The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's beverage license, Series 14BC, No. 39-03729, should be disciplined because of the matters outlined in the Notice to Show Cause filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Division was the state agency responsible for the licensing of establishments for the dispensing and sale of alcoholic beverages and enforcement of the beverage laws of the State of Florida. McKown's, Inc., a corporation whose sole stockholders are Duncan and Gloria McKown, holds 14ABC license number 39-03729, located at The Cabin, an establishment situated at 8205 North Dale Mabry Highway in Tampa. This license is a license to operate a bottle club on the premises, and allows patrons to bring their own bottles into the club to drink from. Patrons may either bring their bottle each time they come, or they may leave it at the club to be used each time they visit. Patrons must drink from their own bottle or as the guest of another bottle holder, but cannot buy alcoholic drinks from the licensed establishment. The establishment may sell only ice, setups and food - no alcohol. Mr. McKown is Secretary-Treasurer of McKown's, Inc., the licensee in issue here. He has been in the restaurant and service business since 1937. He opened a large restaurant and lounge in Dunedin, Florida in the early 1960's, and opened The Cabin approximately fifteen years ago with a county bottle club license. When state licensure became required, approximately three years ago, he secured one of those as well. Mr. McKown claims he was open every day from 2 to 7 AM. His clientele was mostly made up of people in the service industry - people who work at night and get off early in the morning. These are people such as waitresses, cooks, restaurant and bar managers. Many of his patrons work at or manage high quality restaurants, and the interior of The Cabin is decorated with T-shirts from many of them. He believes that as a general rule, his clientele is of good quality and is law abiding. The Cabin is made up of one building and a patio. It has one front door, which is manned by a security guard, and there is a sign posted on the inside of the front door which indicates the facility is a private club, non- members of which must pay a service charge. Though it once was private, it is now open to anyone of legal age. If the door is closed, an individual approaching from the outside can not see the sign. Security is designed to keep out minors and to insure that persons admitted have a bottle with them or already inside. The two Messrs. Bailey are the security guards. They wear uniforms similar to those worn by law enforcement people and carry firearms. McKown claims this i s because a firearm was discharged on the premises some time ago and the guards' firearms and uniforms tend to dissuade drunks. Many companies have bottles for their employees. It is Mr. McKown's policy, which he believes is consistent with state law, that two or more people can come into a bottle club and drink from one bottle. It is also a practice of his to allow people to leave their bottles on the premises for future use. Many of his customers are repeat customers who are recognized by security and other employees. If the patron is known to the security guard, he or she might not be checked. Each entrance requires the payment of a $7.00 service fee which authorizes the patron two setup chips. When the patron comes in with a bottle, the cashier puts the patron's name on it using a role of waterproof tape on which is marked the name in color-coded pen, depending on what month it is. Bottles are discarded after three months, whether empty or not. Once a bottle is brought in and given to the bartender, it is kept on the service island behind the bar. At one time, the licensee maintained a membership list. The practice was abandoned when it was decided to seek patrons from the service industry. The inside of the bar is lighted but dark. Music is provided by a jukebox which plays continuously. If patrons do not put money in, the machine comes on automatically after twelve minutes, and the volume is loud, though Akins did not think so. There are speakers both at the jukebox and in the ceiling. The men's room has one stall and two urinals. Mr. McKown removed the door to the stall to keep illegal activity, such as drug sales or homosexual activity, from going on inside. By removing the door, he can readily check to determine that nothing improper is going on inside the stall. The ladies' room has two stalls with cafe doors. He put that type of door in at the same time he removed the men's stall door for the same reason. Both restrooms are to be checked periodically by the manager, by Mr. McKown or the cashiers, as available. The Cabin is busier on weekends than during the week and the staff is adjusted accordingly. On the weekends, there are two cashiers as opposed to one during the week. By the same token, on the weekend, three bartenders are on duty as opposed to two during the week. A maintenance man is also employed. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Special Agent Jennifer Akins was a special agent with the Division and had been since December, 1989. She was a certified law enforcement officer and, prior to May, 1994, had been involved in between fifteen and twenty undercover operations, of which at least ten involved narcotics. She was trained in the identification of narcotics and street level narcotics activities by the Drug Enforcement Agency, and has taken other professional courses in the subject. Prior to the institution of this undercover operation, Akins had been in The Cabin four or five times. S/A Murray is also an experienced agent with twenty-five to thirty undercover investigations to her credit. At least half involved narcotics. She, too, had been at The Cabin prior to the onset of this investigation. On January 12, 1994 Akins went to The Cabin where she was stopped outside the door by the security guard, Mr. Bailey. He advised her it was a bottle club and inquired if she had a bottle. When she said she had, he also told her that her name would be placed on it and it would be kept behind the bar and drunk from when she was there. She gave over the bottle of rum she had brought. She was not required to fill out an application form nor to pay a membership fee. Akins went back to The Cabin with S/A Murray at approximately 5:15 AM on May 10, 1994. They were met at the door by Mr. Bailey and paid a $7.00 per person cover charge to Mr. Sparks, an employee, who was stationed inside the door. This cover charge entitled them to two drink chips which they would exchange for setups. Additional chips could be bought at $3.50 each. Once inside, they gave their bottle of rum to Mr. Sparks who, after placing a piece of tape with Murray's name on it on the bottle, gave it to the bartender. Akins asked where the bottle of rum was she had brought in on January 12, 1994, and was told it was gone. Bottles are disposed of after ninety days if not consumed first. Consequently, the only bottle the agents had on May 10, 1994 was the bottle they brought that visit. That night, Akins and Murray sat at the bar and were served one or two drinks each from the bottle they had brought in. Later on that evening, Akins was served a drink made with vodka by Mr. Strauss, a bartender. Akins saw Strauss make the drink and knows he did not use the bottle they brought in. Besides, when she tasted it, she recognized it was vodka, not rum. She paid for the drink with one of the chips she got upon entering. She drank only a small part of the drink in order to comply with Division policy that undercover agents will not drink enough to become impaired. Akins and Murray left The Cabin about 6:50 AM without taking the rum bottle they had brought, but while there, Akins observed a white male she recognized as Victor near the women's restroom talking with a white couple. Victor received money from the male in the couple, counted it, and gave the man something in return. This procedure is consistent with what she had observed in other drug transactions. Later on that evening, she again saw Victor near the men's restroom. Victor approached a black male who, after entering and exiting the restroom, handed Victor a small package and received something in return. While this was going on, both were furtively looking around. Akins didn't see what was transferred. Even later, Akins saw Victor exchange something with a black male near the front door. Again, she could not see what it was. S/A Murray also observed this activity and it appeared to be drug activity to her as well. Akins and Murray went back to The Cabin about 5:00 AM on May 11, 1994. As they approached the door they were met by two employees who let them in, and they paid a white female cashier upon entry. On this occasion they did not have a bottle with them. When asked, they said they had a bottle there from the previous visit and were allowed in. Akins ordered two or three drinks from Mr. Sparks, who was behind the bar that evening. The first drink she had was rum, but she does not know from which bottle it was poured. She later ordered a vodka drink which Sparks poured without asking if she had a vodka bottle there. She paid for the vodka with a chip. Later that evening, Mr. Leal, also an employee of The Cabin, offered her a drink. He had called out that the police were outside and that everyone had to stay inside. He sweetened the call by saying he would buy a drink for everyone. At this time, Akins asked for a Zambuca, which they did not have, and they gave her Amaretto instead. Though she saw Mr. Sparks make the drink, she could not tell if there was a name on the bottle or not. Leal offered Murray a drink as well. All this time, Mr. McKown, whom she knew, was present in the facility, going in and out from the back office talking to people. He had done this the previous night as well. Akins left the premises at 7:00 AM and returned again at 5:00 AM the following day, May 12, 1994, accompanied by S/A Murray. They did not bring a bottle this time because they had not taken their bottle with them the previous night. They went through the usual routine of passing the guard, who asked what bottle they would be drinking from. When they said they had one inside, the guard went to check and thereafter allowed them. After paying the cover charge, they were admitted. Inside, Akins saw two black males and a white male exchanging something outside the men's restroom. They were looking around and speaking quietly, and she did not see what was exchanged. That evening, she spoke with the Bartender, Lee, and with Mr. McKown. She also spoke with a patron, Mr. LaRuso, who approached her and commented that she was either a cop or seeking cocaine. In response, she said she wasn't a cop. The two agents both ordered rum from the bartender who poured the drinks from a bottle with their name on it. The rum ran out while the drinks were being poured, so the bartender finished pouring from another bottle which was not theirs. Mr. McKown was in and out of the back office all during this period and would stop and talk with patrons. He appeared quite normal and was not drinking at the time. They returned on May 17, 1994 at 5:20 AM. Mr. Bailey was the security guard who admitted them. On this occasion they had a bottle of rum with them and paid the cover charge. Their bottle was marked by the bartender and Akins ordered a drink from him which was made from their bottle. Later on she also ordered and was served a vodka drink by the bartender who did not inquire from whose bottle he should pour it. S/A Murray was also served a vodka. Akins paid for the vodka drink with a chip even though neither she nor Murray had ever brought a bottle of vodka to the establishment. That evening, she spoke with Mr. Sparks, Mr. Mille and Mr. McKown. Sparks and Mille were both employees. Sparks said he had been divorced because he used too much cocaine. Mille said he had been arrested for cocaine. These discussions took place at the bar or at the cashier stand and were carried on in a normal tone of voice. The agents went back to The Cabin on May 24, 1994 at 4:45 AM with a confidential informant, (CI). They were met at the door by a white male who allowed them to enter. When they did, they paid the cover charge to Mr. Sparks. They brought a bottle of scotch with them even though they had previously brought in at least two bottles of rum. At that point, Akins did not know if the last rum bottle they had brought on May 17, 1994 was still there, so they brought the scotch to be sure they would be admitted. The bottle of scotch was marked and placed behind the bar by Mr. Sparks. Mr. Strauss and a white female were tending bar. Akins approached Strauss who asked if she wanted what she had just brought in or rum instead. When she replied she preferred rum, Strauss went to look for some in the back. When he came back, he said he could find none, but would give her vodka instead. Akins agreed and Strauss made a vodka drink for her. It was, in fact, vodka, and she paid for it. She also had another vodka drink that evening, made for her by Mr. Strauss, who did not use any of the bottles the agents had brought in. Agent Akins, in a conversation with Mr. Sparks that evening, asked him if he had any more cocaine like that which she had purchased on May 17, 1994. This conversation took place near the juke box which was playing, but not loudly. Their conversation was in a normal tone. Strauss walked away after her question and she