The Issue Whether Petitioner is subject to the sales tax imposed on controlled substances by s. 212.0505, Florida Statutes, and if so, what is the appropriate tax.
Findings Of Fact On September 12, 1989, a search and destroy team assembled in Sebring, Florida, to survey Highlands County for evidence of the growing or possession of illegal drugs. The survey team consisted of a helicopter, pilot and crew chief from the Florida National Guard; and the ground crew of representatives from the Highlands County Sheriff's Office, State Highway Patrol, Fish and Game Commission, Florida Law Enforcement Officers and federal agents. The search commenced in the southwest quadrant of Highlands County with the helicopter and trained spotters flying a search pattern so as to view from the air any illegal substances being grown. On one, if not the first, leg of the search pattern, the helicopter, flying at an altitude of 500 feet, passed over the property on which Petitioner lives; and one of the observers spotted what he identified as marijuana growing near one of the outbuildings on this property. The marijuana patch was circled for both spotters as well as the pilot and crew to better see the growing marijuana. The ground party was alerted by radio of the find. They proceeded to the location and entered onto the property. There they met Petitioner, proceeded to the area where the marijuana was growing, and cut down the marijuana plants. Some 171 cut plants were counted, wrapped in bundles of approximately 10 plants each, and loaded into the back of a pickup truck. The deputies asked Petitioner if he would unlock the building next to where the marijuana plants were growing and he, knowing they could get a search warrant if necessary, unlocked the door. Inside they found some lights obtained for the purpose of growing marijuana indoors and other material listed on Exhibit 3A, all of which were confiscated. Petitioner was placed under arrest and the marijuana and other property seized was taken to the sheriff's office. The vehicle carrying the marijuana was weighed before the marijuana was unloaded and again immediately following the unloading. The difference in the weight of the vehicle with and without the marijuana was 450 pounds. Subsequent thereto, someone from either the sheriff's office or the Florida Department of Law Enforcement advised the Department of Revenue Collections and Enforcement agent in Lakeland, Florida, and the Notice of Assessment was prepared and served on Petitioner. To establish the value of the marijuana seized, the agent preparing the assessment used information received from the FDLE that the average street price in the district in which the marijuana was seized was $600 per pound in 1989. The document containing this information was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 6 after testimony was presented that each year the FDLE directs its five regional offices to submit street prices for various illegal drugs sold on the streets during that year. Exhibit 6 shows the marijuana street price at $600 per pound in the Tampa district (which includes Highlands County) as of June 7, 1989. To obtain the estimated retail price of the marijuana seized, the agent multiplied $600 per pound by 450 pounds. This price is for marijuana which has been processed and is ready for use. No evidence was submitted showing what parts of the marijuana plant are used in preparing the marijuana rolled into "joints" or smoked in a pipe. Nor was evidence presented showing how many pounds of processed and ready-to-use marijuana can be obtained from a given number of pounds of growing marijuana plants. In his testimony, Petitioner readily admitted that he had planted and cultivated the marijuana seized on September 12, 1989. He also testified that this is the first and only time he has ever attempted to grow marijuana; that he obtained the marijuana seeds and a book on how to grow marijuana from an advertisement in a magazine; that he had never sold marijuana in the past; that he had made no effort to locate a purchaser; or that he had any inkling of how to find a buyer for the plants after they were harvested or how much such plants were worth for use by marijuana users. Petitioner also testified the marijuana was planted a long distance from the nearest traveled road and from the nearest boundary of Petitioner's property; and that there was a canopy provided by trees among which he had planted the marijuana plants, and he didn't think the plants would be readily visible from the air. Petitioner's testimony that the helicopter passed over his property at tree top level, which he estimated at less than 75 feet, is rejected as being in conflict with the altimeter height provided by the helicopter pilot. In the U. S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Petitioner pleaded guilty to possession of more than 100 marijuana plants.
Recommendation It is recommended that the assessment against Joe "Little Joe" Hatch of $270,999.02 plus interest from September 12, 1989, be dismissed. ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX Respondent's proposed findings are generally accepted and included in the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, except the following which are rejected. 12-18. Accepted as street value of processed marijuana. 26. Last sentence rejected as contrary to the record that the charge was possession of over 100 marijuana plants. Petitioner failed to timely submit a proposed recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond E. LaPorte, Esquire 410 Ware Boulevard, Suite 601 Tampa, FL 33619 Steve Kackley, Esquire 357 S. Orange Avenue Sebring, FL 33870 Lee R. Rohe, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 William D. Moore General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 =================================================================
The Issue The parties' prehearing statement filed on November 6, 1989, appropriately identifies the controversy as follows: Whether the evidence to be presented by petitioner establishes that respondent was in actual and/or constructive possession of more than twenty (20) grams of cannabis (marijuana), which is a felony violation of Section 893.13, F.S., and drug paraphernalia, which is a misdemeanor violation of Section 893.147, F.S., on November 19, 1988. If proven, do these acts constitute immorality and misconduct in office under Section 231.36(4), F.S.; and Are these acts of such a serious nature that respondent should be discharged from employment and his continuing contract as a teacher with petitioner be terminated.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert W. Stafford, is 51 years old. At the time of his suspension in 1989, he had been employed as an elementary school teacher with the Brevard County School District approximately 30 years, and was under a continuing contract. For the last 20 years Robert Stafford has owned and lived in his residence located at 5645 Crane Road, Melbourne Village, Florida. He is divorced and, at the time in question, shared the home with his son, Christopher Stafford, and three other young adult males: Martin Lenz, Paul Daniel Butler, and Larry Peace. Each of these individuals had lived in the home for several months or several years prior to November 1988. Each had his own bedroom and due to varying work schedules, only occasionally interacted. In lieu of paying rent, the occupants contributed toward food and utilities and the upkeep and maintenance of the house and its 3/4 acre grounds. Robert Stafford rarely had occasion to enter the bedrooms of the young men. They did their own cleaning. From time to time he would close a window, or put clean laundry in Christopher's room, but generally, the bedrooms, including Robert Stafford's, were considered the private domain of the occupant. On Friday night, November 18, 1988, Robert Stafford left the house around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. to go to the movies. Larry Peace was at home entertaining his girlfriend. After the elder Stafford left, Peace and the girl smoked marijuana in his room and in the living room. They used a bong (type of water pipe) that he ordinarily kept in his room under his bed. They also burned incense throughout the house. To Peace's knowledge, no one else was home except Martin Lenz, who always kept to himself in his own room, upstairs above the main area of the residence. At some point the couple retired to Robert Stafford's room, leaving the bong in the living room. Although they did not have permission to use the room, the bed was bigger. Christopher Stafford works as custodian in a 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. shift at Roy Allen Elementary School. He returned home after 10:00 p.m. on the night of November 18, 1988. His father was still out and the others were apparently asleep. He rolled a marijuana cigarette in his room and smoked it outside. When he returned to the house he lit various kinds of incense in the living room and throughout the house. He ate dinner and settled in watching television. Shortly after midnight he heard the dogs barking. When he went out to the backyard, two police officers jumped him and served a search warrant. The Stafford residence had been under surveillance by the Melbourne Village Police Department for several months. Prior to the surveillance, on April 20, 1987, Chief Donald Lock, who was then an officer with the Melbourne Village Police Department, searched the room of Larry Peace, the suspect in a crime which had occurred earlier. The search was pursuant to Peace's written consent and Robert Stafford's verbal consent. The officer was looking for certain clothing, and found, in addition to the clothing, a shotgun, a tray with some marijuana seeds and a waterpipe or bong. After the search was completed, Robert Stafford signed the property receipt for the items. The surveillance was conducted by Officer Norman Rudd with the Melbourne Village Police Department, who at the time of hearing, in November 1989, was 22 years old and had been with the department for two and a half years. Periodically, from February 1988 until November 1988, Officer Rudd viewed the backyard of the Stafford residence from a vantage point in a highly vegetated area behind the property line. He claimed, at various times, to have observed a garden patch of 1-inch marijuana seedlings outside the property line but on a beaten path leading to the property, four males inside the house smoking a bong, a large party in progress with some people smoking marijuana in the backyard, and black plastic pots with larger marijuana plants in the wooded area behind the Stafford property line. Seven or eight police officers converged on the Stafford house the early morning of November 19, 1988. This included the entire 3-man Melbourne Village Police Department and assistance from neighboring Palm Bay and West Melbourne Police Departments. This was the first search warrant executed by Melbourne Village, in the experience of Chief Lock. The search took approximately 5 1/2 hours, and was videotaped (approximately 50 minutes) by an officer from the Palm Bay department. Robert Stafford returned home around 1:00 a.m. and was detained in the living room with the other residents as the search continued. The search revealed Larry Peace's black bong in the northeast corner of the living room. Other paraphernalia and contraband were found in the various bedrooms, including a marijuana pipe with residue and a marijuana cigarette butt and rolling papers on or near Paul Butler's dresser; numerous pieces of drug paraphernalia, hashish oil, cocaine residue, and marijuana, primarily in the form of stems, seeds and parts of discarded cigarettes, in Christopher Stafford's room; a bong and pieces of a bong, marijuana seeds, leaves and butts, a pipe and miscellaneous paraphernalia in Larry Peace's room; and baggies with marijuana residue, a brass pipe with residue, a marijuana butt and tongs in Martin Lenz' room. One item of interest in the search was found in Robert Stafford's room: approximately 27.2 grams of marijuana in two plastic baggies rolled into another baggie and stashed behind a picture on the wall. No other residue, paraphernalia or devices were found in that room. In contrast to Robert Stafford's room, which was neat and uncluttered, the rooms of the young men were messy and filled with books, clothes, posters, papers and debris. Two of the rooms contained wire animal cages, for snakes, rabbits or other small animals. The rooms were small, except for Christopher's, and appeared to be partially make-shift renovation. Most of the items confiscated in the search were either completely hidden in closets or drawers, or were behind beer bottles, books or other clutter. Other items were found (the discarded stems, seeds, and butts) with other refuse in trash cans. The visual effect portrayed in the video tape was such disarray that it would be difficult to focus on a single item of contraband without specifically looking for that item. The officers described the pervasive odor in the house as marijuana, and one officer became ill during the search and had to leave. Other evidence established the odor as incense, including Christopher's blend of strawberry, musk and sandalwood, and of animals. Robert Stafford denies knowledge of the presence of the contraband in his home or the plants growing beyond the property line. He denies that he would have recognized the paraphernalia or the marijuana, except in the form of a plant, which he would recognize from pictures. Sometime prior to the November 1988 incident, Stafford was shown a marijuana plant by the custodian at Turner Elementary School on a morning when he was hurrying to class. When he signed the property receipt at the time of the search of Peace's bedroom, the marijuana seeds and pipe were not presented to him. The marijuana stashed in Robert Stafford's room belonged to Christopher, who had secreted it there for safe- keeping when he suspected someone was messing with the things in his room. The youths never used drugs in front of the elder Stafford and burned incense in their rooms and elsewhere to cover the odor. There is no evidence suggesting that Robert Stafford uses or used drugs or marijuana and he emphatically denies such. When Robert Stafford failed to report the presence of marijuana at school when it was shown to him by the custodian, he was given a written reprimand. This is the only blemish on his 30-year teaching career. His performance evaluations have been satisfactory or outstanding. He has been commended for setting up a model computer center and for work with difficult children. He has been a regular volunteer in child enrichment activities such as Little League. In April 1989, the Staffords and other residents were charged with criminal violations arising from the November 1988 search. Robert Stafford's charges were disposed of, nolle prosequi. The Department of Education found no probable cause to pursue discipline of his teaching certificate. The evidence in this proceeding failed to establish that Robert Stafford was in actual or constructive possession of cannabis (marijuana) or drug paraphernalia.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That the Petition for Discharge of Robert W. Stafford be dismissed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 22nd day of February, 1990.
