The Issue This case concerns an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent. Count I to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its director, stockholder or corporate officer, namely: Carl Bilotti, related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance cocaine on July 15 and 18, 1981; August 20, 1981; and September 9 and 20, 1981. Count II to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its agent, servant or employee namely: "Anne," related to the possession of the controlled substance cocaine on August 22 and 28, 1981. Count III to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Anne," related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance cocaine on August 23, 1981, and September 4, 1981. Count IV to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Sandy," related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance methaqualone on July 19 and 25, 1981, and the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance cocaine on August 14, 22 and 23, 1981. Count V to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Eve," related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance diazepam on July 23, 1981. Count VI to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Gina," related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance diazepam on July 25, 1981, two (2) incidents. Count VII to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Ivy " related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance cocaine on August 14, 1981. Count VIII to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Shayne," related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance cocaine on July 25, 1981. Count IX to the Administrative Complaint alleges that between July 15, 1981, and October 2, 1981, the Respondent, by actions of its agents, servants, employees, manager, corporate officer and stockholder, maintained a place, to wit: the licensed premises, at 2095 best Fourth Avenue, Hialeah, Florida, which place was used for keeping or selling of controlled substances, namely: cocaine, methaqualone and diazepam, in violation of Subsection 893.13(2)(a) 5; Florida Statutes, within the meaning of Subsection 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Count X to the Administrative Complaint alleges that between July 15, 1981, and October 2, 1981, the Respondent, through its agents, servants, employees, manager, corporate officer and stockholder, kept or maintained a public nuisance on the licensed premises, to wit: maintaining a building or place which is used for the illegal keeping, selling or delivering of controlled substances within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 823.10, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(c) , Florida Statutes. Count XI to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about July 25, 1981, an agent, servant or employee of the Respondent, one Gina, while engaged as a dancer, unlawfully offered to commit prostitution, in violation of Subsection 796.07(3)(a), Florida Statutes, causing a violation on the part of the Respondent of Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida .Statutes. Count XII to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about October 2, 1981, an agent, servant or employee of the Respondent, namely: Cathryne Edmondson, possessed a controlled substance, to wit: marijuana, on the licensed premises, in violation of Subsection 893.13(1)(a) Florida Statutes, causing a violation of Subsection 561.29 (1)(a) , Florida Statutes. Count XIII to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about December 2, 1981, a director, stockholder or corporate officer, namely: Carl Bilotti, corporate vice-president and 50 percent stockholder, pled guilty and was adjudicated guilty in the Circuit Court of the State of Florida, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, on five (5) counts of violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, sale of controlled substances, namely: cocaine, a felony, and that the felony conviction impairs qualifications of the Respondent to obtain and continue holding an alcoholic beverage license under Subsection 561.15(3), Florida Statutes, and Subsection 56l.29(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner had served an Administrative Complaint on the Respondent, which Administrative Complaint contained the Counts as set forth in the Issues statement to this Recommended Order. Subsequent to that time, the Respondent, in the person of counsel, requested a formal Subsection 120.57 (1), Florida Statutes, hearing and the formal hearing was conducted on January 6, 1982. As indicated by correspondence from former counsel for the Respondent to counsel for the Petitioner dated December 15, 1901, Respondent's counsel withdrew from the case. This withdrawal of counsel postdated a Notice of Hearing setting forth January 6, 1982, as the date for hearing and a separate Order of November 24, 1981, which identified January 6, 1982, a the date for hearing. Notwithstanding the Notice and separate Order identifying January 6, 1982, as the hearing date, the Respondent, by and through its attorney or other authorized representative, did not attend the formal hearing. Although the Respondent was not in attendance, the hearing was conducted in view of the continuing request for hearing, which has never been withdrawn. The Petitioner is a governmental agency in the State of Florida, which has, among other duties, the licensure of the several alcoholic beverage license holders in the State of Florida, and the requirement to discipline those beverage license holders who have violated the terms and conditions of their licensure. The Respondent Carl and Mike, Inc., is the holder of an alcoholic beverage license issued by the Petitioner. The Respondent trades as the Raw Hide Bar at a licensed premises at 2095 West Fourth Avenue, Hialeah, Dade County, Florida. On July 15, 1981, at approximately 9:45 P.M., Beverage Officer L. J. Terminello, and a confidential informant, who was assisting Officer Terminello, entered the licensed premises in undercover capacities to continue an investigation which had begun on July 12, 1981. (The Beverage Officer and confidential informant had been in the licensed premises on that former date for purposes of conducting a narcotics investigation.) On this occasion, the investigative purpose was to purchase narcotics. Terminello and the informant took a seat at the bar and waited for the appearance of Carl N. Bilotti, the vice-president of the Respondent and 50 shareholder. It was the intention of Terminello to attempt to purchase narcotics from Bilotti. At 10:50 P.M. Bilotti had not arrived at the licensed premises and Terminello decided to leave; however, when he reached the front door, Bilotti was entering and Bilotti spoke to the confidential informant in the parking lot area of the licensed premises. The confidential informant, in the course of that conversation, asked Bilotti if, "we could get any coke," meaning Terminello and the confidential informant were interested in purchasing cocaine. Bilotti responded by stating, "Sure, no problem. Wait here a minute, I'll be right back." Bilotti then entered the licensed premises and returned a few minutes later and handed the confidential informant a piece of aluminum foil which was folded and the confidential informant handed this item to Terminello. Terminello opened the package and noted a quantity of white powder. Terminello asked Bilotti, "how much" and Bilotti stated, "anything close to $70.00." Terminello paid Bilotti $70.00 in United States currency and following a short conversation, departed the area of the licensed premises. The white powder in question was in fact cocaine. Terminello and the confidential informant returned to the licensed premises on July 18, 1981, at approximately 12:15 A.M. Terminello approached Carl Bilotti who was standing at the end of the bar area next to a cash register. Terminello asked Bilotti if he had any "stuff," referring to cocaine. Bilotti answered "sure" and indicated that the cost for the cocaine would be $70.00. Terminello agreed to the price, telling Bilotti that he would meet him in the mens room for purposes of the exchange of drugs and money. At approximately 12:20 A.M., while located in the mens rest room of the licensed premises, Terminello paid Bilotti $70.00 in United States currency and Bilotti gave Terminello a folded piece of white paper which Terminello could see contained white powder. Shortly thereafter, Terminello and the confidential informant exited the licensed premises. The white powder which had been purchased was analyzed and revealed the presence of cocaine. On July 19, 1981, at around 11:00 P.M., Officer Terminello returned to the licensed premises. While in the licensed premises he spoke with Sandra McQuire, a person that he had met on July 12, 1981. On July 12, 1981, McQuire had been employed as a cocktail waitress on the licensed premises and Terminello had been advised by the confidential informant that McQuire had delivered ten (10) methaqualone tablets to the confidential informant on that date. On that date, July 19, 1981, Terminello told employee McQuire that he wanted to purchase ten (10) more "ludes, meaning methaqualone. At around 11:20 P.M., while Terminello was sitting at the bar, McQuire walked by and handed him a napkin containing ten (10) white tablets. A few minutes later, Terminello handed McQuire $30.00 in U.S. currency in payment for the white tablets. Terminello then left the licensed premises at approximately 11:40 P.M. The ten (10) tablets were subsequently analyzed and found to be methaqualone. On July 23, 1981, at approximately 12:30 A.M., Officer Terminello and the confidential informant entered the licensed premises. Terminello and the confidential informant took a seat at the bar, where shortly afterwards a conversation ensued with an employee/dancer who identified herself as "Eve" and was later determined to be one Eve Mary Carroll. Carroll and the confidential informant had been acquainted prior to this time. During the course of the conversation, Terminello asked Carroll if she knew where he could get some "good ludes." This refers again to methaqualone. Carroll told him that she was "holding," meaning that she had some in her possession. She asked Terminello to pay her $4.00 for each tablet. She stated that the price was higher because they were "pure methaqualone tablets" and that they would "really do a job." Terminello told Carroll that he would purchase three (3) tablets and handed her $12.00 in U.S. currency. A few moments beyond this time, at around 12:45 A.M., Carroll handed Terminello three (3) tablets, each individually wrapped in aluminum foil, which tablets Terminello placed in his pocket. The suspect methaqualone tablets were later determined to be diazepam. On the same date, July 23, 1981, Terminello observed Carl Bilotti enter the licensed premises at around 1:00 A.M. In the course of a conversation that ensued, Bilotti told Terminello he could sell Terminello some cocaine, but that the transaction would have to occur later, in that Bilotti had to leave the licensed premises. Terminello waited until 2:30 A.M. and Bilotti never returned. On July 25, 1981, at approximately 12:00 A.M., Terminello and the confidential informant went back to the licensed premises. Over the next hour and a half, Terminello talked to Carl Bilotti and employee Sandra McQuire about purchasing narcotics; however, neither of those persons were able to deliver narcotics at that time. On that same date, Terminello and the confidential informant did speak with a dancer/employee in the licensed premises who was identified as "Gina" and this individual indicated that she had some "ludes" for sale, meaning methaqualone, that she would sell for $3.00 each. Terminello indicated that he would like to purchase five (5) tablets and they walked out the front door of the premises and Terminello gave her $15.00 in U.S. currency, in return for five (5) white tablets which were marked "Lemon 714." Those tablets were subsequently analyzed and found to be diazepam. At around 2:45 A.M. on July 25, 1981, while in the bar area, Terminello and the confidential informant spoke to an individual, a male, who was known as "Frenchie" later identified to be one Laurent E. Duval, who was in the company of a dancer employed in the licensed premises whose name was "Shayne" later identified to be Sharon K. Hicks. In the presence of Hicks, Terminello and Duval negotiated for the sale of a quantity of cocaine for the amount of $75.00. Duval also indicated that he had to be careful because he had a stolen car, was carrying a firearm and had recently been placed on probation by Circuit Court for narcotics and firearms charges. Duval told Terminello that the narcotics arrangement would have to be consummated in the parking lot of the licensed premises in view of the fact that too many people he did not know were in the bar. Terminello and the confidential informant exited the licensed premises at around 3:00 A.M. in the company of Duval and Hicks. Duval took a seat on the driver's side of an automobile in the parking lot and Hicks sat in the front passenger side seat. Duval handed Terminello a large plastic bag. containing a quantity of white powder which was suspect cocaine. Terminello started to hand Duval $75.00 in U.S. currency but Duval refused to take it, telling Terminello to hand the money to Hicks. Hicks had been observing this transaction and agreed to take the money and did accept the $75.00 in U.S. currency. The suspected cocaine was later revealed to be cocaine. Terminello next returned to the licensed premises on July 25, 1981, at around 9:30 P.M. At that time he was in the presence of the confidential informant. Terminello and the confidential informant took a seat at the bar and were approached by a dancer/employee who had earlier been identified as "Gina." There had been a prior telephone negotiation between the confidential informant and "Gina" for the purchase of five (5) "ludes," methaqualone, and in keeping with that arrangement, "Gina" handed Terminello a white napkin which contained five (5) white tablets. Terminello in turn gave "Gina" $15.00 in U.S. currency. Those tablets were subsequently analyzed and found to be diazepam. On the same evening, i.e., July 25, 1981, at around 9:45 P.M., the cocktail waitress, Sandra McQuire, approached Terminello and stated that she had five (5) methaqualone tablets that Terminello had asked for on the prior evening. She handed him a zip-lock plastic bag containing five (5) white tablets marked "Lemon 714." Shortly after this time, Terminello gave McQuire $15.00 in U.S. currency to pay for the tablets. Those tablets were subsequently analyzed and found to be methaqualone. At around 10:15 P.M. on July 25, 1981, the dancer/ employee "Gina" approached Terminello while he was seated at the bar and advised him that if he "got rid of" his "old lady" and returned about 4:00 A.M. to the premises that she, "Gina," would show him a good time by "fucking his brain out" for $50.00. Terminello acknowledged this offer. On August 3, 1981, at approximately 10:30 P.M., Terminello and the confidential informant returned to the licensed premises. At that time, Terminello entered into a conversation with Carl Bilotti on the subject of narcotics; however, Bilotti indicated that he was unable to procure cocaine at that time. Bilotti did state that he expected a delivery soon and that Terminello should wait a while. Nothing had transpired by 11:45 P.M. concerning the narcotics and Terminello and the confidential informant left the licensed premises. On August 14, 1981, at approximately 10:45 P.M., Terminello and the confidential informant went back to the licensed premises and upon entry took a seat at the bar where they were greeted by the cocktail waitress Sandra McQuire. Terminello asked McQuire if there were any "ludes" around, meaning methaqualone, and McQuire answered in the negative, but she did indicate that there was some "toot," meaning cocaine available for $70.00 a gram if Terminello was interested. Terminello advised McQuire that he was interested and removed $70.. 