, and put them out of the club for the evening. To his knowledge, they were not barred from the club for this. He denies, however, having ever seen any of the dancers disrobe or allow patrons to touch their genitals for tips in the club. In 1996, Mr. Engerer, the owner and sole officer of the corporation which operates Solar, invested $50,000 the company. This money came from his 401(k) plan and his stock investments. At the time, he claims, he had very little experience in nightclub operation, and when he took over, he hired a firm to provide Responsible Vendor training to him and his staff before he opened. Mr. Engerer worked every Friday and Saturday nights and, in addition, occasionally also went in during the week. On the weekends, he would open the club, set up the bar, and work at bar three as a bartender. Bar three is where Tiffany Middlesexx generally sat. It has two cash registers -- one at the “L,” and one at the far end. He worked at the far end. Engerer knew Tiffany Middlesexx from his/her performances at other clubs, but asserts he had no knowledge of that individual’s dealing in narcotics, either before or after he bought the club. He claims he never saw any drug deals take place in the club. Engerer claims not to have known Tempo or anything about him/her before or after he bought the club, especially about drug activity. Mr. Engerer admits to knowing Tony, who was recommended to work at Solar because of his prior experience at other clubs. However, Tony was injured the first night on the job and never actually worked there. Engerer claims he had no idea Tony dealt drugs, nor did he ever see Tony deal at Solar. Club policy, according to Mr. Engerer, which he claims he expressed to all employees, is that there is a zero tolerance for drugs, and patrons and employees are to be evicted or fired for possession of unlawful drugs on the club premises. With the large crowds they get on the weekends, he claims it was very hard to hear, especially for the bartenders who worked at least three feet from the patrons. Mr. Engerer claims that signs given to him by the Responsible Vendor trainers were posted throughout the club: at the front door, at the top of the stairs to the second floor, downstairs in the bar, and in each restroom. He had several security people on the floor on the weekends to ensure there was no drug activity in either the bar areas or the restrooms. According to Mr. Engerer, he had no prior indication from the Division or other police agencies that they had any suspicion of ongoing drug activity, nor had he heard of any prior complaints about his establishment. Club policy also prohibited lewd activities, and Engerer claims he had no knowledge of such conduct going on there. He did not ignore it nor would he condone it, he claims. Mr. Engerer also claims he was never told by anyone that Tiffany Middlesexx, Tempo, or anyone else, for that matter, was selling drugs in Solar. The first he knew of any of it, he asserts, was when the Emergency Order of Suspension was served. Had he known Tim was selling elsewhere, Tim would have immediately been fired.
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 Respondent’s 4-COP alcoholic beverage license number 39-01036, for the premises located at 911-913 Franklin Street in Tampa, and imposing an administrative fine of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph L. Diaz, Esquire 2522 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Linda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits received in evidence and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: On September 10, 1984, the Petitioner received an application for a Series 4-COP, SRX Alcoholic Beverage License from Respondent Club Lido of Gainesville, Inc. On the above date, the Petitioner issued a new temporary Series 4-COP, SRX license to the Respondent pending investigation of the application. The application was submitted signed by Richmond Smith who represented himself as the president, secretary, treasurer, and sole stockholder of Respondent. The application was subsequently approved and the Respondent was issued License Number 11-00786SRX, Series 4-COP on October 1, 1984, to be utilized at a location designated as 233 West University Avenue, Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. During the year 1985, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Investigator William L. Cooter, Sr., received complaints from various restaurant owners in Alachua County, that Respondent was not operating as a bona fide restaurant, inferring that alcoholic beverage sales at Club Lido exceeded 49 percent of the gross sales. Additionally, Investigator Cooter had visited the premises on numerous occasions and had observed that only small quantities of food items were being served on the premises of Club Lido. In response to the above complaints and on the basis of his personal observations, Investigator Cooter, on September 18, 1985, proceeded to the premises of Respondent and requested a review of the Respondent's food and alcoholic beverage sales. The request for records was made to Richmond Smith, President of Club Lido. On the above date, Smith responded that the records were not on the premises and that Investigator Cooter would be required to subpoena the records if he wished to examine them. Accordingly, Investigator Cooter issued an Official Notice to Richmond Smith on behalf of Club Lido which required production of the sales records by October 4, 1985. The Respondent failed to produce its sales records as of October 4, 1985. The Respondent, as of the date of formal hearing, had still failed to produce its sales records. On November 15, 1985, Investigator Cooter, along with Investigator Donald O'Steen, proceeded to the premises of the Respondent in order to inspect its equipment, supplies, and patron accommodations. The investigators found a minimal quantity of food on the premises. There was not a sufficient amount of food products to serve full course meals to 100 or more patrons on the premises of Respondent on November 15, 1985. There were not adequate seating accommodations to seat and serve full course meals to 100 or more patrons on the premises of Respondent on November 15, 1985, in that only 94 chairs and bar stools were present on the premises. The investigators also noted that there was no employee designated as a "chef" or "cook" on the premises and that approximately two- thirds (2/3) of the silverware needed to serve 100 or more patrons had not been unpackaged. On July 18, 1986, the Respondent terminated active business operations based on the unprofitability of the business. Richmond J. Smith, was a Respondent in Case No. 78- 338, Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Business Regulation Case No. 3-77-66A, wherein violations of Rule 7A-3.14 and 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code, relating to the maintenance of food and beverage records relative to a SRX Alcoholic Beverage License were alleged. The above violations were settled by Stipulation and the licensee paid civil fines relative thereto.