The Issue The issues presented for resolution in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent's alcoholic beverage licensure should be subjected to disciplinary sanctions because of alleged misconduct involving the sale and use of controlled substances on a licensed premises, more specifically delineated in the Notice to Show Cause filed in this proceeding by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, JIMMIE WILLIAMS, owns the club or tavern known as the "Copa Cabana", doing business at 2901 North Haynes Street, Pensacola, Florida. That establishment holds a Series 2-COP alcoholic beverage license number 27- 00239, authorizing the sale of beer and wine on the premises. The Respondent is the sole owner of the Copa Cabana. Burnett Patterson, at times pertinent hereto, during September 1988 through February 1989, was a patrol deputy with the Okaloosa County Sheriff's Department. While a deputy with that Department, he engaged in special drug investigations. During the course of this employment, he became involved in numerous undercover operations designed to curb traffic and use of controlled substances. He thus became familiar with the appearance, properties and paraphernalia associated with crack cocaine and marijuana. On September 2, 1988, he met with Law Enforcement Investigator, Paul Blackmon, of the DABT. Investigator Blackmon asked Deputy Patterson to assist in a drug investigation of the Copa Cabana. At approximately 8:00 p.m. on that date, Deputy Patterson entered the Copa Cabana licensed premises in an undercover capacity. While in the licensed premises, inside the Copa Cabana, he observed patrons of that establishment openly smoking marijuana and crack cocaine. He observed one black male patron walking around inside the licensed premises holding a piece of crack cocaine visibly in his front teeth in order to advertise it for sale. This activity was done in the presence of the licensee/Respondent, Jimmie Williams. The undercover agent further observed numerous persons selling marijuana and cocaine inside, as well as outside the licensed premises. These persons made no attempt to conceal their illegal actions. It has not been demonstrated who owned or controlled the grounds immediately outside the door of the licensed premises. On September 16, 1988, at approximately 8:15 p.m., Deputy Patterson again entered the licensed premised in an undercover capacity. Upon entering the licensed premises, he observed 15 to 20 patrons inside and observed the Respondent working at the bar. Deputy Patterson went to the restroom inside the Copa Cabana and observed two black males cutting crack cocaine into small pieces, mixing them with marijuana, and rolling the resulting material into cigarettes or "joints" for smoking. Deputy Patterson purchased one piece of crack cocaine for $20.00 from a patron known as William Barker while inside the restroom. While inside the licensed premises, Deputy Patterson observed patrons openly smoking crack cocaine and marijuana. He was approached by other patrons, who asked if he wanted to purchase controlled substances. The substance purchased was analyzed and tested positive for cocaine. On September 19, 1988, at approximately 7:40 p.m., Deputy Patterson again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Upon entering, he made contact with patron, Jerry Green, who was accompanied by a patron known as "Killer." Deputy Patterson purchased one "baggie" of marijuana for $10.00 from "Killer." This transaction, along with the open smoking of marijuana, took place in the presence of the Respondent. Deputy Patterson also observed numerous controlled substance transactions taking place outside and near the entrance of the licensed premises. The substance he purchased was analyzed and proved to be marijuana. On September 24, 1988, at approximately 3:30 p.m., Deputy Patterson again entered the license's premises. He observed several patrons entering and exiting the restroom area. He entered the restroom and made contact with patron, John Butler. John Butler asked Deputy Patterson what he was looking for, and the Deputy replied "crack." Deputy Patterson was sold one piece of crack cocaine by John Butler and another unknown patron for $20.00. Deputy Patterson observed several patrons entering the restroom and purchasing crack cocaine. Jimmie Williams was inside the licensed premises during the time Deputy Patterson was present and making these observations. Deputy Patterson further observed several narcotic transactions outside the front entrance of the licensed premised. The substance purchased by Deputy Patterson was analyzed and tested as positive for the presence of cocaine. On October 8, 1988, at approximately 4:10 p.m., Deputy Patterson again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Prior to entering, he was asked by several patrons loitering near the entrance of the Copa Cabana if he wanted to purchase controlled substances. Once inside the licensed premises, he entered the restroom, where he made contact with patron, Calvin Black. Deputy Patterson purchased one piece of crack cocaine from Calvin Black for $20.00. Deputy Patterson then departed the restroom and observed patrons openly smoking marijuana while playing pool. Deputy Patterson contacted patron, Terry Boutwell, by the pool table. Terry Boutwell sold Deputy Patterson one baggie of marijuana for $10.00 at that location. Upon leaving the building, Deputy Patterson was again approached by persons outside the entrance to the Copa Cabana and asked if he wanted to purchase controlled substances. During all of the aforementioned events, including the sale of marijuana and the smoking of marijuana in the vicinity of the pool table, the Respondent was inside the licensed premises. Both the substance purchased from Calvin Black and that purchased from' Terry Boutwell were subsequently analyzed and proved to be controlled substances. On January 28, 1989, at approximately 5:00 p.m, a confidential informant, Alonzo Blackman, was designated to conduct a controlled substance purchase inside the licensed premises from the licensee, Jimmie Williams. The confidential informant was given specific instructions to buy only from Williams. Prior to departing the Sheriff's Department, he was thoroughly searched. It was determined that he had no controlled substances or money on his person. He was provided with a concealed, wireless voice transmitter. He was also given $50.00 of the Sheriff's Department's money for the purpose of purchasing crack cocaine. Subsequently, the confidential informant departed the Sheriff's Department with Deputy Gwen Salter. The pair was followed and traced by Escambia County Sheriff's Deputy Mark Shaeffer. Deputy Shaeffer was equipped with a radio receiver and monitored transmissions emitted from Alonzo Blackman's transmitter. Deputy Shaeffer observed Alonzo Blackman park behind the Copa Cabana to the rear of the building on a back street and depart Deputy Salter's vehicle. He observed Alonzo Blackman walk through the wooded area behind the Copa Cabana and disappear around the side of the building, moving toward the front of the Copa Cabana building. After Alonzo Blackman was out of sight around the corner of the Copa Cabana building, Deputy Shaeffer could hear normal outdoor sounds, as well as Alonzo Blackman's footsteps through the transmitter. Shortly thereafter, he heard the sound of a juke box playing and loud voices consistent with the noises one would expect when a person entered a bar. Within two or three minutes thereafter, Deputy Schaeffer observed Alonzo Blackman come back in sight around the corner of the licensed premises and enter Deputy Salter's vehicle. Deputy Schaeffer followed the two back to the Sheriff's Department, keeping Alonzo Blackman in visual sight the entire time. When Alonzo Blackman and Deputy Salter returned to the Sheriff's Department, Alonzo Blackman presented Deputy Schaeffer with a slab of rock cocaine and no longer had the $50.00 given to him by the Sheriff's Department. Subsequently, the substance purchased was analyzed and tested positive for the presence of cocaine. The Petitioner adduced a hearsay statement from Deputy Schaeffer to the effect that Alonzo Blackman had told him that he had purchased the rock cocaine in question from the Respondent. That statement was not admitted into evidence since it was not corroborative hearsay for the purposes of Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. The hearsay statement concerning the alleged purchase from the Respondent is not corroborative of the testimony concerning the other independent events in question in this proceeding involving the sale and use of controlled substances on the licensed premises by others. The only testimony or evidence directly concerning the alleged purchase of cocaine from the Respondent was that related by confidential informant, Blackman, to Deputy Schaeffer. The only other evidence purporting to show that the Respondent sold a slab of rock cocaine was the testimony by Deputy Schaeffer revealing what he saw and heard over his radio receiver. All he saw was Alonzo Blackman passing around the side of the building aid later returning around the back corner of the building. He heard his footsteps as he passed around and presumably entered the building, judging from the change in sounds received. There was no evidence that any voices or other noises transmitted to Deputy Schaeffer's listening station consisted of the actual drug transaction and specifically that any of the voices or sounds he might have heard were those of the Respondent in conducting that transaction. Since Deputy Schaeffer's testimony, itself, does not implicate the Respondent in selling the drug, the hearsay statement of the confidential informant, Alonzo Blackman, who could not be located at the time of the hearing, cannot be admissible corroborative hearsay. Thus, it was not established that on this occasion, the slab of rock cocaine was actually purchased from the Respondent. On February 8, 1989, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Alonzo Blackman was again designated to conduct a controlled substance purchase inside the Copa Cabana from the Respondent. He was given the same specific instructions, and Deputy Schaeffer made the same visual and auditory observations as he had with regard to the alleged transaction of January 28, 989. The same factual findings apply, and are made, with regard to this transaction as were made above concerning the January 28, 1989 transaction. The alleged fact that the purchase was made from Jimmie Williams was again predicated on the hearsay statement of Blackman, which was not corroborative and was uncorroborated. It cannot be used to support a finding that the Respondent sold the cocaine in question. On February 7, 1989, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Escambia County Investigators, Tyron Wicks, Melvin Possey and J. Johnson, conducted a "routine drug sweep" of the Copa Cabana. This type of operation was a routine matter for Investigator Wicks in the six months prior to February 7, 1989. Upon entering the licensed premises, Investigator Wicks went directly to the men's restroom where he observed four patrons having a conversation while looking into a paper bag. Investigator Wicks seized the paper bag which contained nine plastic baggies of marijuana ready for distribution and charged him with possession of 20 grams of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Investigator Wicks is familiar with the smell of marijuana smoke; and during "drug sweeps" conducted in the licensed premises, estimated to be 20 or 30 such operations for the previous six months, he smelled such smoke in the licensed premises on a number of occasions. On these occasions, he had also found marijuana and crack and razor blades, as well as pipes and cans used for smoking crack, on the floor of the licensed premises. He has seen people buy drugs at the Copa Cabana while he has been present there with the Sheriff's Department Narcotics Unit during the years 1988 and 1989. Sergeant Bobby Jackson of the Narcotics Division of the Escambia County Sheriff's Department has bean a law enforcement officer for approximately 14 years. He is familiar with the smell and appearance of marijuana and crack cocaine. He has been involved in 20 to 30 raids at the licensed premises. On at least 15 occasions, officers in his party have found controlled substances. The Respondent was always present when these raids took place. On many of the raids, Sergeant Jackson smelled the odor of marijuana smoke in the licensed premises. He is certain that the Respondent was present on these occasions. During these raids, he has observed marijuana cigarette butts on the floor of the licensed premises and has often found people inside bagging marijuana. Prior to the suspension of the beverage license on February 10, 1989, Sergeant Jackson received quite a few complaints about the licensed premises; and each time he visited it, he would observe a great number of people standing around inside and outside the licensed premises. It has been quite different since the suspension of the license and the shutdown of operations at the Copa Cabana. Sergeant Jackson has received very few complaints since February 10, 1989. Sergeant Jackson, however, never received any complaints from the Respondent about drug use in the establishment. John Green is a black male, whose mother lives approximately a block from the licensed premises. He has been a friend of the Respondent for approximately 15 years. During the period of January and February of 1989, he patronized the licensed premises six days a week, every week. He would go there after work and stay until approximately 9:00 p.m. He states that he always saw the Respondent behind the bar. John Green stated that the bar was a self- service bar where patrons could get beer out of the cooler in front of the bar and pay for it at the counter. He maintained that he had never seen Deputy Patterson and that, in his opinion, marijuana smoke smells just like Kool cigarette smoke. He drinks beer every night, including the times when he patronized the Copa Cabana. He testified under oath that he had never seen anyone use drugs in the licensed premises and that on one occasion, however, he had thrown someone out of the licensed premises for using drugs. Dorothy Mouton lives approximately six miles from the Copa Cabana and works at Washington Junior High School in an administrative capacity. She knows the Respondent, who also works there as a coach. She, in the past, has stopped at the Copa Cabana to eat a snack and converse the During the period of August of 1988 to February of 1989, she went to the Copa Cabana every week. According to Ms. Mouton, the Respondent had a stool behind the bar and would get beer from the cooler for patrons who requested beer. She claimed that she was able, by her experience, to identify marijuana smoke and crack cocaine. She maintained that she never saw any drug of either sort in the licensed premises She also testified that it was her habit to depart the licensed premises every day between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Chris Dortch is a 27 year old black male who has known the Respondent for a long period of time. He helped the Respondent operate the Copa Cabana when he first established it. He lives approximately four blocks from the Copa Cabana. He goes to the licensed premises every day and sometimes stays until it closes. He has always observed the Respondent staying behind the bar counter while he is on duty. This witness also claimed under oath that he had never seen any cocaine or marijuana smoked in the licensed premises and had never smelled any marijuana smoke within the licensed premises. He testified that he saw police officers in the licensed premises at least ten times, but never observed any arrests. Elizabeth Freeman lives around the corner from the licensed premises and has lived there approximately four years. During the period of September of 1988 to February 10, 1989, she went to the club every day for about an hour where she would talk to Williams and play video games. She claimed that she observed Williams, on