The Issue Whether or not on or about the 14th of March, 1976, Pearlie Mae Smith, a licensed vendor, did have in her possession, permit or allow someone else, to wit: Junior Lee Smith, to have in their possession on the licensed premises, alcoholic beverages, to wit: 5 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to s. 562.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact On March 14, 1976, and up to and including the date of the hearing, the Respondent, Pearlie Mae Smith, held license no. 72-65, series 2-COP with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. The licensed premises is located at 1013 West Malloy Avenue, Perry, Florida. On the morning of March 14, 1976, Officer B.C. Maxwell with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage acting on an informant's information, searched the informant to determine if the informant had monies other than the money that the officer had given him or any alcoholic beverages on his person. Once the informant had been searched and it was determined that the informant was carrying with him only the money that the officer had given him to purchase alcoholic beverages, the informant was sent into the subject licensed premises. The informant returned with a half-pint bottle of alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold on the licensed premise and indicated that this purchase was made from one Junior Lee Smith. Later in the morning, around 11:30, officers of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage entered the licensed premises and an inspection of those premises revealed a bag containing 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka in the kitchen area of the licensed premises. This bag and contents were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit #2. The 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka are alcoholic beverages which are not allowed to be sold under the series 2-COP license on the subject premises. When the officers entered, the same Junior Lee Smith was in the licensed premises and indicated that he was in charge of the licensed premises and had been selling alcoholic beverages for "quite some time" together with his wife, Pearlie Mae Smith, the licensee. The bag he indicated, had been whiskey that had been left over from the night before.
Recommendation It is recommended that based upon the violation as established in the hearing that the licensee, Pearlie Mae Smith, have her beverage license suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Winson, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mrs. Pearlie Mae Smith 1013 West Malloy Avenue Perry, Florida
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Moishes Steakhouse & Seafood, Inc., timely submitted an application to record a lien for license number 23-02731 4COP.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 3, 1999, Armar Inc., Arnaldo Bou, individually, and Martha Pinango, individually, as debtors, and the Petitioner, by Eugenio D'Arpino, as president of the company, the secured party, executed a security agreement (chattel mortgage) related to beverage license 23-02731, series 4COP. Such security agreement recognized a priority lien for the Petitioner, Moishes Steakhouse & Seafood, Inc., and included a promissory note executed by the debtors. The promissory note, dated March 3, 1999 (presumably executed on or about that date), provided: THIS NOTE IS NOTE ASSIGNABLE AND NON- ASSUMABLE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE SECURED PARTY. THIS NOTE IS SECURED BY A SECURITY AGREEMENT (CHATTEL MORTGAGE) AND UCC-1 WHICH SHALL CREATE A PRIORITY LIEN (1ST PLACE LIEN) ON STATE OF FLORIDA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE NO: 23- 01686, series 4 COP quota. The security agreement and promissory note were not provided to the Department within 90 days of March 3, 1999. Apparently, the fact that the note and security agreement make reference to different alcoholic beverage license numbers is not an issue. Neither party has raised that issue. The Petitioner forwarded the note and security agreement to the Department for recordation on or about September 21, 1999. At that time the Department received an application to record a lien for license no. 23-02731, series 4COP. On October 11, 1999, the Department sent Petitioner a letter declining the application because it was not made within 90 days after the creation of the lien. The Department requested a newly executed security agreement so that the dates would show the request for recording within 90 days of the application. It is the Department's position that the lien application should have been submitted within 90 days of its creation in order to comply with the mandatory guidelines of the statute. For purposes of this case, the Department argued that the "creation of the lien" was on or about March 3, 1999, or, at the latest, March 15, 1999 (a date noted in the escrow agreement). The Petitioner timely sought an administrative review of the Department's decision. It is the Petitioner's position that the lien did not "break escrow" until August of 1999, and that, as a matter of law, that is the point in time from which the 90 day period should run. From the Petitioner's perspective, the "creation of the lien" as used by the statute dates from when the transaction broke escrow. All parties agree that the statute does not specifically address escrow transactions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order approving the Petitioner's application to record a lien on the subject alcoholic beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherrie Barnes, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Major Jorge R. Herrera Department of Business and Professional Regulation 8685 Northwest 53rd Terrace Augusta Building, Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33166 Louis J. Terminello, Esquire Terminello & Terminello, P. A. 2700 Southwest 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133-2728 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Pursuant to a Notice to Show Cause issued November 22, 1982, the Respondent was charged with two violations of the beverage laws of this state. Respondent was charged with allowing a person under 19 years of age to consume alcoholic beverages on her licensed premises. Respondent was also charged with continuing to sell alcoholic beverages after discontinuing the sale of full course meals in violation of Florida Statute 561.20(3)(1981) and Rule 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code. At the formal hearing, Petitioner called as witnesses Mr. W. R. Wiggs, a beverage officer for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; Mr. James Pistole, a deputy for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department; and Joe Circhirillo, also a deputy for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department. Respondent testified on her own behalf and called as witnesses Kathryn Singer, James D. DeBusk, and Heidi Buzbee. Petitioner offered no exhibits and Respondent offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit consisting of four photographs. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the undersigned Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not adopted herein, they were considered and determined by the Hearing Officer to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent held Beverage License No. 39- 00771, SRX Series 4-COP, issued to Sharon's Surf-n-Turf, located at 111 East Shell Point Road, Ruskin, Florida. During the course of the hearing, it was stipulated by and between the parties and it is now found that the beverage referred to in Count I of the administrative complaint was an alcoholic beverage. On October 29, 1982, W. R. Wiggs, an investigator for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, went to the licensed premises of Sharon's Surf- n-Turf Restaurant and Lounge. He arrived at approximately 9:30 p.m. and the lounge area was full of patrons. Before entering the licensed premises, Investigator Wiggs observed a sign outside the restaurant which reflected that the restaurant was open from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and there was live entertainment from 9:30 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. Beverage Officer Wiggs was accompanied by Beverage Officer Miller. Upon entering the licensed premises, Wiggs and Miller sat at the bar and each ordered a Michelob