Recommendation Based upon all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking the Special Restaurant Alcoholic Beverage License of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed by the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Moody, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Charles G. Brackins, Esquire Suite B 920 N.W. 8th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Mr. Richmond Smith Club Lido of Gainesville, Inc. 233 West University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Bell, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was the holder of beverage license No. 54-279-S, Series 6COPS. The license was obtained by the Respondent by transfer in September, 1977. The licensed premises is located at the Key Wester Inn, 975 South Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West, Florida. The Key Wester Inn and the licensed premises are owned and operated by Mr. Mel Heifetz, the Respondent herein. On September 10, 1983, Beverage Officers Frank Oliva and Leonard DelMonte went to the licensed premises to investigate a complaint of drug sales taking place inside the licensed premises. The officers entered the lounge at approximately 7:00 p.m. The licensed premises are called the Inner Circle Lounge and consists of three areas. The main portion of the lounge is a large room with a bar along the south wall and a bandstand and dance floor in the northwest corner. The remainder of this area is filled with tables and chairs. To the east of the main bar is a large room which opens onto the main bar area through two large openings. This area contains tables and chairs. To the west of the main bar area is a deck and patio area called the pool bar area. When the officers arrived at the licensed premises on September 10, they sat on two bar stools at the northwest end of the pool bar. The two officers engaged a white female waitress named Lori Hart in conversation. Eventually the conversation led to a discussion of drugs and Officer Oliva asked if she could sell him some quaaludes. She said that she could not but that she could sell them cocaine if they would return at 10:00 or 10:30 p.m. that evening. She also said that the price would be between $80 and $100 and that she would have to be turned on also. This meant she would inhale some of the cocaine she sold them. The officers agreed and then left. The officers had never met Lori Hart before and no one at the bar had vouched for them or introduced them to her. At approximately 10:00 p.m., the officers returned to the lounge and sat on two bar stools at the west end of the pool bar. Lori Hart walked up and asked if they still wanted the cocaine and the officers responded "yes." She said the price would be $80. She then asked a bartender named George to tend bar for her. She picked up her purse and walked into the interior bar area and then returned and walked to the area of the bathrooms near the pool. The two officers followed her to the bathroom area. When they reached the bathroom area, the door to the ladies' room was closed. About five to ten minutes later the manager of the lounge, George Font, came to the bathroom area and went into the men's room to wash his hands. He left and a few minutes later came back and knocked on the door to the ladies' room and said "Lori you have customers." After George Font left, Lori Hart came out of the bathroom, and exchanged a packet of cocaine for $80 cash from Officer Oliva. On this particular evening, Pedro Corpion, an off-duty police officer working as a security guard at the licensed premises, was seen in the pool bar area at various times. The location where the exchange took place is a hallway adjacent to the pool area restrooms and is not visible from anywhere in the bar. On September 16, 1983, Officers Oliva and DelMonte returned to the licensed premises. They were accompanied by Faye Francy of the Monroe County Sheriff's Department. They sat at a table next to the dance floor and adjacent to the north wall of the interior lounge. While seated at the table, a waitress named Linda Carteret took their order for drinks and Officer Oliva asked if she could sell them 2 grams of cocaine. She said she would see what she could do. She later returned to the table and stated she could only get 1 1/2 grams. About a half hour later, she returned to the table again and stated that she did not have quite 1 1/2 grams so the price would be $110 rather than $120 as originally stated. Officer Oliva said o.k. and told her that the money was under a napkin on the table. She crouched between his chair and the chair where Faye Francy, who was dancing, had been seated. She placed a small packet of cocaine wrapped in a one dollar bill under Officer Oliva's left leg. When Linda Carteret crouched at the table and transferred the cocaine, she had her back to the bar area. These actions were being watched by Whitney Russel Papy, an investigator for the state attorney's office, from a table nearer the bar and he could not tell that an exchange or buy had taken place until Officer Oliva, by prearranged signal, got up and left. Officers Oliva and DelMonte had never met Linda Carteret before and had not been introduced to her before asking to purchase cocaine. On the evening of September 15, 1983, Officers DelMonte and Oliva returned to the licensed premises. They sat at the west end of the interior bar and ordered drinks. Lori Hart was working behind the bar and at approximately 9:30 a.m., Officer DelMonte and Oliva returned to the licensed premises. They sat at the west end of the interior bar and ordered drinks. Lori Hart was working behind the bar and at approximately 9:30 a.m., Officer DelMonte asked Lori Hart to sell him a gram of cocaine. She said she could get it and a short while later, she returned to where the officers were seated and placed a bulging matchbook on the bar in front of Officer DelMonte. Inside the matchbook was a small plastic baggie containing cocaine. Approximately five minutes later, Officer DelMonte ordered a drink and gave Lori Hart $100. She walked to the register, rang up the drink, and returned and handed him $17.00 in change. The price of the cocaine was $80.00 and the drink cost $3.00. Officer DelMonte placed the matchbook and cocaine in his pocket. On the evening of September 16, Paul Carr, the manager of the Key Wester Inn, came into the lounge several times. He walked in, looked around the lounge, remained for a few minutes and then left. The band was playing in the lounge this particular evening. On September 17, 1983, Officers DelMonte and Oliva were again in the licensed premises for the purpose of attempting to purchase drugs. They sat at the east end of the interior bar. Officer DelMonte placed four (4) $20.00 bills in a matchbook and placed it on the bar in front of him. A few minutes later, Lori Hart, who was behind the bar, saw the matchbook and said she would get the stuff. Some of the numbers of one of the twenty dollar bills were showing. Lori Hart asked if there was $80.00 in the matchbook and Officer DelMonte responded "yes." She took the matchbook and a short while later placed a napkin in front of Officer DelMonte. Inside the folded napkin was a small plastic baggie containing cocaine. Officer DelMonte placed the cocaine and napkin in his pocket. On this particular evening, off-duty Police Officer Pedro Corbione was working inside the lounge and was out of uniform. He passed the bar area where the officers were seated while the matchbook containing the money was on the bar. However, there was no evidence that Officer Corbione saw the matchbook. The band was playing in the lounge this evening. Beverage Officers DelMonte and Oliva returned to the licensed premises on September 22, 1983, at approximately 9:15 p.m. They were joined a few minutes later by Deputy Francy of the Monroe County Sheriff's Department. The three officers sat at a table just inside the large sitting area to the east of the interior bar area. The table where they were seated was partially obscured from vision of the bar area by a short wall that extended to the edge of the large entrance way. While seated at the table, Officer Oliva asked Linda Carteret if they could purchase some cocaine. She was on duty as a waitress. A short time later, Lori Hart walked over and asked if they were still interested in a gram of cocaine. Officer Oliva said yes and she asked for $80.00. Officer Oliva told her he didn't think he should be so open and she agreed. She told him to give the $80.00 to Linda who came over a few minutes later and picked up a napkin with the $80.00 beneath it. After taking the money, Linda Carteret returned with a foil packet under a napkin and placed it on the table. The foil packet contained cocaine. Both women were on duty as cocktail waitresses when this transaction took place. There was nothing suspicious about the actions of the officers or Lori Hart and Linda Carteret during this transaction. The transfer took only a few seconds and the foil packet was not visible beneath the napkin. This was a very secretive transaction and the exchange itself was not observed by Deputy Faye Francy who was seated at the table with Officers Oliva and DelMonte. The area where the officers were seated was dimly lit. The band was playing in the lounge this evening. On September 28, 1983, Officers Oliva and DelMonte returned to the licensed premises. They entered the lounge