occasion, move from behind the counter into the public area of the tavern. She also testified that she has never seen any indications of drug use on the premises. Shirley Washington was in the habit of going to the club during the period of August of 1988 to February of 1989 at approximately 4:30 p.m. and generally would stay until closing, usually around 9:00 p.m. She was a member of a social group called "The Copa Cabana Queens." It was her habit, during this period of time, to drink four to five six-packs of beer each day. She is familiar with the smell of crack cocaine smoke and marijuana smoke. She testified that she had never observed any marijuana or crack cocaine within the licensed premises. She has been a friend of the Respondent for approximately 25 years. The Respondent is an instructor and coach with the Escambia County School Board. He has owned the Copa Cabana for 15 years. It is a recreation center, lounge, notion store and meeting place. He also has live entertainment and occasionally, a fashion show. His license authorizes him to sell and serve beer and wine. He is the only employee, but Ms. Washington minds the bar for him when he is temporarily away from it (in the restroom, etc.). He testified that he never observed Deputy Patterson until the day of the hearing. He testified that no drugs had ever been in the licensed premises and that he had never dealt in drugs. The testimony of Deputies Patterson and Schaeffer, Investigator Wicks, Sergeant Jackson, and Law Enforcement Investigator Ralph Kelly, to the effect that controlled substances were openly and notoriously used and sold on the premises in question, conflicts in a general sense with the testimony of Respondent's witnesses to the effect that they never saw any marijuana or crack cocaine on the premises or smelled any and so forth. This conflict in the testimony of the witnesses of the Petitioner and Respondent must be resolved by determining which are more credible. Determining the credibility of witnesses is an important and exclusive task of the fact finder Guidelines for resolving credibility issues are provided in Volume 24, Florida Jurisprudence 2nd, Sections 688-696, and grand jury instruction 2.04 on page 779 of West's Florida Criminal Laws and Rules (1989), which sets forth areas to consider in determining whether a witness is credible. Those areas include: whether the witness had an opportunity to observe and know the things about which he testifies' whether his memory seemed accurate; whether he was straight forward in his answers; whether he was interested in the result of the case at issue; whether it is consistent with other testimony and evidence adduced; and whether he has, at some different time, made an inconsistent statement from the testimony given before the court. Firstly, concerning the testimony of John Green, it can be seen that he testified to having patronized the establishment during the period of January and February of 1989 and purported never to have seen Deputy Patterson. This is not surprising since there was no testimony by the Deputy that he was in the licensed premises during those two months. Therefore, John Green would have had no opportunity to observe Deputy Patterson at the time he frequented the licensed the premises. John Green also testified that he drank beer in the licensed premises every night and, thus, could quite likely have suffered a diminution of his powers of observation as a result of drinking beer. Dorothy Mouton maintained that she went to the Copa Cabana every week during the period of August of 1988 to February of 1989. She stated that she went there between the time she got off work until 6:00 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. Her time in the licensed premises was, therefore, very limited; and everything alleged by the Petitioner's witnesses could easily have occurred without her being on the licensed premises to observe the alleged violations. Elizabeth Freeman stated that she went to the Copa Cabana for about an hour each day during the time alleged in the Notice to Show Cause. If her testimony that she saw no drugs used on the licensed premises is accepted as true that still does not resolve the problem that the amount of time that she spent on the licensed premises was quite limited. The violations testified to by the Petitioner's witnesses could have occurred during her absence from the licensed premises. Shirley Washington claimed that she was at the Copa Cabana every day from 4:30 p.m. to approximately 9:00 p.m. during the time pertinent to the charges in the Notice to Show Cause. She also testified that she would drink four to five six-packs of beer every day. That could easily diminish her powers of observation and, no doubt, did. None of the witnesses for the Respondent could describe the events of any particular day alleged in the Notice to Show Cause. Their testimony was rather of a very general nature and not date or time-specific. On the other hand, the Petitioner's witnesses were trained law enforcement officers and observers, who kept meticulous records of their participation in the events in question and who gave detailed testimony as to the time, date and circumstances of each event that took place on the licensed premises and later became the subject of the charges in the Notice to Show Cause. There is no evidence that any of the law enforcement officers were drinking or otherwise had impaired powers of observation during the pertinent times. The Respondent's witnesses' memories and resulting testimonies appeared very general at best. Concerning the issue of whether the witnesses might have some interest in how the case should be resolved, it should be pointed out that the Respondent's witnesses were all old friends of the Respondent. John Green has been a friend of the Respondent for 15 years. Dorothy Mouton is a co-worker of the Respondent's at Washington Junior High School and must be counted as a friend of the Respondent. Chris Dortch has apparently known the Respondent since he was a small child. Elizabeth Freeman has been his friend and customer for the past four years. Shirley Washington has been the Respondent's friend for 25 years. All of these people are not only friends of the Respondent, but apparently considered the Copa Cabana a sort of favorite resort or meeting place away from home and clearly wanted to continue the benefit of the close friendly relationship. The Petitioner's witnesses, on the other hand, were professional police officers, none of whom had any relationship with the Respondent or the Copa Cabana. There was no evidence that any of the officers were somehow targeting the Respondent for special prosecution efforts. It rather appears that the events which came to light, as described in their testimony and the Notice to Show Cause, were discovered through routine police operations. Further, Deputy Patterson testified concerning the issue of whether the Respondent exhibited proper diligence in supervising and maintaining surveillance over the licensed premises. He stated that when the Respondent sold' a beer, he would do so by receiving the money for the beer and then moving outside of the bar to the cooler, kept in the room near the bar, to obtain the beer and give it to the customer. The Respondent's witnesses, however, addressed this matter with differing testimony. John Green, stated that customers would get the beer themselves from the cooler and then go to the counter to pay for it. Dorothy Mouton stated that the Respondent would get the beer from the cooler himself, which required him to walk outside the area behind the bar into the area of the room, in which the bar was located, to the cooler, which would allow him to view the rear room and restroom area of the licensed premises. Chris Dortch testified that the Respondent stayed behind the counter during beer sales. Elizabeth Freeman stated that she had observed the Respondent move from behind the counter into the open area of the licensed premises in the act of getting a beer for a customer. Thus, the Respondent's witnesses' testimony as to this question was inconsistent in terms of rebutting the testimony of Deputy Patterson as to the manner in which beverages were sold by the Respondent, as that relates to the Respondent's physical position in the licensed premises and ability to see what activities transpired in the rear room, the area of the restroom entrance and the pool table. In any event, the foregoing analysis reveals that the testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses is more credible. It is concluded that that of the Respondent's witness, and the Respondent himself, show a lack of knowledge, clear memory, and consistency, at best, without reaching the question of whether any of the Respondent's witnesses deliberately falsified their testimony. Accordingly, the testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses, to the extent that it conflicts with that of the Respondent's witnesses, is accepted as more credible.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the competent, credible evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, JIMMIE WILLIAMS, d/b/a Copa Cabana, be found guilty of the offenses set forth in Counts II and III of the Notice to Show Cause. It is further recommended that Count I of the Notice to Show Cause be dismissed. It is further recommended that the alcoholic beverage license held by the Respondent be revoked and that a civil penalty of $2,000.00 be assessed against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-719 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-6. Accepted. Accepted, but not as probative of the ultimate fact of the sale of rock cocaine by the Respondent, himself. Accepted, but not as probative of the ultimate fact of the sale of rock cocaine by the Respondent, himself. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not as probative of any material issue presented for adjudication. 12.-16. Accepted, in that these proposed findings of fact describe the testimony of these witnesses. However, these witnesses have been determined to be not credible. 17. Accepted, to the extent that it is arc accurate description of the Respondent's testimony. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-4. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and as not Entirely in accordance with the clear and convincing evidence. 7.-9. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and hot in accordance with the clear and convincing evidence. Rejected, as not materially dispositive of the issues presented. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and not, itself, materially dispositive. Rejected, as not, .in itself, materially dispositive. Accepted, in part, but the evidence in this case does not delineate the extent of the premises owned or controlled by the Respondent, and to that extent, it is rejected. Rejected, as subordinate to tide Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and as to it's purported material import. Rejected, as to its material import in relation to the remainder of Deputy Patterson's testimony. Rejected, as contrary to the clear and convincing evidence. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and not in accordance with the clear and convincing evidence. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and not being an accurate reflection of the overall sense of the witnesses' testimonies. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Rejected, as being contrary to the greater weight of the clear and convincing evidence. Accepted, but not, itself, dispositive of material issues presented, except to the extent that it has not been proven that the Respondent, himself, offered any drugs for sale. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and as not being, itself, dispositive of material issues presented. Rejected, as immaterial. Even if this is true, it does not overcome proof that the Copa Cabana club's operations constitute a nuisance. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Leo A. Thomas, Esq. Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. P.O. Box 12308 Pensacola, FL 32581 Leonard Ivey, Director Department Of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Barnell and Louise Evans held beverage license No. 62-01451-2-COP for premises located at 1313 North Greenwood Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. They have held this beverage license since 1980. Following receipt of complaints regarding the sale and use of controlled substances, principally marijuana and cocaine, on the licensed premises, an undercover investigation of Foxy's Den was initiated. Keith B. Hamilton, Department of Law Enforcement (DLE) Investigator, visited Foxy's Den the evening of February 28, 1985, observed patrons smoking marijuana, purchased a $5.00 packet from a patron in the lounge of what was later tested and found to be marijuana, purchased paper to roll marijuana cigarettes from the barmaid after holding up the packet he had just purchased, and observed other transactions in what appeared to be the sale and use of marijuana on the licensed premises. Ira L. McQueen, another DLE Investigator, visited the licensed premises during the evening hours of March 21, 26, and 28 April 9, 10, 16, 18, 24, and 29 May 6, 9, 15, 21, and 22: June 20, 25, and 26: July 1, 8, 18, 23, and 29, 1985. During each of these visits he observed one or more of the following: Patrons smoking marijuana in plain view in the bar area patrons selling marijuana and cocaine to other patrons, including McQueen, in the bar area without much attempt at secrecy: bartenders and barmaids discussing the purchase of controlled substances with patrons and acting as intermediaries in those purchases packets of marijuana and money in exchange therefor passing between patrons in plain view of the bartender patrons obtaining change from the bartender, for example, a $20.00 bill, to purchase a nickel ($5.00) or dime ($10.00) packet of marijuana and McQueen being asked by the bartender if he, McQueen, was interested in buying marijuana or cocaine, and thereafter the bartender participating in the purchase of cocaine or marijuana by contributing money to the purchase and contacting the vendors. During these visits to the licensed premises by McQueen, he observed the licensee, Barnell Evans, on the premises only twice, but on each of these occasions McQueen observed the illegal use or sale of controlled substances on the premises which could also have been observed by Evans. Louise Evans has a full-time job at a local hospital and visits the licensed premises only for the purpose of taking the books and records home where she prepares the payroll, pays bills, and keeps the books for the business. Barnell Evans' principal occupation is construction. He is a stucco subcontractor and has maintained this business in Clearwater for a number of years. He has a good reputation in the building industry for honesty and integrity. Operation of Foxy's Den is a part-time occupation of Evans. Respondents had been told by a friend that controlled substances were being sold in the vicinity of the premises. One bartender and a barmaid were fired by Respondents for involvement with drugs on the premises after being warned that implication in drugs on the licensed premises would not be tolerated by the owners. One witness described Barnell Evans as naive regarding controlled substances. His appearance during these proceedings supports the conclusion that he is more naive regarding how to stop the use or sale of controlled substances than indifferent to such use or sale. The bartender on duty most of the evenings Foxy's Den was visited by McQueen, and who was involved in McQueen's purchases, is June Little, the nephew of Barnell Evans, who had hired Little because he was out of work, living with his mother, and "needed a job." Respondents have negotiated an agreement, Exhibit 4, with Curtis McCoy Security Agency for the latter to provide an unarmed uniform security guard on the licensed premises from 4:00 p.m. until midnight daily to detect and deter violations of the laws regarding sale and/or use of controlled substances on the licensed premises.