beer. Beverage Officer Miller asked if he could order a full course meal and the bartender responded that the kitchen was closed. Beverage Officers Miller and Wiggs were in the licensed premises approximately one and one-half hour and observed no food being served. The patrons in the lounge were consuming alcoholic beverages. The lights were not on in the restaurant portion of the licensed premises, and the door to the restaurant was locked. Neither Officer Wiggs nor Officer Miller checked the kitchen to determine if it was in fact closed. While in the licensed premises, Officer Wiggs, along with Deputy James Pistole, of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department, observed a young lady named Tammy Almond, sitting at one of-the tables and consuming an alcoholic beverage. She appeared to be younger than 19 years of age. After arresting Ms. Almond, it was determined from her driver's license that she was, in fact, 18 years of age, having a date of birth of March 28, 1964. When Officer Wiggs and Deputy Pistole arrested Ms. Almond, she stated that the drink which was seized belong to someone else and she was sipping out of it. There was no evidence that Tammy Almond had purchased the drink or that she had been personally served the drink. At the time Tammy Almond was arrested, all other persons in the lounge who appeared to be possibly underage were asked for identification. Tammy Almond was the only minor in the licensed premises that evening. Tammy Almond had previously been married and was now divorced. The Respondent and her employees were aware of her prior marriage. On this evening, James D. DeBusk was checking identification at the door to the licensed premises. He had checked Tammy Almond's identification and it had reflected that she was two or three months over 19 years of age. The identification appeared to be a Florida driver's license. There was nothing suspicious about the identification. The licensed premises always has a doorman checking identification on Wednesday night through Saturday night. The bartenders and waitresses would also check identification of patrons. The licensed premises is divided into a restaurant/ dining room area and a lounge. The lounge has tables, chairs, a dance floor, and bandstand. Food is served in the dining room area as well as the lounge area. Menus for food are posted on the wall just inside the doorway of the lounge. The Respondent, prior to and at the time of the incident involving Tammy Almond, had a strict policy against allowing minors to consume alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. On the nights when the lounge is busiest, Wednesday through Saturday, a doorman is on duty to check the identification of persons entering the lounge. Waitresses and bartenders were instructed to check the identification of persons who appeared to be younger than 19 years of age. The Respondent's policy was to require two acceptable forms of identification whenever a person produces or shows a questionable identification. If they cannot produce such identification, they are not permitted to enter the licensed premises. The restaurant and lounge are managed and supervised by the Respondent. At the time of Tammy Almond's arrest, the Respondent was in the kitchen area of the licensed premises training a new cook. Food is served at the Respondent's licensed premises from 11:00 a.m. to closing time. On the evening of October 29, 1982, the kitchen was open and food was actually ordered. At least four meals of steak and eggs were ordered and served after midnight. The licensed premises is primarily a restaurant operation and serves several different types of full course meals. These full course meals were available on the evening of October 29, 1982.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found not guilty of the violations charged in the Notice to Show Cause and that such Notice to Show Cause be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul S. Carr, Esquire Post Office Box 965 Ruskin, Florida 33570 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance; cocaine, and whether said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 in U.S. currency, and whether said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage license premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine contrary to Section 893.13, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc. d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $2,200, U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. A count seven was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. A count eight was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. Whether or not on or about November 20, 1976, a bottle of non-tax paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered on the licensed premises, and whether or not said bottle bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid, contrary to Section 562.16, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 1, 1976, and continuing until on or about November 24, 1976, the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did maintain a public nuisance, to wit; maintain a place where controlled substances were illegally sold, kept or used, contrary to Section 823.10, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not investigation revealed that on or about November 20, 1976, the Respondent, its agent, servant, or employee, did remove, deposit, or conceal a beverage, to wit, one (1) 2,000 cc bottle of Ron Medeliin Rum, with the intent to defraud the state of tax, contrary to Section 562.32, F.S. and Section 562.30, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this complaint the Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, was the holder of a license no. 23-1901, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, and that license was for the premises located at 1601 Collins Avenue Miami Beach, Florida. The management of the licensed premises makes arrangements to hire entertainment in the form of musicians. This arrangement is made through agreement with the band leader. One of these agreements was made with a band leader who had as his band member Leouigildo Hernandez. On September 28, 1976, Officer E. Santiago, of the Miami Beach, Florida, Police Department entered the licensed premises and while in the licensed premises entered into discussion with Hernandez. Hernandez left the bar proper and came back with an amount of a substance known as cocaine. Santiago paid Hernandez $100 for the quantity of cocaine and the sale was consummated in the licensed premises. On October 30, 1976, Officer Santiago returned to the licensed premises. Santiago had been in the licensed premises many times prior to that occasion. Among the persons he had seen in the bar was Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales. Morales was the girlfriend of Anthony Bilbao, one of the principals in the ownership of the licensed premises. Morales had also served Santiago drinks in the bar on more than 50 occasions. On the evening in question, October 30, 1976, discussion was entered into between Santiago and Morales about the purchase of a substance known as cocaine. Morales produced a quantity of the cocaine and reached across the bar that she was standing behind and handed the quantity of the substance cocaine to Santiago, who was in the area where customers were served at the bar. Santiago paid her $100 for the cocaine. In the late hours of November 4 and early hours of November 5, 1976, Santiago again entered the licensed premises, his purpose for going to the licensed premises was to purchase a large quantity of cocaine from Morales. This arrangement had been entered into based upon the sample of cocaine that had been provided him on October 30, 1976. Morales left the licensed premises and returned 3 to 5 minutes later with a quantity of cocaine, for which Santiago paid her $2,200. On one of the above occasions of a purchase of cocaine from Morales, while in the licensed premises, Morales had conferred with Anthony Bilbao. In the course of that conference, Bilbao told Morales to be careful to whom she sold because "you don't know him", meaning Santiago. In the course of an investigation in the license premises on November 28, 1976, a bottle of non-tax-paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered in the licensed premises, which bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid. The size of the bottle was 2,000 cc.