at approximately 7:00 p.m. and sat at the same table they had sat at on the evening of September 22. They had first entered the interior bar area and sat at the bar, but after they were joined by Linda Carteret, they went to the table. Officer Oliva asked Linda Carteret to sell them some cocaine and she responded that she had heard rumors that they were police officers. Officer Oliva convinced her that they were not police officers and she then agreed to sell them 1 gram of cocaine for $80.00. She went to the bathroom area and when she returned she placed her hands over Officer Oliva's hands and dropped the plastic baggie containing cocaine into his hands. He then handed her the $80.00. The entire exchange took about 5 seconds. While this transaction took place, the bar manager, Don Crawford, was seated at the east end of the interior bar with his back to the table where the officers and Linda Carteret were seated. This particular evening, Linda Carteret was not working at the lounge. No indication of a transaction was observed by Harry Sawyer, an investigator with the state attorney's office. Harry Sawyer was in the lounge on September 28 as a backup to Officers Oliva and DelMonte. A band was playing in the lounge on this evening. Lori Hart had previously worked at the Inner Circle Lounge in 1982. She terminated when she went home to visit her family and was rehired in January, 1983. There were no problems with her work in 1982. However, in April, 1982, an administrative complaint was made against the Respondent's license charging that Lori Hart had failed to check the identification of a minor and had sold the minor a drink. She was not terminated at that time because she was needed as a witness in the administrative proceedings. Lori Hart resigned some time prior to September 28, 1983, because she was changed to a different shift and location in the lounge. Lori Hart was initially hired as a cocktail waitress and was transferred later to bartender. Prior to being hired she was interviewed by the bar manager and by the manager of the Key Wester Inn, who oversees the entire property where the Inner Lounge is located. She was required to obtain and provide the management with an ID card which is obtained from the Key West Police Department. This ID is required for persons working in Key West and in order to obtain an ID, an application with certain background information must be given and a photograph is taken and placed on the ID card. Lori Hart was also required to fill out an employment application for the lounge. On this application, she was required to give background information and references and these were checked by the manager. At the time she was hired in January, 1983, Lori Hart was required to sign a form which states: As an employee of the Key Wester Inn I understand that it is unlawful to drink alcohol or take any form of drugs that are not prescribed by a doctor during the performance of my shift of work. And further I realize this would be grounds for dismissal. Each employee hired was required to sign such a form. The Inner Circle Lounge and Key Wester Inn had a policy against any drugs on the premises and this policy was explained to all employees when they were hired and was repeated on a continual basis. Employees caught with drugs or alcohol while on duty were terminated under this policy. Linda Carteret was employed in September, 1983. She was hired the same day she applied because the lounge was short one cocktail waitress. She was interviewed by the bar manager who requested that the manager, Paul Carr, allow him to hire her immediately. Mr. Carr approved the hiring but did not interview her. Linda Carteret was also required to provide the lounge with the ID card obtained from the Key West Police Department and was informed of the policy of drugs and alcohol while on duty. The Key Wester Inn is owned by Respondent and is managed by Paul Carr, the resident manager. Mr. Carr has 2 years experience in the hotel, restaurant and lounge business. Prior to September 12, 1983, George Font was manager of the lounge. Mr. Font had been asked to resign because of poor performance and it was agreed that September 12, 1983, would be his last day. After Mr. Font left, Don Crawford, originally hired as a cook was promoted to bar manager. He was given no authority or real responsibility because he was considered to be in a training status. Paul Carr, the resident manager actually took over management of the lounge begining September 12. The evidence did not establish that Mr. Font or Mr. Crawford was aware of the drug transactions that occurred in September, 1983. Mr. Paul Carr, the resident manager, had no knowledge of any drug transactions or drug problems in the lounge. The bar manager was in the lounge each night full-time. Paul Carr was at the lounge when it opened and closed and visited the lounge several times each evening at random times. Prior to July or August, Mr. Pedro Carbione, an off-duty Key West Police Officer worked as security officer at the entrance to the lounge. He checked ID's and watched the outside area. In July or August, Officer Corbione, on Paul Carr's recommendation, moved inside the lounge to work security. When he moved inside the lounge, he no longer worked in uniform. The evidence failed to establish that Officer Carbione was aware of any drug transactions taking place in the licensed premises. The Respondent has held the beverage license in question since 1977. Since that time, there have been no prior charges involving drugs. The only prior charge against the license involved selling to minors. The Respondent and his staff have cooperated with local authorities in prior drug investigations and the licensed premises enjoy a reputation in the community as a nice, decent place to go and dance. The Inner Circle Lounge is frequented primarily by business people, military officers, and local residents including law enforcement officers. The patrons are primarily thirty to fifty years of age. The lounge does not have a reputation in the community as a place where drugs can be sold or used or as a place frequented by people who use drugs. At no time prior to service of the Emergency Suspension Order was Respondent or his staff informed of a drug problem in the Inner Circle Lounge by the Division or local authorities. Lori Hart and Linda Carteret made several statements during the sales and during interrogation after their arrest which indicated some knowledge of the drug sales on the part of George Font and Don Crawford. This evidence was considered by the hearing officer and considered to be of no probative value in light of the total lack of any direct evidence which would show knowledge on the part of those individuals and because of the contradictions between such statements and the very secretive manner in which all the sales were made.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED That the Respondent be found NOT GUILTY of the violations charged in the Notice to Show Cause and that the charges be dismissed and the license immediately restored. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of November 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida Charles L. Curtis, Esquire 1177 S.E. Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the emergency order of suspension and notice to show cause dated November 25, 1991; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Lunar Guppies, Inc. is the holder of an alcoholic beverage license, number 58-03679, series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Club Space Fish Cafe (Cafe) which is located at 536 West Church Street, Orlando, Florida. All activities described herein took place at the licensed premises. Michael Brown is the president and majority shareholder of Lunar Guppies, Inc. Michael Buchanan is the corporation's vice president and he owns fifteen percent of the shares issued by the entity. At all times material to the allegations of this case, both owners, Mr. Brown and Mr. Buchanan, were present on the licensed premises. Some time prior to November 18, 1991, Mr. Brown was contacted by an individual known to him only as "Merle." Apparently, Merle represented the band known as "G.G. Allin and the Murder Junkies" (hereinafter referred to as the group or the band) and was responsible for seeking work for the group. After some discussions, the parties reached a verbal agreement whereby the band would play the second set at the Cafe on November 18, 1991. Flyers for the performance billed the event as the group's only Florida show. All arrangements were verbal, and were conducted between Mr. Brown and Merle. Initially, Mr. Brown expected the band to perform at 11:00 p.m. on the designated date; however, after checking in and reviewing the equipment, the group announced that they would return to perform around 11:30 p.m. During the check in meeting with the band, Mr. Brown advised the group that he did not expect them to damage property belonging to the Cafe. Prior to the group's performance Cafe staff had covered speakers with plastic to protect them from moisture. Also, areas of the stage were lined with plastic. According to Mr. Brown, such precautions are standard when rowdy bands are booked for the Cafe. The speakers, which belong to the Cafe, are expensive and sensitive to moisture. Spills from beverages are not uncommon with certain types of bands. Also prior to the group's performance on November 18, 1991, Mr. Brown prepared a written warning which was posted on the Cafe's door. While there is some dispute as to the exact language of the warning, the purpose was to warn Cafe patrons that the performance (by the band) was expected to contain language and subject matter which might be considered offensive or obscene by some. The exact language of the warning is unknown because shortly after the police arrived on the scene someone removed the sign and its current whereabouts is unknown. That the sign existed is not disputed. Upon his arrival back at the Cafe, the lead singer of the band, G.G. Allin a/k/a Kevin Allin (Allin), appeared for the band's microphone check wearing only a hooded jacket, studded dog collar, and shoes. Shortly after the check, removed his jacket to reveal that he was nude but for the dog collar and shoes. Also at that time the drummer for the band appeared and played in the buff as well. Just prior to, and during the first song performed by the band: Allin broke glass and rubbed it into his head causing a flow of blood which continued to stream down his head throughout his performance; he smashed his microphone into his head to further damage the wounds; he constantly grabbed his penis; and he leaped off the stage, knocked a female patron to the floor, and rubbed his face into her groin area simulating oral sex. The female patron kicked Allin and resisted his advances. At the conclusion of the first song, Allin grabbed a male patron and rubbed his penis against the man's head. During the second song, Allin's acts prompted most of the Cafe's patrons to flee the interior of the licensed premises. Most fled after Allin defecated onto the Cafe floor, urinated into his own hand (so he could drink it), followed by his licking the floor (with the feces) and spitting and throwing it at patrons. When Allin returned to the stage, he stuck his finger into his rectum and rubbed the microphone in the anal area as well. During the remainder of the performance (three or four more songs), Allin continued to dance around the Cafe (encumbered only by the microphone cord), continued to fondle his penis, allowed at least one patron to fondle his penis, and poured himself a beer at the bar. At all times described above, Mr. Buchanan observed the performance and did nothing to deter Allin. During the performance there was a sound and/or light technician above the Cafe's main floor who watched the band and, presumably, assisted. The Cafe has flood lights above the main floor area where Allin performed. When the patrons from the Cafe fled into the street outside, officers in a patrolling police car observed the commotion. Two officers, Browning and Arnott, went to the Cafe to investigate. Upon entering the premises, Officer Browning observed Allin on the floor rubbing his head into glass. Obviously, Officer Browning noted that Allin was au naturale. At that point the band's performance ceased. The term "performance" has been used herein loosely to describe what occurred at the Cafe; such "acts" could hardly be described as entertainment. After taking statements from Cafe patrons, the police officers filed criminal charges against Allin in connection with the incidents described above. Incidental to the arrest, Mr. Brown and Mr. Buchanan voluntarily went to the police station and filed sworn statements regarding the night's activities. While Mr. Buchanan was present behind the bar during the entire performance (approximately twenty-six minutes, six songs) his sworn statement is replete with factual errors regarding what occurred. Additionally, Mr. Brown's sworn police statement incorrectly chronicled the acts which had occurred. Mr. Brown's explanation at the hearing has not been deemed credible nor were his comments regarding the disappearance of the written warning which had been posted on the Cafe's door. At the start of Allin's performance, Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Brown should have provided appropriate security for the Cafe patrons. At least one female patron was touched by Allin and demonstrated her displeasure at such conduct. Volunteer security help (which incidently fled with the others) is not sufficient when a band's performance might be considered to be, and anticipated to be, rowdy (as the plastic suggested). Once the band member Allin exhibited inappropriate conduct (as early as the first two songs), the Cafe owners should have taken measures to stop the performance. Given public sensitivity related to exposure to body fluids, the Cafe owners were negligent in not aborting Allin's act once it began, and in not previewing his proposed performance since they were made aware of the potentially objectionable nature of the show (as evidenced by the warning and Mr. Brown's prior conversations with band members and groupies). Even if Mr. Brown and Mr. Buchanan did not know the full extent of Allin's proposed performance, once he exhibited offensive and lewd conduct, they bore a burden to interrupt the act and take precautionary measures to insure the safety of the Cafe patrons. Mr. Brown's explanation that he was fearful for his own safety (and thus excused from action) has not been deemed credible. At the minimum, Mr. Brown or Mr. Buchanan could have sought assistance from 911 (which was not done). Had the police not arrived when they did, no telling how long the Cafe owners would have allowed Allin to reign. Presumably, until the set contracted for was finished. As it was, Mr. Brown paid the band for a partial performance. Subsequent to the Allin performance, the Cafe owners have drafted a written agreement to attempt to avoid any reoccurrence of an unlawful performance. The Cafe did not prior to, or subsequent to, November 18, 1991, allow an unlawful performance such as that which is described herein to be conducted on its licensed premises. The acts which occurred on November 18, 1991, are the sole basis for disciplinary action against this licensee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of ninety (90) days retroactive to the date the emergency order was entered. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 91-7697 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: The Petitioner footnoted many of its proposed findings of fact. Such footnotes are not accepted as they contain argument, comment, or irrelevant matters. The proposed findings have been addressed without reference to footnotes as follows: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. With the deletion of the phrase "Once back on the stage" paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraph 7 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 8 it is unknown if Merle was, in fact, the band's manager; otherwise, the paragraph is accepted. With the deletion of the second sentence which is rejected as hearsay, paragraph 9 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: NOTE: Respondent's proposed findings of fact begin with the numbered paragraph 4. Paragraphs 4 through 8 are accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is rejected as argument or comment. The weight of the credible evidence suggests that, utilizing ordinary care, the Cafe owners should have made inquiries to assure that the band would not perform lewd acts (they were on notice of the band's potential for offensive behavior). The first sentence of paragraph 11 is accepted; otherwise rejected as argument or comment. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Respondent knew the band's performance might be offensive or obscene and failed to use ordinary care to assure it would not be unlawful. Paragraph 13 is accepted to the extent that it states most patrons fled; however, others remained and the Respondent allowed the performance to continue. COPIES TO: Janet E. Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Richard W. Scully Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Thomas A. Klein Chief Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Howard S. Marks Graham, Clark, Pohl & Jones 369 North New York Avenue Post Office Drawer 1690 Winter Park, Florida 32790