Findings Of Fact While a student at Southwest Florida Police Academy in April 1981, Petitioner gave Janice Kellogg a baggie containing 3.2 grams of marijuana. The only factual dispute occurred regarding the circumstances leading to Petitioner's acquisition of the marijuana and the reasons for giving the marijuana to Kellogg. Petitioner testified he found the marijuana in the road leading into a trailer space adjacent to his trailer the morning after the trailer had departed. He further testified he threw the marijuana into the cab of his pickup truck intending to turn it in to the authorities; that he was engaged in final exams and forgot about the marijuana until later in the day when a K-9 drug dog was presented and Petitioner hid the marijuana to test the dog; that after they observed the dog locate the marijuana, Kellogg asked Petitioner for the marijuana and he gave it to her; and that when he asked for it back later that day he was told she had smoked it. Kellogg's version of the events surrounding the marijuana is that after the marijuana had been produced for the drug dog, Petitioner gave her the baggie saying, "You look like a girl who likes to lay back and smoke a joint once in a while." Upon receipt of the marijuana Kellogg turned it in to police authorities and at their request attempted to get Petitioner to provide her with additional marijuana, without success. She further testified Petitioner told her he had obtained the marijuana from a suspect he had "frisked" the previous day. Petitioner worked in law enforcement in Tennessee for at least two years before moving to Florida. He has been in charge of the drug section of a police force in Tennessee but has had no special training. His experience caused him to immediately recognize the contents of the baggie as marijuana. Janice Kellogg has been involved in police work in Florida for one and one-half years and worked as a confidential informant to a narcotics squad in Michigan for five years before coming to Florida. She is certified as a law enforcement officer in Florida.
The Issue The issues to be decided are whether Respondent violated sections 456.072(1)(a), (n), and (w), and 458.331(1)(g), (k), (q), and (v), Florida Statutes (2015), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Findings of Fact below are based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and on the entire record of this proceeding. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed medical doctor holding DOH license number ACN 244. Respondent holds a temporary certification to practice medicine only in areas of critical need (ACN) approved pursuant to section 458.315. Respondent is the owner of and only physician practicing at Gulf Coast Holistic and Primary Care, Inc., a Department- approved ACN facility. Her current primary practice address is 219 Forest Park Circle, Panama City, Florida 32405. Medical Marijuana Regulation in Florida As a preliminary matter, this case is not about the wisdom of the policy decision to allow patients access to medical marijuana in the State of Florida, the efficacy of its use, or the nature of the regulatory scheme to implement the medical marijuana program. Rather, this case involves Respondent’s actions in ordering medical marijuana and whether those actions comported with Florida law as it existed at the time. Generally, at all times relevant to these proceedings, cannabis or marijuana was a Schedule I controlled substance pursuant to section 893.03(1)(c)7., Florida Statutes, meaning that it is a drug with a high potential for abuse and had no accepted medical use in treatment of patients. In 2014, the Florida Legislature created section 381.986, Florida Statutes (2014), which legalized the use of low-THC cannabis for medical use under limited and strictly regulated circumstances. In sum, low-THC cannabis would be available to patients suffering from cancer or a medical condition causing seizures or persistent muscle spasms that would benefit from the administration of low-THC cannabis. The 2014 version of the law is sometimes referred to as “Charlotte’s Web.” Section 381.986(2) contained the requirements that a physician had to meet to be qualified to order low-THC cannabis for his or her patients. A physician had to take an eight-hour course provided by the Florida Medical Association (FMA); register as the ordering physician in the compassionate use registry; and document the dose, route of administration, and planned duration of use by the patient. A physician also had to submit a treatment plan for the patient to the University of Florida. Further, registered physicians could only order low-THC cannabis for Florida residents. In 2016, the Florida Legislature amended section 381.986, effective March 2016, to include use of full-THC medical cannabis, sometimes referred to as medical marijuana, for terminal conditions. In November 2016, Amendment 2 passed, which created Article X, section 29 of the Florida Constitution, providing for the production, possession, and use of medical marijuana in Florida. During the 2017 Special Session, section 381.986 was amended to implement Amendment 2. Ch. 17-232, §§ 1, 3, 18, Laws of Fla. None of the amendments, which were passed in 2016 and 2017, were in place during the period relevant to this case. The first course offered by the FMA pursuant to section 381.986 was available on November 4, 2014. The substance of the course covered the requirements of section 381.986 and the lawful ordering of low-THC cannabis. The Office of Compassionate Use within the Department first allowed physicians to register as ordering physicians on July 1, 2016. On September 8, 2015, Respondent sent an email from her DOH email address to her personal email address with a hyperlink to the FMA course. Instead of taking the course at that time, which she knew to be the required course for ordering low-THC cannabis, Respondent instead took a free online course from an entity called NetCE, entitled “Medical Marijuana and Other Cannabinoids.” Respondent did not complete the required FMA course until August 25, 2016. She is presently an authorized ordering physician. Respondent’s Care and Treatment of R.S. Patient R.S. is a 66-year-old retired physician assistant, who resides in Minnesota. R.S. practiced as a physician assistant for approximately 40 years in Minnesota. For about four years, R.S. spent his winters in the Panama City area. R.S. suffers from a variety of medical conditions, including Stage IV metastatic renal cell carcinoma. When R.S. first presented to Respondent the fall of 2015, he had stopped all treatments for his cancer because he could not tolerate the chemotherapies or the immunotherapy prescribed for him. While wintering in Panama City, R.S. took his dog to a dog park and got to know some people who went there regularly. When some of those people learned that he had metastatic cancer, one person asked him if he had tried medical marijuana, and he told her that it was not then legal in Minnesota. R.S. was told that Dr. Skidmore could provide legal medical marijuana to him. At the time that R.S. presented to Respondent for treatment, it was not lawful to order, prescribe, or dispense medical marijuana in the State of Florida. R.S. called Respondent’s office to obtain an appointment. At the time of his call, he told the receptionist that he had heard Respondent could give him a prescription for medical marijuana. R.S. knew his cancer was incurable, but given his inability to tolerate conventional treatment, he was hoping that the medical marijuana might help reduce the size of his tumors and lengthen his life. R.S. first presented to Respondent on September 28, 2015. He provided to Respondent medical records from his local oncologist, which confirmed his diagnosis of terminal cancer, and contained his most recent laboratory results. Respondent took R.S.’s blood pressure and pulse, and most likely checked his respiration. She listened to his heart and chest with a stethoscope. She did not perform a review of systems, which is review of the patient from the head working down through the different systems of the body. As a physician assistant, R.S. was familiar with the components of a review of systems, and described them in detail at hearing. He testified that Respondent did not check his eyes, feel his lymph nodes, palpate his abdomen, or check his reflexes. R.S. testified that Respondent did not ask him about any history of depression, did not ask him to provide any additional medical records, and did not tell him she wanted to see more lab work than what he had provided to her. R.S. believes that Respondent may have mentioned meditation, which he was already doing, but did not recommend yoga, essential oils, or any modifications in his diet. Had she suggested them, he would have tried them. His testimony is credited. She also did not attempt to place Respondent in a federally-approved experimental marijuana therapy program. Respondent testified and her medical records indicate that she ordered labs for R.S. R.S. testified that no labs were ordered. The medical records indicate that labs were ordered, but do not indicate what tests were actually ordered, an omission that she blamed on her medical assistant. She testified in deposition that she ordered a lipid panel, Vitamin D panel, thyroid panel, and urine panel. The lab tests that R.S. provided to her from his oncologist contained none of these. R.S. never had the tests Respondent claims she ordered because Respondent never actually ordered them. The one treatment that Respondent performed was a form of acupuncture at this first visit. R.S. paid $140 in cash for his first visit to Respondent. R.S. was a cash-pay patient because medical marijuana was not a benefit under his existing insurance plan. Respondent advised R.S. that he would need to be seen three times over a 90-day period in order to obtain medical marijuana. R.S. returned to Respondent on October 19, 2015. R.S. paid $90 for this visit. As with the first visit, Respondent performed only a very limited physical examination, taking his blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and listening to his chest. While the electronic medical records for this visit indicate that labs were pending, none were actually ordered. Despite not having any lab results, the records state “will recommend medicinal marijuana after receiving previous records.” R.S.’s third visit was January 15, 2016. As with the previous visits, Respondent performed only a perfunctory examination, and the charge for this visit was $90. At this third visit, Respondent told R.S. that he had complied with the requirements in Florida to be seen for 90 days, and that she would send in her assistant with the paperwork R.S. would need to obtain medical marijuana from a dispensary in Pensacola. Respondent did not advise R.S. that medical marijuana, as described in the certificate, was not lawful in Florida at that time, and that he could be arrested if he purchased it in Florida. She did not advise him that he was ineligible for low-THC cannabis when it became available because he was not a resident of Florida. Respondent did not discuss the risks and benefits of medical marijuana. Respondent then provided to R.S., through her receptionist/medical assistant Caitlyn Clark, a document that she referred to as a “certificate” or a “recommendation.” The certificate, discussed in more detail below, appears to be a prescription for medical marijuana. It was not for low-THC cannabis. As R.S. described the document, it looked like a prescription to him, just not on a prescription pad. R.S. was required to pay $250 for this certificate, which was in addition to the visit fee of $90. Respondent provided this certificate despite the fact that, according to her records, R.S. had not completed the labs she claimed to have ordered for him, and did not comply with any recommendations for modification of his diet, or use of essential oils, yoga, or meditation. His electronic medical record for this visit included a plan of “1000 mg of canabis [sic] extract oil daily.” In addition to the certificate, R.S. received from Ms. Clark a flyer from an entity called Cannabis Therapy Solutions, with the names of Joe and Sonja Salmons and their telephone numbers. While R.S. received the flyer from Ms. Clark, copies of the flyers were also available on the tables in the reception area of the office. R.S. believed, based on the information given to him from Respondent and Ms. Clark, that he was being referred to Cannabis Therapy Solutions to obtain the medical marijuana, which he believed was prescribed for him through the use of the certificate. R.S. called the numbers on the flyer and was unable to reach anyone. One number was disconnected, and the messages he left on the other number were never returned. When R.S. was unable to reach the Salmons at the numbers listed on the flyer he received at Respondent’s office, he did some research on the Internet. Through this research, he learned for the first time that medical marijuana could not yet be obtained legally in Florida. R.S. felt that he had been “taken” by Respondent, and wanted to get his money back. R.S. returned to Respondent’s office in February 2016, and demanded a refund of the money he had paid. He told Respondent that he was unable to reach the Salmons, and had learned that medical marijuana was not yet legally available in Florida. Respondent told him that she was only trying to help him. She also tried to contact the Salmons, and was unsuccessful in doing so. Respondent’s staff initially offered to refund the $250 R.S. had paid for the certificate, but only if he returned it. R.S. refused to do so, and stated that it was his only proof to present to the Florida Board of Medicine. R.S. admitted at hearing that he was angry and loud when he visited the office to demand his money. He was intentionally loud because he wanted the patients in the waiting area to hear what was going on. While he was loud, he was not violent, and Ms. Clark testified that she did not feel threatened by him. It was only after he stated that Respondent would have to deal with the state licensing board that he was refunded all of the money he had paid to Respondent’s office. R.S. became a participant in the medical marijuana program eventually authorized in his home state of Minnesota. It has not provided the results for which he was hoping, in that his tumors have increased in size and number. “The Certificate” The certificate that Respondent issued to R.S. was on 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper. It was printed on security paper, meaning that when copied, the document is reproduced with the word “void” printed all over it. The document had Respondent’s office name, address, and telephone and fax numbers at the top, along with Respondent’s name, DEA number, and Florida medical license number. It lists R.S.’s name, patient number, and address, along with the date the document was issued to him. At the bottom of the document, there is a blank to fill in how many refills are allowed, and a statement “to insure brand name dispensing, prescriber must write medically necessary on the prescription.” Immediately below the patient name and address, the document reads: RX Allowed Quantity: 1-2 gm/d THCa-THC: CBD concentration in ratio of 1:1 or 1:2 via oral ingestion or vaporization, include plant vaporization. Max allowance 2 gm/d In the center of the document is the following statement: I certify that I have personally examined the above named Patient, and have confirmed that they [sic] are currently suffering from a previously diagnosed medical condition. I have reviewed the patient’s medical history and previously tried medication(s) and/or treatment(s). Based on this review, I feel cannabis is medically necessary for the safety and well- being of this patient. Under Florida law, the medical use of cannabis is permissible provided that it’s [sic] use is