went up to the cashier's booth and was talking with some people when Sparks returned. He handed her a small package in front of Mr. Bailey and Agent Murray. It consisted of a small cellophane wrapper containing a white powder for which Sparks would not take any money. Akins put the package in her pocket and it was later analyzed at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, (FDLE), laboratory and determined to be cocaine. After that purchase was made by Akins, the CI purchased a substance from a lady known as Michelle, who Akins described as an employee of The Cabin. Mr. McKown denies this, however, and it is found that she was not an employee. Prior to the purchase, the CI had informed the agents he thought he could make a purchase and Agent Murray searched him before he approached Michelle. Determining he had no cocaine on his person, he was released to make the buy, which he did, on the premises. Michelle gave him a package of a substance, later determined to be cocaine, for which he paid with $30.00 given him previously by Murray. He then delivered the substance to Murray who in turn gave it to Akins for evaluation. It was later tested and determined to be cocaine. That same evening, Akins also saw three white males in a corner of the bar making what she considered a suspicious transaction. They were looking around and acting furtively. There was a big crowd in the bar that evening - at least 35 people. The lighting was good and Akins had no problem seeing. Mr. McKown was also in and out that evening. The two agents returned to the Cabin on June 27, 1994 at about 3:50 AM. When they arrived, they were met at the door by the security guard who asked them who they were, where they worked, and other similar questions. Akins got the impression that he did not want to let them in even though she had indicated that they had a bottle of scotch inside. While this was going on, Mr. Sparks came out and vouched for them and they were admitted. After paying the cover charge, Akins ordered a scotch. The drink was poured from her bottle by the bartender, Ms. Hart, but she noticed at the time that the bottle was almost empty even though she and Agent Murray had had few drinks from it. Akins paid for the drink with one of her chips. Because Akins did not drink the scotch, she was offered another drink by Ms. Hart and asked for a rum drink. The bottles of rum which she and Murray had brought in on May 10 and 17, 1994, had previously been used up, and she noted that there was no ownership label on the bottle from which her drink, and that for Murray, were poured. In any event, they paid for the drinks and when they tasted them, determined they were made from rum. That same morning, Akins saw a black male enter the bar without paying the cover charge. He bypassed the cashier and went toward the restrooms where he was approached by Mr. Strauss, to whom he passed something and got something in return. At this point, Akins was approximately 12 feet away, and though she could not see what was actually passed, she saw Strauss put what he had received into his pocket. Strauss then went back to the bar and the black male left. Shortly thereafter, Mr. McKown entered the bar. He seemed normal and walked around, talking with his customers. Akins left soon thereafter without taking her bottle of scotch. On July 27, 1994, Akins and Murray arrived at The Cabin at approximately 3:30 AM and were admitted by Mr. Bailey. This time they brought a bottle of rum. The scotch, which they had brought previously, was gone even though neither agent had had more than one or two drinks out of it. At this time, a female bartender asked her what she wanted and Akins ordered a peppermint schnapps. Without any questions regarding whose bottle it should be poured from, the bartender poured the requested drink from a bottle which bore a name that Akins could not see. It was not hers, however. She tasted the drink and found it was, in fact, peppermint schnapps. That same evening, Akins and Murray were approached at the bar by a white female, Ronnie, who asked them to split an 8-ball of cocaine. An 8-ball is one eighth of an ounce. No effort was made by Ronnie to hide her solicitation. In response, Akins said she didn't have any cocaine with her, but if Ronnie could find some, she, Akins, would go in with her. With that, Ronnie spoke with several customers but did not come back that evening. Mr. McKown was present but was not a participant in the conversation. When Akins left the bar that morning, she did not take the bottle of rum she brought in with her. The agents went back to The Cabin on August 9, 1994, at approximately 3:05 AM, and met three men, Beltran, Ramos and Encena, in the parking lot. As the five approached the door, they were met by Bailey and Sparks and were admitted, even though they did not have any alcohol with them. Once inside, Akins ordered from Ms. Hart a tequila drink which was poured from a bottle with no name on it. She had first asked for rum, but all that was available was spiced rum. When she tasted the drink, she found that it was tequila. Later on, she ordered a Kamikaze, which contained vodka, from Ms. Hart. Hart did not ask her whose bottle she should pour it from but poured from a bottle with no name tag on it. The drink was vodka. She paid for both drinks she ordered that evening with chips purchased at the door. During the morning, Akins spoke with Mr. Beltran, one of the men she had come in with, who was a patron at the bar. While they were still outside, however, before entering, Beltran had asked the two agents if they used cocaine. When they replied that they did, he said he would have to go inside to get it. When Akins later spoke with him at the bar, he told her to get her friend and that he had obtained the cocaine. Beltran and Ramos had the two agents follow them outside and to Beltran's car where the substance, later tested and identified as cocaine, was produced by Beltran and Ramos and given to the two agents. After Ramos ingested some of the substance, they went back inside and Akins put the substance she had received into her purse for later testing. After the parties went back inside to the bar, the men were ejected because they annoyed Ms. Hart. Mr. McKown was there at the time. After the men were ejected, Akins and Murray had a discussion with a patron named Guinta who said Akins had white stuff under her nose. Akins wiped her nose and denied the allegation. Guinta then asked Murray and Akins if they had any cocaine. Akins said she did not but would see if she could get some. She spoke with Mr. Sparks who said he had none available. All this was in a regular tone of voice, and all during this conversation, Mr. McKown was within three to five feet of them. Later on, there was a quite loud conversation between Guinta and another individual about cocaine. Afterwards, the parties went outside to Murray's car where Guinta gave them a substance later tested and identified as cocaine. Both agents went back to The Cabin on August 16, 1994 at approximately 3:30 AM. On this visit they had no alcohol with them. Mr. Bailey was on duty as the security guard and Strauss and Hart were the bartenders. Akins ordered a vodka Kamikaze from Hart. Later on, Hart asked her if she wanted another drink. When Akins agreed, Hart offered to make it with tequila instead of vodka. She made the drink from a bottle not marked with an owner's name, and when Akins tasted the drink, she found it was tequila. Murray also had two rum drinks which were poured from a bottle with no name on it. Akins spoke with Charles Bailey that evening at the bar. She asked him for some cocaine, and he said he could give her a "bump", (a small amount of cocaine), but could not sell her any. Akins and Murray went back to The Cabin on August 26, 1994. On that occasion, again, they had no alcohol with them. The bottle of scotch and the rum they had brought on two separate prior occasions was gone. They met three other patrons outside. Mr. Bailey, the security guard, let them in and after paying the cover charge, Akins spoke with Mr. Mille and thanked him for the cocaine she had received previously from Mr. Guinta. At first Mille seemed confused, but when she explained, he seemed to understand, but denied he had any more available. Akins had several drinks that evening. The first was made with tequila which she got from Ms. Hart. Neither Akins nor Murray had ever brought tequila to the bar. The tag on the bottle said "Killian's", but Akins did not know anyone by that name or where the bottle came from. Nonetheless, she paid for the drink, tasted it, and determined it was tequila. She also had a drink made with Amaretto that evening which she bought from Mr. Strauss. In this case, also, she was served a drink made with a beverage she had not brought in. Murray was served a rum drink from a bottle marked "hooters". She did not work for or know anybody from Hooters. Apparently, that same evening, Akins was looking quite tired as she sat at the bar. She was approached by Julio Pabone who said he could get her something that would wake her up. He then spoke with Mr. Leal, after which he came back to Akins and asked for money. She gave him $20.00 to add to what he already had, and he returned to Leal, gave him the money, and received a baggy with white powder in it in return. Returning to Akins, Pabone gave the baggy to her. The substance in the bag was later tested and identified as cocaine. Leal is an employee of the licensee. That same evening, Murray saw two women in the restroom use what appeared to her to be cocaine near the sink. On September 9, 1994, the agents again went to The Cabin and were admitted by Charles Bailey. After paying the cover charge, and while sitting at the bar, Akins saw a patron identified as Manuel pull out a wrapper containing a white substance and give it to another male who gave him money in return for it. At the time of this transaction, Mr. McKown was standing approximately five feet away. Later on, a male identified as Julio approached Akins and said he needed $30.00 for cocaine. She gave him the money and he went into the men's room followed by Leal and another individual. When Julio came out, he gave Akins a package with white powder in it which was subsequently tested and identified as cocaine. Mr. McKown was present in the bar at the time, but Akins cannot say whether he observed this transaction. On the evening of September 30, 1994, Sergeant Woodrow A. Ray, a longtime employee of the Division, was the supervisor of the raid conducted at The Cabin. When he arrived, he entered the establishment to insure that all other agents were in place. Sometime thereafter, Agent Miller, also a long time employee of the Division, arrived to serve an Emergency Order of Suspension on the licensee. Miller contacted Mr. McKown, read the Search Warrant and the Emergency Order of Suspension to him, and advised him of his rights against self-incrimination. While this was being done, Mr. McKown expressed surprise regarding the narcotics allegations but admitted he may have sold some alcohol. He stated this four times in different ways. He stated, "We may have sold some alcohol but no drugs"; "Maybe my people sold liquor, but I don't know about drugs"; "We sell a few drinks to help the guys, but no drugs"; and "If drugs were sold, I never knew it - maybe drinks but no drugs." Agent Miller helped with the ensuing search, in the course of which he went into the office to seize the license. He also searched the adjoining storage area in which he discovered a black bag. He asked McKown if the bag was his, which McKown denied. McKown indicated that only himself, Mr. Leal, and Charles Bailey had access to this room. Miller then went to get Bailey, who had been detained on the patio, advised him of his rights, and asked if the bag was his. Bailey acknowledged it was. Miller took Bailey back inside where he placed him in a chair under guard. Miller had Bailey identify the bag and when he did, Miller asked if there was anything in it he should know about. Bailey thereafter gave his permission to search the bag. Before the bag was opened, however, Miller had it taken outside to be sniffed by the narcotics detection dog on the scene who alerted on it. Miller then opened the bag, and inside, in an ammunition box, found drug paraphernalia and approximately 98.6 grams of a white powder which was subsequently tested and identified as cocaine. On or about February 4, 1993, Gene Leal, who was the manager of The Cabin, cashed a check there for Julio Pabone in the amount of $120.00 which was subsequently dishonored. When contacted about this, Pabone agreed to pay off the check in periodic cash payments, and in fact, did so, making a payment of $20.00 on August 26, 1994. The payment which Leal received on that date was not for cocaine but in repayment of a portion of the dishonored check. Company policy regarding illegal drugs is simple. If seen going on, the activity is to be stopped and the individual expelled from the facility forever. Mr. McKown recalls this as having happened at least six times in the year prior to closing. He claims he has no use for drugs and never has. He has a "no tolerance" policy for any drug activity he knew about, and his employees knew that. This policy is not in writing, however. Mr. McKown has not had any of his employees trained in drug identification, and even though he is aware of the state's responsible vendor program, neither he nor any of his employees have participated in it. Mr. Leal has worked