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Caldo Corporation, d/b/a Calypso Bay Club, operates a place of business in Clearwater, Florida, where consumption on the premises is permitted under license number 62-928, Series 4-COP SRX. The licensed premises consist of some 18,000 square feet. Seven permanent bars are located within the perimeter walls of the licensed premises. No interior walls separate the bars, and they are not located in separate rooms. The seven bars are located in different parts of one large, generally open room. A customer entering the Calypso Bay Club first enters a combination foyer/seating area. From this area, a customer can see throughout the area where the seven bars are located. All seven bars in the licensed premises are visible, at least in part, from the entrance foyer/seating area, although the view to some parts of the premises may be blocked. Two of the bars are located within an unobstructed, open lower level which is generally in the center of the premises. There is a dance floor in this lower level. The other parts of the licensed premises are located on deckings that are raised to varying heights above the dance floor area. One of the bars, known as the Oyster Bar or bar number 7, is located on its own decking to one side of the dance floor area (to the customer's right on entering the premises.) It is three and a half steps, or approximately 18 inches, above the dance floor level. The other bars are arrayed on deckings on the other side (to the customer's left on entering the premises). Except for a lower, middle decking, the deckings on the left side of the premises are two steps, or approximately 12 inches, above the dance floor level. In the middle of that side, the decking is slightly lower than either the decking in front of it or the decking to the rear of it. One of the bars, known as the Fufu bar or bar number 5, is located on the middle decking. The other bars on that side are on one of the two higher deckings. The bar known as Deck 1 (bar number 4) is on a decking that wraps around to the entrance foyer/seating area. The bars known as Deck 2 (bar number 3) and the Corner bar (bar number 2) are on a decking located beyond the lower, middle decking. Throughout the premises, where the flooring changes elevation, there is a wide, flat wood rail approximately 42 inches above the floor of the raised decking. The railing sits on top of, and is supported by, thick wood posts similar to posts used in the construction of docks. Thick hemp rope, consistent with a waterfront motif, also is wound around the posts and draped between them under the rails (as Christmas garland would be draped on a stairway bannister). All except in the area of the Oyster Bar (bar number 7), a smaller slat of wood about the size of a one by four also is nailed to the posts about five inches above the floor of the decking, forming a lower fence rail as well. In some places, banners are also hung from the railing. The railing separating the different elevations serves two primary purposes. First, it is for safety to prevent customers from accidentally falling from a higher to a lower floor elevation. Second, it also serves as a counter on which customers standing or sitting on the higher elevation can set drinks or ash trays. Openings in the railing permit customers to walk from one bar area to another. The deckings are accessible from the dance floor area by six fairly wide stairways. As previously mentioned, the stairway to the Oyster Bar has three steps; the others have just two steps. Nothing separates the Corner bar (bar number 2) from the Deck 2 bar (bar number 3). Likewise, there is direct access from part of the Deck 2 bar to the Fufu bar (bar number 5). To one side of the Deck 2 bar, a railing separates the two elevations, but a railed ramp in the middle of the railing connects to two areas. It also is possible to get from the Fufu bar to the Deck 2 bar, without having to descend to the dance floor level, by walking from the Fufu bar, around a wood column, and step up one step to the area of the Deck 2 and Corner bars. The Deck 1 bar (bar number 4) is the closest to the entrance foyer/seating area of the bars on that side of the premises. There are two ways to get from the Fufu bar to the Deck 1 bar. First, there is virtual direct access between the Fufu bar and the Deck 1 bar. Bar number 5 (the Fufu bar) is in an area one step lower than the other bars on that side of the dance floor area, including the Deck 1 bar. There is a short railed ramp that goes up alongside a wood column standing between the two bars. From the top of the ramp, there is direct access to the Deck 1 bar; from the bottom of the ramp, there is direct access to the Fufu bar. There also is indirect access by walking to the side opposite the ramp side into a small seating area. The seating area is separated from the Deck 1 bar by the one-step change in elevation and by a railing and two video games. There are two gaps in the railing where one can step up into the area where the Deck 1 bar is located.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the Notice to Show Cause in this case. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 15th day of January, 1992. 1/ The Petitioner also offered in evidence Petitioner's Exhibit 7, a videotape to which the Respondent objected. At the hearing, ruling was reserved. At this time, the objection is sustained. The videotape is immaterial and irrelevant to the issue in this case, which is whether the Calypso Bay Club "has more than three separate rooms or enclosures." See Conclusion of Law 9, below. 2/ The evidence of the legislative history in this record may not be clear and complete. No such evidence was introduced at the final hearing. The Department attached to its proposed recommended order what appear to be certified copies of committee reports on the legislation. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5784 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1989), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, the lines referred to in the last sentence did not completely separate the five bars from the two bars; the drawings included the designation of steps leading from one elevation to another. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. There are two proposed findings 6. This addresses the first of them. Subpart d. is rejected as not proven. The "small exposed part of bar 3" is not "cordoned off," and there is no wall. It is accessible from the steps from the dance floor area closest to the bar by walking from the steps to the bar, passing between the railing along the dance floor area and the partial wall (actually more like a wood column). (There also is access from the Corner bar and from the Fufu bar.) Subpart e. is rejected as not proven. There is direct access, as well as indirect access, as stated above, subpart d. Subpart f. is rejected as not proven. The "cordoned" railing has an opening through there is access to the Deck 1 bar (bar number 4). The Deck 1 bar also is directly accessible from the Fufu bar and from the entrance foyer/seating area. Subpart g. is rejected as not proven. Bar number 5 is not enclosed. It is accessible by four alternative routes. There is direct access between part of the Deck 2 bar (bar number 3) and bar number 5. There also is access to other parts of the Deck 2 bar from the steps from the dance floor area closest to the bar, as described in subpart d., above, as well as via a ramp through an opening in the railing along the change in elevation between the two bars. Finally, bar number 5 is accessible from the Deck 1 bar as described in subpart f., above. Otherwise, the first proposed finding 6 is accepted and incorporated. The second proposed finding 6 is rejected in part as not proven. As previously stated, there is direct access between the Corner bar (bar number 2) and the Deck 2 bar (bar number 3), as well as between part of the latter bar and bar number 5 (the Fufu bar.