00 in U.S. currency from his wallet, wrapped it in a napkin and handed it to McQuire. She then stated that she would be back in a few moments. After several moments, McQuire signaled Terminello to walk over to the opposite side of the bar where she was fixing drinks. She then made a comment about the good quality of the "stuff." While Terminello was talking to McQuire, another employee, a dancer in the licensed premises identified as "Ivy" later shown to be one Julie Ann Schwartz, approached Terminello and handed him a plastic zip- lock bag containing white powder. She told Terminello "here is a present from Sandy." Terminello accepted the material. Schwartz then asked Terminello if she could "do a line," referring to the ingestion of cocaine. In view of the circumstances, Terminello did allow Schwartz to taste the cocaine. Schwartz did this by opening the packet in plain view at the bar area and placing her finger into the container and then tasting the substance that adhered to her finger. She then handed the plastic bag back to Terminello and said "you are going to enjoy this. That's good stuff." These matters transpired in the presence of McQuire. The white powder was subsequently analyzed and revealed to be cocaine. On August 22, 1981, at approximately 11:00 P.M., Terminello returned to the licensed premises. Upon entry to the licensed premises, Terminello was greeted by Carl Bilotti who appeared to be leaving the bar at that time. Bilotti told Terminello he could be back in about one hour if Terminello wanted to wait for purposes of purchasing cocaine. Terminello told him he would wait. Following his conversation with Bilotti, Terminello spoke with the cocktail waitress Sandra McQuire asking her if there was any "toot" around, meaning cocaine. McQuire indicated that there was and it would cost $70.00. Terminello followed McQuire into the hallway outside the ladies' room where he handed her a hundred dollar bill and she handed him a plastic wrapped package containing white powder. A few minutes later, Terminello was sitting at the bar when McQuire returned and laid $30.00 in U.S. currency before Terminello stating "thank you very much." This material in the plastic bag which had been provided to Terminello by McQuire was subsequently determined to be cocaine. Terminello was still in the bar area at around 12:30 A.M. on August 23, 1981, and entered into a conversation with the manager of the licensed premises identified a "Anne" later shown to be Anne R. Milotta, also known as Ann Bilotti, the sister of Carl Bilotti. Terminello told Milotta that he felt that her brother Carl Bilotti was inconsiderate in that Terminello had planned to purchase cocaine from Bilotti that night and Bilotti had not come back to the premises. Milotta agreed with Terminello and told him that he could sit in the manager's office with her to have a drink and to wait for her brother to return. Milotta and Terminello went to the manager's office. While in that office, ,Milotta answered the telephone, gave directions to employees, answered questions, was observed to have the keys to the office, and at times was seen tending bar. These managerial activities were further substantiated on a later date based upon Terminello's procurement of a copy of an application which Milotta had made with the City of Hialeah, Florida, for an identification card in which she had listed herself as the "owner-manager of the licensed premises." While in the office with Milotta, she told Terminello that it was too bad that her brother had not yet come back so that Terminello could purchase cocaine. Terminello, during this conversation, indicated to Milotta that he had purchased cocaine from Sandy McQuire, the cocktail waitress, and Milotta stated to Terminello "how 'bout turning me on to a line" and Terminello responded "OK." Terminello removed the cocaine he had received from McQuire and handed it to Milotta. She opened it and tapped out two one and one half inch long "lines" of cocaine on the desk in the office and handed the package back to Terminello. Terminello then watched Milotta ingest one of the lines through her nose using a plastic straw and he in turn simulated that activity. At around 1:15 A.M., on August 23, 1981, Terminello indicated to Milotta that, in view of the fact that Carl Bilotti was not going to appear, he would like to purchase another gram of cocaine to keep him supplied for the upcoming week. Milotta stated she would get McQuire and exited the office and called McQuire in, telling her that Terminello wanted to purchase another gram of cocaine. McQuire indicated that this would not be a problem and removed another packet similar to the first from a large plastic bag she kept on her person. This large bag appeared to have twenty (20) to thirty (30) similar type packets within it. Terminello removed a hundred dollar bill from his wallet and handed it to Milotta who in turn handed it to McQuire. McQuire then reached over Milotta and handed Terminello the packet. Shortly after this exchange, McQuire left the office and Milotta continued in general conversation both in the bar and office area until Terminello left the premises at approximately 1:50 A.M. The second package that McQuire gave to Terminello was subsequently determined to be cocaine. On August 28, 1981, at approximately 10:30 A.M., Terminello went back to the licensed premises to continue the investigation. Upon entering the licensed premises he spoke with Carl Bilotti asking if he had any "toot," meaning cocaine. Bilotti stated that he did and that it would be the same price as usual, $70.00. A few minutes later, Bilotti walked up to Terminello who was sitting at the bar and handed him a plastic zip-lock bag containing white powder and Terminello gave him $70.00 in U.S. currency in exchange. The substance which Terminello had purchased from Bilotti was subsequently determined to be cocaine. A few minutes after the exchange of cocaine and currency, Anne Milotta approached Terminello in the bar area and invited him into the manager's office for a drink. When they entered the office, Milotta told Terminello that she had seen the transaction involving the sale of cocaine between Terminello and her brother and wanted to make sure that Terminello was satisfied with the "product." The conversation continued while Milotta intended her managerial duties of making schedules, and answering the telephone. At approximately 11:00 P.M., Milotta asked Terminello if she could "do a line" of his cocaine, meaning use the material. She indicated that she knew "this coke was as good as all the coke that Carl gets." Terminello complied with her request by handing her the plastic zip-lock bag that he had purchased from Carl Bilotti. She again placed two (2) "lines" of the cocaine on the desk and on this occasion used a twenty dollar bill which had been rolled up as a tool to ingest the cocaine in her nose. Terminello simulated the use of cocaine in her presence. Terminello then left the office and exited the licensed premises. On September 4, 1981, at approximately 9:30 P.M., Terminello went back to the licensed premises. When he entered the premises he spoke with Anne Milotta asking her if her brother had "any shit to sell," referring to cocaine. Milotta invited Terminello into her office indicating that her brother did not have cocaine for sale but that she did. Terminello told her that he wanted one (1) gram. She left the office and returned a few minutes later, at around 9:50 P.M., handing Terminello a piece of plastic wrapping containing white powder. Terminello handed her 580.00 in U.S. currency and she returned $5.00, stating that her price was $75.00. Subsequent analysis of the material which he had received from Milotta revealed the presence of cocaine. While in the office area, Milotta continued to perform managerial duties. As Terminello was preparing to leave the licensed premises on this date, Milotta approached him and gave him an additional $5.00 in U.S. currency stating that she had made a mistake and that a gram should only be $70.00 and that she did not want Terminello to think that she was "ripping him off." This discussion of money referred to the purchase of cocaine. On September 9, 1981, at around 10:10 P.M., Terminello went back to the licensed premises. He took a seat at the bar and waited for the appearance of Carl Bilotti. Bilotti entered the licensed premises at around 10:25 P.M. and Terminello asked him if he was "holding any shit," referring to cocaine. Bilotti stated that he was and that it was the usual price of $70.00. Bilotti and Terminello then went to the manager's office. Bilotti left Terminello in that office, shortly thereafter and following this sequence, Terminello gave Bilotti $70.00 in U.S. currency while in the office in exchange for a white piece of paper folded in four parts which contained white, powder. The analysis of this white powder material revealed cocaine. Terminello and Bilotti stayed in the office for a few minutes discussing general topics and the possibility of a large narcotics purchase in the future. Bilotti told Terminello that he would be better off buying a quarter ounce of cocaine for $425.00 rather than one gram at a time for $70.00. Terminello then left the licensed premises at approximately 10:45 P.M. On September 20, 1901, at approximately 12:15 A.M., Terminello returned to the licensed premises. He undertook a conversation with Carl Bilotti while standing near the outside of the front door. After a short conversation, Bilotti indicated that he had cocaine for sale. A few minutes later while inside the licensed premises, Bilotti waved Terminello into the manager's office where he removed a quantity of white powder from a large plastic bag and placed a small quantity of white powder into a piece of paper on the desk. He then folded the piece of paper and handed it to Terminello who handed Bilotti 570.00 in U.S. currency. This white powder was subsequently determined to be cocaine. At approximately 1:00 A.M., Terminello left the licensed premises. On September 26, 1981, at approximately 12:20 A.M., Terminello, while in the licensed premises, entered into a discussion with Carl Bilotti about a narcotics transaction involving the purchase of cocaine. Bilotti indicated that two (2) ounces of cocaine could be purchased for $1,700.00 an ounce and he stated that the safest place for the transaction to occur would be in the office at the licensed premises. On September 29, 1981, at around 11:15 P.M., Terminello and Carl Bilotti, while in the office at the licensed premises, confirmed a future purchase of two (2) ounces of cocaine. Bilotti explained to Terminello the packaging and adulterating procedures to be used in connection with selling the cocaine. On October 2, 1981, at approximately 12:45 A.M., in the office of the licensed premises, Anne Milotta told Terminello that she was aware of the pending large transaction for the purchase of cocaine between Terminello and Carl Bilotti and that her understanding was that the purchase was to occur later that evening. She further stated that due to her brother's unreliability she would also guarantee that two (2) ounces of cocaine would be in the office by 7:00 P.M. on October 2, 1981. On October 2, 1981, a search was made of the licensed premises in connection with a warrant issued by the Dade County Circuit Court. The search warrant was read to Dorothy Bilotti, a principal in the beverage license. During the course of the search, Cathryne Edmondson, one of the dancer/employees was found in possession of marijuana. On December 2, 1981, Carl Bilotti entered a plea of guilty to five (5) counts of sale of cocaine and five (5) counts of possession of cocaine. He was subsequently adjudicated guilty of the sale of cocaine and adjudication was withheld on the counts of possession of cocaine. These matters were in connection with a court case in the Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations in the Notice to Show Cause herein, Respondent, Grand Saloon Tavern, Inc., was the holder of a valid alcoholic beverage license number 15-00028, Series 4-COP issued by Petitioner (DABT) to Respondent for the Inner Room located at 74 North Orlando Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida. On the evening of April 24, 1984, Beverage Investigator Gloria Smith and Special Agent Terry Altman, both in an undercover capacity, entered Respondent's licensed premises and took a seat near the disc jockey's booth. Smith asked an employee of the bar, a dancer named Janice Decker, who used the stage name "Angel," whom she had met weeks previously and established a friendship with, if Angel could get her some cocaine. Angel agreed and made arrangements for some cocaine, which she told Smith and Altman would arrive in about a "half hour." Somewhat later, Angel came up to the two agents where they were sitting in the bar, told them the cocaine had arrived, and received a $100 bill from Smith. Smith saw Angel engage in an exchange between Angel and the courier known to Smith as "Tommy" after which Angel came back to the agents' table and delivered to them a match box and told them it contained cocaine in two half-gram packages. When Angel left the table, Smith opened the match box and observed it contained two clear plastic bags which both had a white powder in them subsequently properly identified as cocaine. She took one of the bags out of the match box to check it. In Altman's opinion, the disc jockey saw her do this but that individual denies having done so. He contends that, given her position in the booth, with the lights adjusted as they are, he cannot see the people sitting at the tables below him and he knows nothing of any sale of drugs by Angel to Smith. Smith and Altman had gone into the Inner Room as a part of an ongoing investigation of several establishments to see if they could purchase drugs in them. Smith had met Angel at the Show Bar, another Cocoa Beach bar, in early March when Angel, who was working there at the time, did a personal dance for Agent Altman. After that, she made several purchases from Angel at the Show Bar using the cover story that she the, widow of an older man, who had been left a good income, and was now out looking for some "fun" with some younger man of whom Altman was supposed to be one. She said she wanted the cocaine for recreational use. The first time she want into the Inner Room she went in part to meet people and see the atmosphere of the place. On the first occasion, when she asked for Angel, Angel was not there. Smith returned to the Inner Room on May 10, 1984, this time in the company of United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent Eslingor and the two of them sat along the east wall of the lounge. On this occasion, she met Mr. Johnson, one of the owners who introduced her to the other owner, Mr. Crockett. The licensed premises is divided into three general areas--a small lounge, a larger lounge, and a game