for The Cabin for approximately eight years, as has Mr. Sparks. Both were instructed regarding the company's drug policy. Most of The Cabin employees have been on staff for between eight and fifteen years. Mr. McKown claims he would have periodic meetings with employees to inform them of his policy and to solicit reports of illegal activity. In addition to these instructions, employees are furnished with trespass warning slips which are to be issued when patrons are expelled for drug use. Two of these were introduced into evidence. Byron L. Bailey, one of the security guards, confirms this. Though usually stationed at the front door, he would make between four and five checks per night of the restrooms to be sure they were not being used for drug activity or for drinking. He did not, however, look to see what was going on in the lounge. Kathryn Katz, also formerly an employee of The Cabin, was instructed in the company's policy when hired. Not only was the use or transfer of drugs prohibited but so was the sale of alcohol. She was told that only those individuals who had a bottle with them or already inside could be admitted. It is possible that some people lied about this, but she had to take their word. If they said they had a bottle inside, she would admit them. She also checked the ladies' restroom periodically. The Cabin welcomes law enforcement officers as patrons. When deputies from the sheriff's office periodically come out and park in the lot of the neighboring Steak and Ale, they are always welcome. Approximately a year prior to the hearing, Mr. McKown was reportedly told that a van was in his lot from which drugs were being sold. He claims he called 911 and an arrest was made. However, over the fifteen years he's operated The Cabin, Mr. McKown claims there has never been an arrest made inside the club. Concerning the "admissions" he made to Agent Miller at the time of the service of the warrant and the Order of Suspension, Mr. McKown was reading a copy of the affidavit as Miller was reading it to him. As he read it, he was shocked to discover that his own people, whom he felt were family, were doing such things. He admits that perhaps his employees made a mistake in selling drinks. He does not condone it and he definitely does not condone any sales of illegal drugs. His admissions were not meant to specific dates or incidents but were rhetorical more than actual. He admitted his employees had the opportunity to sell unlawful drinks. He does not believe, in his heart, however, that they made any drug sales. He is wrong. No bottles of alcohol were seized by law enforcement officials at the time of the raid. Approximately two weeks after the closing, Mr. McKown conducted an inventory of the bottles on the premises. At that time, there were approximately one hundred fifty bottles, all of which, he insists, had patrons' names on them. Of that number, thirty to forty were establishment bottles. The balance were owned by individuals. Several prominent restaurant owners and managers who patronize The Cabin have known Mr. McKown for several years. None has ever observed any illegal drug activity inside the establishment and had they done so, would have left and not returned. Mr. Caballero, a former Tampa City Councilman, has patronized The Cabin since it was opened. Because of his public position, he was very sensitive to any possibility of illegal activity in his presence, and though he would be at the club once or twice a month, never saw any such conduct. All of these individuals claim to be friends of Mr. McKown. Dr. Poritz and Mr. Queen, a chiropractor and private investigator, respectively, have also patronized The Cabin periodically for several years. Neither has ever seen any illegal activity in there. Mr. Queen, while a member of the Tampa Police Department's Narcotics Division, would patronize the establishment periodically and was always comfortable there. Had he seen any illegal activity on the premises, he would taken appropriate action as a law enforcement officer and would have reported what he saw. A previous Administrative Complaint was filed against the Respondent in 1993 for violation of liquor sales laws. At that time, the Respondent and the Division entered into a Consent Agreement which called for Respondent to pay a civil penalty of $500.00 plus investigative costs of $14.50, and to provide a letter of corrective action. This letter, dated July 31, 1993, and signed by Mr. McKown and several of his employees, such as Mr. Bailey, Mr. Leal, Mr. Strauss and Ms. Hart, all of whom are referenced in the instant action, indicated the signatories had come up with a good system "to keep people without a bottle from coming in" which should "tighten it up and not break down as it did." From the evidence presented, it appears they were wrong and that their system did not work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's alcoholic beverage license No. 39-3729, Series 14BC, be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 31st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 94-5882 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein, except that the evidence indicates the January 12, 1994 visit occurred prior to the commencement of the instant investigation. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 9. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 10. & 11. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 12. - 14. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 15. & 16. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 17. - 21. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 22. - 24. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 25. & 26. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 27. - 29. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 30. & 31. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 32. - 34. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. - 37. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not probative of any material issue. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 45. Accepted and incorporated herein. 46. & 47. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 J. Thomas Wright, Esquire Suite A 2506 Tampa Bay Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33607 Linda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John J. Harris Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the regulatory agency charged with regulating alcoholic beverages and tobacco. Respondents, 1/ David W. and Mildred N. Romeo, d/b/a The Full Moon Club, are the holders of Alcoholic Beverage License #61-01368, Series 14BC. Respondents' licensed premises is located at 6763 Land O'Lakes Blvd., Land O'Lakes, Florida. Based on a complaint received by the Pasco County Sheriff's office (PCSO), Detective Darren Norris of the PCSO initiated an undercover investigation of Respondents' licensed premises. Detective Norris was assisted by Special Agent Ashley Murray (herein the agents) of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), who was also acting in an undercover capacity. Petitioner notified Respondents by mail that the Division had received complaints concerning lewd or indecent acts taking place in the licensed premises. In response to that notice, Respondent placed a telephone call to Petitioner's agent, George Miller, to discuss ways in which he would not run afoul of the alcoholic and beverage laws in Florida. During the conversation with Agent Miller, Respondent engaged in a discussion with Miller as to the pitfalls of licensees who operated membership clubs as he did. Miller gave certain examples of proscribed conduct and Respondent ended the conversation with the assurance that they were not engaging in unlawful conduct as the warning letter indicated. Detective Norris has been employed with the PCSO for five years and currently holds the rank of corporal. At the time of his investigation, Detective Norris was assigned to the vice and narcotics unit of the PCSO. Agent Murray has been employed with Petitioner for four years. When Detective Norris was assigned to investigate the anonymous complaint concerning Respondent's club (by a Captain of PCSO), he did not receive explicit instructions from his superiors concerning the manner in which the investigation would be conducted or that a certain outcome was expected. On May 28, 1993, Detective Norris entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Detective Norris met with Respondent, Mildred (Nita) Romeo, at the entrance of the licensed premises. Detective Norris inquired as to procedure of becoming a member of the club; whereupon Ms. Romeo advised that he would have to either be a resident of Paradise Lakes, or be a member of the American Sunbather's Association (ASA). On June 18, 1993, the agents entered the licensed premises to continue the undercover investigation. The agents obtained temporary membership cards from the ASA and presented them to Respondent Nita Romeo at the entrance of the club. The agents were provided a membership application prior to admission into the licensed premises, which included affirmations that they were not law enforcement officers on duty; that they were not reporters; that the club was "clothing optional"; that lewd and lascivious behavior was prohibited, and that what happens in the club "stays in the club". Respondents included those affirmations on the application to protect the privacy of the members. The agents completed the application and were accepted as club members. While inside the licensed premises, the agents sat in an area designated for couples only. After being in the licensed premises for a short time, the agents observed a white male, approximately 50 years old, and a white female approximately 35 years old, sitting at a table approximately six feet away. Detective Norris thought that he observed the male pull his penis from his shorts and the female rubbing the penis with her hand. Agent Murray could not see the male's penis, but thought that she saw the female's hand in the male's groin area. This activity took place for several minutes. Respondents did not see this activity. During the same evening, the agents observed a white male standing with two white females in an open area near the hallway to the rest rooms and approximately five feet from their seats. One of the females was wearing a black night dress and the other was dressed in a two-piece lingerie set. The agents observed the two females rubbing each other's bodies with their hands when one of the females knelt in front of the other female and began a movement which simulated placing her tongue on the inside of the female's vagina. This activity took place for several minutes. Agent Murray thought that she observed several unnamed patrons watching this activity as it was ongoing. Respondents did not witness this conduct. During the same evening, the agents were dancing on the dance floor when they observed a white female and white male dancing approximately three to four feet away. The white male was approximately sixty years old and was dressed in red running shorts, and the white female was approximately 35 years old, heavy set, and nude. The agents observed the male place his fingers in an area near the female's vagina. Agent Murray observed the female dancing and squatted in an up and down manner on the hand of the male dancer. This activity took place for several minutes. Respondents did not witness this activity. After the male removed his fingers from the area of the female's vagina, the female knelt in front of the male, pulled his running shorts to his knees, and placed her mouth in close proximity to the male's penis. This activity lasted approximately one minute. Respondents did not witness this conduct. Both officers did not observe Respondents witnessing these activities although Respondents were always present in the premises. Respondent constantly walked around the licensed premises monitoring the patrons. During the evening of June 18, 1993, while the agents were in the licensed premises, Respondent approached the agents and introduced himself. He told the officers that if they saw anyone doing anything lewd in the premises, it was because they wanted to, and that such activity was not allowed by Respondents. On July 10, 1993, at approximately 11:00 p.m., the agents returned to the licensed premises to continue their investigation. Both officers observed Respondent Nita Romeo at the entrance and Respondent was walking around inside the licensed premises. While in the licensed premises, the agents observed a white couple dancing on the dance floor. The white male was dressed in a striped blue shirt and blue pants and the white female was dressed in a tan g-string and gold waist chain. The male was observed by the agents fondling the breast of the female with his hand and placing his mouth on the female's breast. The male was then observed moving the "g-string" aside and placing his fingers in the area of the female's vagina. This activity took place for several minutes. Respondents did not observe this conduct. A short time after the above-related conduct, the agents observed a white male sitting at a table next to the dance floor with a white female. The agents were seated approximately seven feet from the couple who were dancing. The agents observed the male remove an ice cube from his drink and rub it over the female's exposed breast. The male was then observed placing the ice cube in his mouth and placing his mouth on the exposed breast of the female. This