Recommendation Based upon the violations as established in the hearing on the notice to show cause, it is recommended that the license no. 23-1901 held by Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee ,Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Michael B. Solomon, Esquire Division of Beverage Theodore M. Trushin, Law Office The Johns Building 420 Lincoln Road, Number 600 725 Bronough Street Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Nathaniel Barone, Esquire 777 N.E. 79th Street Miami, Florida 33138
Findings Of Fact In December, 1982, DABT issued an alcoholic beverage license (Lic. no. 15-1163, Series 4-COP SRX) under its SRX classification to respondent to operate a restaurant with liquor sales on the premises. The restaurant was known as "Thee Doll House Beach," at 199 East Cocoa Beach Causeway, in Cocoa Beach, Florida. A requirement of the license was that revenue from sales of alcoholic beverages equal or exceed 51 percent of gross sales. Respondent opened "Thee Doll House Beach" for business in January, 1983. The business operated as a buffet restaurant, with a fixed-price, "all- you-can-eat" menu. Meals consisted of a hot entree, chosen from baked ham, roast beef and turkey; a selection of four or five hot vegetables; a large salad bar; two soups; and a desert tray, with pies, pastries and cakes. The business also offered alcoholic beverages for sale in the restaurant and at a bar. A "Las Vegas-style" show was presented nightly at eight o'clock, although the restaurant opened at noon. The first month's (January 1983) sales of food only reached 40.6 percent of gross sales, and subsequent efforts of the respondent to reach 51 percent were never successful. The initial price of a buffet meal was $4.95 per person, which attracted a sizeable number of patrons, many of them senior citizens. However, the respondent found that due to the extensive food menu and the cost of preparation and service, it was losing money on each meal sold. So it increased its meal price to $5.95, which resulted in a drastic drop in business, apparently due to the inability of senior citizens to pay the higher price. It was in this particular group that the most noticeable decrease in attendance occurred. The respondent took various steps to increase its food sales. "Early- bird" specials were introduced at a lower price; extensive newspaper, radio and television advertising was utilized to promote the buffet. Nevertheless, at the end of 1983, the business had shown an overall food sales of only 31 percent. Monthly percentage figures are as follows: DATE FOOD/NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERCENTAGE ALCOHOLIC PERCENTAGE January 1983 40.5 59.5 February 1983 27.1 72.9 March 1983 37.3 62.7 April 1983 33.5 66.5 May 1983 31.9 68.1 June 1983 29.1 70.9 July 1983 27.5 72.5 August 1983 23.9 76.1 September 1983 24.1 75.9 October 1983 23.4 76.6 November 1983 23.6 76.4 December 1983 23.3 76.7 The respondent's problems were compounded by the fact that it was operating in a difficult, if not depressed market, where financial conditions had limited the discretionary income available to restaurant-going consumers. Other restaurants in the area were having to cut back operations or terminate business altogether. During the year in question, the respondent held itself out to be a restaurant, not a lounge, and its primary emphasis in advertising, in its internal business operation and in its physical layout, emphasized food sales as opposed to liquor sales. During the time period in question the price of a meal at Thee Doll House Beach was significantly below its fair market value. The respondent attempted to increase its food sales by lowering prices, which, in turn, decreased the percentage of gross food sales. According to the evidence, a reasonable price for the menu offered, based on a comparison with other restaurants in Central Florida, would have been $8-$10. Using those price figures, the percentage of food sales to gross revenues at Thee Doll House Beach would have exceeded 60 percent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's beverage license be revoked but that such action be vacated if respondent surrenders its license for cancellation within 10 days of entry of DABT's final order. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard L. Wilson, Esquire 1212 East Ridgewood Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is responsible for administering Florida laws respecting the sale of alcoholic beverages. Sales of alcoholic beverages are regulated in Florida through a licensing system. "Liquor" licenses authorize licensees to sell alcoholic beverages without regard to alcoholic content. Various categories of liquor licenses are issued by the Respondent. The two categories most pertinent to this proceeding are "quota" licenses and "restaurant" licenses. Quota licenses are available on the basis of one license per 2,500 in population for each county which permits such licenses (Some counties have different quotas established by Special Acts of the Legislature.). The term "quota" is derived from the fact that the issuing formula is based upon the decennial Federal census, and thus only a finite number of licenses are available. Section 561.20(1), Florida Statutes. Restaurant licenses are an exception to the quota scheme and are not limited in number. They are available to "any restaurant having 2,500 square feet of service area and equipped to serve 150 persons full-course meals at one time, and deriving at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages." Section 561.20(2)(a)3, Florida Statutes. There are approximately 3,000 outstanding quota licenses, and 2,000 outstanding restaurant licenses. Depending upon the specific terms of the license, quota license holders are authorized to sell liquor for off premises consumption. These are called "package" sales. Prior to the adoption of the amendment to Rule 7A-3.16, restaurant licenses issued after January 1, 1958, did not authorize package sales. Prior to the adoption of the amendment, the rule Provided: No licensee holding a special restaurant license issued after January 1, 1958, may sell alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption other than as may be Provided by special act. The prefix "SRX" shall be made a part of the license numbers of all special restaurant licenses issued after January 1, 1958, distinguishing them in identity from other licenses. The amendment which is the subject of this proceeding deleted the underlined portion of the rule. The effect of the amendment is to permit holders of restaurant licenses to make package sales so long as other criteria pertaining to the licenses are met. The Petitioner is a publicly owned Florida corporation which does business in Florida and five other states. Petitioner is engaged in the business of selling alcoholic beverages for on and off premises consumption. The majority of its business activities are in Florida, and Florida package sales represent more than half of the Petitioner's total business volume nationwide. The Petitioner holds forty-tow quota licenses issued by the Respondent. Quota licenses are transferable; and since they are limited in number, their market value frequently far exceeds the fees imposed by the Respondent. The market value of quota licenses held by the Petitioner in Dade and Broward Counties, Florida, is nearly two million dollars. The Petitioner's business is a very competitive one. When the petitioner is considering whether to invest in a new location, numerous factors are considered. These include demographics, traffic patterns, population, zoning, and the number and location of competitors. The number and location of competitors is the single most important factor. Since package sales constitute a majority of the Petitioner's business volume, the proximity of competitors who offer package sales is paramount. Because under the Respondent's rules restaurant licensees have been prohibited from making package sales, the location of restaurant licensees has not been of concern to the petitioner in determining where to locate. The Petitioner may have made different judgments about numerous of its locations if nearby restaurants were able to make package sales in competition with the Petitioner. No specific evidence was introduced from which it could be determined which if any of the Petitioner's locations would not have been opened, or which will suffer a competitive disadvantage as a result of the amendment to Rule 7A-3.16. Indeed, implementation of the amendment to the rule has been stayed by the courts, and no determination can be made as to which restaurant licensees might avail themselves of the opportunity of making package sales, and to what extent. The market value of the Petitioner's quota licenses and competition for the Petitioner's business outlets are affected by licensing considerations apart from whether restaurant licensees will be permitted to make package sales. As a result of the 1980 Federal census, numerous new quota licenses will be available in Dade and Broward Counties. These additional licenses, when issued, could have a substantial impact upon the value of the Petitioner's licenses, and the competitive advantages of the Petitioner's business locations. The Intervenor is the holder of a restaurant license issued by the Respondent. The amendment to Rule 7A-3.16 would permit the Intervenor to make package sales of alcoholic beverages. The economic impact statement adopted by the Respondent in support of its amendment to Rule 7A-3.16 provides in pertinent part as fellows: This rule will likely stimulate competition in the market place by permitting more outlets for off premises sale of alcoholic beverages. There would be no appreciable impact upon the state's revenue, but should there be any impact it is estimated that more liquor would be sold rather than less. Competition upon existing package stores would be in proportion to the proximity and competitive power of special restaurants permitted to sell by the package. In developing this statement, various officials within the Respondent met on several occasions to discuss the potential economic impact of the amendment to the rule, and representatives of the regulated industry were consulted. Hearings were conducted by the Respondent before the amendment was adopted. Representatives of the industry, including a representative of the Petitioner, appeared at hearings and stated their positions with respect to the amendment. The economic impact statement accurately portrays the potential economic impact of the amendment. It does not appear that the effect of competition upon existing package stores can be estimated with any precision. Indeed, the Petitioner did not present evidence and could not present evidence with respect to the precise impact that the amendment would have upon any of its locations.