room. The east wall, where Smith sat, is in the area near the disc jockey's booth. Smith spoke with Angel about Angel's inability to deliver the cocaine she had promised on a previous occasion and asked her if she knew of anyone else who might have any cocaine for sale. When inquiry by Angel failed to reveal any available sources that evening, Smith gave Angel $100.00 for 1 gram of cocaine to be delivered the next night. Just about that time, Smith observed another dancer, Danielle, going into the restroom and followed her in. She went after Danielle because, based on information she had received from a third dancer, Deosia, she thought Danielle might have some for sale. When she got into the restroom, Smith asked Danielle if she had any cocaine to which Danielle replied she had only a little in her personal stack, of which she could give Smith a "line." Danielle then poured some white powdery substance, subsequently identified as cocaine, from a plastic triangular bag into a cellophane cigarette wrapper and handed it to Smith. Smith does not recall if Danielle asked for payment, but when Smith handed her $5.00 and when asked if that was enough, Danielle replied, "That's what I usually get." When Smith and Eslinger went back the following night, approximately 11:15 p.m., Angel, to whom Smith had given $100.00 the previous evening, told her that she had the cocaine Smith had asked for. She then delivered the substance, later identified as cocaine, and stated that she had taken a "line" for herself out of it. Smith agreed to that. Smith does not recall if the cocaine was delivered in a matchbook or in a folded $1.00 bill. In either case, however, consistent with her routine practice, upon delivery she checked the delivered substance out in the open by opening the package, tapping the enclosure on the table, and examining it, a procedure, he feels, that takes about 10 seconds. On this occasion, as on all other occasions, when she was in this lounge, she sat in an area off to the side of the bar which is visible from all other areas of the bar except the entrance. There are also other tables there as well. On May 25, 1984, Smith, Altman and Eslinger went into the Inner Room, actually at about 12:15 a.m. on May 28. On this occasion, Angel told Smith she had gotten rid of the cocaine she had promised to get for Smith because she had fronted the money for it. However, she stated she would have her husband bring some more, and later the same evening came back to the table where Smith and the others were sitting, sat down with them, and handed Smith a folded $1.00 bill for which Smith gave her $100.00. From this $1.00 bill, Smith took a small plastic bag which contained a substance later identified as cocaine. Not all cocaine sales ware arranged at the licensed premises, however. On June 4, 1984, Agent Smith phoned Angel at home and suggested that Angel get her some cocaine and deliver it at the Inner Room. She thereafter took $100.00 to Angel at her home and made the definite arrangements for the delivery of the cocaine at the licensed premises. When Smith, Altman, and Eslinger went to the Inner Room at approximately 9:30 p.m. that evening, Angel came over to them and delivered a cigarette package to Smith. After Angel left, Smith took a plastic bag from the cigarette pack and checked it on top of the table so that it could be seen by other patrons and Hank, the manager, was standing over near the disco booth talking with two men who appeared to be Cocoa Beach police officers. Smith cannot say that her actions were seen by these people, but the package contained what was later identified as cocaine. Smith was not arrested by these police officers even though they did not know she was an undercover agent. This leads to the conclusion that her "checking out" of the deliveries was not so open or notorious as, by Smith's own admission, had they seen what she was doing, they probably would have had cause to arrest her. When Smith first bought cocaine from Angel in the Inner Room, she had already made two or three purchases from her at another bar in the area and it was always Smith who made the purchases. She also paid Angel to "dance" for her "boyfriend" Altman several times and for each "dance" paid Angel $3.00. Over the period of the investigation, including this establishment and others, she got to know Angel and liked her. In doing so, she built up Angel's trust in her which Angel contends was the only reason she sold Smith cocaine. Smith purchased from only Angel and Danielle at the Inner Room. There is no evidence of other drug sales by other employees to other agents nor does Smith have any personal knowledge of any drugs on the premises except for those forming the bases of the allegations here. Altman played the part of the hanger-on sponging off a rich lady consistent with Smith's cover story. He was introduced to one of the co-owners, Mr. Johnson, on one occasion but had no conversations with him or anyone else regarding drugs. He made no drug purchases because his DATF investigation related to firearms. Though he was in the Inner Room quite a few times with and without Smith, he never saw any independent opportunity to buy drugs except for Smith's buys and he has no personal knowledge of anyone other than Angel or Danielle who had drugs for sale or were dealing drugs there. While in the Inner Room, Smith had several general conversations with owner Johnson during which she says she may have mentioned her "mid-life crisis" cover story. She denies any conversations with him, however, in which she tried to entice him into using drugs with her or when he said he did not use drugs or permit them on the premises. She does not recall them discussing what steps he took to keep drugs out. She did not notice any posted rules or notices regarding drugs. On each occasion Smith was in the Inner Room, either one or both of the owners were there in addition to a manager. She does not know what this latter individual's responsibilities were. There were also always men at the door but she does not knew what their function was other than to collect the entrance fee. Angel, whose real name is Janice M. Decker, was employed at the Inner Room as a dancer. She had just returned there prior to April 24, 1984, after working at the Show Bar, another club in Cocoa Beach, for 9 months. Prior to that, she worked at the Inner Room for 3 1/2 years. When she was first hired, she was instructed by owners that their rules included no drugs, no alcohol, and no solicitation for prostitution on the premises and during the first 3 1/2 years she worked there, she never had any drugs or saw any there. She first met Agent Smith at the Show Bar in July 1983 and developed a friendship with her. Smith did not make any requests for cocaine until their fourth meeting. By this time, Angel had accepted Smith's cover story and thought she was a nice lady. They had talked of going shopping together and of going out to dinner with their respective man as couples. In fact, Smith gave Angel her home phone number, but whenever Smith would call Angel, she would say she was out of town. Smith's first request for cocaine from Angel came at the Show Bar. Angel contends that even though she did not use cocaine and did not have any, because of her friendship for Smith and the fact that she felt sorry for her, she agreed to try to get some from someone. She found a source and whenever she bought any for Smith, she would deliver all she got and keep more for herself. She also felt close enough to Smith to front the money for these purchases and each time Smith requested cocaine, the purchase details ware always secondary to social conversation and "girl talk." When Angel quit the Show Bar and went back to the Inner Room, though she had fears about bringing drugs into the premises because she knew the owners' anti-drug policy, she did so because: (1) she knew her reputation there was as a "straight," and (2) she felt sorry for Smith and wanted to help her. As a result, she deceived her employers. On several of the occasions alleged, Angel didn't want be deliver on the premises but Smith insisted she deliver there. Their agreement was to meet outside for the transfer on two occasions, but each time Smith was not there and since Angel had to go to work, she had to go inside and when Smith showed up deliver there. Aside from the sales to Smith, Angel contends she has never had any drugs inside the Inner Room, nor has she ever seen any other employee with it in their possession there. She got the cocaine from a supplier she knows as Terry who she would meet at McDonald's-- never her husband. When she would get cocaine for Smith, she would keep it in her work purse with her in the lounge and not in her street purse in her locker. Neither she nor her locker has ever been searched for drugs. In her opinion, the licensees run a legitimate operation. They are strict about people who break the rules and seem to know what is going on there. Either one or both owners are on the premises every night along with two security people. This opinion is shared by other club employees like the dancers Angie and Danielle. Angie worked for the licensees for 11 months before they closed on June 8 and never saw any drug dealings or employees with drugs on the premises. Customers have asked her about drugs on various occasions but she always refused to get involved. When she was hired, she was advised that the club rules included no use or sale of drugs and called for the employee to be fired if this rule was violated. Danielle, who has worked there for 9 or 10 months, had the same understanding of the rules. When she was hired, she was given a copy of the posted rules and the owners have periodic meetings of the employees at which they are reminded of the rules regarding no alcohol, no drugs, no prostitution, and the need to report any infractions. She knew that a violation of those rules would result in termination. Regarding the sale to Smith, Danielle admits the transfer, but contends she at first refused and gave Smith the cocaine only after Smith said it was for her boyfriend who needed it badly. She didn't ask Smith for any money, intending it to be a gift even though she had never met Smith before. After the transfer, Smith threw her $5.00 and left. She is concerned about her job even though she has not been told she was fired. The disc jockey, Ken Carlin, who has worked at the Inner Room for 4 years, relates much the same story regarding the owners' efforts to keep drugs out as do the dancers. There are frequent meetings of all personnel regarding illegal activities and anyone caught involved in them is fired. Whereas the dancers disclaim any knowledge of any employees involved in drugs, Mr. Carlin, however, indicates at least one a month is fired. This must be for other reasons, however, because, according to him, he has seen drugs on the premises only once about a year ago and had fired the dancer who had them immediately. In addition to his job as disc jockey, his responsibilities also include policing the premises on a frequent basis and this includes inspecting the dancers' dressing room which he does about three times each night. When he does these inspections, he does not go into the house, however. In addition to the owners, the managers and Carlin, all of whom exercise the responsibility to check the premises for drugs, Gary O. Greenwald, one of the doormen and bouncers, also patrols the inside for violations. He has bean briefed regarding certain known drug users or dealers who are barred from entering the club. He has also been instructed to throw anyone suspected of possessing drugs out and if anyone is caught with it, he is to hold that person and call the police. During the three months he has worked there, ha has not observed any drugs on the premises. The Inner Room's reputation with at least a portion of the Cocoa Beach police force is high. William McDonald, who has been an officer for 11 years, has visited the licensed premises two or three times a week for 11 years and has never, at any time, seen any drug activity there. He has been called there by the owners several times (never for drugs) and has made some arrests for such offenses as drunk and disorderly, firearms, and assaults. In his opinion, none of the bars in the area are completely drug-free, but comparing this bar with others in the area, it is run better because the owners are more conscientious. Mr. Johnston has talked with him repeatedly about the effort made to keep drug activity out of the bar and considering the fact that the owners are not police, he feels they do a good job of it. So, too, does David E. Schoch, also a Cocoa Beach Police Officer who has gone into the Inner Room three to four times a week on duty and at least one night a week off duty for the past several months. In all that time, he has never seen drugs on the premises except one time when he was called there on duty. By the time he arrived, one of the owners and the bouncer had the situation under control and had confiscated some cocaine. He finds this bar to be one of the better and safer bars in the area due to the preventive actions of the management. He is convinced it is one of the more drug-free bars in the area due primarily to these efforts and considers that, considering their lack of training, the owners do a good job of it. Lamar L. Johnston has been a co-owner of the Inner Room with Jesse Crockett for 8 1/2 years. During that time, the bar has never been cited for any infractions of the beverage laws. He has what is to him a lot of money invested in this bar and to keep from losing it, he has worked hard and been through in indoctrinating his people on the no drug policy. He has published a list of employee rules which are made known to every employee at monthly meetings and are posted in the dancers' dressing room, behind the bar, and in the disc jockey booth. He keeps tabs not only on his employees but also on his clientele and if he sees someone in the bar who he knows to be involved in any type of illegal activity, he advises his bouncers to keep that person out. He personally patrols the bar on a regular basis each night and has his disc jockey, managers, 2 bouncers, and security men do the same. He requests the Police Department to come in on duty and has given off-duty policemen passes to come in without paying the admission charge. With the exception of the one occasion described by Officer McDonald, he has never seen any drugs in his club. With regard be the personnel he hires, he keeps tabs on all dancers in the area including as far away as Orlando and Daytona Beach, by real and stage names, who have been arrested or fired for prostitution or drugs. If one of these apply for work, he will not hire them. However, he contends he cannot prevent an employee from breaking a rule if that person is bent on doing so. All he can do is publicize the rules and warn his employees of the consequences of breaking them. He checks the dressing room six times a night and, recognizing that thirty pairs of eyes are better than one, put into effect the rule relating to firing employees who have knowledge of but fail to report drug activity. His bar is not brightly lighted because, in his experience, bar patrons do not like a brightly lighted bar. Because of that, he tries to patrol as much as possible. On top of that, his lounge caters to a higher element clientele such as engineers from Cape Kennedy Space Center, Administrators from Brevard Community College, and professional people. His bouncers are instructed to keep the lower element out and a dress code is enforced.