activity took place briefly and Respondents did not see it. The agents then observed the male, described in the preceding paragraph, pull up the dress of the female and place his fingers in the area close to her vagina. This activity took place briefly and Respondents did not see it. Respondent was not observed by the agents watching any of these activities, although he walked around the licensed premises constantly. Throughout all of these activities, Respondent Nita Romeo was at the front desk with her back turned toward the patrons and she did not have a clear view of what was occurring inside. On July 16, 1993, the agents returned to the licensed premises to continue their investigation. While entering the licensed premises, the agents were greeted by Respondent Nita Romeo. While dancing on the dance floor, the agents observed a black male wearing jeans dancing a few feet away from a white female wearing a red "teddie" lingerie set. The agents observed the male place his fingers in the area of the female's vagina. This activity lasted approximately one minute and Respondents did not see it. A short time thereafter, the agents observed a white male with a white female wearing a black "t-back bottom". Both officers observed the male fondle the female's breast and moved the t-back bottom aside and placed his fingers inside the area of the vagina. This activity took place while a song was playing and Respondents did not see it. Respondent was not observed watching this activity, although he was inside the licensed premises. He spoke with the agents and told them that when they felt comfortable, they could join in with the other patrons. On July 23, 1993, the agents returned to the licensed premises to continue their investigation. They saw Respondent Nita Romeo at the entrance where they were greeted and Respondent was inside the licensed premises. While inside the licensed premises, the agents observed two patrons sitting at a table on the east side of the dance floor. The female patron was sitting on the lap of the male. Both agents observed the male move aside the t-back bottom and place his fingers inside the area of the female's vagina and fondle her exposed breast with his other hand. This activity took place for several minutes. Respondent did not observe this activity. Shortly after the above described activity, Respondent approached the officer's table and commented that his feet hurt from walking around so much. This is in keeping with Respondent's constant attempt to monitor the premises at all times. On July 24, 1993, at approximately 12:25 a.m., Detective Norris left the licensed premises and signaled for the remaining law enforcement officers, who were waiting outside, to enter the premises. The activity inside the licensed premises, once law enforcement entered, was video taped. Detective Norris confiscated several photographs which were found inside the licensed premises. These photos were mementos and were from other activities from another club unrelated to Respondent's licensed premises here. Although Detective Norris and Agent Murray observed Respondent David Romeo make announcements over the public address system, they denied ever hearing him say the lewd behavior was not allowed inside the licensed premises. Robert Laurie was employed as a disc jockey for Respondents for approximately one year. Part of his assigned duties were to watch the activities in the licensed premises and alert Respondents if he witnessed any problem(s). Laurie observed problems on occasion and notified Respondent whenever he saw anything occurring which he considered to be lewd and/or lascivious. Respondents changed the policy regarding nudity in the licensed premises and since this policy changed, Laurie has observed less problems respecting lewd and lascivious acts inside the licensed premises. Laurie was present on each occasion the officers were in the licensed premises and did not witness six (6) of the incidents testified to by the officers. Laurie related one incident of oral sex taking place which he related to Respondent who immediately stopped it. Laurie has a clear vantage point from his station in the disc jockey booth and he is better able than any other patron to view what goes on inside the premises. Laurie has observed Respondent making announcements banning lewd and lascivious conduct in the licensed premises, which announcements are made, without fail, twice nightly. Stephanie Mitchell has been employed by Respondent in the licensed premises in several capacities although she is not presently employed there. She has heard Respondent talk to new couples concerning the lewd and lascivious rules. She observed Respondent walking around constantly in the licensed premises monitoring the club's activities. Witnesses Mark Mitchell, Dale Workman, Nan La, Darlene Nonn and Grady Lawhorne are all members of the club. All of the above witnesses have observed Respondent constantly moving around inside the licensed premises and policing the club such that lewd and/or lascivious behavior could not occur. Respondent constantly made known, through the public address announcements, that lewd and lascivious behavior was not allowed in the licensed premises. Respondent made the announcements twice nightly and all the above witnesses are desirous of the club remaining open. Nan La observed Respondent throwing members out of the licensed premises for several reasons including those who are too loud or rowdy; those who are too intoxicated, and those who are "too loose with their hands". Darlene Nonn is familiar with pictures which were posted on the wall and confiscated during the raid. She does not consider them to be lewd or indecent. Respondent opened the club with the idea of providing a place where the adult members could go and not be harassed by other patrons. Respondent followed all procedures required to obtain all necessary licenses and wanted to make certain that he "followed the letter of the law" such that he would not run afoul of any beverage laws. In this respect, when Respondent received the notice from Petitioner, he immediately called Agent Miller and inquired as to specifics of the charges which were unspecified. Respondent walks the licensed premises constantly on each evening it is opened for business, and he makes public service announcements, twice nightly, advising members that lewd and lascivious behavior was prohibited. Respondents observed and enforced the rules, as best they could, and maintained an eye on all of the patrons/members while they were in the club. The agents never approached Respondents about any of the activities they reported herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 8th day of June, 1994.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Conrad F. and Shirley Bouchard, are holders of beverage license number 39-790, series number 2APS. This license is issued to the licensed premises, Brandon Beverage Center, located at 118 Margaret Street, Brandon, Florida. The license was obtained by the Respondents by transfer on August 21, 1981. The licensed premises is a drive-through store which sells beer and wine, milk, bread, and other grocery items. Conrad F. Bouchard, Sr., is one of the owners and licensees and is also the manager of the store. His regular working hours are from 8:30 or 9:00 A.M. to 4:30 or 5:00 P.M. He occasionally is required to work evenings and weekends. Conrad F. Bouchard, Jr., also known as Butch, is the son of the Respondents and worked nights at the licensed premises. On April 1, 1982, the Respondent was given a written warning from Beverage Officer George Miller that there had been complaints about sales of alcoholic beverages to minors at the licensed premises. On October 27, 1982, an employee of Respondent, named Scott Steinberg, was arrested for selling alcoholic beverages to minors. As a result of this, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages by Notice to Show Cause brought formal administrative charges against the Respondents. The charges against the Respondents resulted in a stipulation and settlement with the Respondents agreeing to pay a $300 fine. On July 22, 1983, Scott Steinberg was arrested for selling alcoholic beverages to minors and formal administrative charges were brought against the Respondents as a result of the alleged sales to minors. These charges are still pending. On the evening of October 11, 1983, at approximately 9:00 P.M., Detectives Michael Ray and Mark Olive of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, went to the licensed premises to investigate complaints relating to the sale of drugs on the licensed premises. They were accompanied by a confidential informant. Upon arriving at the licensed premises, Butch Bouchard approached the vehicle and the confidential informant asked if he had any marijuana they could purchase. Butch Bouchard responded that he did. Scott Steinberg, another employee working at the licensed premises, approached the vehicle and took $26 from Detective Ray as payment for the marijuana. Butch Bouchard then returned to the vehicle holding a cigarette carton with the top torn off. He handed the carton to the confidential informant who in turn handed it to Detective Ray. The carton contained a baggie containing approximately five grams of marijuana (cannabis), a controlled substance under Florida Statute 893.13 (1981). On October 13, 1983, at approximately 9:10 P.M., Detectives Ray and Olive returned to the licensed premises. As they stopped their vehicle inside the drive-through store, Butch Bouchard approached Detective Ray. Ray asked Butch Bouchard if they could purchase some marijuana. Bouchard looked in the backseat of the vehicle and saw the confidential informant and then walked over to the office area. Bouchard then returned with a paper bag which he handed to Detective Ray. Detective Ray handed $25, the agreed price of the marijuana, to Bouchard. The paper bag contained a clear plastic baggie filled with marijuana. On this particular evening, Butch Bouchard was the only employee on the licensed premises. In the early evening of October 17, 1983, Detective Ray, accompanied by Detective Tony Roper, drove into the licensed premises. Butch Bouchard approached the vehicle and Detective Ray asked if he could purchase some marijuana. Butch Bouchard then asked Detective Ray to get out of his vehicle and select which bag he wanted. Butch Bouchard had several bags in his hand and asked Detective Ray to look at them. Detective Ray selected one bag and purchased it from Butch Bouchard. The bag contained marijuana. On October 20, 1983, at approximately 9:00 P.M. Detectives Ray and Roper returned to the licensed premises. Officer Ray purchased a plastic baggie of marijuana from Butch Bouchard for $25. On November 10, 1983, Detective Roper and Detective Mathai, Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, went to the licensed premises and asked to buy a bag of marijuana from Butch Bouchard. Butch said he did not have any and asked them to come back later. When the detectives returned the Beverage Center was closed and Butch Bouchard was in the parking lot. Butch came over to the Detectives' car and sold them a plastic baggie of marijuana. On November 17, 1983, Detectives Geoffry Dean Mathai and John Zdanwic of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, went to the licensed premises. On a prior occasion, Detective Mathai had gone with Detective Tony Roper to the licensed premises and had talked with Butch Bouchard about marijuana. On this evening, Detective Mathai asked Butch Bouchard if he remembered Tony and after a short conversation Mathai asked Butch if he could buy some marijuana. Butch said yes and asked how many bags. Detective Mathai told him they wanted two bags. Butch left the car, went into the office and returned a couple of minutes later with a Benson & Hedges cigarette carton. He handed the carton to Detective Mathai and Detective Mathai and Detective Zdanwic each handed him cash. The two detectives also had ordered a beer each and received the beer and change from Butch Bouchard. The cigarette carton contained two plastic baggies of marijuana. Detectives Mark Olive and Swann also made a purchase of marijuana at the licensed premises on the evening of November 17, 1983. The two detectives drove into the licensed premises and asked Butch Bouchard if they could purchase a $25 bag of marijuana and asked if he had that much. Butch responded yes and walked to the office area and then came back with a cigarette carton which he handed to Detective Olive. The carton contained a plastic baggie of marijuana. Butch Bouchard was paid $25 for the bag of marijuana. The only employees observed on the licensed premises this night were Butch Bouchard and Scott Steinberg. On the evening of November 22, 1983, Detective Ray and several other officers went to the licensed premises to serve a search warrant. When they arrived, Detective Ray spoke to Conrad Bouchard and asked if they could purchase some marijuana. Butch answered yes and went over to the area of the cash register and office area. Detective Ray then got out of his car and walked over to the office where he saw Butch Bouchard crouched down and looking at five bags of marijuana. Detective Ray identified himself as a police officer and Butch then grabbed the bags and ran into the bathroom and tried to flush the marijuana down the toilet. Detective Ray caught Butch before he could flush the toilet. After arresting Butch Bouchard, the officers searched Butch's car and found a