The Issue Whether the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco is estopped from denying petitioner's application for a transfer of a special restaurant license.
Findings Of Fact In December, 1981, Applicant applied for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 23-02433, 4-COP SRX, a special restaurant license held by Charlies the Lakes Restaurant, Inc. & Willman Co.. DABT denied the application, contending that the licensed premises did not meet minimum seating or square footage requirements. (P-1, letter of denial dated April 8, 1982). The licensed premises, known as the Lakeside Cafe, is located at 6125 Miami Lakes Drive, Miami Lake percent, Florida. It has less than 4,000 square feet of service area and is able to seat less than 200 patrons at tables. (P-1, R-1 Stipulation of counsel) Applicant contends that since DABT granted a special restaurant license (4 COP-SRX) to the present and previous licensees, it is now estopped to deny the application. Although DABT has continuously granted such a license, license applicants have twice filed affidavits indicating that the licensed premises meets square footage and seating requirements. In 1976 and 1980 two separate applicants filed sworn affidavits stating that the licensed premises occupied 4,000 or more square feet of floor space and could accommodate 200 or more patrons at tables. On November 17, 1981, Applicant signed an agreement to purchase the licensed premises from the present licensee for $210,000.00. Under that agreement, the present licensee was required to transfer its interest in the beverage license to applicant. (P-3)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Applicant's application to transfer license No. 23-02433, 4-COP SRX, be DENIED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence (including Respondent's Exhibit No. 1), and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Club 99, Inc., is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 16- 1053-SRX, series 4-COP, doing business at 451 North State Road 7, Plantation, Broward County, Florida, as a bar and restaurant named Shangri-La. On August 7, 1984, the Plantation Police Department began a narcotics investigation at the licensed premises known as Club 99, Inc. d/b/a Shangri-La, holding license number 16-1053-SRX, series 4-COP, located at 451 North State Road 7, Plantation, Broward County, Florida. On this date Detective Dan Anderson entered the licensed premises undercover and was introduced to a white male bartender identified as Malcolm Perkins. Detective Anderson engaged in a conversation with Perkins regarding a narcotic known as MDA. Perkins explained that MDA was a mixture of heroin and speed and further stated that he could obtain MDA for Anderson at a price of $70.00 a gram or $10.00 a "hit." Detective Anderson also engaged in conversation about MDA with Scott Kiehl, the assistant manager at the licensed premises. Later that same evening Detective Anderson engaged in a conversation about cocaine with a white male bartender on the licensed premises known as "Paul" or "Miss Kitty." None of the employees with whom Detective Anderson discussed MDA or cocaine appeared to be alarmed or concerned about the discussion. On August 10, 1984, at approximately 9:30 P.M., Detective Anderson again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and engaged in a conversation with a white male bartender identified as Richard Christian. Detective Anderson asked if he could buy a half gram of cocaine and Richard Christian answered in the affirmative stating that the price would be $35.00 for one half gram. Detective Anderson gave $40.00 in U.S. currency to Christian and Christian covered the money with a cocktail napkin. Christian took the money and shortly thereafter he placed a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance under a cocktail napkin and pushed it across the bar towards Detective Anderson. At this same time, Christian said, "It is underneath." After looking under the napkin, Anderson took the cocktail napkin and the small plastic bag and placed them in his left front pants pocket. On August 17, 1984, Detective Anderson returned to the licensed premises at approximately 10:00 P.M. 2/ On this occasion he met with a white male bartender named Malcolm Perkins. Detective Anderson asked if Perkins had obtained any MDA for him and Perkins answered in the negative. Detective Anderson asked if Perkins could get him any cocaine. Perkins answered in the negative but pointed out a waiter named Everett Campbell and suggested that Anderson ask Campbell about cocaine. Detective Anderson then approached the waiter identified as Everett Campbell and asked Campbell if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Campbell replied in the affirmative and said the price would be $35.00. Anderson agreed to the price. Later that evening Campbell approached Anderson and said that the person he gets the cocaine from was not in the bar and that, therefore, he could not deliver any cocaine to Detective Anderson. On August 18, 1984, at approximately 11:35 P.M., Detective Anderson entered the licensed premises and met with Everett Campbell. This time Campbell told Anderson that he would be able to obtain some cocaine. At approximately 12:05 A.M. on August 19, 1984, Detective Anderson gave Campbell $40.00 in U.S. currency. Campbell took the money and walked to an unknown location off the premises and returned in about five minutes. Campbell then handed Detective Anderson a small plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Nothing was wrapped around the plastic bag. Detective Anderson held up the plastic bag to inspect it before putting it in his pocket. The other bartenders and a large number of patrons were nearby and could have seen what was happening. On August 21, 1984, at approximately 11:00 P.M., Detective Anderson entered the licensed premises. Anderson struck up a conversation with a white male patron identified as Dion Burl. Detective Anderson asked Burl if he could obtain some cocaine for Anderson. Burl replied in the affirmative and stated that it would cost $40.00 for one half gram. Anderson placed a cocktail napkin over two $20.00 bills and handed them to Burl. Burl took the money and walked to an unknown location. At approximately 11:30 P.M., Burl returned. He handed Detective Anderson a white cocktail napkin and a small clear plastic bag that contained a white powdery substance. Detective Anderson took the substance and placed it in his pants pocket. On August 23, 1984, Detective Anderson returned to the licensed premises and met with Everett Campbell at approximately 11:00 P.M. Campbell was working as a waiter that night. Detective Anderson asked Campbell if he could obtain a half gram of cocaine for Anderson. Campbell answered in the affirmative and said it would cost $40.00. Detective Anderson gave Campbell the money and a while later Campbell handed him a magazine titled "David" and said, "It's inside." Inside the magazine