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected in part as not proven. The televisions hang from the ceiling or are on a wood column, and the game machines are placed next to railings. Neither serves to form a separate barrier. The ropes do not in all cases, and in any case were not primarily intended to, separate bar areas. They are all along the upper level at an elevation change or are along steps or a ramp between two different elevations. 8.-9. Rejected as irrelevant to the question whether there are more than three "rooms or enclosures." See Conclusion of Law 9, above. Rejected in part as not proven (last sentence); in part, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found (first three sentences). The evidence suggested that the railings are there for two primary purposes. See Finding of Fact 6, above. The effect of the use of the railings as a bar counter was as much to join as to separate the various parts of the bar. A customer could put a drink, food or ash tray on one of the railings, or lean on it, and observe parts of the premises on the other side of the railing. Rejected in part as argument and in part as not proven. The testimony regarding shortness of funds was part of an answer to a question on cross examination as to why there were different kinds of chairs and stools on the premises. The owner's intent and desire to increase profits does not prove liability for the additional $1,000 fee. The critical issue is the existence of more than three rooms or enclosures, a fact not proven by the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted but unnecessary. 2.-3. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as being conclusion of law or argument. First sentence, rejected in part in that it is not "completely open." Third sentence, rejected in part in that there was no evidence to prove that the ramps are "fully handicap accessible." Fourth sentence, rejected in part in that there was no evidence to prove what the building code requirements were. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. 7.-8. Rejected as conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Monica Atkins White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Richard W. Scully, Director Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Dept. of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1007
The Issue Whether or not on or about August 23, 1975, Carole Sanders, licensed under the beverage laws as a licensed vendor, did employ, on her licensed premises persons under the age of 18. to wit: Margie Johnson, W/F, DOB: 11/12/60, age 14, address: Homosassa, Florida, and Mrs. Fawn Hetland, DOB: 5/22/59, age 16, address: Sindpiper Motel, Room #38, Clearwater, Florida, contraty to Florida Statute 562.13. Whether or not on or about August 23,1975, Carole Sanders, licensee, her agent, servant, or employee, did allow procuring for the purpose of prostitution on her licensed premises, contrary to Florida Statutes 796.07(3)(A) and 561.29. Whether or not on or about August 23, 1975, Carole Sanders, licensee, or her servant, employee or an agent, did allow a person under the age of 18 to consume alcoholic beverages on her licensed premises, to wit: Margie Faye Johnson, W/F, DOB: 11/12/60, contrary to Florida Statue 562.11.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner began its presentation by offering into evidence a copy of the amended notice to show cause, together with the notice of hearing, which became Petitioners Exhibit #1 which was admitted without objection. The Petitioner also presented a copy of the license of the Respondent, which was allowed into evidence without objection, as Petitioner's Exhibit #2. Petitioner then called Margie Faye Johnson to the stand. Miss Johnson testified that she was 15 years old as of November 12, 1975. She now lives with her mother at Homasassa, Florida, but in August, 1975, she was a runaway. While away from home, the witness went to the establishment of the Respondent, to wit, Charlie's Beach Bar and applied for a job as a topless dancer. At that time the witness was 14 years old. She had been told about this job by one Fawn Hetland, an acquaintance she had met two weeks prior to applying for the job. The job application was made sometime in August, 1975, three or four days prior to certain arrest warrants were served on Charlie Sanders, the husband of the Respondent. These warrants were served on or about August 23, 1975. The process of the hiring of Margie Johnson was described by her in the following fashion She said she asked Charlie Sanders about being a dancer in his bar and that he interviewed her and asked her to dance, after which she was hired as a topless dancer in the bar. During the course of the hiring procedures the witness testified that she was never asked for an identification card of any kind. She did say that she signed a writing presented to her by Carole Sanders, which was something to do with taxes. This writing spoken of was admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit #3, without objection. According to the witness, Charlie Sanders was responsible for hiring her as opposed to the Respondent, Carole Sanders. The night the witness was hired, in addition to neglecting to ask for an identification card, for some identification of her age, the witness indicated that she never saw anyone call for references concerning her age. She felt that she would have observed such a call because the phone was near the area in which she was located. During the course of her employment for the three or four days, Margie Johnson indicated that she danced topless, served alcoholic beverages, and consumed alcoholic beverages, and also worked the cash register. On the night that the arrest was made of Charlie Sanders, which would have been August 23, 1975, the witness was found in possession of a mug of beer. The mug itself is Petitioner's Exhibit #6 which was admitted without objection, after a stipulation had been entered into concerning the chain of custody of the beer mug and a stipulation that the mug contained an alcoholic substance, to wit, beer. Margie Johnson was arrested, by her statement, for drinking on the premises and being in an adult bar. Other activities concerning Margie Johnson while she was working for the Respondent, included a request by Charlie Sanders that she prostitute herself for an older man, whom she said was in the conversation, but whose name she does not know. The witness indicated that Charlie Sanders actively participated in this procurement situation by asking her if she had done any prostituting and asking her if she would like for him to set her up. The witness also indicated that Charlie Sanders propositioned her to go to bed with him, evidently for purposes of having sexual relations. To the witness's knowledge, Mrs. Sanders was not involved in any procurement for prostitution. Margie Johnson had also worked at two other topless lounges in the area to include the Savoy Lounge and the Stock Market. While working at the Savoy Lounge she said she had shown a birth certificate which had been given to her by some "chick and a guy" who picked her up. This birth certificate indicated that she was 22 years old. She had been requested to show proof of age at the Savoy Lounge and had shown the phony birth certificate, but she said she never showed any identification of age at the Stock Market. The Stock Market proprietors had asked her for proof of age but she had indicated that she