pipe and two more plastic baggies of marijuana. When Butch was crouched looking at the bags of marijuana, Scott Steinberg was present in the same area. On each of the evenings that purchases of controlled substances were made at the licensed premises, no employees other than Butch Bouchard and Scott Steinberg were present at the licensed premises. Neither Butch Bouchard nor Scott Steinberg is a night manager. Both these individuals are merely sales clerks. The only manager for the licensed premises is Conrad F. Bouchard, Sr. Although the normal working hours for Conrad F. Bouchard, Sr., is 8:30 to 4:30 or 5:00 P.M., he occasionally returns to the licensed premises in the evenings to check on things. Mrs. Bouchard also makes a point of stopping by the licensed premises in the evening. Occasionally, Mr. or Mrs. Bouchard would check on the licensed premises without the employees being aware they were observing. Mr. and Mrs. Bouchard had no knowledge of the drug transactions which took place on the licensed premises. Shortly after acquiring the licensed premises, Mr. Bouchard fired several of the previous employees for selling alcoholic beverages to minors. Until the arrest of Butch Bouchard and Scott Steinberg for drug violations, there was no evidence that any disciplinary action was taken by the licensee against these two individuals for sales to minors on two occasions. Mr. Bouchard had a clear policy against selling alcoholic beverages to minors. He constantly instructed employees to check identification. There was no evidence of instructions or warnings having been given relating to other types of illegal activity. During July and August, 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Bouchard took separate vacations in order for one of them to be available to oversee the operation at the licensed premises. The licensed premises enjoys a good reputation in the community as a clean, well-run establishment. The Respondents individually enjoy an excellent reputation in the community as honest, hardworking people.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Respondents guilty of the violations as set forth above and imposing a civil penalty of $1400 and a suspension of the beverage license for a period of 30 days. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 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 21st day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Danny Hernandez, Esquire 707 Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Florida corporation doing business in Tampa, Florida, and is the bolder of alcoholic beverage license number 39-482, 4-COP. Respondent's licensed premises are located at 2309 North Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. The license was suspended by Petitioner's Emergency Order of Suspension issued July 22, 1982. On March 25, 1982, Beverage Officer Freese entered Respondent's licensed premises in an undercover capacity after paying a $1 cover charge. Freese proceeded to a circular room located upstairs in the licensed premises. This room had a small bar in the center, a small dance stage in front of the juke box, and bench-type seats located around the perimeter of the room. Shortly after entering the licensed premises, Freese was approached by a female dancer known as Diane. She sat down next to Freese without invitation and asked Freese if she could call the waitress over. Upon inquiry by Freese, Diane informed him that the reason for calling the waitress was because Freese had a drink and she did not. When Freese asked if that meant she wanted a drink, her reply was yes, and she thereafter ordered a drink. The drink was later served and Freese was charged $4 (Count 1). At approximately 10:45 p.m. on March 25, 1982, a female dancer known as Caryl seated herself next to Freese without invitation and inquired, "Who is going to buy me a drink?" After Freese agreed to buy her a drink, she stated that she was not supposed to solicit drinks because the premises had lost its license for such action in the past. Caryl ordered her drink from a waitress who returned with the drink, placed it in front of her, and charged Freese $4 (Count 2). At approximately 11:55 p.m. on March 25, 1982, a female dancer known as Mercedes was seated next to Freese and asked him if she could call the waitress over. When Freese asked why, the dancer replied that she needed a certain brand of mixed drink, and called the waitress to the table. She then ordered a drink for herself, which the waitress brought and placed in front of Mercedes. The waitress charged Freese $4 for the drink (Count 3). On March 26, 1982, Freese and a Confidential Informant entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. After paying the $1 cover charge they proceeded to the same circular room as on the previous occasion. At approximately 9:45 p.m. Mercedes again seated herself next to Freese and remarked that both she and Freese were dry and that she would call the waitress over. When asked by Freese if that meant she wanted him to buy her a drink, she summoned a waitress named Darlene to the table and ordered a drink for herself. Upon returning to the table, the waitress placed Mercedes' drink in front of her and charged Freese for the drink. The total charge for the two drinks was $6, and Mercedes later informed Freese that all of the dancers got doubles when ordering drinks (Count 4). On March 31, 1982, Officer Freese and the Confidential Informant again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. After paying the cover charge of $1 each, Officer Freese again proceeded to the upstairs circular room of the lounge. At approximately 8:25 p.m., the dancer Mercedes again joined Officer Freese at the table. After paying Mercedes $5 for dancing, Mercedes asked Freese if she could call the waitress over. Freese replied, "It's up to you," and Mercedes called a waitress known as Marty to the table and ordered a mixed drink for herself. Upon delivering the drink to Mercedes, the waitress informed Freese that the cost of the drink was $4 (Count 5). At approximately 9:00 p.m. on March 31, 1982, Mercedes again asked Freese, "May I call the waitress over?" Freese replied, "It's your turn to buy." Mercedes replied that it was not her turn and ordered a mixed drink for herself from the waitress. The waitress charged Freese $6 for this drink (Count 6). At approximately 9:40 p.m. on March 31, 1982, Mercedes again asked Freese if she could call the waitress over. After Freese told her that it was her turn to buy this time, Mercedes replied that it was his turn to buy. She again called the waitress over and ordered a drink for which Freese was charged $4 (Count 7) At approximately 11:00 p.m. on March 31, 1982, Freese was in the presence of two dancers, Mercedes and another dancer known as Cheryl. At this time, Mercedes again asked Freese if she could call the waitress over. After Freese asked Mercedes if she was buying this time, she replied, "I do the dancing." In response to this remark, Freese stated, "I guess that means that I pay for all the drinks," to which Mercedes indicated yes. Mercedes ordered a drink from the waitress Marty, who returned with the drink, placed it in front of Mercedes and charged Freese for the drink (Count 8). On April 7, 1982, Officer Freese entered the licensed premises with a Confidential Informant in an undercover capacity. Upon entering the licensed premises, they proceeded to the circular bar upstairs and seated themselves at a small table. At approximately 8:45 p.m., the dancer Mercedes, while seated at the table with Freese, asked him if she could order another drink. She ordered a drink from a waitress who served her the drink and then charged Freese $4 for it (Count 9). On April 7, 1982, at approximately 9:15 p.m., the dancer known as Caryl was seated at the table with Freese. She turned to him and stated, "Mike, I need a drink." When Freese inquired as to what she had said, Caryl replied, "Will you get me a drink?" (Count 10). On April 8, 1982, Officer Freese and a Confidential Informant again entered the licensed premises and proceeded to the upstairs bar. At approximately 8:40 p.m. the female dancer known as Mercedes was seated at the table with Officer Freese. While tipping her empty glass toward Freese, Mercedes asked if she could call the waitress. She then ordered a drink for herself, which was delivered to her by the waitress who charged Freese for the drink (Count 11). At approximately 9:15 on April 5, 1952, Officer Freese and a Confidential Informant were joined by another female dancer known as Caryl, who proceeded to ask, "Who is going to buy me a drink?" While a waitress known as Darlene was standing in front of Caryl, Caryl asked Freese, "Mike, will you buy me a drink?" She then ordered a mixed drink for herself, which was delivered to her, and the waitress charged Freese for the drink (Count 12). On May 13, 1982, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Beverage Officers Freese and Hodge entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and proceeded upstairs to the circular room. Shortly after seating themselves, they were joined by a dancer known as Stephanie. At approximately 9:45 p.m. the officers were approached by a waitress known as Doris. Hodge ordered a beer and upon inquiry by the waitress if there would be anything else, Hodge replied in the negative. However, Stephanie stated to the waitress that she would have a mixed drink. While waiting for the drinks to be delivered, Stephanie informed Hodge that she could not ask for a drink because it would be soliciting and she could be thrown into jail for that. After paying for the drinks, Hodge made a remark as to the cost of the drinks to which Stephanie replied, "That's how the house makes its money, off the drinks, and we make ours off the lap dances. That's what this upstairs is about, drinking and dancing." (Count 13) At approximately 11:00 p.m. on May 13, 1982, Freese was approached by a dancer known as Linda, who asked if she could dance for him. While lap dancing for Freese, Linda asked, "Can I get a drink, too?" Freese asked if she wanted him to buy her a drink and she replied, "Yes, will you buy me a drink?" Linda then called the waitress, ordered a drink which was delivered to her at Freese's table, and he was charged $4 for Linda's drink (Count 14). On May 18, 1982, Beverage Officers O'Steen and Freese entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and proceeded to the upstairs lounge. At approximately 8:35 p.m., Freese was approached by a female dancer known as Darlene, who asked to dance for him. After informing Darlene that he did not want a dance, she asked him if he would buy her a drink. Darlene then summoned a waitress over to the table and ordered a mixed drink for herself. The waitress delivered the drink to Darlene and charged Freese for it (Count 15). At approximately 10:25 p.m. on May 18, 1982, Freese was again approached by Darlene and asked, "How about a drink?" When Freese asked Darlene if she was buying, she responded "No, you are." Darlene then summoned the waitress and ordered a drink which was delivered to her at Freese's table. Freese paid for the drink (Count 16). On May 19, 1982, Officers Hodge and Freese entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and proceeded to the circular lounge upstairs. At approximately 8:45 p.m., a dancer known as Diane asked Freese, "Can I call the waitress?" to which Freese replied, "Does that mean that you want me to buy you a drink?" After Diane replied affirmatively, she summoned the waitress over and ordered a drink which was later delivered to her at Freese's table. Freese was charged $4 for the drink (Count 17). On May 19, 1982, at approximately 8:55 p.m., the dancer Mercedes approached the officers' table and seated herself between them. Mercedes then asked Hodge if she could call the waitress over. She thereafter ordered a drink which was delivered to her at the officers' table by the waitress Darlene, who charged Hodge $4 for the drink (Count 18). At approximately 9:10 p.m. on May 19, 1982, Diane was still seated at the officers' table and asked Freese if she could call the waitress again. Diane then called the waitress to the table and ordered a mixed drink for which Freese was charged (Count 19). At approximately 9:50 p.m. on May 19, 1982, Diane asked Hodge "Do you want to buy me a drink now, or do you want me to wait until after I dance?" In response to this, Hodge asked Diane if she wanted him to buy her a drink, to which Diane replied, "yes." While Diane was dancing, the waitress brought her drink to the table and charged Hodge $4 for it (Count 20). On July 6, 1982, Officers Freese and Hodge again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and proceeded to the upstairs lounge. At approximately 8:55 p.m., the dancer Stephanie, who was then seated at the officers' table, said to Hodge, "Will you buy me a drink?" She thereafter ordered a drink for which Hodge was charged (Count 21). At approximately 9:15 p.m. on July 6, 1982, Officers Hodge and Freese were seated in the upstairs portion of the lounge. At this time, they were accompanied by the dancers Caryl and Stephanie. During the course of a conversation, Hodge asked Freese if he was buying the next drinks, and Stephanie said, "What about me?" A waitress was present during this conversation and asked Freese if he intended to buy the dancer Caryl a drink also. Both Stephanie and Caryl each ordered mixed drinks which were delivered to the officers' table and were paid for by the