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Alice Waldo, holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 45- 00293, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as the SILVER DOLLAR CAFE located in Lake County, Florida. On or about February 4, 1989, an investigator employed by Petitioner entered the licensed premises of Respondent. While in Respondent's facility, the investigator observed several patrons smoking a substance, which by its smell and usage, he believed to be marijuana. The investigator then met with a patron, ordered a small quantity of crack cocaine and handed the patron some money for the forthcoming purchase. The patron then asked Respondent to hold the money while he left the premises to retrieve the controlled substance from his automobile. Shortly thereafter, the patron returned with the cocaine. The investigator showed the substance to Respondent's daughter, who had taken her mother's place at the bar. The purpose of displaying the drug to the proprietor, or the proprietor's daughter in this instance, was to later illustrate that Respondent condoned the use and sale of the drug in connection with her licensed premises. A field test by the investigator and a later laboratory test confirmed the identity of the substance purchased as crack cocaine. Petitioner's investigator again entered Respondent's facility on or about February 10, 1989. On this occasion, the investigator purchased a quantity of marijuana from a female patron, then took the substance over to the bar where he proceeded to roll a marijuana cigarette in the presence of Petitioner. At no time did Petitioner inform the investigator that controlled substances were not allowed on the licensed premises. Upon later laboratory analysis, the substance was confirmed to be marijuana. Upon leaving Respondent's facility on February 10, 1989, Petitioner's investigator met an individual within 10 feet of the front door of the premises who sold him a quantity of a substance later determined by laboratory analysis to be crack cocaine. On or about February 24, 1989, Petitioner's investigator entered Respondent's facility. On the front porch of Respondent's facility, the investigator purchased a quantity of a substance later determined by the investigator's field test and a subsequent laboratory analysis to be crack cocaine. After completing the purchase of the substance, the investigator went inside the facility, placed the material on the counter and recounted to Respondent that it had just been purchased on the front porch. Respondent made no reply to the investigator's announcement and, instead, complied with his request for change for a $20 bill. Upon receipt of the change, the investigator wrapped the crack cocaine in a $1 bill in Respondent's presence. On February 28, 1989, Petitioner's investigator again entered Respondent's facility. He approached a black female named "Lilly" and gave her $20 for the purchase of crack cocaine. However, after the lady accepted the $20 and left to retrieve the cocaine, she did not return. The investigator complained to Respondent that "Lilly" had failed to deliver the drug to him. The investigator also told Respondent that the lady could keep the $20 if Respondent would get him some of the drug. At that time, Respondent referred the investigator to a group of three male patrons on the front porch of the facility who appeared to be smoking marijuana. At no time during this incident did Respondent take any steps to prevent the use of any controlled substances on the licensed premises. Subsequently, Petitioner's investigator returned to Respondent's facility on or about March 4, 1989. He purchased a beer and went outside to the front porch of the facility. He observed a number of furtive transactions where currency was passed between certain individuals. He noticed Respondent go to one of the automobiles in the facility parking lot, get into the automobile, engage in conversation with the occupants and shortly thereafter emerge from the automobile. Respondent went back into the facility. The investigator approached a black male and gave him $20 for some crack cocaine. The black male took the investigator's money, then went directly to the automobile where Respondent had been previously. He returned shortly thereafter to the investigator with two pieces of a substance which later tested positive, via field test and laboratory analysis, as cocaine. During another visit to Respondent's facility on or about March 9, 1989, Petitioner's investigator observed a patron rolling what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes in Respondent's presence. While Respondent took no action to prohibit the use or possession of the apparently controlled substance, she did get her coat and leave shortly after the investigator's arrival. On or about March 11, 1989, Petitioner's investigator reentered Respondent's facility. The investigator purchased a small quantity of crack cocaine from a black male on the front porch of the facility. The investigator then took the controlled substance inside the building and displayed it to Respondent, telling her that he had just obtained the drug on the porch. Respondent asked the investigator if he was going to smoke the drug, and he replied yes. Later, a field test and laboratory analysis confirmed the drug to be cocaine. On or about March 17, 1989, Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's facility. This time the investigator purchased a small quantity of a drug on the front porch of the building which, upon subsequent field test and laboratory analysis, was confirmed to be cocaine. After completing the purchase, the investigator took the substance inside and showed it to Respondent. Later in the evening, the investigator engaged Respondent in conversation on the front porch and related to her that he had observed numerous drug transactions taking place in her facility. Respondent smiled in acknowledgment of the investigator's statement and replied that she certainly hoped he was not a policeman. He told her that he was not a policeman. Respondent took no action to prohibit further use or transactions relating to drugs on the premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Respondent's beverage license bearing number 45-00293, Series 2- COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1989 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-10. Addressed. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: EDWIN R. IVY, ESQUIRE BOX 3223 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 THOMAS A. KLEIN, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 STEPHEN R. MACNAMARA, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 LEONARD IVEY, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007
The Issue Whether or not on or about October 7, 1977, The Casino, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, did sell an alcoholic beverage, to-wit: beer, in a place located at 4465 49th Street North, St Petersburg, Florida, a premises not covered by its beverage license as described in the application therefor, contrary to Section 562.06, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about October 7, 1977, The Casino, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, did conspire with James Tarpey to carry out an act, to- wit: sale of alcoholic beverages without a license, which would be or is in violation of the provisions of the Beverage Law, contrary to Section 562.23, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At the time the current Notice to Show Caused Administrative Complaint was brought by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, the Respondent, The Casino, Inc. , was the holder of a Series 2-COP license, No. 62-545, to trade as Satan's Den at the location 4495 49th Street, St. Petersburg, Florida. Although the license most recently issued to the Respondent expired on September 30, 1978, the matter was in litigation at the time of the expiration and the license remaining in effect pending the outcome of this hearing. 1/ The facts in dispute reveal that on October 7, 1977, Severage Officer William R. Wiggs went to a business location at 4465 49th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida, being operated by the Respondent. Then Wiggs arrived at the door, he was charged $3.00 to enter that building and was told that while he was in the building any alcoholic beverage he consumed would be free. He entered the building and was served an alcoholic beverage on four occasions by an employee or employees of the Respondent. The proximity of the building at which Beverage Officer Wiggs was served alcoholic beverages on October 7, 1977, to the actual licensed premises location is shown in the Petitioner's Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence. This exhibit is a diagram of the licensed premises and the building in question, roughly depicting their position in reference to each other and to 49th Street. The rectangular figure marked with an X shows the location 4465 49th Street North and the rectangular figure marked with a zero depicts the licensed premises shown by the records of the Petitioner and on the face of the license. Subsequent to his visit, Officer Wiggs requested a search warrant to be issued by the County Court of Pinellas County, Florida, and that warrant was issued which allowed a search of the building at 4465 49th Street North. The warrant was executed on October 11, 1977, and those matters returned in inventory are shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the inventory. Among the items which were obtained from the building were beer, wine and whiskey. The facts in the case also show that beer had been delivered to the location at 4465 49th. Street North to the Respondent trading as Satan's Den and the deliveries were made in the beginning of October, 1977, around the time of Officer "Wiggs' initial trip to that location and the time of the execution of the search warrant. On October 13, 1977, James Tarpey, President of the Respondent corporation, called the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in the person of Norman J. Stephens and stated to Stephens that the beer which had been seized at the time of the execution of the search warrant was property which Tarpey owned.
Recommendation Based upon the violation as established, it is RECOMMENDED that the license of the Respondent, The Casino, Inc., License 62-545, Series 2-COP, be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend, revoke, and/or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license. The primary grounds for the proposed disciplinary action are that the licensee has permitted patrons on the licensed premises to sell cocaine on numerous occasions in violation of various statutory provisions. The specific allegations are set forth in a Notice To Show Cause dated February 27, 1989. An Emergency Order Of Suspension was served on the Respondent on February 27, 1989. The Respondent requested an emergency hearing, which was conducted on March 7, 1989. Both parties offered evidence at the hearing. Following the hearing the parties requested and were allowed until March 17, 1989, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The Petitioner filed a timely proposed recommended order. The Respondent has not filed any post-hearing documents. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Ocean Drive Hotel Corporation, d/b/a/ Ocean Haven Restaurant, is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License Number 23-3568, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Ocean Haven Restaurant, which is located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. The licensed premises are located in a neighborhood which is somewhat less than wholesome; a neighborhood in which there is a substantial amount of illegal drug related activity. It is a neighborhood in which it is not uncommon for police officers to observe people who have been previously arrested for drug violations. The Respondent corporation owns the licensed premises, as well as the hotel premises of which the licensed premises are a part. The Respondent corporation is owned by Mr. Heriberto Velasco. Mr. Velasco is the president of the Respondent corporation and he is the manager of both the hotel and the restaurant businesses. Mr. Velasco lives in the hotel with his wife, his mother, and one of his sons. Mr. Velasco takes most of his meals in the restaurant which comprises the licensed premises, and usually visits the licensed premises at least three times a day for that purpose. There is no evidence that he regularly spends any other time supervising activities in the restaurant. There are four employees in the restaurant that comprises the licensed premises. Two of those employees are Gloria E. Berlioz and Antonia Rodriguez de Alcina. The latter is also known by the name of Nora. Ms. Berlioz and Ms. Alcina have both been employees on the licensed premises for a year or two. Ms. Alcina is employed as a waitress. Ms. Berlioz is employed as a cook. During the course of an undercover investigation during the months of January and February of 1989, the following transactions involving controlled substances took place within the licensed premises: On January 10, 1989, a patron known as Loraine sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 18, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 19, 1989, an unknown white Latin male patron sold cocaine to a patron named Tommy. On January 25, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 26, 1989, an unknown Latin male patron sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 6, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 7, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet in two separate transactions. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also sold cocaine to Investigator Lerra. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet, in two separate transactions. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also delivered cocaine to an unknown white male patron. On February 22, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in the preceding paragraph, the people involved in the transactions discussed the subject of drug transactions in normal conversational tones of voice. During the majority of those conversations, either Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have heard the conversations. During some of the conversations, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter, within two or three feet from the conversations. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, the drugs involved in the transactions were openly displayed on the table top or on the counter top in front of the participants to the transactions. In each of the transactions involving purchases by Investigator Huguet, the investigator attempted to be obvious about what he was doing by holding the drugs in front of his face to inspect them before putting the drugs in his pocket. During the vast majority of those transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have observed the transactions. During some of the transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter within two or three feet from the drug transactions. One of the drug transactions took place while Mr. Heriberto Velasco was standing several feet away. All of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place within the licensed premises during business hours when employees and patrons were present on the licensed premises. None of the employees ever called the police or asked any of the parties to the drug transactions to leave the licensed premises. Mr. Heriberto Velasco was aware that the licensed premises are located in a neighborhood in which there is a high level of illegal drug activity. Nevertheless, he did not take any special precautions to prevent or detect drug activity on the licensed premises other than to tell the employees to let him know if they saw any drug activity. Mr. Heriberto Velasco has never asked the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for assistance or suggestions with respect to preventing or eliminating drug activity on the licensed premises, even though the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco advises all licensees of the availability of such assistance. Mr. Heriberto Velasco did not have actual knowledge that drug transactions were taking place on the licensed premises. He is opposed to drug trafficking and he has not knowingly permitted sales of drugs in his hotel or on the licensed premises. He has instructed his employees in the hotel and in the restaurant to call him if they observe any drug related activity so that he can throw out anyone involved in such activity. He has thrown people out of the hotel when he suspected they were involved in drug related activities. The employees in the licensed premises never told him about any drug related activity on the premises. Mr. Velasco never observed any activity on the licensed premises that he thought was drug related activity. Mr. Velasco does not know what crack cocaine looks like. Mr. Eric Velasco is the 20-year-old son of Mr. Heriberto Velasco. The son lives at the hotel with his parents and helps with the management of the hotel and restaurant to the extent he can between going to college and working at another near-by job. Mr. Eric Velasco has never observed any activity in the licensed premises that appeared to him to be drug related activity. He does not know what crack cocaine looks like. In brief summary, the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place in plain view within the licensed premises. The open exchanges of drugs and money in conjunction with the open conversations about drug transactions demonstrate a persistent pattern of open and flagrant drug activity. The subject drug transactions were sufficiently open that they would have been noticed by a reasonably diligent licensee.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in this case revoking the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 23-3568, series 2-COP, for the premises located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1096 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Further, some details proposed in this paragraph are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Accepted in substance, with many subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21: Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by Respondent (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Gino P. Negretti, Esquire 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Florida corporation. Gary Popkin is its sole corporate officer and stockholder. He holds the positions of President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the holder of alcoholic beverage license #16- 03 032 2-COP issued by Petitioner. The licensed business is a bar that operates under the name of Lynda's Lounge. It is located at 8007-8009 Kimberly Boulevard in North Lauderdale, Florida. C.G. is a paid confidential informant. The North Lauderdale Police Department is among the law enforcement agencies for whom he works. On the afternoon of July 19, 1989, C.G. entered Lynda's Lounge, sat down and ordered a drink. While in the bar, C.G. was approached by Vinnie Lavarello, another of the bar's patrons. They were joined by Popkin. A conversation ensued. Popkin advised C.G. that he had some "good pot" and asked him if he wanted to buy some. He suggested that C.G. act quickly because he only had a little left. Both Popkin and Lavarello told C.G. that there was no need to worry because everyone in the bar "smoked pot" and was "cool." C.G. informed Popkin that he would "let him know." He thereupon left the bar and paged Detective Gary Harris of the North Lauderdale Police Department. Harris instructed C.G. to meet him at the North Lauderdale police station, which is a short distance from the bar. In accordance with Harris' instructions, C.G. went to the police station. He provided Harris with a description of Lavarello and Popkin, as well as their names. Harris searched C.G. and C.G.'s car for drugs and found none. He then gave C.G. $20.00 with which to purchase marijuana from Popkin. C.G. drove back to the bar. He was followed by Harris in another vehicle. They arrived at the bar at approximately 5:55 p.m.. C.G. entered the bar, while Harris waited outside. Once in the bar, C.G. walked up to Lavarello and indicated that he was interested in consummating the deal they had discussed earlier that day. Popkin apparently overheard C.G. He gave C.G. a package containing marijuana (cannabis). In return, C.G. gave Popkin the $20.00 he had been given by Harris. Following this transaction, there was a discussion concerning the possibility of C.G. purchasing additional drugs, including cocaine, from Popkin. Popkin quoted C.G. prices for various quantities of the drug and encouraged C.G. to come back and do business with him. At approximately 6:10 p.m., fifteen minutes after he entered the bar, C.G. left and drove in his vehicle to a prearranged location to meet Harris. Harris observed C.G. leave the bar and followed C.G. in his vehicle to their predetermined meeting place. After they both exited their vehicles, C.G. handed Harris the marijuana he had purchased from Popkin and told Harris what had happened in the bar. Harris field tested the marijuana. It tested positive. Harris placed the marijuana in a sealed bag and forwarded it to the crime laboratory of the Broward Sheriff's Office. Tests performed at the crime laboratory reflected that the substance that Popkin had sold C.G. was indeed marijuana. After consulting with Harris regarding the matter, C.G. returned to Lynda's Lounge on July 21, 1989, to make arrangements to purchase an ounce of cocaine. As he had been told to do by Popkin, C.G. discussed the matter with Lavarello. C.G. and Lavarello agreed on a purchase price. C.G. then left the bar to get money to make the purchase. After leaving the bar, C.G. went to the North Lauderdale police station and met with Harris. Harris searched C.G. and C.G.'s vehicle for drugs and found none. He then gave C.G. money with which to purchase an ounce of cocaine from Lavarello. Although C.G. and Lavarello had agreed upon a purchase price of $700.00, because it is a common practice of drug dealers to raise their prices immediately before the transaction is to take place, Harris gave C.G. $800.00 in the event Lavarello raised his price. C.G. then drove back to the bar, followed by Harris in another vehicle. After parking, C.G. exited his vehicle and entered the bar. Harris remained outside, across the street from the bar. C.G. approached Lavarello. It was too noisy inside the bar to talk so C.G. and Lavarello left and continued their conversation in C.G.'s vehicle, which was parked in the lot in front of the bar. Lavarello indicated to C.G. that he did not have the cocaine with him and needed to pick it up, but that C.G. would have to give him the entire purchase price before he did so. C.G. then excused himself. He thereupon contacted Harris and they both returned to the North Lauderdale police station. Harris did not want C.G. to give Lavarello that much money and have to wait for the cocaine to be delivered. He therefore decided to have C.G. purchase an eighth of an ounce, instead of an ounce, of cocaine from Lavarello, the purchase price of which, C.G. had been told, was $150.00. Accordingly, Harris took back $600.00 of the $800.00 he had given C.G. earlier that day. Harris then again searched C.G. for drugs and found none. C.G. thereupon headed directly back to the bar, with Harris following behind him in another vehicle. C.G. met with Lavarello at the bar. He told Lavarello that he wanted to purchase a eighth of an ounce, rather than an ounce, of cocaine. He gave Lavarello $200.00 and made arrangements to meet Lavarello later that day at the bar to receive delivery of the cocaine he had purchased. At Lavarello's request, C.G. drove Lavarello to Lavarello's girlfriend's house. C.G. then returned to the North Lauderdale police station. At all times during this journey, C.G. and his vehicle were under Harris' observation. At the police station, Harris again searched C.G. for contraband and found none. Later that day, C.G. and Harris went back to Lynda's Lounge in separate vehicles. Harris remained outside, as C.G. exited his vehicle and headed towards the front door of the bar, where he encountered Lavarello. C.G. and Lavarello then proceeded to C.G.'s vehicle, where Lavarello handed C.G. a package containing cocaine. Upon receiving the package, C.G. complained that it appeared that he had received less cocaine than he had been promised. Lavarello admitted that he had given his girlfriend some of the cocaine that originally had been intended for C.G. To compensate for the missing cocaine, Lavarello gave C.G. a package containing marijuana. In addition to the cocaine and marijuana, Lavarello also gave C.G. a $20.00 bill and a gas receipt reflecting the amount of money he had paid for gasoline during his trip to pick up the cocaine. Following this transaction, C.G. and Lavarello went their separate ways. As he had done after the buy he had made on July 19, 1989, C.G. met Harris at a prearranged location. He handed Harris everything that Lavarello had given him. Harris searched C.G. and found no additional contraband. Harris then field tested both the cocaine and the marijuana. The test results were positive. After conducting these field tests, Harris placed the cocaine and marijuana in a sealed bag and forwarded the bag to the crime laboratory of the Broward Sheriff's Office. Tests performed at the crime laboratory reflected that the substances in question were indeed cocaine and marijuana. Popkin and Lavarello were subsequently arrested by Harris. 1/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes, charged in the January 9, 1990, Notice to Show Cause and revoking alcoholic beverage license #16-03032 2- COP held by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this & day of October, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675
The Issue This case concerns an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent. Count I to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: Penny Reid, related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on July 26, 1981, and August 22, 1981. Count II to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: Penny Reid, related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on July 16, 1981, and July 20, 1981, and September 9, 1981. In addition, there are allegations of a sale of lysergic acid diethylamid, on July 16, 1981. 2/ Count III to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Eve" related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on August 14, 1981, and with the sale of the substance cocaine, on August 15, 1981. Count IV to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Kitty," related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on August 15, 1981, and with the sale of the substance cocaine on September 26, 1981. Count V to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03, 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Orlando," related to sales of the substance cannabis, on July 26, 1981. Count VI to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03, 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Julie," related to sales of the substance cocaine on September 26, 1981. Count VII to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent, between July 16, 1981, and October 2, 1981, of maintaining a place, namely the licensed premises, which was used for keeping or selling controlled substances, in particular methaqualone, cocaine and cannabis, in violation of Subsections 893.13(2)(a).5 and 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Count VIII contends that between July 16, 1981, and October 2, 1981, the Respondent, by actions of its agents, servants or employees and patrons, kept or maintained the building or place which was used for illegal keeping, selling or delivering of substances controlled under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, and in doing so violated Section 823.10, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Count IX accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Annie D. Bryant, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count X accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Danita Buchin, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count XI accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Barbara Jean O'Rourke, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count XII accuses the Respondent, on April 20, 1981, through its corporate officers, directors, stockholders, employees, agents, or servants, of failing to file a sworn declaration of the transfer of voting stock of the corporate licensee, in violation of Rule 7A-3.37, Florida Administrative Code. Count XIII accuses the Respondent, through actions of its corporate officers, directors, stockholders, employees, agents, or servants, on May 4, 1981, of failing to notify the Petitioner of a change of corporate officers within ten (10) days of that change, in particular, within ten (10) days of the resignation of George and Florrie Pappas, as corporate officers and directors of the corporate licensee, in violation of Rule 7A-2.07(2), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Effective August 18, 1980, Pappas Enterprises, Inc., which trades or does business as Foremost Liquors and Hideaway Lounge, at 1005 East 49th Street, in Hialeah, Dade County, Florida, was licensed by the Petitioner to sell alcoholic beverages. At that time, the sole officers listed for the corporation were George and Florrie Pappas. George Pappas was listed as the sole shareholder. In May, 1981, Miguel Rodriguez purchased the shares in the corporation, Pappas Enterprises, Inc. At that time, in his attorney's office, he executed a personal data sheet and certificate of incumbency for the benefit of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; however, this personal data sheet proposing Rodriguez as a new officer and shareholder of the subject corporation was not filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco until October 14, 1981. Furthermore, the first official request for change of corporate officers, owners and shareholders from the Pappases to Rodriguez was not filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco until November 4, 1981. Prior to October 14, 1981, the Respondent corporation, in the person of Miguel Rodriguez, was served with a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint containing the first eight (8) counts alluded to in the Issues statement in this Recommended Order. The date of this service was October 2, 1981. Subsequent to that time, an amendment was allowed adding the remaining counts to the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent, through actions of Miguel Rodriguez, in his effort to protect his interest in the Respondent corporation, which he