medically necessary. See Jenks v. State, 566 So. 2d (1St DCA 1991). In making my recommendation, I followed standardized best practices and certify that there exists competent and sound peer-reviews [sic] scientific evidence to support my opinion that there exists no safer alternative than cannabis to treat the patient’s medical condition(s). In addition, I have advised the patient about the risks and benefits of the medical use of cannabis, before authorizing them [sic] to engage in the medical use of cannabis. This patient hereby gives permission for representatives of GreenLife Medical Systems to discuss the nature if [sic] their [sic] condition(s) and the information contained within this document for verification purposes. This is a non-transferable document. This document is the property of the physician indicated on this document and be [sic] revoked at any time without notice. Void after expiration, if altered or misused. The certificate that R.S. received was signed by both Respondent and R.S. The copy the Department obtained from Respondent is not signed. Respondent testified that she did not want the references to prescriptions to be on the certificates, but was told by the printer she used that the only security paper available was preprinted with that information. This claim is not credible. Much of what is contained on the document is preprinted. Had Respondent objected to the use of the word “prescription” on the document, she could have directed that the references to it be redacted or blacked out. She did not do so. Respondent testified that she issued only three of these certificates, which she referred to as “recommendations.”1/ Ms. Clark, testified that during her employment from May 2015 to April 2016, about 15 certificates were distributed to patients. Ms. Clark testified that the certificates were kept in a folder separate from the patient’s medical records. When Respondent directed that a patient was to receive a certificate, Ms. Clark would type in the patient’s name, patient ID, address and the date issued. She would print it out, making no changes to the allowed quantity, maximum allowance, or any other language in the certificate. Ms. Clark’s testimony is credited. The certificate given to R.S. does not indicate that R.S. would receive medical marijuana by extract oil, as noted in Respondent’s medical records for R.S. nor does it include a route of administration or planned duration for the substance prescribed. The markings and appearance of the certificate are consistent with what a reasonable person would expect to see on a prescription. Here, R.S. did not expect that it would be filled by a pharmacy. Instead, R.S. expected that it would be filled at a dispensary authorized to dispense medical marijuana. At that time, no such dispensary existed. The certificate was given to R.S. simultaneously with the flyer for Cannabis Therapy Solutions. In her deposition, Respondent stated that Joe and Sonja Salmons came to her office and said that they were able to grow a medical grade cannabis with CBD, as well as a concentrated oil, and that they were located in Pensacola. From the more persuasive evidence presented it is found that the coupling of the certificate with the flyer for Cannabis Therapy Solutions was intentional. Respondent only stopped providing certificates to patients when she learned that they could no longer obtain marijuana from the Pensacola dispensary. It is also found that the certificate provided to R.S. and described above is a prescription. DOH’s Complaint and Investigation While Respondent returned all of R.S.’s money, he nonetheless felt that Respondent’s actions were fraudulent. On February 24, 2016, R.S. filed a complaint with the Department, and provided a copy of the certificate he received, as well as a copy of the flyer from Cannabis Therapy Solutions. As a part of its investigation, the Department requested that R.S. provide a copy of his medical records from Respondent. R.S. wrote back, advising that when he requested his records in March 2016, Ms. Clark provided him with the clinical records he had brought with him from his oncologist on his first visit, and advised him that Respondent did not do patient care records on cash-pay patients. At hearing, Ms. Clark testified that Respondent uses electronic medical records for insurance patients and handwritten records for cash-paying patients. To her knowledge, cash-paying patients never had electronic medical records. Respondent’s Medical Records for R.S. On April 11, 2016, the Department issued a subpoena to Respondent, requesting all medical records for R.S. for a stated time period. Respondent received the subpoena on April 13, 2016. The records that Respondent supplied in response to the Department’s subpoena include forms filled out by R.S., prior medical records from R.S.’s oncologist, and electronic medical records from Respondent’s office. Curiously, the office note for R.S.’s visit September 28, 2015, visit is electronically signed by Respondent on April 18, 2016. The record for the October 19, 2015, visit is electronically signed April 19, 2016, and the record for the January 15, 2016, visit is electronically signed by Respondent on April 19, 2016. Also included with the medical records provided to the Department is an “addendum” that references an encounter date of January 15, 2016. In the body of the note, Respondent references R.S.’s visit to the office on February 17, 2016, when he demanded a refund of his money. Respondent described R.S. as having a “violent attitude,” and noted that he was asked to return the “recommendation” and refused to do so. This note was electronically entered on April 19, 2016, and, similar to the other medical records from Respondent’s office, electronically signed April 20, 2016, within a week after receiving the subpoena from the Department and months after R.S.’s last visit to the practice. Respondent is not charged with falsifying medical records. However, the evidence related to the electronic medical records is relevant in assessing Respondent’s credibility with respect to her claims that she completed a full examination of R.S., ordered labs for him, and made several recommendations for alternative treatments that she claims he failed to follow. It is found that Respondent did not complete a full examination for Respondent; did not complete a review of systems; did not order labs for him to complete; did not recommend the alternative treatments, such as yoga, essential oils, or meditation; and did not recommend that he modify his diet. The Advice upon Which Respondent Allegedly Relied The certificate that Respondent provided to R.S., as well as other patients, included a partial citation to Jenks v. State, 582 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Jenks stands for the premise that the common law defense of medical necessity is still recognized in Florida with respect to criminal prosecutions for possession and use of marijuana where the following elements are established: 1) that the defendant did not intentionally bring about the circumstances which precipitated the unlawful act; 2) that the defendant could not accomplish the same objective using a less offensive alternative available to the defendant; and 3) that the evil sought to be avoided was more heinous than the unlawful act perpetrated to avoid it. 582 So. 2d at 679. Respondent relies on the medical necessity defense as justification for her issuance of the certificates, such as the one R.S. received. However, the genesis of her reliance on this defense remains a mystery. In Respondent’s written response to the Department’s investigation, she does not mention seeking the advice of counsel. Instead, she stated: As soon as I open [sic] my practice, I had a visit from a company in Pensacola, that showed me some documents about the medical necessity regulation for medical marijuana and how it was helping so many patients with cancer. One of my patients with cancer, said he was going to wait until it gets legalized and died waiting. The second patient requested the recommendation, and is in remission as we speak. At hearing, however, Respondent testified that she relied on the advice that she received from her lawyer, Billy-Joe Hoot Crawford, about the applicability of the medical necessity defense. Mr. Crawford is a criminal defense lawyer in the Panama City area. His experience in representing individuals in the professional license regulatory area is scant, by his own admission. Both Respondent and Mr. Crawford testified that they met when attending a meeting of people who were working on medical marijuana issues. Both testified that Mr. Crawford provided some advice to Respondent regarding the medical necessity defense. Both testified that Respondent did not pay for the advice. From there, however, their testimony diverges. Mr. Crawford testified that he could not remember the names of the people who attended the meetings, other than Dr. Skidmore. Despite his inability to remember their names, he believed that the group had people in each field necessary to “set up business” should medical marijuana become legal. He believed that there were a couple of meetings before Respondent attended one, but once she did, he met with her in conjunction with the meetings. Mr. Crawford testified that he met with Respondent approximately a dozen times. He said that their discussions were most likely after the meetings, because to discuss issues related to her patients in front of others would not be appropriate. Respondent testified that she met with Mr. Crawford once at a meeting of people discussing the legalization of marijuana, and that he gave her advice in the meeting itself. Her ex-husband also spoke to him on the phone once, to ask for some clarification regarding his advice. Mr. Crawford also testified that he traveled to Orlando to speak to a physician (unnamed), who was recommending marijuana to her patients, and got a copy of what she was using to bring back and provide to Respondent. Respondent testified that she wrote down “word for word” what he had told her that she needed to include in the recommendation and soon thereafter stated that he gave her a sample to use that was not on security paper. Respondent claims that the reference to GreenLife Medical Systems (GreenLife) was on the sample she received from Mr. Crawford, and that she did not know what GreenLife was. Mr. Crawford testified that while he knew about GreenLife before giving Respondent advice, he did not have a reference to GreenLife on the recommendation he provided. Most importantly, Mr. Crawford testified that he advised Respondent that she needed to tell her patients that they could be arrested if they were caught with medical marijuana and that he fully expected them to be. He also advised her that if any of her patients were arrested for possessing marijuana pursuant to her recommendation, then he would represent them for free. Respondent, however, did not remember the conversation that way. She stated, “in my mind, I remember he said, if, not when. ‘If’ was if they get in trouble, we give them free legal help.” She did not advise R.S. that he could be arrested, and when asked at hearing whether it concerned her that her patients might be arrested from what she was doing, her response was, “Yes. But life goes first in my priority algorithm.” She repeated this theme, saying, “my algorithm of priority, health and life go on top. On top of money. I’m sorry, but on top of law.” Indeed, she confessed that she did not read all of the Jenks case, because she found it boring. What is clear from the evidence is that, while Mr. Crawford provided some advice to Respondent regarding the medical necessity defense, he did not provide any advice concerning the impact her actions could have on her license to practice medicine. Equally clear is that Respondent did not seek that advice.2/ Respondent’s contention that she accepted Mr. Crawford’s advice without question and did not concern herself with the technicalities is not credible. At deposition, Respondent was questioned about her blog posts, media interviews, and Facebook posts. What emerges from these documents and from her testimony is a woman who was quite aware of the status of medical marijuana, both in Florida and elsewhere. In fact, a blog she wrote in October 2014 details the requirements of the regulatory scheme for ordering low-THC marijuana. The blog includes the statement, “[a]ll physicians that plan to prescribe medical marijuana are required to keep strict documentation of all prescriptions and treatment plans and submit them quarterly to the University of Florida College of Pharmacy to maintain proper control.” The reality is that she knew the regulatory scheme to order medical marijuana, with all of its technicalities. She simply chose not to wait for the new law to be implemented. Assuming that Respondent truly believed that the medical necessity defense outlined in Jenks would protect her patients, she did not act to satisfy the three elements required for the defense. First, while the medical necessity defense might protect her patients if arrested, nothing in Jenks negates the regulatory scheme in chapters 456 and 458, or addresses a physician’s ability to prescribe medical marijuana. Second, the evidence indicated that R.S. did not follow through with the recommendations that Respondent claimed would benefit him before providing him with the prescription for medical marijuana. Under these circumstances, ordering medical marijuana would not be the last resort contemplated under Jenks. Most disturbing is the fact that a patient was required to pay $250 for a “recommendation” that the patient obtain a substance that could not be legally provided, with no assurance that he or she would receive anything to address their suffering. While Respondent claimed repeatedly that her goal was to help people, charging for this “recommendation” looks more like exploiting the hopes of those who are desperate for relief for Respondent’s financial gain, and providing nothing to actually ease her patients’ pain. Respondent’s Practice Address Respondent’s address of record, and primary practice address on file with the Department between August 11, 2014, and August 19, 2017, was 756 Harrison Avenue, Panama City, Florida 32401. Between June 2016 and August 2016, Respondent relocated her practice to 105 Jazz Drive, Panama City, Florida 32405. The Department did not send a warning letter to Respondent regarding her address update. However, section 456.035 states that it is Respondent’s responsibility, not the Department’s, to ensure that her practice address on file with the Department is up-to-date. This is especially so where a physician’s eligibility to practice is predicated on practicing in an area designated as an ACN. Section 456.042 requires that practitioner profiles, which would include a physician’s practice location, must be updated within 15 days of the change. This requirement is specifically referenced in bold type on license renewal notices, including notices filled out by Respondent in 2012, 2014, and 2016, and included in her licensure file. On May 22, 2013, Respondent sought and received approval for Gulf Coast to be a designated ACN facility at 756 Harrison Avenue, in Panama City, Florida. On May 16, 2016, she sought and received approval for Gulf Coast to be a designated ACN facility at 105 Jazz Drive, also in Panama City. This approval however, is for the entity, not an individual licensee, and does not automatically update an individual licensee’s primary practice address. Between August 11, 2014, and August 19, 2017, Respondent’s address of record and primary practice address on file with the Department was 756 Harrison Avenue, Panama City, Florida 32401. Sometime between June and August 2016, Respondent relocated her practice to 105 Jazz Drive, Panama City, Florida. Respondent did not update her practitioner profile with the practice address at 105 Jazz Drive. That address never appeared as her primary practice location in her practitioner profile. When Andre Moore, the Department investigator assigned to investigate R.S.’s complaint, went to interview Respondent, he went to her address of record, which was the Harrison Avenue address. When he arrived, he found a sign on the door stating that the practice had moved to 105 Jazz Drive. Mr. Moore went to the Jazz Drive location and interviewed Respondent there. At that time, Mr. Moore told Respondent that she needed to update her address. Normally, physicians can update their practice location address online using the Department’s web-based system. Physicians who hold an ACN license, however, must update their addresses in writing because verification that the new practice address qualifies as an ACN is required before an ACN can practice in the new location. All licensees, including Respondent, can update their mailing address online. Respondent had completed updates of her practice address before by sending a letter and a fax, so she was familiar with the process. The Department’s internal licensure database does not show any attempts made by Respondent between June and August 2016 to access the web-based system or otherwise update her practice address to 105 Jazz Drive. A search of the Department’s licensure information on Respondent, viewing every address change request, indicates that she did not update either her mailing address or her practice location address to list 105 Jazz Drive. On or about August 19, 2017, Respondent updated her mailing address online to 219 Forest Park Circle, Panama City, Florida 32405. The Department received a request from Respondent by mail on or about September 5, 2017, to update her practice location to the Forest Park Circle address. Respondent claims that she tried multiple times to update her address with no success, and when she called the Department, she was told by an unidentified male to just wait and update her address when she renewed her license. This claim is clearly contradicted by Florida law and by multiple notices for renewal that Respondent had received and returned previously. It is found that Respondent did not update her practice address as required with respect to the 105 Jazz Drive address.