officers (Count 22). At approximately 11:00 p.m. on July 6, 1982, the dancer Stephanie was seated with the officers at their table. At this time, she asked Freese, "Are you going to buy me a drink?" Upon Officer Freese replying "Yes," Stephanie ordered a mixed drink from the waitress who brought the drink to Stephanie and charged Officer Freese $4 (Count 23). On July 8, 1982, Officers Freese and Hodge entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and proceeded to the upstairs lounge. At approximately 7:25 p.m., they were approached by a woman known as Judy, who asked if she could join them for a drink. She then stated, "Mine only costs $2. They cost $4 for the girls on the night shift." Judy then ordered a drink which was delivered to her at the officers' table and was paid for by Freese (Count 24). At approximately 7:35 p.m. on July 8, 1982, Judy inquired of Hodge if he was ready for another beer and then said to Freese, "Can I get another one?" She then ordered a drink from the waitress known as Cathy, and the drink was paid for by Officer Freese (Count 25). At approximately 9:45 p.m. on July 8, 1982, Officers Freese and Hodge were seated at a table with a dancer known as Dorothy. At this time, Freese was approached by a waitress who asked him if he needed another drink, at which time Freese looked at Dorothy, and she said, "I'm drinking 7 and 7." The waitress delivered the drink to Dorothy, and it was paid for by Freese (Count 26). On July 19, 1982, Officer Hodge was again in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and was seated in the upper level of the lounge. At approximately 9:15 p.m. the dancer Stephanie, who was sitting with Hodge asked, "Are you going to buy me a drink?" Upon Hodge agreeing to do so, Stephanie called to a waitress known as Darlene to bring her a mixed drink. Hodge paid for this drink (Count 27). On April 1, 1982, Officer Freese and the Confidential Informant were in the circular lounge in the upper portion of the licensed premises. At approximately 9:00 p.m., the dancer Caryl seated herself between the Confidential Informant and Freese. After the Confidential Informant inquired of Caryl if she had a bag of marijuana she had earlier promised them, Caryl stated that she did and would retrieve it. She then proceeded to a small dance stage and retrieved a large bag from which she transferred something into her handbag. Upon returning to the table, Caryl handed the marijuana to the Confidential Informant and was paid $10 by Freese (Count 25). On May 13, 1982, Officers Hodge and Freese entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. At approximately 11:10 p.m., the dancer known as Mercedes joined the officers and entered into a conversation with Freese. During the conversation, Mercedes discussed her use of cocaine and how it affected her. Freese inquired if she was in possession of any cocaine, to which she replied, "No, but I can get you some," and informed him that it would cost $45 for a half gram. At approximately 11:45 p.m., Mercedes delivered a small, clear, plastic package to Hodge containing a white powdery substance, later proven to be cocaine. The delivery of the cocaine occurred on the licensed premises while the officers were seated in the upstairs lounge (Count 29) On July 7, 1982, Officers Hodge and Freese were again in the licensed `premises. They engaged the dancer Stephanie in a conversation concerning the availability of drugs. She informed them that she was in possession of a fourth of an ounce of marijuana and would sell each of the officers two marijuana cigarettes for $5. At approximately 12:30 a.m. on this date, she advised Freese that she needed $10, since she was going to roll their marijuana cigarettes. At approximately 12:50 a.m. Stephanie returned to the officers' table and delivered two hand-rolled marijuana cigarettes to Freese and one to Hodge. This transaction took place on the licensed premises in the upstairs portion of the lounge (Counts 30 and 31). On July 8, 1982, Officers Hodge and Freese were again in the licensed premises. At approximately 7:20 p.m., Freese was approached by the dancer Linda, who inquired if he still wanted a gram of cocaine which she had agreed to sell to him on July 7, 1982. At approximately 9:30 p.m., Linda approached Hodge and Freese in the upper portion of the lounge. She handed Freese a small, amber, glass vial containing a half gram of cocaine for which he paid her $50. She also delivered a one dollar bill containing half a gram of cocaine to Hodge for which he paid her $45. After the deliveries were made, Linda informed Freese that she could obtain cocaine for him at any time as long as he gave her a day's notice (Counts 32 and 33). On July 14, 1982, Officer Freese was again in the licensed premises and took delivery of approximately one gram of cocaine from the woman known as Linda. Linda was not working as a dancer at the time, but was downstairs working as a bartender. Prior to the delivery of the cocaine to Freese, for which he paid $90, Linda requested that she be allowed to ingest part of the cocaine and proceeded to the dancers' restroom. Upon returning she gave Officer Freese the gram of cocaine contained in a plastic bag with the seal broken (Count 34). On July 15, 1982, Officers Freese and Hodge returned to the licensed premises accompanied by Special Agent Rick Look from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. On this occasion, Agent Look took possession of approximately one-eighth of an ounce of cocaine from the bartender Linda. The delivery was made in the parking lot of the licensed premises where Linda delivered the cocaine to Look in return for $275. The arrangements for this transaction had been made the night before inside the licensed premises (Count 35). On July 20, 1982, Officer Hodge was again in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. At approximately 8:50 p.m., the bartender Linda delivered approximately one gram of cocaine to Officer Hodge in return for $90. On this same date, Linda also delivered approximately one-eighth of an ounce of cocaine to Special Agent Look in return for payment of $280. The deliveries to Look and Hodge both took place in the downstairs portion of the licensed premises in the vicinity of the bar (Counts 36 and 37). The testimony of Respondent's employees established that the dancers in the upper portion of the lounge are not on Respondent's payroll and, in fact, pay Respondent for the privilege of dancing upstairs. Their compensation is obtained through tips they receive from customers for their dances. It was shown that the upstairs dancers are informed as to the rules of the club which prohibit solicitation of drinks and possession of drugs. These dancers have access to the various portions of the lounge, including the dressing room and the restrooms. Their schedules are controlled by the manager, who also hires and fires them. From the testimony of the dancer Stephanie, whose real name is Peggy Knight, it was shown that dancers generally knew that certain other dancers were selling drugs on the premises, that several of the dancers were using drugs and that they regularly ingested such drugs in the women's restroom. The reason for using this room was the double entrance, which could be locked from the inside so as to prevent intrusion. Testimony of the president of the licensee corporation, 2001, Inc., established that Respondent paid a $10,000 fine and served a two weeks' suspension in 1991 as a result of violations of Section 561.131, Florida Statutes. The president occasionally visits the licensed premises, but had not been to the upstairs portion of the lounge for almost two years.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty as charged in Counts 1 through 12, 14 through 25 and 27 through 37 of the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint and suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of one year. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1983.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Joel Albert Collinsworth held a valid Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco liquor license for the premises known as the Silver Bullet Bar and Lounge (hereinafter licensed premises), located at 12 North Ninth Street, DeFuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida. Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The license held by Respondent is number 76- 330, Series 2-COP and is limited to the sale of beer and wine on the licensed premises. Investigator Don Taylor is a police officer with the DeFuniak Springs, Florida, Police Department. On Thursday, December 10, 1987, Investigator Taylor entered the licensed premises and seized glass containers of liquid that were marked as Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, and 4. The containers were only partly full. Investigator Taylor, has on many occasions, observed, smelled and tasted distilled spirits (and testified that the liquid was whiskey and not wine or beer.) Respondent, Joel Albert Collinsworth was on the licensed premises at the time Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 were seized and was immediately placed under arrest by Investigator Taylor. The three (3) glass containers were taken to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement laboratory in Pensacola, Florida for testing and identification of the liquid contained in the three (3) bottles. The lab results shows that the liquid contained a high concentration of ethyl alcohol. Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Investigator Roy Harris, an 18 year veteran of the Division testified that the concentrations of alcohol listed in Exhibit 5 were sufficiently high that they could not be anything other than distilled spirits. The 2-COP license held by the Respondent allowed only consumption on the premises of beer and wine. The license does not permit possession, consumption or sale of distilled spirits on the licensed premises. The evidence showed that distilled spirits were being possessed and/or consumed on the premises owned and operated by Respondent under his beverage license. Such possession and consumption constitute a violation of Section 562.02, Florida Statutes. Petitioner requested that Respondent's license be revoked for the violation of the Liquor Law. No mitigating facts were presented by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That Respondent is guilty of the offense set forth in the Notice to Show Cause issued on January 13, 1988, and that Petitioner should revoke the license of Joel Albert Collinsworth, d/b/a Silver Bullet Bar and Lounge. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1295 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact contained in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 have been adopted in substance in so far as material. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 W. Paul Thompson, Esquire Post Office Drawer 608 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Lt. Tom Stout, District Supervisor Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 160 Governmental Center Suite 401, 4th Floor Pensacola, Florida 32501 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Thomas Olhausen and Henry Stripling, d/b/a Trackside Lounge, hold Beverage License No. 23-1647, Series No. 4-COP, which was issued for the current year. On or about June 5, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold a controlled substance, namely cocaine, to Beverage Officer Terminello while he was on the licensed premises known as Trackside Lounge in Dade County, Florida. On or about June 8, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold cocaine to Beverage Officer Dodson while he was on the Trackside Lounge premises. On or about June 12, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold cocaine to Beverage Officer Terminello while he was on the premises of Trackside Lounge. The Respondent Henry Stripling did not go onto the Trackside Lounge between the dates of March 10 and June 10, 1983, pursuant to a restraining order issued on March 10, 1983, by the Dade County Circuit Court. This March 10, 1983, court order appointed two receivers to supervise the operation of the business known as Trackside Lounge. Pursuant to this authority the receivers employed Thomas Olhausen to operate and manage the business. Thus, Thomas Olhausen was not subject to the restraining order which barred Henry Stripling from entry onto the Trackside Lounge premises. The Respondent Henry Stripling had no connection with the sale of cocaine by the Respondent Thomas Olhausen to the Beverage Officers on June 5, 8 and 12, 1983. The court order of March 10, 1983, did not attempt to effect a judicial transfer of the beverage license held by the Respondents. The court appointed receivers did not file an application for a beverage license pursuant to Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, and there is no evidence that the receivers attempted to transfer the beverage license held - by the Respondents pursuant to Section S61.32(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, or Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Adminstrative Code. The court appointed receivers did not file a certified copy of the order appointing them as receivers with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco pursuant to Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the alcoholic beverage license held by the Respondents, Thomas Olhausen and Henry Stripling, being number 23-1647, Series