Detective Anderson found a small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. Detective Anderson held the plastic bag up to inspect it before putting it in his pocket. On August 24, 1984, at approximately 9:30 P.M., Detective Anderson entered the licensed premises again. At approximately the same time Investigator Oliva entered in an undercover capacity as back up. Upon entering the premises Detective Anderson met with white male bartender Richard Christian and both engaged in general conversation. After a short period of time Detective Anderson asked Christian if he had any cocaine. Christian stated that be did not have any right now but for Anderson to go ahead and give Christian $35.00, and that he would have it later. Anderson complied with Christian's request and gave Christian $35.00 U.S. currency. At approximately 11:00 P.M., Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva seated themselves at a table in the dining area of the licensed premises, where they were greeted by Everett Campbell. Shortly thereafter Anderson asked Campbell if he could get Anderson some cocaine. Campbell replied in the affirmative. Thereupon Anderson folded two $20.00 bills, placed them under a napkin, and gave them to Campbell. Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva then saw Campbell go into the kitchen area several times. About fifteen or twenty minutes later, Campbell approached the table where Anderson and Oliva were seated and placed a folded cocktail napkin in front of Detective Anderson and said, "It's in there." Anderson unfolded the napkin and found that it contained a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Anderson removed the plastic bag from the napkin and inspected the plastic bag by holding it up to eye level for a few seconds. Detective Anderson saw other patrons looking at him when he raised the plastic bag to eve level. After inspecting the plastic bag, Anderson put it in his pocket. At approximately midnight of the evening of August 24-25, 1984, Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva left the restaurant portion of the licensed premises and proceeded to the upstairs portion of the licensed premises, which is another lounge. After a short period of time, Anderson and Oliva were greeted by a waiter identified as Adam Burnett. Anderson and Oliva negotiated with Burnett for the purchase of cocaine. In approximately five minutes Burnett returned to the table where the officers were seated and stated that he could obtain a better quality of cocaine for $40.00 in U.S. currency for one half gram. At this time Investigator Oliva stated that he would take the better quality of cocaine and gave Burnett $40.00 in U.S. currency. A few minutes later Investigator Oliva followed Burnett into the mens' restroom. Once inside the mens' room, Burnett handed Oliva a white cocktail napkin. Oliva took the napkin and unwrapped it. Inside was a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Oliva held the plastic bag up to eye level to view its contents and discussed with Burnett the fact that the white powdery substance had a lot of "rocks" in it. Oliva then stated to Burnett that he was not going to do the cocaine in the bathroom because he did not trust anyone. Burnett's reply was, "It's okay. Everyone does it in here anyway." Oliva and Burnett then left the restroom. A few minutes later that same evening, an unknown white male employee who had been previously working at a bar located in the downstairs portion of the premises approached Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva and stated to Anderson, "Richard wants to see you downstairs". Anderson and Oliva proceeded downstairs to the bar located by the kitchen entrance. There Detective Anderson met with bartender Richard Christian, who told Anderson to reach into his shirt pocket. Anderson reached in Christian's shirt pocket and pulled out a folded napkin, and a small clear plastic bag which contained a white powdery substance. When Detective Anderson started to open the cocktail napkin, Christian put his hands out to close Anderson's hands in an effort to keep other people from seeing the bag. On August 29, 1984, Detective Anderson again entered the licensed premises. At approximately 10:00 P.M., Detective Anderson was introduced to a white male waiter identified as Tony Brown. Anderson and Brown engaged in general conversation and after a short period of time Anderson asked Brown if he could get a half gram of cocaine. Brown stated that be should be able to obtain one and that he would check around and get back to Detective Anderson. At approximately 11:00 P.M., Brown approached Detective Anderson and stated that he had checked around, but was unable to obtain any cocaine. On the same date, at approximately 11:30 P.M., Detective Anderson met with waiter Adam Burnett and engaged in general conversation and after a short period of time Anderson asked Burnett if Burnett could get him a half gram of cocaine. Burnett replied by stating, "Wait 'til Gus gets here." Burnett further stated that the price would be $35.00 for one half gram. At approximately 12:10 A.M., on August 30, 1984, Anderson handed Burnett two $20.00 bills. About twenty minutes later, Burnett handed Anderson a folded napkin. Anderson unfolded the napkin and found a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Anderson then placed the clear plastic bag in his left front pocket. On the evening of August 30, 1984, Detective Anderson entered the licensed premises again. Investigator Oliva and Detective Vadnal entered the premises at about the same time in an undercover capacity as back up. Detective Anderson met with a white male patron previously identified as Dion Burl. Anderson asked Burl if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Burl replied in the affirmative. Detective Anderson then handed Burl two folded $20.00 bills, which were wrapped in a cocktail napkin. Burl took the money and left. At approximately 11:50 P.M., Burl returned to the upstairs portion of the premises and sat at a table with Detective Anderson. At this time Burl handed Anderson a folded cocktail napkin and inside the folded napkin was a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. On that same evening, August 30, 1984, Detective Anderson met with a white male waiter identified as Tony Brown who was working at the upstairs portion of the licensed premises. Anderson and Brown engaged in a conversation while standing approximately three feet from Investigator Oliva. Anderson asked Brown if Brown could obtain a half gram of cocaine. Brown replied by stating, "It will be about twenty minutes." Detective Anderson gave two $20.00 bills to Brown and told Brown that he would be in the downstairs portion of the licensed premises. At approximately 12:10 A.M, on August 31, 1984, Detective Anderson, while standing at the downstairs portion of the licensed premises was approached by Brown, who handed Anderson a folded white cocktail napkin which contained