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating sections 456.072(1)(a), (n), and (w), and 458.331(1)(g), (k), (q), and (v), Florida Statutes (2015). It is further recommended that Respondent’s license be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was a public school teacher employed by the Washington County School Board under a continuing contract of employment at the time of the events referred to in the Petition for Dismissal. He remained on continuing contract status as a teacher at the Roulhac Middle School until his suspension on November 7, 1983. On the morning of April 5, 1982, William Poole, Chief of Police for the City of Bonifay, responded to a confidential informant's report of suspected marijuana plants growing on property located at 312 Caldwell Avenue, Bonifay, Florida. Chief Poole went to that location accompanied by Assistant Chief of Police Ike Gardner. When he arrived at the scene in the rear of the house located at that address and across the back fence marking the rear boundary of the property, the Chief looked over or through the fence on the rear boundary of the property and observed what he believed to be ten to twelve marijuana plants growing in a garden along the back fence. The house was owned at the time by the Respondent's Mother, Lavada Forehand, who was living in the house with the Respondent at the time the suspected marijuana plants were discovered. Chief Poole took photographs of the property, the garden and the suspected marijuana plants at that time, which were admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. An investigation was initiated and in the early morning hours of April 7, 1982, Chief Poole again observed the suspected marijuana plants in the Respondent's garden. Later that day the Chief received a call from a confidential informant to the effect that the Respondent was, at that time, in the garden. Chief Poole proceeded to a residence on adjacent property and viewed the garden, and at approximately 4:00 p.m. that afternoon observed the Respondent watering plants in the garden for approximately 20 minutes. The officers were equipped with a camera with a telephoto lens at the time, and took photographs of the Respondent watering his garden, which were offered and admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Based upon his personal observations and the photographs which he obtained, Chief Poole proceeded to the State Attorney's office where he was assisted in the preparation of a search warrant for the subject property, which was duly issued by the Court. That evening of April 7, 1982, the two officers proceeded to the Caldwell Avenue residence owned by Respondent's mother, where the Respondent resided, and served the search warrant. When they arrived the Respondent was present with his mother and another lady with several children. The officers served the search warrant and thereupon went to the garden area which they had earlier observed and found it "standing in water." The suspected marijuana plants which they had previously observed were no longer present, and no traces of marijuana could be found in the house or on the grounds. At the time the premises were searched, and at the time the officers observed the Respondent watering the garden, the Respondent resided at the premises in question with his mother and by his own admission had resided there for approximately the last three weeks prior to April 7, 1982. In addition to the Respondent and his mother residing at the premises, various friends and relatives and other persons had access to the premises and visited there from time to time. Other persons have lived there or been invited there from time to time and his mother had problems during 1982 with trespassers on her property and has complained to the Bonifay Police Department regarding trespassers. Respondent acknowledges that he maintained the garden on the site growing tomatoes, bell pepper and other large and small vegetables including "a couple of hills of squash" and broccoli. On the day in question he was watering tomato plants according to his testimony. The Respondent has a nephew who sometimes resides with Respondent's mother and so do other young persons. The Respondent maintained he did not plant the marijuana plants and does not know who did plant them. In fact it has not been established that the Respondent planted the marijuana plants. The Respondent knows the neighbors who own the property and live adjoining his mother with the exception of neighbors who lived in the house from which the officers conducted the surveillance and from which the photographs were taken, who moved in and out quickly so that the Respondent did not become acquainted with them. The Respondent is active in his teacher's union and has incurred an increasingly hostile relationship with Superintendent Adams since 1981 when the Superintendent ordered interscholastic sports terminated at Roulhac Middle School where the Respondent coached as well as taught Civics. The Respondent conducted a campaign to reinstate athletics at the school at the behest of many of the parents of students at the school, and in the course of this campaign engendered a relationship of animosity with Superintendent Adams. The Respondent maintains that he cannot identify the plants depicted in the photos considered by the officers to be marijuana plants. He once smoked marijuana 14 years ago when in college but has not smoked it since and once taught a drug abuse course for the Northwest Florida Drug Abuse Council. He agrees with Superintendent Adams' view that a teacher using drugs should be dismissed but he denies doing so since becoming a teacher. Although it was established that the Respondent was likely capable of identifying marijuana by sight in view of his prior experience with the drug education course, it was not established that in fact he knew the marijuana was in the garden on his mother's property, nor was it established that he had sole access to or control of his mother's property, including the house and surrounding grounds, and particularly, the garden in question. Chief Poole had no doubt that the plants he observed, and which were photographed and are depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit 1, were marijuana plants. The Chief could not establish however, that the plants that Forehand was observed and photographed watering were actually marijuana plants as opposed to tomatoes, bell peppers, squash or some other vegetable which were present in the garden. Both Chief Poole and Agent William Fisher of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement are trained to make visual identification of marijuana. Chief Poole, however, is not trained to make a chemical analysis in identification of controlled substances, including marijuana, nor is he trained to give a positive identification of marijuana based upon other forms of testing, aside from visual identification. Agent William Fisher is very familiar with marijuana and testified that the plants depicted in Exhibit 1 "appeared" to be marijuana. Agent Fisher was shown the photographs of the plants the Respondent was watering but could not identify that the plants he was watering were actually marijuana. Agent Fisher testified that there was a "strong probability" that the plants depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit 1 were marijuana plants but added that he was not trained to make a positive identification of marijuana plants and did not consider himself qualified to do so. He was unable to perform any sort of "presumptive test" as for instance, by smell or taste or touch, because he was only shown a photograph of the plants in question. Chief Poole has had 11 years of law enforcement experience and attended numerous classes concerning drug enforcement and drug identification, and has served as a drug-handler for a "drug dog." In his years of law enforcement experience he has sent numerous samples of suspected marijuana to the FDLE Crime Lab in Tallahassee and Pensacola, and none of his samples have ever been confirmed as anything other than marijuana. Chief Poole, however, did not succeed in obtaining the plants he observed growing in the subject garden upon his search of the premises, however, because they had "disappeared." Thus, no chemical or other positive identification test has been performed on anymarijuana seized on the premises in question, because none was seized at all. The officers performing the search did not know whether other people might have access to the house and garden in question, and Chief Poole admitted he did not know who else might have access to the garden. The Respondent called five "character witnesses" (four teachers and one parent) each of whom had had acquaintance with the Respondent for a substantial period of time and had knowledge of his reputation in the community for truth and veracity. The Respondent has a reputation for being truthful. The Respondent has never before been subjected to disciplinary action during his career as a teacher.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner herein should be DISMISSED and the Respondent should be reinstated with full back pay from the date he was suspended without pay. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 20th day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire BERG AND HOLDER Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Philip J. Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles Adams, Superintendent of Schools Washington County School Board 206 North Third Street Chipley, Florida 32428
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged under Chapter 943, Florida Statutes, and related rules, with regulating the licensure status, including determination of entitlement to licensure, of law enforcement and correctional officers in the State of Florida. The agency is also charged by the Legislature with regulating and enforcing the practice standards for certified law enforcement officers, including correctional officers, embodied in Chapter 943, Florida Statutes, and related rules. The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission) on or about March 7, 1991. She was issued corrections certification number 45-90-502-11. From March of 1991 through July 31, 1992, the Respondent was employed as a corrections officer for the Taylor County Sheriff's Office. She has no criminal record and no record of administrative discipline of any sort. During the course of her training to be a corrections officer, the Respondent received classroom training in the identification of controlled substances, including cannabis (marijuana). This training included the viewing of actual cannabis in the classroom but did not include training in recognizing it as a growing plant in the field. Charles R. "Chuck" Morgan is an employee of the Perry Lumber Company. On or about July 29, 1992, and until sometime in February of 1995, he was employed by the Taylor County Sheriff's Office. Danny Williams is an investigator with the Taylor County Sheriff's Office and has been employed in that capacity since January of 1990. Investigator Williams has had training in the aerial detection, and other means of identification, of marijuana. He participates in four to eight flights per year in aircraft searching for marijuana plants, essentially in rural areas of Taylor County. On July 29, 1992, Investigator Williams was the passenger in a helicopter, provided to the Taylor County Sheriff's Office by an unknown agency, participating in an aerial search for marijuana plants. During this search, he noticed what appeared to be marijuana plants growing in or adjacent to the backyard of a residence which proved to be the Respondent's residence. Investigator Williams, upon being landed at the airport, entered his patrol vehicle and drove to the residence of the Respondent and her husband, James Byrd. On route to that location, Investigator Williams, presumably by radio communication, summoned other law enforcement officers of the Taylor County Sheriff's Office. He was, therefore, met at the front gate of the residence premises in question by Captain Worsham and Sheriff Deputy Chuck Morgan and others. The front gate was on the portion of the premises immediately adjacent to the public thoroughfare by which the premises are normally entered by vehicles. The residence premises contained a wood-frame house on a well- landscaped yard of a fairly-open character with few or no trees. The rearward portion of the premises, analogous to the "backyard", was that portion of the premises most distant from the public highway (toward which the house faces). It is observable by an observer looking in the opposite direction or away from the public highway upon which the premises fronts. In this rearward portion of the premises, in a rearward corner of the backyard, there was a dog pen, located approximately 75-100 feet from the northwest corner of the rear portion of the house. Investigator Williams and Deputy Morgan observed an individual, who proved to be James Byrd, the Respondent's husband, recognized by Investigator Williams, standing behind the dog pen. They observed him in that location attempting to cut down several plants which were growing there. Deputy Morgan stopped Mr. Byrd from cutting any other plants and removed him from the immediate area. He was ultimately taken into custody that day. The plants he was attempting to cut down proved to be cannabis plants. Investigator Williams and Deputy Morgan observed 13 cannabis plants growing in that location behind the dog pen. Most of the plants were approximately 10-12 feet tall. Investigator Williams took samples from the grown