No. 4-COP, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 26th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark A. Jacobs, Esquire 18204 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 Richard F. Hayes, Esquire Suite 20 4601 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, N.K., Inc., d/b/a Tobacco Road, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-733:4-COP authorizing it to sell alcoholic beverages at 628 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. The establishment in question is located in the downtown area of Miami, Florida. It provides both a food and beverage service to its patrons. The bar's hours of service are from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 a.m. daily. The kitchen is generally open from late in the morning until 3:00 p.m. and from between 5:00 and 8:00 p.m. until 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. each day. The lounge has two floors. The first floor has a bar, restaurant and outdoor patio. Entertainment is provided primarily by a disc jockey. The second floor is accessed by an interior stairway from the first floor and contains a bar and stage. The upstairs is patterned after a speakeasy from prohibition days, and features live theater performances and entertainment provided by a live jazz band. The clientele of Tobacco Road may be characterized as "mixed". During the daytime hours, it is frequented by many business and professional persons from the downtown area who partake of both meals and drinks. At night the crowd tends to be more younger and middle class although it is still an admixture of all ages, occupations and classes. The bar is located four blocks from the "tent city" where the City of Miami housed large numbers of Cuban refugees in 1980. Some refugees have frequented the Tobacco Road on occasion. The Petitioner received unidentified complaints regarding the possible sale or use of drugs in a number of Miami area lounges, including Tobacco Road. This prompted visits by undercover beverage agents to the licensed premises in January, 1981, to ascertain whether such complaints were true. On or about January 13, 1981, at approximately 10:20 p.m., Officers Mignolet and Gonzalez, two female beverage agents, visited the Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity to investigate whether narcotics were being sold on the premises. In the parking lot, they met two white male patrons named Carlos and Mark who were just leaving in their automobile and engaged them in a brief casual conversation. The officers then entered the lounge and seated themselves at the bar on the first floor. Carlos and Mark returned to the bar shortly thereafter and sat next to Mignolet and Gonzalez. The conversation turned to narcotics and after a period of time, Mark reached into his pocket and pulled out two tablets which he handed to Gonzalez. A laboratory analysis later established these tablets to be methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). When the delivery occurred, Chris (Christopher Najdul), a bartender, was in the bar well directly in front of the beverage officers. Seated nearby were "a few other" patrons. The lighting in the area was described as "dim". After being handed the tablets, Gonzalez showed Chris the tablets in her hand. However, Chris did not say anything to acknowledge that he had seen the transaction. This was the fourth visit to the licensed premises by the two agents but represented the first time they were successful in obtaining a controlled substance despite repeated efforts to do so. On or about January 23, 1981, at approximately 12:40 a.m., Officers Brock and Thompson, two female beverage agents, visited the premises of Respondent in an undercover capacity to ascertain whether narcotics were being sold. After seating themselves at the center of the bar on the first floor, they engaged in a conversation with a white male patron named Armando Garcia. The agents asked it they could obtain some "ludes" (methaqualones). Garcia said he could obtain some "grass" (marijuana) from upstairs and temporarily left the bar. He later returned without any drugs. He then went outside the premises to his car, obtained two tablets, returned to the bar, seated himself between Brock and Thompson, and passed one each into their hands. The officers briefly examined the tablets and then placed them into their pocketbooks. Subsequent laboratory tests revealed the tablets were methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). On or about January 24, 1981, Officers Brock and Thompson again visited the licensed premises of Tobacco Read at about 1:00 a.m. After seating themselves at the bar they were immediately approached by Armando Garcia, the same patron who had given them two methaqualones the previous evening. After approximately 15 minutes, Brock and Garcia moved to a booth away from the bar where Garcia gave her a tablet. Thompson then joined them at the booth, and Garcia set a tablet on the table for Thompson. The transaction was not observed by any employee or patron. Shortly afterwards, the agents returned to the bar where Garcia joined them. At approximately 2:10 a.m., Garcia passed a tablet hand to hand to Thompson, and swallowed another himself. When the latter delivery occurred, the bartender, Peter Aitken, was working behind the bar well but did not verbally acknowledge seeing the transaction. A laboratory analysis subsequently revealed the three tablets were methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). On January 25, 1981, at approximately 12:15 a.m. Officers Roberts and Jones, two male beverage agents, visited the Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity to ascertain whether controlled substances could be obtained. After seating themselves at the bar, they began a casual conversation with a male patron at the bar named Lance concerning the possible purchase of drugs. They left the bar and went to the stairway between the first and second floors were Roberts asked Lance if there were any "ludes" around. Lance replied he had one for $3.00. Roberts handed Lance $3.00 and received a tablet. Laboratory tests subsequently revealed the tablet given to Officer Roberts was a methaqualone (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). When the transaction occurred, several other patrons were ahead of Roberts on the stairway. Prior to this delivery, Roberts and Jones had visited the premises on at least two other occasions but were unsuccessful in obtaining a controlled substance. On or about April 25, 1981, at approximately 12:30 a.m., while on the licensed premises, Officer Marrero, a male beverage agent, met a Latin male patron who offered to sell some marijuana. Officer Jones accompanied Marrero and the patron to the men's restroom where, in a bathroom stall, Marrero bought five suspected marijuana cigarettes from the patron for $5.00. No other patrons or employees were present when the sale occurred. Subsequent tests performed by the laboratory confirmed the cigarettes were in fact marijuana (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). On or about January 28, 1981, Officers Brock and Thompson visited the licensed premises of Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity and seated themselves next to Peter Aitken, who was off-duty that evening, and who appeared to be in an intoxicated state. Peter left the premises with Thompson to go to his automobile to smoke a marijuana joint. The automobile was parked on a public street in front of the lounge. Although Thompson was ultimately able to purchase a bag of marijuana from Peter for $35, the transaction occurred off the licensed premises and was beyond the dominion and control of the licensee. The corporate owner of Tobacco Road is Neil Katzman, a former police officer with the City of Miami. Prior to purchasing Tobacco Road, he owned and operated a licensed lounge and package store. Katzman takes an active role in the management of the lounge, including such diverse activities as maintenance work, greeting customers, occasionally tending bar and taking inventory. However, because of the long hours of operation (9:00 a.m. - 5:00 a.m. daily) it is impossible for him to be on the premises at all times. For this reason, he has hired a manager to whom he recently delegated authority to hire and fire employees. Katzman has a strict policy of employees not using or distributing illegal drugs. Violation of this rule results in immediate dismissal of the errant employee. Prospective employees are personally counseled on the no-drug policy of the management before they are hired and are reminded of this policy periodically. Polygraph tests have been given since 1978 to employees, including the manager, to determine whether they use or sell drugs, have stolen money, given away free drinks or engaged in any other prohibited activities. They are specifically asked if they have sold or delivered drugs on the premises, and whether they have seen other employees do so. "Numerous" employees have been fired as a result of taking such tests. Indeed, Chris Najdul, a bartender, was fired a week before the undercover operations were made known to Katzman for admitting to the use of narcotics on the premises. The no-drug policy of management has been effective. This is evidenced by the fact that no drugs were obtained from employees during the period in question despite numerous efforts by undercover agents to purchase narcotics from them. It is also a strict policy of the Respondent that if patrons are seen with narcotics on the premises, they are asked to leave. Katzman himself periodically checks the restrooms and patio to see if patrons are using illegal drugs. Other than the deliveries and sales described above, the undercover agents did not witness any employee or patron using, selling or in possession of any suspected narcotic on the licensed premises. Respondent has never been cited or warned about any beverage law violation in this or any previous establishment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Counts I and II of the Notice to Show Cause be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 6th day of July, 1981.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, alcoholic beverage license No. 26-01841, Series No. 2-APS, was issued to Respondents, Frank D. and Estella S. Ryers, for their establishment known as the Big B Restaurant, located at 5570 Avenue B, Jacksonville, Florida. A 2-APS license permits the package sale only of beer and wine. It does not permit the consumption on the premises of beer, wine, or liquor. On March 27, 1983, Investigator Wendell M. Reeves conducted an undercover operation directed against the Big B Restaurant predicated upon reports received by Petitioner that Respondents were conducting sales of alcoholic beverages not permitted by the license at the licensed premises. In furtherance of that operation, Reeves utilized another beverage agent, Van Young, in an undercover capacity to make a controlled buy of an improperly sold substance from the licensees. Prior to sending Young into the licensed premises, Reeves searched Young to ensure that he, Young, had no alcoholic beverage or money in his possession. Satisfying himself that that was the case, he gave Young $15 in U.S. currency and sent him into the licensed premises to make the buy. Young entered the Big B Restaurant at 1:00 p.m. and came out 17 minutes later. When he came out of the licensed premises, Young came over to where Reeves was waiting and turned over to him a sealed 200 ml bottle of Fleishman's Gin. Young told Reeves that he had purchased the gin in the licensed premises from a black male whose description matched that of Respondent Frank D. Byers which is contained on Respondent's application for license. Respondent Frank Byers denies making the sale. On balance, however, there is little doubt it was Respondent who made the sale, especially in light of the fact that this same licensee was issued a letter of warning by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in October 1981 for possession on the premises of an alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold under the license. Young also stated that he purchased a second bottle which he consumed on the premises with another black male. However, this evidence was in the form of Reeves' report of what was told him by Young. As such, it is clearly hearsay and can be used only to corroborate or explain other admissible evidence. Therefore, as to the allegation regarding the consumption of the gin on the premises, since it is the only evidence of that offense, it cannot be used to support a finding of fact on that allegation. It may, however, be used to explain how Young got the bottle with which he was seen by Reeves to come out of the licensed premises. Several days later, on March 30, 1983, Reeves again entered the licensed premises, where he told Respondent Estella Byers he was there to inspect the site. She opened the cooler for him and he inspected the beer inside and the cigarettes. While he was doing that, however, he noticed her take a cloth towel and drape it over something behind the bar. He went over to it, removed the towel, and found that it covered a bottle of Schenley's gin. Mrs. Byers immediately said she thought it was her husband's, Respondent Frank Byers, but another individual present at the time, Sharon Thomas, said she had taken it from her brother, who was drunk, and had put it there. Again, as to Ms. Thomas' comments, they, too, are hearsay and can only serve here to explain or corroborate other admissible evidence. In any case, after Ms. Thomas made her comment, she was immediately contradicted by Respondent Estella Byers, who again indicated she thought the bottle was her husband's. In any case, at the hearing, Respondent Estella Byers contended she did not know it was there. On balance, Mr. Reeves' testimony that she covered it with a towel while he was inspecting and the evidence of the prior warning for an identical offense tend to indicate she did know it was there and that it was unlawful for it to be there. There is, however, no evidence to establish sufficiently the reason for its being there.