a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Anderson inspected the plastic bag and then placed the napkin and its contents in his right rear pants pocket. On or about August 31, 1984, at approximately 11:30 P.M., Detective Anderson again entered the licensed premises. At about the same time Detective Vadnal and Investigator Oliva entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity as backup. Shortly after midnight (in the early morning minutes of September 1, 1984) Detective Anderson met with white male waiter Adam Burnett and engaged in a general conversation. Detective Anderson asked Burnett if Burnett could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Burnett replied in the affirmative. Thereupon Detective Anderson gave Burnett $40.00 in U.S. currency by laying two $20.00 bills on a cocktail tray Burnett was carrying. Burnett walked away from Detective Anderson to an unknown portion of the licensed premises. A few minutes later Burnett returned to where Detective Anderson was standing and handed Anderson a magazine titled "David" and said, "It's in the magazine." Detective Anderson, who was standing near the dance floor of the licensed premises, took the magazine and flipped through its pages, at which time a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance fell to the floor. Several patrons standing in the vicinity of Anderson saw the clear plastic bag fall to the floor and laughed at Anderson's clumsiness. Detective Anderson then picked up the clear plastic bag and held it up to eye level to inspect it. He then placed it in his pocket. On the evening of September 5, 1984, Detective Anderson again entered the licensed premises. Shortly thereafter Detective Vadnal and Investigator Oliva entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity as back up. Detective Anderson met with a white male patron previously identified as Dion Burl and asked Burl if he could purchase a half gram of cocaine. After some conversation, Anderson gave two $20.00 bills to Burl. Detective Anderson then told Burl that he would be sitting on a speaker near the west end of the dance floor and that Burl could deliver the cocaine to him there. At approximately 10:45 P.M., Burl approached Detective Anderson, who was seated on a speaker by the dance floor, and sat next to Anderson. Burl then handed a folded cocktail napkin to Detective Anderson. Inside the cocktail napkin was a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Detective Anderson examined the plastic bag and then placed it in his pocket. After concluding the cocaine purchase of September 5, 1984, at the licensed premises, Detective Anderson remained on the licensed premises and during the early morning hours of September 6, 1984, he met with a white male waiter previously identified as Adam Burnett. Detective Anderson asked Burnett if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Burnett stated that "Gus," referring to the supplier, was not yet at the bar, but that he should be able to obtain some later. A few minutes later, Burnett approached Anderson and stated that Gus was present and Anderson handed Burnett two folded $20.00 bills in U.S. currency. Anderson then stated to Burnett that he would be in the downstairs portion of the premises. A short while later Burnett approached Anderson and handed Anderson what appeared to be a mixed drink with a napkin wrapped around the glass. As he handed the glass to Anderson, Burnett said, "It's just water, but look in the napkin." Anderson set the drink down and unfolded the napkin to expose a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Detective Anderson placed the plastic bag in his pocket. At approximately 12:30 A.M. that same evening (prior to purchasing the cocaine from Burnett), Detective Anderson met with a white male waiter previously identified as Everett Campbell and engaged in a general conversation with Campbell. Shortly thereafter Detective Anderson asked Campbell if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Anderson gave Campbell two folded $20.00 bills in U.S. currency. Approximately two minutes later Campbell returned from an unknown location in the restaurant area of the licensed premises and handed Anderson a small clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Anderson took the plastic bag and held it up to inspect it. The bartender at bar number two could have seen Anderson inspecting the plastic bag. Anderson then placed the plastic bag in his pocket. On the evening of September 10, 1984, Detectives Anderson and Vadnal and Investigator Oliva returned to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Anderson engaged in a brief conversation with a white male waiter previously identified as Everett Campbell, who was not working on this date. Anderson asked Campbell if he could get Anderson a half gram of cocaine. Campbell replied in the affirmative. Detective Anderson then handed Campbell a $50.00 bill, which Campbell took. Campbell took the $50.00 bill to a bartender, received change for it, and gave Anderson $10.00. Campbell then went out the front door. At approximately 1:00 A.M. on September 11, 1984, Campbell reentered the licensed premises and met with Detective Anderson who was standing next to Investigator Oliva. At this time Campbell handed Anderson a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. This transaction was observed by an on-duty white male bartender identified only as "Don" and by a white male patron who was standing on the opposite side of Anderson. Detective Anderson took the clear plastic bag and placed it on the bar counter where it remained for two or three minutes in plain view of the bartender. Then Anderson took the plastic bag and attempted to place it in his pants pocket at which time the small plastic bag containing the white powdery substance fell to the floor where Detective Vadnal, Investigator Oliva, and the white male patron previously mentioned observed the same. Detective Anderson retrieved the clear plastic bag from the floor and placed it in his pants pocket. At all times material to this case, the following were employees on the licensed premises. Malcolm Perkins, Richard Christian, Everett Campbell, Adam Burnett, Tony Brown and a bartender identified only as "Don." Each and every one of the clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance which were sold to Detective Anderson and to Investigator Oliva on the licensed premises during August and September of 1984, were properly examined by a forensic chemist. The contents of each and every one of those clear plastic bags was found to contain cocaine. In brief summary of the foregoing, during the 5-week period from August 7, 1984, through September 11, 1984, the following events occurred on the licensed premises: 8/07/84 Employee Malcolm Perkins told Detective Anderson he could obtain MDA. 8/07/84 Assistant Manager Scott Kiehl and employee "Paul/Miss Kitty" discussed drugs with Detective Anderson without alarm or concern. 