would bring that proof in and never did. While at Charlie's Beach Bar, the witness stated that she never was questioned about her age. An effort was made to develop the fact that the witness worked in bars other than the bars spoken of, this was objected to and the objection was sustained because it was not felt that further development of the issue was material or relevant. Finally, the witness indicated that Charlie Sanders had told her the night they were arrested, that if she was not 18 years old that he was going to kill her. At present the witness is not in immediate contact with the Respondent or any employees at-Charlie's Beach Bar. John T. McMullen, agent for the Division of Beverage, testified that he assisted in serving a warrant issued to the Indian Rocks Police Department for August 23, 1975. This warrant was served around midnight on that date and when the witness entered Charlie's Beach Bar with the warrant party he noticed that Margie Johnson was sitting with a beer mug in her hand and that mug contained beer. This beer mug has been identified as Petitioner's Exhibit #6. When Officer McMullen approached Margie Johnson, because he felt she was under age, she stated that she was 18 and had been born in 1953. Later she admitted that she was a juvenile. Officer McMullen later returned to the bar around 1:15 A.M. on August 24, 1975, and picked up certain records from the Respondent, Mrs. Sanders. Part of these records have been admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit #5, admitted with objection. The witness testified that Mrs. Sanders told him that she had hired Margie Johnson because she knew the girl Fawn Hetland and because Margie Johnson had indicated that she was 18 years old and had worked at the Stock Market Bar. Consequently, according to Mrs. Sanders, she presumed these things to be so. Officer McMullen went back to the bar on a third occasion around 12:45 P.M. on September 3, 1975 at which time a citation for beverage violations was served upon the Respondent. At that time the witness stated that he read the citation to Carole Sanders and she told him she couldn't go and not plead guilty to the citation, because she had hired Margie Johnson and that her husband had hired Fawn Hetland and that they knew the girls were minors. Beverage Agent Woodrow Ray took the stand and testified essentially the same way as Officer McMullen, about the facts surrounding the service of the warrant on August 23, 1975, at Charlie's Beach Bar. Officer Ray also went back to get records In the early morning hours of August 24, 1975. He indicated the receipt of Petitioner's Exhibit #5 from Carole Sanders and stated that he had given her a receipt in return which is admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit #4, without objection. *A more complete description of the objection to the introduction of Exhibit #5 will be discussed in the section of this order entitled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Officer H. C. Adams of the Indian Rocks Police Department, testified that he was involved in serving the warrant on Charlie Sanders at Charlie's Beach Bar on August 23, 1975. He had seen Margie Johnson drinking the beer which was in Petitioners Exhibit #6, and had removed the beer mug and contents from Margie Johnson. The Petitioner called Jack Lewzader to the stand. Before Mr. Lewzader testified, the Petitioner offered to amend count 2 of the amended information by changing the date of August 23, 1975, as reflected, to the date of August 16, 1975. The Respondent was offered the right of a continuance since there had been a change in count 2; however, the Respondent indicated that he was sufficiently prepared to defend the charges reflected in count 2 and the testimony of Jack Lewzader was taken. Mr. Lewzader said that he was a customer in Charlie's Beach Bar and that on one occasion he had taken home one Fawn Doyle* and on the way home Fawn Doyle had offered to sell herself for $10.00 and as the car stopped, Fawn Doyle grabbed the $10.00 from his hand and jumped out of the car. He stated that he went back to Charlie's Beach Bar and confronted Charlie Sanders later that same day, with the details of his problem with Fawn Doyle. Lewzader said that Charlie Sanders told him that he would have to talk with her. Charlie Sanders then introduced Lewzader to a Mike and a Linda who were in Charlie's Beach Bar. A conversation then ensued, in which it was indicated through Charlie Sanders, that he might help make the matter with Fawn Doyle right by the introduction of Mike and Linda. Linda and Mike stated that Linda would sell herself for $25.00 for the first hour, $50.00 for the second hour and $75.00 for all night and that they would deduct the $10.00 that had been taken by Fawn Doyle. This conversation with Linda and Mike took place on the premises of the Respondent, to wit, Charlie's Beach Bar. On cross-examination, Mr. Lewzader indicated that he had gone to the Indian Rocks Police Station to complain, after the $10.00 had been taken by Fawn Hetland. Then he went to speak to Charlie Sanders and met Mike and Linda, and later returned back to the police station to file a complaint. Respondent's Exhibit #1 was introduced through the witness, Lewzader. This item of evidence was the affidavit of complaint by Jack Lewzader. It was admitted without objection. As Respondent's Exhibit #1 reflects, the discussion Mr. Lewzader had at the police station was with one Officer Marvin Padgett. The witness indicated that Respondent's Exhibit #1 accurately reflects the details of his complaint. Respondent presented testimony in the course of the hearing, and the first witness was Diane Poole. Diane Poole is 23 years old and is a topless dancer at Charlie's Beach Bar at this time and has been so employed for two months. She testified that she applied for a job at Charlie's Beach Bar while down there having a glass of wine. She indicated that while having the wine she was carded by the bartender who was a lady; however, she auditioned before showing any identification card. The process of her hiring included Charlie Sanders asking where she had worked before and dancing to three songs, discussing certain written rules, discussing how old she was and signing a certain paper on income tax. She said that she has never been asked about being a prostitute. The witness has been a dancer for about 3-1/2 years and had started in Phoenix, Arizona. She has also held jobs as a model and as a secretary. *Fawn Doyle and Fawn Hetland was believed to be one and the same person to the knowledge of the witness. Marvin Padget took the stand, after being called by the Respondent. He testified that he knows Charlie Sanders and Carole Sanders. He further testified that he knows Jack Lewzader as being a complainant who came to him about alleged acts of prostitution by Fawn Hetland. In the discussion of his complaint about Fawn Hetland, the witness said he advised Lewzader of his rights and told him that he would not prosecute him for his involvement with the minor, Fawn Hetland. The witness further stated that he asked Lewzader if he was a regular patron of Charlie's Beach Bar and told him to keep his eyes and ears open. If he heard about anything else, such as prostitution, going on in the bar, he instructed Lewzader to report any matters of impropriety to him concerning prostitution in Charlie's Beach Bar. He also asked Lewzader if he had heard of other incidents such as the one with Fawn Hetland. He did not mention the names of any persons he wanted observed in Charlie's Beach Bar. Later, according to the witness, Jack Lewzader completed the complaint which is Respondent's Exhibit #1. Carole Sanders took the stand in her own behalf. She testified that Margie Johnson came into Charlie's Beach Bar and that she auditioned to be a dancer. According to Carole Sanders, Margie Johnson was asked for an identification and she told her she had lost her purse and that she would bring in some identification at a later time. She said she told Margie Johnson about their rules, which were not in the form of writing at that time, and also explained to her about the matters concerning income tax. The witness seemed to indicate that the actual hiring of Margie was at a later