had purchased, and in view of the fact that he had effective control of the licensed premises during all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, has requested a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, following service of him at the licensed premises as agent in fact for the corporation. The hearing was allowed to go forward upon the request made by Rodriguez because Rodriguez's substantial interests are at stake. The requested transfer of ownership and substitution of officers filed on November 4, 1981, is unresolved pending the outcome of the proceedings herein. See Subsection 561.32(2), Florida Statutes. On July 15, 1981, in the evening hours, Beverage Officer, Louis J. Terminello, went to the licensed premises known as the Hideaway for purposes of conducting an undercover narcotics investigation. Once he had entered the premises, he spoke with one of the employees, Penny Reid, a dancer. Upon his inquiry concerning the subject of narcotics Reid told him that she would sell him methaqualone tablets for $3.00 each and lysergic acid diethylamid (LSD) for $5.00 per dosage. In order to consummate the transaction, she explained that she would need to leave the licensed premises. Around 12:15 A.M. on July 16, 1981, Reid approached Miguel Rodriguez and asked permission to leave the licensed premises. She was granted that permission and Reid and Terminello went to a residence location off the licensed premises where a purchase was made of ten (10) methaqualone tablets and four (4) units of LSD at the unit prices as have been indicated. The Beverage Officer and dancer then returned to the licensed premises around 1:30 A.M. On July 20, 1981, at around 9:45 P.M., Officer Robert Chastain entered the licensed premises and spoke with Penny Reid. This conversation ensued when Reid approached Chastain. The subject of drugs was discussed and subsequent to that time, Reid received permission to leave the licensed premises. (She was still employed by the Respondent.) On the date above, Reid and Chastain went to a residence and purchased ten (10) methaqualone tablets. The price for the tablets was $30.00. When they returned to the bar, while in the premises, Reid removed one methaqualone tablet from the napkins in which they were wrapped and gave Chastain nine (9) tablets. Terminello came back to the licensed premises on the evening of July 25, 1981, and spoke with the dancer Reid. During the conversation methaqualone was discussed and she indicated that she did not have that substance at the time. She said she might have some of the material available to her later that night. Reid left the licensed premises around 11:35 P.M. on July 25, 1981, to return around 11:55 P.M. While in the licensed premises she exchanged five (5) methaqualone tablets at $3.00 per tablet, in return for $15.00 on July 26, 1981. This transaction took place in the hall area near the rest rooms in the licensed premises and no effort was made on the part of Reid to disguise the transaction. On July .26, 1981, during his visit to the licensed premises, at approximately 1:30 A.M., Officer Terminello spoke to a man who identified himself as "Orlando" and who claimed to be a manager at the premises and the son of Miguel Rodriguez. In fact, "Orlando" was not a manager at the licensed premises nor the son of Rodriguez. During this conversation, Terminello asked "Orlando" where he could get coke, meaning the controlled substance cocaine. "Orlando" responded that he might get the cocaine on some occasion but not on that evening. "Orlando" did give Officer Terminello marijuana, also known as cannabis, a controlled substance. This item was given to Officer Terminello as he was departing the premises on July 26, 1981. Terminello returned to the licensed premises on August 14, 1981, around 9:45 P.M. On that evening, he spoke with a dancer identified to him as "Eve" who was later determined to be Eve Mae Carroll. Carroll was employed as a dancer in the licensed premises. While seated at a table near the front door, Carroll told Terminello that she would sell "quaaludes" meaning methaqualone at a price of $2.50 a tablet and a total of three (3) tablets. Terminello paid her the prescribed price and she delivered the substance methaqualone to him while seated at the table. She also indicated that she would sell him cocaine at a later time, in that she was expecting a delivery of that substance. At around 12:30 A.M. on August 15, 1981, a further discussion was held between Terminello and Carroll and while standing at the bar, Terminello purchased cocaine from Carroll. On August 15, 1981, at around 12:45 A.M., Terminello spoke with another dancer employed in the licensed premises who was identified as "Kitty" whose actual name is Kathleen Keddie, who explained to him that she had some "ludes," meaning methaqualone. She wanted $4.00 for each tablet and while seated at a table in the bar area, Terminello purchased two (2) methaqualone tablets from Kitty. On August 22, 1981, Terminello was back in the licensed premises at approximately 9:50 P.M. and was seated at the bar talking to Penny Reid who told him she was going to get some "ludes," methaqualone. This activity was to occur on her next break from dancing as an employee in the licensed premises. She left the licensed premises with a patron and returned at around 10:25P.M. and handed Terminello a paper towel containing five (5) methaqualone tablets for which he paid her $15.00. On September 9, 1981, Terminello was again at the licensed premises and was approached by Penny Reid. He asked her for "ludes or acid" meaning methaqualone or LSD, respectively. She told Terminello that she would have to go to a house to obtain these items. She then asked the manager to leave and Terminello and Reid went to the residence where methaqualone was purchased and suspected LSD as requested by Terminello. (She was still employed by the Respondent.) On September 16, 1981, while pursuing the investigation, Terminello again returned to the licensed premises and spoke with Reid who was still an employee at the premises. She told Terminello that she could go to a residence and obtain narcotics. At this time Terminello was accompanied by another Beverage Officer, Robert Chastain. After entering into a discussion on the evening in question, the two (2) officers went with Reid to an off-premises residence where methaqualone and suspected LSD were purchased. On this occasion, Reid took part of the methaqualone purchased as a "tip" and carried those methaqualone tablets back into the licensed premises when the officers and the dancer returned to the licensed premises. On September 19, 1981, Officer Terminello talked to Reid who remained employed at the licensed premises and the discussion concerned narcotics. Then they left the licensed premises and went to a residence where cocaine and methaqualone were purchased. Reid kept three (3) of the methaqualone tablets as a "tip" and she carried those methaqualone tablets back into the licensed premises when Terminello and the dancer returned to the bar. When they had returned to the licensed premises on September 19, 1981, Terminello was approached in the bar by a Michael Harrington who asked Terminello if he wanted to buy coke, meaning cocaine. Harrington then indicated that they should go out into the parking lot of the premises which they did and in the presence of another patron, Alexis Pagan, Terminello purchased a gram of cocaine. On September 25, 1981, Terminello returned to the licensed premises and spoke to an employee/dancer previously identified as Kathleen Keddie. Keddie told him that her "old man" could bring some cocaine into the premises and make some of it available to Terminello. This conversation took place around 9:45 P.M. on that evening. At approximately 12:05 A.M. on September 26, 1981, while seated at the bar, Terminello purchased approximately one (1) gram of cocaine from Keddie for $75.00. In the early morning hours of September 26, 1981, Terminello was also approached by a Julie Murphy who was employed as a cocktail waitress in the licensed premises and she told Terminello that she could sell him cocaine cheaper, at $55.00 a gram. She indicated she would serve as a go-between, intermediary, and told Terminello to leave the premises and come back later. Terminello left and returned at around 3:00 A.M., and while at the bar, purchased the cocaine from Murphy at the agreed upon price of $55.00. During the course of Terminello's investigation at the licensed premises, on a number of occasions he saw people sniffing what, from his expertise in law enforcement, appeared to be cocaine and, from the appearance and odor, using cigarettes thought to be marijuana. These activities occurred in the bathroom areas, halls and package store area. Augusto Garcia who was employed as a manager in the licensed premises was observed at times in the proximity of the activities referred to immediately above and Garcia was also observed by Officer Terminello in the men's room snorting what appeared to be cocaine. On one occasion Garcia was observed near the front door to the bar and package area where a marijuana type cigarette was being smoked in the presence of Garcia, by an employee who worked in the package store. Reid had also told Terminello that she had been fired as an employee at the licensed premises because she was so "luded" out that she fell off the stage. Nonetheless, she had been rehired. Terminello had observed Miguel Rodriguez in the licensed premises during the course of the investigation, mostly in the package store and on occasion in the bar area. Terminello did not speak with Rodriguez during the investigation. On October 2, 1981, the petitioning agency served the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint at the licensed premises. Following this service, an inspection was conducted in the licensed premises of the lockers of several dancers, for which the dancers had the keys. These dancers were employees at the licensed premises on that date. The search of the lockers and purses of the dancers led to the discovery of marijuana. The dancers in question were Annie D. Bryant, Danita Buchin and Barbara Jean O'Rourke. (Following the October 2, 1981, service of the Administrative Complaint on Miguel Rodriguez, and with Rodriguez's knowledge of the pendency of narcotics allegations being placed against the dancers, Kathleen Keddie, Annie D. Bryant and Danita Buchin, those individuals were allowed to remain as employees in the licensed premises.) During the time in question by the Administrative Complaint, Augusto Garcia acted as a manager in the licensed premises. He had been hired by Miguel Rodriguez. His normal hours of employment were 6:00 P.M. through as late as 4:30 A.M., except for Fridays and Saturdays when he worked a couple of hours. When he was on duty, Rodriguez was ordinarily at the licensed premises. Rodriguez had instructed Garcia to be cognizant of drug problems in the licensed premises and to keep the bar quiet and peaceful. In particular, Rodriguez had instructed Garcia not to allow drugs in the bar and if someone was found with drugs to throw him out. An individual identified as Hector who is a friend of Garcia's assisted in these matters. Garcia indicated the policy of management at the licensed premises was to check the person of the dancers and their bathroom and dressing area to discover narcotics. Nevertheless, testimony by Kathleen Keddie, a person implicated in these matters for narcotics violations and an employee at the bar as a dancer established the fact that she had never been searched for narcotics. Rodriguez was not told by Garcia about people selling drugs in the licensed premises, Garcia would simply "throw them out." Garcia did tell Rodriguez about people "sniffing" what he suspected to be cocaine. At the time Garcia served as a manager in the licensed premises, one Willie Rolack also was a manager in the licensed premises. Willie Rolack's duties as manager were primarily associated with the package store, in contrast to the bar, area. He would periodically go in the bar to check to see if there were fights occurring and to determine if drugs were being used. Rolack had been instructed by Rodriguez to call the Hialeah Police Department if persons who were using drugs would not depart the premises. At times, the Hialeah Police Department has assisted in removing those patrons. Additionally, some employees at the licensed premises had been dismissed for drug involvement as observed by Rolack. Miguel Rodriguez worked sixteen (16) to eighteen (18) hours in the licensed premises, mostly in the package store; however, he did have occasion to check the bar area while at the licensed premises. Rodriguez had told the dancers that he would not tolerate their involvement with drugs and he had instructed customers who were found with drugs that they should leave and not return. He had a policy of not allowing the dancers to leave the licensed premises except on occasion to go for food at nearby restaurants; however, as has been determined in the facts found, the occasions of the departures of the dancers were fairly frequent and not always for the purposes of obtaining food. Rodriguez, through his testimony, verifies a general policy of checking dancers' lockers and pocketbooks and watching their activities. The lockers as have been indicated before were controlled by the dancers themselves who had keys. Prior to July, 1981, and in particular, in June, 1981, one Alexis Pagan had worked as the bar manager and had been dismissed for drug involvement. Nonetheless, the same Alexis Pagan had been observed in the licensed premises during the times set forth in the administrative charges, to include the instance mentioned before.