8/10/84 Employee Richard Christian sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/17/84 Employee Malcolm Perkins told Detective Anderson that employee Everett Campbell could obtain cocaine for Anderson. 8/17/84 Employee Everett Campbell agreed to sell cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/19/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/21/84 Patron Dion Burl sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/23/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/24/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/25/84 Employee Richard Christian sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/25/84 Employee Adam Burnett sold cocaine to Investigator Oliva. 8/29/84 Employee Tony Brown offered to sell cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/30/84 Employee Adam Burnett sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/30/84 Patron Dion Burl sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 8/31/84 Employee Tony Brown sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/01/84 Employee Adam Burnett sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/05/84 Patron Dion Burl sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/06/84 Employee Adam Burnett sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/06/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. 9/11/84 Employee Everett Campbell sold cocaine to Detective Anderson. All of the events summarized immediately above took place on the licensed premises during business hours when other employees and patrons were also present on the licensed premises. With the one exception which occurred on August 25, 1984, when Richard Christian reached out to close Detective Anderson's hands so that Anderson would not display a plastic bag containing cocaine, the employees at the licensed premises did not express any concern about any of the drug transactions and did not take any action to prevent or discourage them. Richard DeSanto is the sole officer, director, and shareholder of Club 99, Inc., the licensee in this case. Richard DeSanto is a self-employed attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar. He has been a practicing attorney for six years and maintains an active trial practice. DeSanto does not devote very much time to the management of the licensed premises. The day-to-day management is conducted by a manager and an assistant manager, both hired by DeSanto. The manager is Tommy Engelbrecht and the assistant manager is Scotty Kiehl. DeSanto relies on Engelbrecht to relay DeSanto's instructions about the operation of the licensed premises to the other employees and also relies on Engelbrecht to report back to him regarding any problems in the operation of the licensed premises. Engelbrecht does the hiring and firing at the licensed premises and many of the employees on the licensed premises would not even recognize DeSanto. DeSanto visits the licensed premises about twice a month on a deliberately irregular schedule. Some of his visits are as brief as a few minutes; others are as long as several hours. The primary purpose of his visits is to attend to such things as reviewing business records and signing the payroll. DeSanto has established as policies that intoxicated or disorderly patrons should not be permitted to enter the licensed premises and that patrons who become disorderly once they are inside the licensed premises should be ejected. It is also a policy of the club that if the employees become aware of any drug activity on the licensed premises they are supposed to report the incident to the manager or assistant manager, and the manager or assistant manager is supposed to eject whoever is involved in the drug activity. On three or four occasions during the past year or so patrons have been ejected for drug activities on the licensed premises. DeSanto has discussed drug problems and their prevention with Engelbrecht. All new employees are told about the drug policy at the licensed premises when they are first hired. Engelbrecht has also held a few employee meetings at which he reminded employees of the drug policy. The drug policy established by DeSanto appears to include a policy of firing any employee who is caught with drugs on the premises. During the past year three waiters have been fired on the spot for drug use. In the past year the manager has also been told of three or four instances of drug dealing on the licensed premises. 3/ There are no written personnel rules and regulations. Thus, all of DeSanto's policies are communicated orally to Engelbrecht and are then communicated orally by Engelbrecht to the employees. The entire management of the licensed premises, including management practices concerning hiring of personnel, appear to be very informal. Further, the personnel policies regarding drug activities on the licensed premises are either ineffectively communicated or ineffectively enforced. For example, none of the drug transactions engaged in by Detective Anderson and Investigator Oliva were reported to the manager or assistant manager, and no efforts were made to eject Anderson or Oliva for engaging in drug transactions or attempting to engage in drug transactions, even though some of their transactions were observed by employees who were not involved in the transactions. Further, at least one employee (Richard Christian) knew that a patron named Gus was regularly dealing in cocaine on the licensed premises, but no action was taken to eject Gus. 4/ Yet another example of the informality of the licensee's personnel practices is that even though Englebrecht had recently hired a bartender named "Don" and had supposedly carefully checked with Don's references, Englebrecht could not remember Don's last name. When alcoholic beverage licenses were renewed in March of 1983, the DABT sent information to all licensees advising them that the DABT was willing to provide them with suggestions for controlling drug activity on the licensed premises. DeSanto did not take advantage of this opportunity to obtain suggestions from DABT because he did not think he had a drug problem on the licensed premises. In making the foregoing findings of fact I have given careful consideration to the proposed findings of fact contained in the parties' post- hearing submissions to the Hearing Officer. To the extent that findings of fact proposed by either party are not incorporated in the foregoing findings of fact, the proposed findings have been specifically rejected because they were not supported by competent substantial evidence, because they were contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, because they involve incidental details which were not essential to the resolution of this case, or because they were irrelevant or immaterial.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 16-1053-SRX, Series 4-COP, issued to Club 99, Inc., trading as Shangri-La. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of October, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1984.