time, although she and her husband had agreed to hire Margie Johnson on the same date of the audition. According to the witness, it was her understanding that Margie Johnson would have an identification to show at the time she was actually employed. She doesn't know if any identification was ever shown by Margie Johnson to indicate her age. The witness said, to her knowledge, there is no prostitution in Charlie's Beach Bar and has not been since she became the proprietor, even though there have been 30 or 40 girls hired by the bar in that time period. According to the witness, Fawn Hetland was hired by Charlie Sanders. Margie Johnson, as indicated by the witness, was interviewed and eventually went to work the first day, effective the night that her bar was raided. The witness indicated that she never told anyone she was guilty of hiring minors. Nevertheless, she indicated that she knows she should have made sure on the age of her employees and was remiss in the instance of Fawn Hetland and Margie Johnson. She further stated that she is more careful now about the matter of identification for prospective employees. Charlie Sanders took the stand in behalf of the Respondent. Charlie Sanders, as stated before, is the husband of the Respondent. Describing the hiring of Fawn Hetland, he said he asked for a proof of age and she produced an employment card for Orange County. The witness said he was bothered by that somewhat and asked for further proof of age and Fawn Hetland promised proof later on. He testified that he knew she was married and had a child and for that reason seemed to be satisfied to accept better proof of age at a later time. To the witness's way of thinking, the reason better proof of age was never forth coming was because Fawn Hetland's husband had most of her identification and refused to give it to her. He also stated he had phoned an establishment called the House to see if she had danced there before and was told yes. In discussing Margie Johnson, the witness indicated that he had hired her over a four day period but that she had only worked one day. He said he asked Margie Johnson where she had worked before and she indicated the Savoy Lounge. His wife was there when Margie Johnson was hired. He said he wasn't shown any identification at the time of hiring but Fawn Hetland said that she was alright and he also called the Savoy Lounge, after which he was satisfied at that time. The witness then said that on the second or third night that she had worked she showed him a birth certificate that indicated that she was born in 1953, to which he simply replied, "is this yours?" and then told Margie Johnson to get to work. He said he told his wife that he had seen Margie Johnson's identification. To the witness, Margie Johnson, in August, 1975, looked 22 years of age as the phony birth certificate indicated. In discussing the Lewzader matter, the witness said that Lewzader came into the bar and wanted to talk to him about Fawn Hetland. He said that Lewzader told him that Fawn Hetland wanted some money for baby food and that he was going to give her $10.00 and she "ripped" the $10.00 off him, and that Lewzader simply wanted him to know what kind of person Fawn Hetland was. He confronted Fawn Hetland with the matter and Fawn Hetland said that Lewzader was trying to have sex with her. Before he could resolve the difference between Jack Lewzader and Fawn Hetland, he had to leave the bar and to his knowledge that was the end of the situation. The witness indicated that he had found out about the complaint before the time of his arrest by the Indian Rocks Beach Police Department, for prostitution type charges. He said that Lewzader was in his bar and he confronted Lewzader with the fact of Lewzader's claim in the affidavit, and Lewzader told him they simply had made it up, meaning the police. He said that Lewzader told him that he would never have come back into the bar to face him had he made the charges that the police claim. As an aside, the witness indicated that there had been a Linda working there at one time but that her fiance had not liked it and she had quit the job. He said that Linda continued to come in there, perhaps, but that he did not think Linda was in there at the time Jack Lewzader came to discuss the matter of Fawn Hetland. Attention is drawn to Petitioner's Exhibit #5 which is records turned over to the police by Carole Sanders, Respondent. These records seem to indicate that Margie Johnson was working there for more than one night. Moreover, these records seem to indicate that a person named Linda was working there at the same time that Marge (Margie Johnson) was. From the discussion of the employment of Margie Johnson, both from the standpoint of Margie Johnson, Carole Sanders, and Charlie Sanders, it appears that Margie Johnson was employed on the licensed premises of the Respondent when she was under the age of 18. Furthermore, the description of the technique involved by Carole Sanders and Charlie Sanders in trying to ascertain the age of Margie Johnson does not demonstrate due diligence on the part of the Respondent in hiring Margie Johnson. This conclusion assumes the validity of the story of any one of the three witnesses, to wit, Margie Johnson, Carole Sanders, or Charlie Sanders. It is noted that there is a major inconsistency concerning the date at which Margie Johnson was formally employed by the Respondent, when considering the version of Carole Sanders and Charlie Sanders, and consequently Margie Johnson is more creditable. In examining the application of count 1, to Fawn Hetland, one must look to the statements of Charlie Sanders. Assuming that what Charlie Sanders has said is exactly true, it would appear that Charlie Sanders as the agent or employee of Carole Sanders did not use due diligence in hiring Fawn Hetland. This is further established in view of the fact that a prima facie case has been established that Fawn Hetland was under the age of 18 when she was hired, as set forth by testimony offered by officer McMullen in discussing Carole Sanders admission. Although the nature of the acts of Jack Lewzader in involving himself with a minor for purposes of promoting prostitution on the part of Fawn Hetland and then in returning to Charlie's Beach Bar and engaging in the discussion of further prostitution with a subject whose name is Linda, would make his testimony somewhat suspect, it would still seem strong enough to support the charges in count 2. The testimony of Jack Lewzader must be contrasted with the interest on the part of Charlie Sanders in protecting the license, and must be considered in view of the fact, that there was a Linda working there at some time and who was apparently working there at the same time as Margie Johnson. Furthermore, Margie Johnson testified that she had seen Fawn Hetland discuss the price of $25.00 for purposes of prostitution, and leave with the man she was having that conversation with and not return until the next day. Finally in discussing count 3 of the charges, it is well established that Margie Faye Johnson was consuming an alcoholic beverage, to wit, beer on August 23, 1975, when the investigators arrived on the premises to serve the warrant. It has also been established that due diligence had not been followed in ascertaining the age of Margie Johnson before allowing her to consume that alcoholic beverage on the licensed premises, for reasons set forth in the discussion of count l.
Recommendation For committing the violation alleged in count 1 of the amended Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the Director of the Division of Beverage revoke the license of the Respondent. For committing the violation alleged in count 2 of the amended Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the Director of the Division of Beverage assess a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00. For committing the violation alleged in count 3 of the amended Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the Director of the Division of Beverage revoke the license of the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert K. Hayden, Esquire 932 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516 =================================================================