plants, and a laboratory analysis proved the plants to be cannabis and that the samples taken totaled 27.3 grams of cannabis. The cannabis plants were in plain view from the residence. They were tall enough to be observed over the top of the dog pen, which lay between the back wall and back door of the residence, the site where the plants were growing and immediately adjacent to it. Deputy Morgan described the area where the cannabis was located as being in a clear, open area with grass but no high weeds which would conceal the cannabis from the plain view from the rear portion of the residence. Investigator Williams has received some training in the growth rate of cannabis plants so that he could make a somewhat educated estimate of the age of the plants found behind the dog pen. He estimates that they could have grown to a height of 10-12 feet in approximately 60 days, depending upon climatic conditions, care and maintenance, and the amount of fertilization they received. The mature plants, as well as the small plants, discovered growing adjacent to the dog pen, would in Investigator Williams' experience, produce something in excess of 13 pounds of cannabis leaf. Investigator Williams and Deputy Morgan also observed a bucket and flowerpot in the backyard containing several smaller cannabis plants. These containers and plants were in plain sight from the rear portion of the residence. Deputy Morgan escorted Mr. Byrd to the residence and obtained his consent to search it for cannabis. Deputy Morgan, with Mr. Byrd's cooperation, discovered a partially-smoked cannabis cigarette in a desk drawer in the family room of the residence and also found rolling papers and marijuana-smoking paraphernalia in the desk, as well. Deputy Morgan then proceeded to the bedroom shared by Mr. Byrd and his wife, the Respondent. In the bedroom closet, he located approximately one-half pound of marijuana in a grocery bag on the floor in the middle of the closet. In the closet were both male and female clothing, with each spouse having a designated side of the closet for their personal clothing and other items. The middle of the closet contained a filing cabinet, which was for the Respondent's use. A laboratory analysis determined that the bag found on the closet floor contained approximately 118 grams of cannabis. Mr. Byrd admitted to Investigator Williams and Deputy Morgan that the cannabis found belonged to him and that smoking cannabis was a bad habit he acquired during his service in the Vietnam War. He stated to them that he grew the cannabis for personal consumption and was not engaged in the sale or distribution of it. He stated that he smoked cannabis but that his wife, the Respondent, did not. He never stated to law enforcement officers that the Respondent had knowledge of the cannabis in the residence and on the surrounding curtilage. The Respondent was not present at the residence that day when the officers seized the cannabis and arrested Mr. Byrd. She was at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Georgia, at the time and only learned of her husband's arrest and the incident when she returned late that afternoon. She learned of it from her father or daughter, who also resided on the premises. There is a separate mobile-home residence on the same parcel of property as the house in which the Respondent and her husband reside. Although the officers, on the day in question, interviewed Mr. Moore, the Respondent's father, who resided in the mobile home, they never questioned the Respondent and charged no one other than James Byrd. The Respondent was terminated from her position with the sheriff's office on approximately July 31, 1992 because of the above-described incident. After her termination from her job with the sheriff's office, the charges against her husband, James Byrd, were "nol prossed". The Respondent and Mr. Byrd have been married for approximately 35 years. They have resided in Taylor County since November 1, 1979 and have resided in the same residence where the cannabis was found and shared the bedroom and closet where some of it was found since that time, including on and around the date in question. The Respondent was not a record title holder of the premises on which the cannabis was found but considered herself as having a practical ownership interest in the residence. Despite his statement to law enforcement authorities that he had had the habit of smoking cannabis since returning from the Vietnam War, the Respondent denied knowledge of her husband's cannabis habit. Although they had been married for 35 years and resided in the same residence, including at the times when the marijuana in question was placed in the residence and grown in the backyard of the residence, the Respondent maintains that she had no knowledge of its presence on the premises. She maintains that she had no knowledge of her husband's cultivation and use of marijuana. Neither the Respondent's husband nor any other witness testified in corroboration of the Respondent's denial of knowledge of the presence of cannabis on the subject premises. Although, as the Respondent stated, Mr. Byrd commonly cared for the dogs which are normally kept in the dog pen, and the Respondent seldom went to that vicinity of the backyard, the marijuana plants growing adjacent to the dog pen were in plain view from the rear portion of the house itself. The Respondent's testimony is the sole testimony that is exculpatory. She is an "interested witness" testifying on her own behalf, in a proceeding where she can potentially lose the valuable right to practice her livelihood. In consideration of the totality of the evidentiary circumstances and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that, indeed, she knew of the presence of the growing marijuana on the premises and the marijuana which was found inside the residence. It simply strains credulity beyond acceptance that she could live with her husband in the same residence, in the same bedroom and use the same closet for a substantial period of years and not know of the marijuana smoking habit he freely admitted to and his activities involved in growing marijuana in plain sight on their marital premises. In addition to the Respondent having no record of any criminal or administrative offense, the above-found misconduct was not facilitated by the Respondent's official authority nor did it occur while she was performing her duties. There was no damage or danger caused to others by her conduct. The Respondent gained no pecuniary benefit from the misconduct and its effects, through penalties, can obviously damage her livelihood, which is already the case. Finally, her employing agency has already imposed the discipline of termination approximately three and one-half years ago. Rule 11B-27.005(6)(a- v), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and that her certification be suspended for one year, with one additional year of probation, as well as such career development training or re-training as the Commission shall deem appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 29th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-3844 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-20. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert J. Schramm, Esquire Post Office Box 29 Perry, Florida 32347-0029 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Department of Law Enforcement Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the notice to show cause.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Santos Navarro Osornio (respondent or Santos), held alcoholic beverage license number 21-00850, series 2-COP, issued by petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). Respondent operated a bar known as Santos Corner or The Pink Panther located at 190 South Third Street, Immokalee, Florida. Respondent's license authorized him to sell beer and wine for consumption on the premises and package sales for off-premises consumption. Respondent has operated the lounge since October 1987. As a licensee, respondent's establishment was subject to inspection during regular hours of operation. The Division conducts spot checks of such establishments at random in addition to checking establishments that have been the subject of complaints. It is noted that when respondent was issued his license in October 1987, he signed a statement authorizing Division agents to inspect and search the licensed premises during normal business hours without a search warrant. In early May 1989 petitioner's Fort Myers district office received a request from other area law enforcement agencies to participate in "Operation Fast Track", an operation planned and coordinated by the United States Department of Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) in an effort to apprehend illegal aliens residing in the Immokalee area. Among other things, the operation called for a raid on respondent's licensed premises. Besides INS agents, other law enforcement agencies participating in the raid were the "SWAT", team of the Collier County Sheriff's office, the fire marshal's office and the county health department. Petitioner agreed to send agent Thompkins, a certified law enforcement officer, whose sole purpose was to inspect respondent's premises to ascertain if the licensee was in compliance with alcoholic beverage and tobacco laws and regulations. The raid took place around 11:30 p.m. on Friday, May 12, 1989. The crowded and noisy bar was then filled with more than one hundred customers, primarily Hispanic, who were enjoying entertainment provided by a popular Spanish band from Homestead, Florida. The events which occurred after the agents stormed the premises are sharply in dispute. In reconciling this conflicting testimony, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony and embodied this testimony in the findings below. After entering the bar through the front double doors, and going around the partition which lies immediately in front of the doors, the agents observed a bandstand, tables, booths and dance floor to the immediate right, a horseshoe shaped bar to the front, a long unused bar to the left, and, in the upper left rear of the bar, five pool tables sitting between the unused bar and the horseshoe bar. A diagram of the bar received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 7 provides a more precise description of the premises. A SWAT team and a single INS agent first entered the front doors yelling "police" and "immigration" in English and Spanish. They did not have a search warrant. The SWAT team members wore their uniforms and bullet-proof vests. They also carried billy clubs and weapons. The attire of the INS agent is unknown although all members in the operation were expected to wear something which identified them as law enforcement officers. The first group's mission was to secure the area, line the patrons against the wall and pat them down. The INS agent then checked the patrons for citizenship documents. After the first group of officers entered, they were followed by another group of deputies and other agents, including agent Thompkins, who wore a new dark blue t-shirt with the word "POLICE" encaptioned in bold yellow letters on its back. In smaller letters beneath that word were the words "Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco". As Thompkins entered the front door he yelled "police" and did so a second time once he entered the bar area. Shortly after entering the premises, Thompkins observed deputy sheriff Joe Jones talking with a lady behind the horseshoe bar. The lady was Olga Candia, who lived with Santos in an adjoining apartment. Candia, a woman of small stature, was dressed in a red dress and high heel shoes and occupied a chair in the entrance way to the bar. Jones asked Candia to come out from behind the bar so that he could secure the bar area. She refused because, in her words, she "wasn't no wetback" that was going to be lined up against the wall and patted down. After Candia refused several requests to move, Jones advised Candia that she would be arrested for obstruction of justice if she did not comply with his request. At that point Candia started for the back door, but after taking only a few steps, Jones pulled her face down on the floor between the bar and pool table. As Jones attempted to pull her arms behind her back to handcuff her, Candia began to squirm. Agent Thompkins then assisted Jones in holding Candia down while the handcuffs were placed on the detainee. It should be noted that Thompkins is a rather large man who stands over six feet, two inches tall and weighs three hundred plus pounds. Candia immediately began screaming "Santos" at the top of her voice. While the above events were occurring, Santos, who was described by one officer as being "very cooperative", had complied with a request of another deputy to install a light in the bandstand area. The purpose of this was to provide more light in the dimly lit lounge. From that vantage point, Santos could not see Candia being held on the floor since the horseshoe bar stood around four feet high and was between him and the area where she was being held. However, over the turmoil and yelling in the bar he heard the screams of his girlfriend and proceeded as quickly as he could towards the bar area bent on furnishing Candia assistance. He could not run because of a gimpy leg. After he rounded the horseshoe bar he ran into the back of Thompkins, who was in a bent over position holding Candia down. Thompkins described the bump as having a "battering ram effect" on him and caused him to "stumble". However, he did not lose his grip on Candia, probably because Santos weighs no more than half as much as Thompkins and is much shorter. To illustrate the confusion and conflicting versions of events surrounding the alleged battery, deputies Jones and Strickland recalled seeing Santos flying through the air into Thompkins, jumping on his back and placing his arms around Thompkins' neck. However, Thompkins did not recall anyone hanging onto his back and placing their hands around his neck. Instead, he remembered only that someone or something had rammed his back. Two defense witnesses disagreed and contended that respondent never touched Thompkins but was knocked to the floor by a deputy before he reached Thompkins and Candia. Santos also related this version of events. It is found, however, that as Santos rounded the bar at a quickened pace, he accidentally ran or was pushed into Thompkins' back and was thereafter immediately secured on the floor with handcuffs by deputies. It is found that Santos did not intend to batter the officer nor did he know that the person he was running or falling into was a law enforcement officer. Santos was then arrested and charged with felony counts of battery and obstructing justice. A county judge later reduced those charges to a misdemeanor. After the above events occurred, Thompkins conducted an inspection of the licensed premises but found no serious violations of alcoholic beverage and tobacco laws or agency rules. Except for the pending charges, Santos has never been disciplined for a violation. Finally, numerous patrons of the bar were arrested the evening of May 12 for being in the country illegally and were taken to an INS detention center for further processing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that respondent be found not guilty of violating the cited statutes and that the notice to show cause be DISMISSED with prejudice. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1990.