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined on charges that it operated its restaurant in violation of beverage rules.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent conducted business as Oscar's Restaurant and Lounge (the "licensed premises" or "premises") at 901 Southwest Eighth Street, Miami, Florida, under a special restaurant alcoholic beverage license, No. 23-2059-SRX (Series 4-COP-SRX), issued prior to April 18, 1972. I. At 2:30 p.m. on November 8, 1979, when beverage officer Louis J. Terminello inspected the licensed premises, the kitchen area was not in use. The kitchen lights were off, no kitchen employees were present, and no food was being prepared. Although alcoholic beverages were being served to approximately three patrons in the bar section of the premises, no food had been served. (Testimony of Terminello.) Officer Terminello then asked Oscar Sarmiento, the on-site representative of respondent, to produce business records reflecting the purchases and sales of alcoholic beverages, food, and nonalcoholic beverages. Mr. Sarmiento replied that the requested records were not on the premises, that they were at the office of respondent's accountant, Mark Thaw. (Testimony of Terminello.) Respondent contends, without corroboration, that DABT, through Officer Terminello, had given oral permission to keep these business records off premises, at its accountant's office. Officer Terminello denied having given such permission. Taking into account the interest and bias of the witnesses, Officer Terminello's denial is accepted as the more credible and is persuasive. The fact that, before or during the time in question, DABT agents inspected respondent's records at its accountant's office does not, by itself, establish that respondent had permission from DABT to keep business records offsite. (Testimony of Terminello, Sarmiento.) Before leaving the premises that day, Officer Terminello explained to Mr. Sarmiento the requirements of special restaurant alcoholic beverage licenses and provided a written notice of deficiencies. (Testimony of Terminello.) At 2:30 PM. on December 5, 1979, Officer Terminello returned to the licensed premises to conduct a follow up inspection. The kitchen area was, again, not in use. A small amount of food was found in the refrigerator. The stove was cold. No food was being prepared or served. Silverware was insufficient to accommodate 200 customers. Several patrons in the bar area were being served alcoholic beverages by Guano Salas, the employee in charge of the premises. (Testimony of Terminello.) At 2:00 P.M.. on the next day, December 6, 1979, Officer Terminello returned to the premises and found a similar situation: the kitchen was not in use, no food was being prepared or served, and patrons were being served alcoholic beverages in the bar area. He then arranged to have another beverage officer, Leonard Del Monte, attempt to purchase an alcoholic beverage and a meal. At 3:00 P.M.., Officer Del Monte entered, ordered an alcoholic beverage, and asked for "something to eat." Juana Salas, the employee in charge, told him that he could go "down the street," that there were plenty of restaurants in the area. He asked for a menu but was net given one. Although there were patrons drinking in the bar area, none were eating or being served meals. (Testimony of Terminello, Del Monte.) At 5:30 P.M.. on December 7, 1979, Officers Terminello and Del Monte returned to the premises. Officer Del Monte, in an undercover capacity, ordered and was served an alcoholic beverage. He requested a menu but Ms. Salas told him that no food was being served. Other Patrons were being served drinks but none were consuming meals. (Testimony of Terminello, Del Monte.) At 4:40 P.M.. on December 11, 1979, Officers Terminello and Del Monte again entered the premises. Patrons were at the bar drinking but no food was being prepared or served. When Officer Del Monte ordered a meal, he was told that food was not being served because the kitchen was being disinfected. He ordered and was served an alcoholic beverage. (Testimony of Terminello, Del Monte.) During each of the foregoing inspections of the licensed premises, Officers Terminello and Del Monte remained on the premises for approximately 20- 30 minutes. (Testimony of Del Monte, Terminello.) Oscar Sarmiento, former owner of the licensed premises, testified that, to his knowledge (although he was not always on the premises) meals could almost always be purchased on the premises, that lunch could normally be purchased in the early and mid-afternoons. (Testimony of Sarmiento.) II. Prior to February 28, 1979, Oscar Sarmiento was the owner and president of respondent. On February 28, 1979, Elma Sarmiento, his wife, became sole owner and was elected president, treasurer, and secretary of respondent corporation. (Testimony of Sarmiento; R-3, R-4.) On February 28, 1979, Rene Valdes, a beverage license broker acting on behalf of respondent, filed with DABT forms indicating that Elma Sarmiento owned all stock of the respondent corporation and that she was elected president, treasurer, and secretary at the corporate director's meeting held on February 28, 1979. 3/ (In anticipation of the change in ownership, Mrs. Sarmiento had been fingerprinted by DABT on November 13, 1978.)(Testimony of Valdes; R-2, R-3, R-4.) III. By final order dated December 12, 1979, that portion of Rule 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code, which requires special restaurant licensees to "discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages whenever the service of full course meals is discontinued" was declared an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by a Division of Administrative Hearings hearing officer. Gainesville Golf and Country Club, Inc. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation, DOAH Case No. 79-1851R, affirmed, 402 So.2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). DABT concedes that this portion of Rule 7A-3.15 is ineffective 4/ and any evidence concerning violation of it "cannot be used as an indication that the licensee was operating in a manner not consistent with its alcoholic beverage license." (Challenge to the validity of Rule 7A-3.15 filed by DABT on April 27, 1982.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DABT impose a civil penalty of $1,000 against respondent for the rule and statutory violations as described above. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1982.
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked for violating a stipulation stated on the record in a prior license revocation proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 16-2337, Series 2-APS and owns and operates Hammer's Package Store, the licensed premises, at 3231-A West Broward Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In 1981, DABT filed two administrative actions to revoke respondent's alcoholic beverage license pursuant to Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. The charges were, apparently, disputed and a hearing officer requested, since the cases were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. Thereafter, on April 18, 1981, Hearing Officer Robert T. Benton, II, conducted a Section 120.57(1) hearing on the charges. At hearing, both parties were represented by counsel: DABT by James N. Watson, Jr., a staff attorney for the Department of Business Regulation; respondent by Ray Russell, whose address was 200 S. E. 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301. At the outset, counsel for both parties advised Hearing Officer Benton that they had reached "an agreement" (P-1, p. 3), thus obviating the need for a hearing on the charges. Counsel then recited, on the record, the terms of their settlement agreement: respondent was given 90-days in which its corporate entity could be sold, with the period beginning to run from March 19, 1981--the next day--and ending on June 16, 1981; when the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period expired, whichever occurred first, respondent was to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation; respondent waived its right to an evidentiary hearing on the charges and to appeal any matters covered by the agreement; and, from the time the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period for sale expired, no corporate officers, directors, or shareholders of respondent would again engage in the alcoholic beverage business, make any application for a beverage license, apply for transfer of a beverage license, or hold an interest in any business involved in the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages. (DABT Ex. 1, p. 5-8). Without objection from respondent's counsel, DABT's counsel described the consent order (or settlement agreement) as "in the nature of a final administrative action and [respondent] acknowledges that its failure to abide by such would subject him to the provisions of Florida Statutes 120.69 (P-1, p. 6). Although this settlement agreement was effective and began to operate immediately (the 90-day period for sale commenced the next day) DABT's counsel contemplated that a written and signed consent order embracing the terms of the settlement agreement would be subsequently issued. Although such follow-up action was intended, it never occurred. DABT never issued a written order, consent or otherwise, embracing the terms of the settlement agreement. Hearing Officer Benton and, at least one party, thereafter relied on the settlement agreement. The hearing officer closed both Division of Administrative Hearings files, and DABT no longer prosecuted respondent under the pending charges. Since June 16, 1981, the expiration of the 90-day period provided in the agreement, respondent has continued to operate its licensed alcoholic beverage premises, has failed to sell its corporate entity, and has failed to surrender its alcoholic beverage license. Respondent has presented no evidence justifying or excusing its failure to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation on or before June 16, 1981. Neither does it seek to withdraw from or set aside the settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1983.