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Mary L. Alexander holds beverage license No. 28-0041, Series 2-COP. Under this license she sells beer and wine at Whisper's Cafe, a business which she has owned and operated for approximately two years in Bunnell, Florida. (Testimony of respondent) Respondent employs a cook and a part-time bartender, who also serves as a disc jockey. The cook works primarily in the kitchen. At around 8:30 P.M., the bartender begins operating the juke box and remains in the dance area of the licensed premises, an area separated by a wall from the rest of the premises. Respondent (or a substitute bartender), works primarily in the bar and pool table area, which is located between the dining and dance areas of the premises. (Testimony of respondent) The evidence establishes, without contradiction, that two of respondent's bartenders committed three separate drug violations on the premises during April and May, 1982. Two violations involved bartender Ronney Locke, one involved bartender Fred Austin. I. Two Drug Violations by Bartender Locke On April 30, 1982, Maria Scruggs, a DABT Beverage Officer, entered Whisper's Cafe in an undercover capacity. Approximately twenty customers were on the premises--four or five were standing at the bar. Officer Scruggs ordered a drink at the bar. Several minutes later, Thomas Alexander, respondent's son, approached her and a conversation ensued. She asked him if he had any marijuana she could buy. He replied that he did not, and then referred the question to bartender Ronney Locke. Mr. Locke, offering to check around the bar, approached Clarence Lorick, a customer, who then delivered a small quantity of marijuana to Mr. Alexander for $5.00. Mr. Alexander, seated at the bar, rolled a marijuana (cannabis) cigarette in his lap and gave it to Officer Scruggs, who then left the premises. The cigarette was rolled in an open manner and in plain view of others on the premises. Respondent was not on the premises during this transaction and was unaware of its occurrence. (Testimony of Scruggs, respondent, P-1) On May 7, 1982, Officer Scruggs reentered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. She began to talk, separately, with respondent and bartender Locke. She asked Mr. Locke if any cocaine or marijuana was available. He replied that he would check with the other customers for a $5.00 bag of marijuana. He approached Ginnie Lee Caskins a customer, Who then approached Officer Scruggs and handed her a manilla envelope containing marijuana (cannabis). Officer Scruggs said nothing and handed her $5.00. This exchange of money and marijuana took place under the bar and out of view of the other customers on the premises. Although respondent was on the premises, she was not close by and did not see the exchange or overhear the conversation. (Testimony of respondent, Scruggs, P-2) II. Drug Violation by Bartender Austin On May 12, 1982, Alphonso Junious, another DABT Beverage Officer, entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. He asked bartender Fred Austin, an employee of respondent, if he knew where he could buy some marijuana. Mr. Austin walked to the door and summoned Clarence Lorick, who then entered the premises. After a brief conversation, Mr. Lorick handed a small quantity of marijuana (cannabis) to Officer Junious, who, in turn, handed him $5.00. This exchange took place in a secretive manner and occurred after respondent had left the premises. She was also unaware of this drug transaction. (Testimony of Junious, respondent, P-3) III. Drug Violation by Respondent DABT also contends that on May 14, 1982, respondent unlawfully aided, counseled, or procured the sale or delivery of marijuana (cannabis) to Officer Junious. Respondent denies it. The evidence, although conflicting, substantiates DABT's contention. On May 14, 1982, Officer Junious reentered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. He purchased a beer from respondent, who was tending bar. While seated at the bar, he overheard respondent tell an unidentified female patron that she (respondent) had been to a musical concert and had to leave to get something to smoke. Officer Junious, construing this to mean marijuana, said to her, "I could use something to smoke too," or words to that effect. Respondent replied, "Boot got some." (Testimony of Junious) Officer Junious knew who "Boot" (Henry Brown) was, having previously purchased marijuana from him in an undercover capacity. Officer Junious then left the premises, found "Boot" outside, and purchased a small quantity of marijuana (cannabis) from him for $5.00. (Testimony of Junious) These findings are based on the testimony of Officer Junious. Respondent denies that she said "Boot got some" or that she had any conversation with Officer Junious on May 14, 1982. She also denies that she said she could use something to smoke, and states that she does not smoke either tobacco or marijuana. Taking into account her bias and interest in the outcome of this proceeding, the testimony of Officer Junious is more credible and is accepted as persuasive. IV. Respondent's Supervision of the Premises Respondent, periodically, reminded her employees that no marijuana was allowed on the premises. She took no other action to ensure that drug violations would not occur on the premises. (Testimony of respondent On May 27, 1982, arrest warrants were executed by DABT and the licensed premises was searched. No illicit drugs were found on the premises. (Testimony of Scruggs) There is no evidence that marijuana has ever been smoked in the licensed premises. Neither does the evidence support a finding that respondent knew that marijuana had been, or was being, sold or delivered on the premises. The four separate drug violations committed on the licensed premises, and the manner in which they were committed, however, support a conclusion that these violations of law were fostered, condoned, or negligently overlooked by respondent, and they occurred, at least in part, due to respondent's failure to diligently supervise her employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be suspended for a period of 90 days. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of December,1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1982.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondents, Alejandrina Mora and Felix Aristides, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-4816, series 2-APS, and 23- 8295, series 2-COP, for the premises known as Las Tunas Market and Cafeteria, 628-30 6th Street, Miami Beach, Florida. In March 1988, Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), in conjunction with the Miami Beach Police Department (MBPD), began a narcotics investigation at the licensed premises. Previously, Sergeant Tom Hunker and Detective Walter Campbell of the MBPD had made several drug arrests at the licensed premises, and had warned the owners to stop such activities on their premises or their licenses would be subject to revocation. On March 8, 1988, DABT Investigator Oscar Santana, operating undercover, entered the licensed premises. During the course of his visit, he observed a male patron known as Junior sell what appeared to be rock cocaine to several persons both on and off the licensed premises. After observing the foregoing transactions, Investigator Santana approached Junior and asked him if he had any more to sell. In response, Junior handed Santana two crack cocaine rocks, for which Santana paid Junior $20. This transaction occurred in plan view of respondents' employee Gonzalo. 1/ On March 9, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Upon entering, Santana was approached by Junior who inquired as to whether he would be interested in purchasing some more cocaine. Santana responded affirmatively, and handed Junior $20. Junior then left the premises for a short time, and when he returned handed Santana two crack cocaine rocks. This transaction occurred at the counter, and in plain view of respondents' employee Gonzalo. After the foregoing transaction, Investigator Santana was approached by another patron known as Paul, who inquired whether he would be interested in buying some cocaine. Santana agreed to buy from Paul if he brought it to the licensed premises. Paul left the premises, returned shortly thereafter, and met Santana just outside the door. At that time, Santana paid Paul $30 in exchange for two crack cocaine rocks. During the course of this transaction, respondents' employees Ricky and Gonzalo were nearby. On March 10, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. During the course of his visit, Santana met with a patron known as Charlie, who offered to sell him some cocaine. Santana handed Charlie $20 and observed him leave the premises, walk across the street, and hand the money to another individual. Shortly thereafter, Charlie returned to the licensed premises and delivered the cocaine rocks to Santana. The exchange between Santana and Charlie took place in plain view and in the presence of respondents' employee Nene. On March 17, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Also on the premises that day were DABT Investigators Jenkins and Elkin, operating separately from Santana to provide backup for him. As he entered the premises, Santana seated himself with Junior and respondents' employee Ricky at a table by the front door. There, in front of Ricky, Santana purchased a cocaine rock from Junior for $20. Ricky, suspicious of Jenkins and Elkin, two female non-latins, warned Santana to be careful because the two females were police officers. On March 18, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Investigators Jenkins and Elkin, again operating separately from Santana, were also on the premises that day. Upon entering the premises, Santana was approached by a patron known as Reyna who inquired whether he was interested in purchasing some cocaine. Santana responded yes, handed Reyna $25, and Reyna left the premises. After Reyna left the premises, Santana seated himself at the front table. When Reyna returned, she sat down at the table with him and delivered, above the table, two cocaine rocks. This transaction took place in front of respondents' employee Ricky, who again warned Santana to beware of the police officers (Investigators Jenkins and Elkin). Later that day, Santana gave Junior $20 to purchase cocaine for him. When Junior delivered the rock cocaine to Santana it was done in plain view and in the presence of respondents' employees Gonzalo and Ricky. During the course of this visit to the premises, Investigators Jenkins and Elkin, also undercover, were seated separately from Santana. At some point they were joined by a male patron who later gave them two marijuana cigarettes. The investigators retired to the women's bathroom and burnt a marijuana cigarette to see what, if any, response it would bring. While one of respondents' employees entered the bathroom after they left, the aroma of marijuana brought no response. On March 21, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Upon entry, Santana, respondents' employee Gonzalo, and two black latin male patrons were the only persons present. These patrons approached Santana and inquired if he was interested in purchasing marijuana. Santana responded yes, and paid the men $20 for approximately one ounce of marijuana. This transaction occurred in plain view, and in the presence of Gonzalo. On March 24, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. During the course of his visit he met with Junior inside the bathroom, and purchased two cocaine rocks for $40. On March 25, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Santana was approached by Junior who inquired whether he was interested in purchasing some cocaine. Santana handed Junior $40, and Junior left the premises to get the cocaine. Upon his return, Junior placed the cocaine rocks on the counter in front of Santana. This transaction occurred in plain view, and in the presence of respondents' employees Gonzalo and Ricky. All of the events summarized in the proceeding paragraphs took place at the licensed premises during normal business hours. At no time did respondents' employees express concern about any of the drug transactions. In fact, the proof demonstrates that all of the employees knew that marijuana and cocaine were being sold on the licensed premises on a regular, frequent and flagrant basis. Neither respondents, who were on notice of such activities, nor any of their employees, took any action to prevent, discourage, or terminate the sale of any controlled substance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 23-4816, series 2-APS, and alcoholic beverage license number 23-8295, series 2-COP, issued to Alejandrina Mora and Felix Aristid d/b/a Las Tunas Market and Cafeteria, for the premises located at 628-30 6th Street, Miami Beach, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of April, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Michael G. Mandeville, d/b/a The Sugar Shack (Mandeville), is licensed under the Beverage Law, license number 27-1311, series 2-COP, for the premises known as The Sugar Shack located at 11 East Fairfield Drive, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. Mandeville has operated The Sugar Shack at that location under that license from July 1985 through the emergency suspension of the license and closing of the business on January 16, 1986. Previously, Mandeville was President, Secretary and Treasurer and 100 percent stockholder of Someplace Else Pensacola, Inc., a licensee under the Beverage Law. On February 1, 1984, Someplace Else Pensacola, Inc., entered into a Stipulation with Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division), settling a Notice To Show Cause containing eight counts of solicitation of drinks and one count of conspiring to deliver a controlled substance. At the time, the licensee, Someplace Else Pensacola, Inc., was doing business as The Sugar Shack at 720 West Government Street, Pensacola, Florida. Earlier the licensee Someplace Else Pensacola, Inc., was doing business as Someplace Else at Highway 29 and Roberts Road in Pensacola, Florida. Mandeville was its Secretary and Treasurer and owned half of the stock issued by the corporate licensee. On July 29, 1982, the licensee Someplace Else Pensacola, Inc., d/b/a Someplace Else, entered into a Stipulation with the Division settling a Notice To Show Cause containing twelve counts of solicitation of drinks and five counts of delivering a controlled substance. In the short time Mandeville's current license was being operated, he was aware of drug problems on the premises. Problems of this sort in approximately September 1985 caused Mandeville to be in contact with the Escambia County Sheriff's Office, Narcotics Division. In order to help himself, Mandeville agreed to cooperate with the Sheriff's Office. Although Mandeville told officers in the Sheriff's Narcotics Division that he personally knew no drug users on the premises, he would have a part-time employed disk jockey named Darrel Able, who might have information, contact the Narcotics Division. Mandeville and his staff also had to fire several employees on suspicion of drugs, including a dancer named Margie. The Sugar Shack's premises consist of one large major room with a separate room for playing pool, separate dressing rooms, and men and ladies restrooms. The licensed, premises contain two stages for topless dancing performances, a booth for the disk jockeys and a large bar. It is not possible to see into the dressing rooms from the main room, from the bar or from the disk jockey booth. It is not possible to see the room containing the pool tables from the main room, the disk jockey booth, or the bar. Within the licensed premises, there are many tables where customers sit. During business hours of The Sugar Shack, there are topless dancers performing to loud music. Because of the loud music, it is difficult to hear normal conversations even among those sitting at one of the various tables in the licensed premises. Mandeville employs several people to assist him in the operation and maintenance of The Sugar Shack. During most of the business day, Mandeville is present at the licensed premises. When Mandeville is not present, his brother Steve is in charge of the licensed premises. When Steve Mandeville is not present, the assistant manager and doorman Russell Sapp is in the licensed premises and supervises them. When Sapp is not present, John Chiarito, an employed disk jockey, manages the licensed premises and supervises them. For most of the day, two or three of these people are present in the licensed premises and serve in a supervisory capacity. Additionally, Mandeville employs a day bartender named Helen Mabie, who functions in a supervisory capacity. Mandeville also employs other personnel including bartenders and waitresses who are in the licensed premises during business hours and are supposed to inform management of any violations of laws and rules they suspect. Mandeville himself is present at the licensed premises for approximately eight hours a day at various times between 1:30 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. Mandeville generally supervises the overall business operations of The Sugar Shack, including the hiring and firing of employees. Since Mandeville opened the licensed premises, he has announced a