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner the Department of Business Regulation and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (hereinafter referred to as the "Division") is an agency of the State of Florida charged with responsibility for enforcing Chapter 561 Florida Statutes. The Respondent Riffy's Inc. d/b/a Riffy's Pub (hereinafter referred to as "Riffy's") is a corporation. Scott Grant possesses an ownership interest in Riffy's. At all times relevant to this proceeding Riffy's held Florida alcoholic beverage license number 19-00616 series 2-COP (hereinafter referred to as the "License"). The License authorized Riffy's to sell and possess alcoholic beverages beer and wine only on the premises of Riffy's located at 948 S.W. U.S. Highway 41 Inverness Citrus County Florida. The Division's Investigation of Riffy's. Between September 15 1993 and December 15 1993 the Division conducted an investigation of possible narcotic laws violations at Riffy's. Special Agents Michael Bays Richard Hulburt Denise Deen Ashley Murray and Dean Pescia participated in the investigation. Throughout the investigation the agents involved who had the opportunity to smoke marijuana at Riffy's simulated smoking. No marijuana was ingested so that the agents' perception would not be affected. On a number of occasions the agents witnessed the smoking of cigarettes which appeared to be marijuana. The conclusion that marijuana may have been smoked was based upon the agents' observation of the manner in which the cigarettes were smoked and the smell of what was being smoked. Unless specifically indicated otherwise in findings of fact made in this Recommended Order the evidence failed to prove that marijuana or cannabis was actually being smoked. The findings concerning those incidents are made only as evidence of whether the owner of Riffy's should have suspected that illegal activities were taking place on or near the licensed premises. Results of the Division's Investigation. September 16 1993; Count 1: Agent Hurlburt entered the licensed premises of Riffy's (hereinafter referred to as the "Premises"). Agent Hurlburt met and spoke with a patron named Neil. After discussing the consumption of marijuana Agent Hurlburt and Neil left the Premises and went to a vehicle in the parking lot of the Premises. The parking lot was for the use of patrons of Riffy's. Agent Hurlburt purchased a cigarette suspected of being marijuana from Neil. Analysis of the cigarette revealed that it was cannabis commonly known as marijuana. Agent Hurlburt simulated smoking another suspected marijuana cigarette with three other patrons. A female patron suggested to them that they go around to the side of the Premises to smoke. The purchase and smoking of the marijuana cigarette took place approximately 15 to 20 feet from the Premises. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Grant or any employee of Riffy's witnessed these events or that Mr. Grant was at the Premises. September 30 1993: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. Agent Hurlburt observed several patrons leave the Premises and go to the east side of the Premises where the female patron had suggested that Agent Hurlburt go to smoke on September 16 1993. They were then observed smoking a cigarette in a manner consistent with the manner in which marijuana cigarettes are smoked: the "joint" is held near the front end with the thumb and forefinger. The smell of the burning material was also consistent with the smell of marijuana. There were windows at the east side of the Premises. Patrons were allowed to smoke cigarettes in the Premises. They were not required to go into the parking lot of Riffy's in order to smoke. d. The individuals involved returned to the Premises. October 6 1993; Count 2: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. He met an employee known as Mike. Mike was later identified as Mike Smith. Mike was a doorman for Riffy's. He collected entrance fees from patrons. Agent Hurlburt told Mike that he wished to purchase marijuana. Mike did not indicate that this was not permissible on the Premises. Mike told Agent Hurlburt that he could not get any marijuana that night but that he would have some the next night. Agent Hurlburt paid Mike for the marijuana that night with the agreement that delivery would be made the next night. The purchase was made in an open manner. No effort was made to speak softly or to hide the exchange of money. October 7 1993; Count 2: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises and met with Mike. Mike directed Agent Hurlburt to the restroom. Mike gave Agent Hurlburt a plastic bag containing 5.5 grams of cannabis. October 14 1993; Count 3 and 4. Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. Several patrons were witnessed leaving the Premises during a break by the band playing that night smoking what Agent Hurlburt believed to be marijuana and return to the Premises. Agent Hurlburt purchased 5.3 grams of cannabis from Mike. The sale took place in the restroom. Agent Hurlburt also purchased what Mike called "percs". The percs were percocet which were found to contain oxycodone. This transaction also took place in the restroom. October 22 1993: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. Agent Hurlburt attempted to purchase marijuana from Mike but Mike was unable to supply any. October 28 1993; Count 5: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises and asked Mike if he could purchase marijuana. Mike sold marijuana to Agent Hurlburt. The money for the marijuana was given openly to Mike inside the Premises. Later Mike gave the marijuana to Agent Hurlburt: Agent Hurlburt was on a concrete slab just outside the front door of the Premises. Mike held the entrance door open and stepped onto the concrete slab where he gave the marijuana to Agent Hurlburt. The marijuana purchased consisted of 5.5 grams of cannabis. October 30 1993: Agent Hurlburt returned and twice simulated smoking marijuana with patrons and "Ron" a member of the band playing at Riffy's that night. These incidents took place outside the Premises in the parking lot. November 4 1993; Count 6: Agent Hurlburt returned and asked Mike to sell him marijuana. Mike agreed to sell 5.1 grams of cannabis to Agent Hurlburt. This agreement was reached in the Premises. Delivery took place just outside the front door the Premises. November 17 1993: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. Agent Hurlburt attempted to purchase marijuana from an employee of Riffy's known as Crystal. Crystal indicated she was unable to find any that night. Crystal did not indicate that marijuana was not allowed on the Premises. Agent Hurlburt left the Premises and sat in a car in the parking lot with a patron known as "Keith." The car was parked in the front of the Premises. Agent Hurlburt simulated smoking what he believed to be marijuana based upon its odor and the manner in which Keith smoked the cigarette. The car windows were open. While in the car with Keith and while the cigarette was burning Mr. Grant and Casey manager of Riffy's walked immediately in front of the car. Casey laughing asked "what are you guys doing." Keith responded "what do you think." November 18 1993: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises and attempted to buy marijuana from Crystal. Crystal again told Agent Hurlburt that she could not find any marijuana that night. She again failed to tell Agent Hurlburt that Marijuana could not be purchased at the Premises. November 19 1993: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. Agent Hurlburt observed several patrons smoking what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes in the parking lot of the Premises. They did not attempt to hide what they were doing. The patrons returned to the Premises after smoking. November 20 1993: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. He again observed patrons smoking what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes outside the Premises in the parking lot. The patrons then returned to the Premises. Mike approached Agent Hurlburt inside the Premises and asked if he was interested in purchasing marijuana. Mike was not able however to provide marijuana that night. November 24 1993; Count 7: Agent Deen and Agent Murray went to the Premises together. The agents met Kenny Smith an employee of Riffy's. Kenny worked in the kitchen. Kenny took the agents out of the kitchen through a door to the back of the Premises to smoke what appeared to be and Kenny identified as a marijuana cigarette. The agents simulated smoking the cigarette with Kenny. Kenny also sold a 6.2 grams of cannabis to Agents Deen and Murray. The sale took place outside in the back of the Premises near the kitchen door. c. Mr. Grant was on the Premises when this transaction took place. November 24 1993; Counts 8 and 9: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. Agent Hurlburt asked Mike about purchasing marijuana. Mike agreed. This conversation took place in the Premises. Mike delivered the marijuana just outside the Premises at the front door. Agent Hurlburt was sold 6.5 grams of cannabis. Agent Hurlburt also simulated smoking marijuana with other patrons outside the Premises in the rear near the kitchen door. Agent Hurlburt also purchased 5.4 grams of cannabis from a patron named "Dave." This sale took place outside the Premises. Mr. Grant was on the Premises when these events took place. December 1 1993; Count 10: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. Agent Hurlburt purchased 7.1 grams of cannabis from Mike. The sale took place inside the Premises at the front door. Mr. Grant was on the Premises when the sale took place. December 2 1993; Count 11: Agent Deen and Murray returned to the Premises. The agents were introduced by Kenny to Mr. Grant in the kitchen of the Premises. Inside the Premises Kenny gave Agent Deen what he described as a marijuana cigarette. Kenny smoked the cigarette and Agent Deen simulated smoking it just outside the kitchen door. Kenny sold 3.9 grams of cannabis to the agents outside the kitchen door. December 3 1993: Agent Deen and Agent Murray returned to the Premises. The agents simulated smoking a marijuana cigarette with Kenny outside the kitchen door. The cigarette contained .1 grams of cannabis. Casey opened the kitchen door while they were smoking the marijuana and told Kenny to come inside. December 4 1993; Count 12: Agent Deen and Agent Murray returned to the Premises. Kenny told the agent to wait for him outside the kitchen door where they simulated smoking what they believed to be a marijuana cigarette. While simulating smoking the cigarette Mr. Grant was at his truck approximately 15 feet away. Mr. Grant was speaking on a mobile telephone. The agents and Kenny were in plain view of Mr. Grant. The agents also purchased 2.4 grams of cannabis from Kenny at the same location. December 9 1993; Count 13: Agent Deen and Agent Murray returned to the Premises. Kenny sold and delivered 2.4 grams of cannabis to the agents in a room used by the bands that played at Riffy's. The room is part of the Premises. The agents also simulated smoking what they believed was marijuana with Kenny and a band member outside the kitchen door. Mr. Grant was only a few feet away when the agents were simulating smoking. Mr. Grant who admitted he is familiar with the smell of marijuana was close enough to smell what was being smoked and did not make any inquiry as to what the patrons were doing. December 2 and 9 1993: a. Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises on these dates. 30b. Agent Hurlburt observed patrons exist the Premises smoke what appeared to be marijuana in the parking lot and return to the Premises. Mr. Grant was outside the Premises on December 2 1993 when patrons were smoking outside. December 10 1993; Count 14: Agent Hurlburt returned to the Premises. Mr. Grant was present at the Premises. Agent Hurlburt told Mr. Grant that he had purchased marijuana "here." Agent Hurlburt did not specify whether "here" meant the Premises Inverness or somewhere else. Mr. Grant however did not ask Agent Hurlburt whether he meant the Premises. Agent Hurlburt then asked Mr. Grant if he knew where he could purchase some sensemilla a type of marijuana. Mr. Grant indicated that he did not known where. Mr. Grant did not indicate that he did not allow the purchase or use of narcotics on the Premises. Agent Hurlburt also purchased 6.5 grams of cannabis from Mike that evening. The money was given to Mike inside the Premises and Mike gave Agent Hurlburt the marijuana inside the Premises. December 15 1993: The Division served a Search Warrant Notice to Show Cause and Emergency Order of Suspension on Riffy's. Agent Deen arrested Kenny and confiscated a bag of marijuana from Kenny. The bag contained 2.4 grams of cannabis. A bottle of Jim Bean whiskey was found in a room on the premises used by bands. All of the uses sales and delivery of marijuana described in the foregoing findings of fact took place in a relatively open manner and little effort was taken to disguise or conceal any illegal activity. Riffy's Efforts to Prevent Violations of Law. Mr. Grant testified that he instructed employees to not to engage in drug activities. One employee substantiated this testimony but that employee was Kenny one of the individuals involved in illegal activities on and near the Premises. Mr. Grant's and Kenny's testimony concerning efforts to prevent illegal activities on the Premises is rejected. There was not other evidence of efforts by the owners of Riffy's to insure that illegal activities did not take place on the Premises. In light of the open use of what appeared to be and smelled like marijuana in the parking lot of the Premises Mr. Grant should have taken some steps to prevent illegal narcotics activities on the Premises described in this Recommended Order. This is especially true based upon Mr. Grant's admission during the hearing of this matter that he smelled what he believed to be marijuana smoke "on the way to the dumpster."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order finding that Riffy's Inc. d/b/a Riffy's Pub is guilty of Counts 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 13 14 and 16 of case number 94-0606. It is further RECOMMENDED that Counts 1 7 12 15 and 17 of case number 94-606 be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Riffy's alcoholic beverage license number 19-00616 series 2-COP be revoked. It is further RECOMMENDED that Riffy's be assessed a $1000.00 civil penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June 1994 in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 14th day of June 1994. APPENDIX Case Numbers 94-0606 and 94-1348 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Division's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 4. Accepted in 5-6 31 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 7 and 9. Accepted in 7. Accepted in 10. Accepted in 11. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 14-15. The events described in the first sentence took place on October 22 1993. Accepted in 16. Accepted in 17. Accepted in 18. Accepted in 19-21. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 8 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 22. Accepted in 24. Accepted in 25. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 27. Accepted in 27. Accepted in 28. Accepted in 30. Accepted in 31. Accepted in 32. Riffy's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 4. Accepted in 3. Not supported by the evidence. Accepted in 24. Accepted in 11. Accepted in 24. The evidence did fail to prove that Mr. Grant had actual knowledge of these events. Accepted in 22. Accepted in 28. See 28. Accepted in 30. Accepted in 30. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Statement of law. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Statement of law. Accepted in 17. Accepted in 4. Statement of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1007 Stephen C. Booth Esquire 7510 Ridge Road Port Richey Florida 34668 Sgt. Homer Scroggin Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1103 SW 1st Avenue Ocala Florida 32678-4218 Jack McRay DBPR Acting General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee FL 32399-0792 John J. Harris Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee FL 32399-0792