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulated record described above, I make the following relevant findings of fact: The Petitioner currently holds alcoholic beverage license number 11-74 SRX, series 4-COP. The currently licensed premises include all of the rooms within Petitioner's clubhouse. On or about September 14, 1984, the Petitioner filed an application in which it requested that its licensed premises be extended to include all of the golf course which is adjacent to the clubhouse. The Petitioner's golf course consists of approximately 262 acres. The Petitioner is the owner of and has exclusive possession and control over all of the premises it seeks to have included in its license. The area Petitioner seeks to have included in its license includes other buildings in addition to the clubhouse building. The Petitioner does not hold a golf club license. The Petitioner does not by its application propose to have more than three separate rooms or enclosures in which permanent bars or counters will be located. A licensee is required to designate the licensed premises in a sketch included in or attached to the application for license so that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco can determine the area over which they have regulatory authority. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco has, on some occasions, granted applications for series 4-COP special restaurant licenses which included in the sketch of the licensed premises an uncovered patio area immediately adjacent to the covered portion of the restaurant building, which patio areas were used by the restaurant as an area for service of food and beverages. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages has not presented any reason for denying the Petitioner's application other than the opinion that the existing statutory provisions do not authorize the extension sought by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's alcoholic beverage license was issued pursuant to a special act of the Legislature. Chapter 70-574, Laws of Florida. Following receipt of notice that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco proposed to deny its application, the Petitioner filed a timely request for formal proceedings.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application to extend the area of its licensed premises. DONE and ORDERED this 25 day of June, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 25th day of June, 1985 COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Andrews, Esquire P.O. Drawer C Gainesville, Florida 32602 Howard M. Rasmussen Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Jamestown In The Grove Apartments Club, Inc., d/b/a Suzanne's In The Grove, (hereinafter referred to as "Suzanne's") holds alcoholic beverage license number 23-1193, license series 11-C. Respondent has held the subject license since December of 1971. For a number of years the Respondent operated at its present location in much smaller premises. Several years ago the buildings where Respondent was located were demolished and a highrise condominium building was erected on the site. Respondent obtained space in the new building and embarked upon a plan to create a larger and fancier facility then it had previously operated. The new improved facility began operations in May of 1983 under the present name of Suzanne's In The Grove. The new improved facility is, in the words of one of the witnesses, "... a high fashion, beautiful people-type disco nightclub in Coconut Grove." The property and furnishings for the new improved facility required an investment in excess of two million dollars. During the planning stages for the new improved facility which opened in May of 1983, Suzanne's retained the services of a consultant who was an expert in the planning and operation of limited membership clubs. The consultant worked with the management of Suzanne's in designing the layout of the premises and in instituting operational procedures designed to maximize the ability of management to control access into the premises. The concepts employed by the consultant were modeled on the procedures used at limited access private clubs on military bases. The premises were specifically designed to facilitate the limitation of access to members and their guests. To that end, the premises had a small doorway, had a desk for checking membership just inside the doorway, and had a narrow stairway that led from the reception desk to the main area of the club. Suzanne's also issued plastic membership cards embossed with the member's name in raised letters. The operations procedures included provisions for a doorman, at least one receptionist at the desk, and at least one employee at the top of the stairs. Often they had more than one employee at the desk and at the top of the stairs. Due to unexpected extremely large crowds of patrons when Suzanne's first opened, they also contracted for additional security personnel to assist their regular employees with access control. As part of the preparation for the opening of Suzanne's the management of the club formulated a set of written policies for employees. Included in these written policies were specific prohibitions against any conduct which would constitute a violation of the alcoholic beverage laws. Each employee was given a copy of these written policies and was required to read the policies and then sign a statement agreeing to comply with the policies and acknowledging that he or she would be fired for any violation of the policies. These policies included a specific prohibition against admitting anyone who was not a member or a bona fide guest of a member. Between the opening of Suzanne's and the dates of the violations charged in this case, Suzanne's had fired employees for admitting people who were not members. Prior to opening in May of 1983, Suzanne's also instituted a policy of requiring periodic polygraph examinations of all employees. The consultant helped them formulate the questions to be asked during the polygraph examinations. The polygraph examinations specifically covered questions as to whether the employee was aware of the members-only regulations, whether the employee had ever distributed a membership card without collecting a membership fee and turning the fee over to the club, and whether the employee had ever let anyone into the club who was not a member or a bona fide guest of a member. If the results of the polygraph examination indicated that an employee was being deceptive about whether he or she had admitted non-members to the club, the employee was terminated. The consultant also assisted the management of Suzanne's in the selection of key employees and participated in the interviews of those employees. From the date of opening through August 28, 1983, Suzanne's sold 3,025 memberships at $50.00 each. Since August 28, 1983, Suzanne's has taken in an additional $198,000.00 in membership fees. Because of the large amount of revenue generated by the sale of memberships, Suzanne's has always been very interested in strict enforcement of the members-only policy. It is in Suzanne's best economic interests to maintain strict enforcement because without such enforcement there would be no reason for anyone to buy a membership and Suzanne's would in all likelihood lose substantial membership revenues. Suzanne's entire marketing concept would have been ruined if people could get in easily without having a membership card. When Suzanne's first opened in May of 1983, all employees were required to attend a meeting at which an attorney specializing in alcoholic beverage law told them about the requirements of the liquor laws in general and about the special provisions of the liquor laws relating to 11-C licenses. All of the employees were specifically told that the sale of alcoholic beverages was restricted to members and their guests. The consultant employed by Suzanne's recommended an emphasis on access control at the door rather than a system of point of sale control because Suzanne's did not have an in-house credit or charge system, which is the best system to use for a point of sale control system. An in-house credit system was prohibitively expensive where membership dues were only $50.00 per person. A typical Dade County club with an in-house credit system has an annual membership fee of $460.00 in addition to an initial fee of $1,000.00 to join. Since the dates of the violations charged in this case Suzanne's has maintained its access control procedure at the door and has added a point of sale control system as well. The point of sale control includes imprinting the membership card on all sales slips. On August 28, 1983, two investigators of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco went to Suzanne's at about 2:20 a.m. They told the doorman ("Robert") that they were not members but that they wanted to go in and look around. The doorman let them in, but told them that if anyone asked they should say they came in with a member. Once inside the premises, each of the DABT investigators ordered and were served an alcoholic beverage. None of the bartenders or barmaids asked if they were members. On September 7, 1983, the same two investigators returned to Suzanne's at approximately 11:40 p.m. They walked past the doorman and other employees and entered the premises. No one tried to determine if they were members. Both investigators ordered and were served an alcoholic beverage. On September 10, 1983, two DABT investigators (one who had been on both prior occasions and one who had not been there before) went to Suzanne's. A line of approximately 300 people were waiting outside to enter Suzanne's. To avoid waiting in the line, the two investigators went near the front of the line and waited until the one who had been there before could get the attention of Robert, the doorman. When he got Robert's attention, he asked Robert if Robert could do them a favor about the line and gave Robert $5.00. Robert took the money and admitted the two investigators without asking whether they were members. One of the investigators was able to order and be served an alcoholic beverage. It was so crowded inside that the other investigator was not able to place an order for an alcoholic beverage. On September 21, 1983, the two DABT investigators who had visited Suzanne's on the first occasions described above returned to the premises. Again they were able to enter without being asked about their membership status and both ordered and were served an alcoholic beverage. None of the DABT investigators who went to Suzanne's on the four occasions described above were members of the Suzanne's, nor were they bona fide guests of anyone who was a member. On each occasion when they were served alcoholic beverages, they paid the regular price for the beverages, approximately $3.50 each. On all four of the occasions described above when the DABT investigators entered Suzanne's and purchased alcoholic beverages, the club was very crowded. The extent of the crowds on those nights is reflected by the gross receipts for those four nights which were, respectively, $10,099.35, $5,125.60, $9,973.25, and $5,034.15. On all four of the occasions described above when DABT investigators entered Suzanne's, there were several employees of Suzanne's both in the area of the reception desk at the bottom of the stairs as well as at the top of the stairs attempting to control access to the premises and maintain control over the crowds. During 1983 Suzanne's was obtaining security services from Dade Federal Security. The security company would provide plainclothes guards to assist Suzanne's employees check membership, to help maintain order, and to help control the line outside when it was especially crowded. Sometime during 1983 the management at Suzanne's complained to Dade Federal Security that they suspected that some of the guards provided by Dade Federal Security had been taking money to admit non-members into the premises. Dade Federal Security confronted its employees with this complaint and one of the employees confessed to having taken money to admit non-members to Suzanne's. The employee was fired. The foregoing findings of fact contain the substance of the vast majority of the findings proposed by both parties. Proposed findings which are not incorporated in the foregoing findings are specifically rejected as irrelevant, as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, or as unsupported by persuasive competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, I recommend that the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order in this case dismissing all charges against the licensee. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 3rd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sy Chadroff, Esquire 2700 Southwest 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133