policy applicable to all employees prohibiting the possession of drugs in the licensed premises and the solicitation of drinks by employees. Generally, all employees, especially dancers, are required to sign statements agreeing to the policies. Rules implementing the policies are posted prominently in several locations within the licensed premises including the dancers' dressing rooms. However, the signs contain statements like: "there's a time & place for everything, please think before making your move"; "they are watching you know the law, they know you"; and "the law has the right to walk in this dressing room at any given second keep yourself & your friends out of trouble." Although the overall message of the signs and policies prohibit drugs and drink solicitation, the above unfortunately phrased parts of the signs might tend to imply a management attitude that those activities are acceptable as long as no employees are caught doing them. Mandeville has made it known to his employees that violation of the prohibition against drugs would result in termination, supposedly without giving anybody a second chance. Mandeville and his management staff have in fact fired several employees for violation of the prohibition against drugs on the licensed premises: Toni for smoking marijuana in the dressing room; Nicki for possession of prescription drugs not in a bottle; Margie for using and selling cocaine; and Nicole for suspicion of selling cocaine. According to Mandeville, even suspicion of violating the drug prohibition will result in termination, and there is not supposed to be a second chance for anyone. However, Margie was rehired after being terminated for violating the drug prohibition. In addition, Mandeville did not fire Margie a second time before his license was suspended and did not fire another dancer named Nicole until the first week of January 1986 although he suspected both of them of selling cocaine as early as December 19, 1985, when an undercover Escambia County Sheriff's Office narcotics deputy posing as a patron told him that Nicole had sold the deputy cocaine. Mandeville also made it known to his employees that patrons were supposed to be asked to leave the premises if they violated drug laws on the premises. If such a patron refused to leave, either they were to be forced to leave or law enforcement was to be notified. However, Mandeville did not ask the undercover deputy to leave on December 19, 1985, although the undercover deputy told Mandeville that he had bought cocaine from Nicole. Similarly, the same undercover deputy was not asked to leave by an employee named Sophia on December 27, 1985, when the deputy told Sophia that he had bought cocaine from Nicole. Mandeville or his managements staff conducts periodic unannounced searches of the dancers' lockers. These searches are conducted in the dancers' presence. Refusal to permit a locker search is grounds for termination, and two employees, one a dancer named Connie, were fired for refusal to allow a locker search. According to Mandeville, his management staff is supposed to periodically review with the employees the rules prohibiting drugs and drink solicitation. However, Mandeville does not follow up on the performance of his management staff and several understand their obligation to be only to go over the rules with the employees when one of the employees violates the rules. Only Dwight Sparks, the Sunday night manager, goes over the rules each night he works. Violation of the rule against drink solicitation, when detected, is supposed to result in termination. But there was no evidence that any employee has been fired for drink solicitation. Enforcement of this policy is not as strict as enforcement of the policy against drugs on the premises. Mandeville does not require his employees to subject themselves to a polygraph lie detector examination. He asks prospective employees for an oral history of employment but does not get it in writing and does not check the validity or quality of the references. Mandeville does not check for arrest records of his employees. On December 3, 1985, Officer Zeka of the Escambia County Sheriff's Department entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity posing as a patron. Within minutes of entering the premises, Zeka was able to buy five capsules of cocaine from the employed dancer Nicole. Nicole and Zeka were sitting back to back in adjoining booths when the transaction took place. Nicole reached over the waist high back of the booths and placed the capsules on Zeka's table in exchange for $50. Because of the loud music, dark lighting, relatively cluttered table and the topless dancing performances attracting attention elsewhere, the transaction would have been difficult for anyone to detect who was not paying attention and trying to detect a drug transaction even though the transaction was not completely concealed. Zeka quickly counted the capsules and put them in his pocket. On December 4, 1985, Zeka bought from Nicole another three capsules of cocaine in a clear cellophane cigarette package wrapper for $50. The circumstances of the transaction were essentially the same as on December 3. Later on December 4, 1985, Zeka bought from Nicole another five capsules of cocaine for $50. The circumstances of this transaction also were the same as on December 3. As on December 3, Nicole placed the capsules on the table in front of Zeka who counted them and put them in his pocket. On December 5, 1985, Zeka again bought from Nicole five capsules of cocaine. Again, the circumstances were essentially the same as on December 3. As on December 3, Nicole placed the capsules on the table in front of Zeka who counted them and put them in his pocket. On December 26, 1985, Zeka was in the licensed premises and asked employed dancer Margie to sell him some cocaine. At first Margie was unable to because "her man," i.e., her source of drugs, was not around. Later she walked over to and embraced "her man," Darrel Able, who slipped a clear plastic bag containing approximately one-half gram of cocaine into the back of her g-string type panties. Margie returned to the table and put the bag on the table between Zeka and another undercover officer named Lewis. Somehow the bag opened, and some cocaine spilled on the table. Margie suggested they "do a line" from the cocaine spilled on the table and took a straw out of one of the glasses on the table. When Zeka and Lewis affected to warn her not to be so open about it in order to preserve their cover, Margie told them not to worry because it was done all the time. However, it was not proved that Margie was not either joking or intoxicated, and no credence can be given to her statement that cocaine was used at the tables in the licensed premises. As before, the licensed premises were dark and noisy at the time and the attention was directed to the dance stage. Although the transaction was not completely concealed it still would not have been easy to detect. On December 27, 1985, an employed dancer named June openly handed Lewis a marijuana cigarette she said she had been given as a tip and invited Lewis to smoke it outside. Again, although June made no attempt to conceal what she was doing, it would have been difficult to detect exactly what she was doing and that she had a marijuana cigarette. Also on December 27, 1985, Zeka asked employed dancer Nicole to sell him some more cocaine. Nicole had none and had to leave the licensed premises to obtain some. She put on her street clothes, left, returned and handed Zeka four capsules of cocaine in a concealed manner. On December 31, 1985, a man named John Carroll sold cocaine to Zeka's confidential informant twice within 20 minutes. Both times the confidential informant walked over to Carroll, who was standing by the bar. The first time Mandeville himself was seated five bar stools away from Carroll. Both times the confidential informant persuaded Carroll to sell the cocaine, reached into his front shirt pocket to get the cocaine and returned to Zeka who was approximately 15 feet away. In a concealed manner, the cocaine was handed to Zeka, who held the clear plastic bag containing the cocaine up by the corner, looked at it and placed it in his pocket. Again, although Mandeville was in a position to see the first transaction if he had been paying attention and watching for it, the evidence did not prove that he actually saw the transaction. It was not proved that Carroll was an employee, as opposed to a patron, of Mandeville. On January 13, 1985, Lewis bought a half gram of cocaine from employed dancer Margie for $50. Margie delivered the cocaine in a concealed manner that would have avoided any detection. In addition to the activity involving controlled substances described above, Mandeville's employees on numerous occasions solicited drinks from Lewis as follows: Sophia December 19, 1985 Liz December 19, 1985 Angela December 19, 1985 Debbie December 19, 1985 Candy December 30, 1985 Judy December 30, 1985 Chastity December 30, 1985 Candy December 30, 1985 Margie December 26, 1985 June December 27, 1985 Cindy December 27, 1985 Candy December 27, 1985 Peggy December 27, 1985 Mandeville never asked the Division for assistance in, or suggestions for, supervising the licensed premises so as to control or eliminate illegal drug violations and drink solicitations. Rather, the evidence is that Mandeville offered to cooperate with the Escambia County Sheriff's Office to "help himself and them" in September 1985 and later in late December 1985 or early January 1986. In essence, as previously mentioned, Mandeville put the Sheriff's Office in contact with Darrell Able and, on one occasion in early January 1986, telephoned the Sheriff's Office to relate that Able supposedly thought he was going to be able to set up a drug deal for the Sheriff's Office. Neither Mandeville nor Able ever re-contacted the Sheriff's Office. Weighing the totality of the evidence, it is found that Mandeville did not supervise the premises and his employees in a reasonably diligent manner under the circumstances. Mandeville was aware from past experience of the problem of drugs in an establishment like the licensed premises in general and in the licensed premises themselves in particular. Mandeville announced adequate policies and placed some management techniques in effect to implement the policies. However, Mandeville did not adequately follow up and did not know that his staff was not following all of the techniques. They were not, for example, regularly reviewing the rules prohibiting drugs and drink solicitation with the employees, and the employees did not understand that they were to report all suspicion of violation of the rules by both employees and patrons to the management. Mandeville himself failed to follow his own procedures by rehiring Margie and failing to fire Margie and Nicole immediately upon receiving information or knowledge of their drug use and dealing at least by December 19, 1985. Not only did Mandeville and his staff not follow all the procedures that he had in place, Mandeville did not seek the assistance and suggestions of the Division for additional management techniques. He did not improve the lighting in the licensed premises, did not polygraph his employees and did not check the background of prospective employees. A combination of the laxity of Mandeville and his staff in enforcing the procedures he had in place and Mandeville's failure to adopt more effective available procedures that he should have known were required under the circumstances proximately caused the employee violations on the premises. As for the drink solicitation violations, Mandeville's written policy against drink solicitation appears to be more honored in the breach. In addition to the thirteen violations within eleven days charged in this case, the two previous notices to show cause against a licensee in which Mandeville had substantial interest and control contained a total of twenty counts of drink solicitation which were settled by stipulation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking Alcoholic Beverage License Number 27-1311, Series 2-COP, held by Respondent, Michael G. Mandeville, d/b/a The Sugar Shack, 11 Eastfair field Drive, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida, on all the grounds alleged in the Notice To Show Cause in this case except paragraphs (1)g. and (2)g. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of February 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 13th day of February 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0203 Rulings On Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Covered by Finding 1. 2.-5. Covered by Findings 16.-19., respectively. 6. Covered by Finding 10. 7.-8. Covered by Findings 20-21, respectively. 9. Covered by Finding 11. 10-11. Covered by Findings 22-23., respectively. Covered by Finding 25. Rejected as cumulative. Covered by Finding 26. 15-16. Covered by Findings 2-3., respectively. Covered by Finding 27. Covered by Findings 8-14. 19-20. Covered by Findings 6, 10 and 13, to the extent necessary. Covered by Findings 8 and 10, to the extent necessary. Whether Mandeville has fired June is irrelevant since the Sugar Shack has been closed since the license was suspended. Covered by Finding 13. Covered by Findings 23 and 24. Covered by Findings 4, 7, and 27. Rulings On Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Covered by Finding 1. 2-4. Covered by Findings 5-7, respectively. 5. Covered by Findings 15, 8, and 9, to the extent necessary. 6-9. Covered by Finding 10, to the extent necessary. (The evidence was not clear exactly who fired the various employees but that is not necessary or relevant). 10. Covered by Finding 1. 11-13. Rejected as unnecessary recitation of procedural history. 14-17. Covered by Findings 16-19., respectively. 18. Covered by Findings 11 and 28. (There was no persuasive evidence that Mandeville "conducted an investigation concerning the activities of Nicole" or "obtained additional information" or that Mandeville fired Nicole "as soon as the Respondent verified this information"). 19-22. Covered by Findings 20-23, respectively. Covered by Finding 23. Rejected as not proven by the weight of the totality of the evidence. See Finding 11. Also, he certainly would not have been in trouble if caught by Nicole, Margie or June. Covered by Finding 25. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 27-37. Covered by Finding 26, to the extent necessary. 38-40. Rejected as incomprehensible. See also paragraphs 41-49. below. 41-49. Covered by Findings 8-14. There was no evidence that any employee ever has been fired for solicitation of drinks. The evidence was not clear which individual or group of individuals actually fired all of the individuals listed in Finding 10. Their identity is not necessary or relevant. 50. Covered by Findings 8, 13. and 14. 51-52. Covered by Finding 12. (There was only evidence that two employees were fired for refusing to allow a locker search). Covered by Findings 4 and 27. Accepted and covered by Finding 23 and the absence 55.Accepted and covered by the absence of any finding that they did. Covered by Findings 16-23. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 58-59. Accepted and covered by the absence of any finding that they did. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra P. Stockwell, Esouire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Griffith, Esguire Post Office Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronugh Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
