Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent is 201 West, Inc., d/b/a Central City, who is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 11-00259, Series 4-COP, a "quota license." Respondent's licensed premises is located at 201 West University Avenue, Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. Craig Cinque is Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Joseph Cinque, Craig Cinque's father, was formerly Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Prior to becoming the owner of Central City, Craig Cinque managed the licensed premises on behalf of his father. During this period of time, the Division filed ten separate Notices to Show Cause against Respondent, alleging multiple sales to and consumption of alcoholic beverages by underaged persons. On August 29, 1989, the licensed premises was closed by an Emergency Order of Suspension. The administrative charges arising therefrom were resolved by a Stipulation and Consent Agreement, wherein the Respondent in that case admitted substantially to all of the violations. Craig Cinque individually executed the agreement, admitted responsibility for previous violations, and acknowledged that future violations of a similar nature could result in suspension or revocation of the alcoholic beverage license. The agency has issued numerous Notices to Show Cause against Respondent since the entry of the consent order. However, unproven Notices to Show Cause and unproven counts within any Notices to Show Cause are only unproven accusations, and as such are not probative herein even for purposes of showing "aggravation." Beverage Law Institute is an "approved trainer" under the Responsible Vendors Act, having been approved by the Petitioner as such. Petitioner certified Respondent Central City as a certified Responsible Vendor under the Act, on April 13, 1990. See, Subsections 561.701-561.706 F.S. Of the 483 nondistributor alcoholic beverage licensees in Alachua County, only 94 have been certified by Petitioner as Responsible Vendors. Of those 94, only 13 hold "4-COP" licenses, the category of license held by Respondent, which permits liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on premises or in a sealed container. Prior to the events of the instant Notices to Show Cause, and continuing through the 14-month period of the Notices to Show Cause and beyond, Respondent was engaged in a voluntary program designed to teach employees not to serve alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. Many of the materials therefor were provided by Beverage Law Institute. The training program and procedures involved multiple ID checkers at the front door. Also at the front door, wristbands to signify and quickly identify patrons of legal drinking age were issued. Once snapped on a customer's wrist, the band itself was stamped at a right angle across the customer's wrist to prevent or at least inhibit the wristband's transfer to an underage patron and to prevent a patron bringing in a counterfeit or "ringer" wristband. All patrons, regardless of age, received a stamp directly on the wrist to identify that they had paid their admission fee. Security personnel circulated inside the licensed premises checking drinks and wristbands, and waitresses were also instructed to check on drinks already purchased by customers. The training programs and procedures also involved Respondent's policy manual regarding IDs, extensive training and testing of employees, frequent oral reminders to employees concerning the law and concerning licensee policy, sporadic staff meetings regarding policy, videotaped instruction programs, provision of and instructions to employees to use an "ID Checking Guide" at the front door and at every internal bar within the licensed premises, confiscation of fake or questionable IDs at the door, 1/ and use of warning handbills given out to customers. Upon receipt, the handbills proclaiming the licensee's "of age only" policy were usually immediately discarded by customers. Some employees looked upon their training with more enthusiasm than others. Some employees considered the policy and training all for show. Most employees complied regularly with the requirements for training, review, and instructions. A few were lax in their compliance and had to be urged to attend staff meetings or to retest. In addition to all this, from the time the Responsible Vendor tests were available, all employees except two cashiers were tested according to the requirements of the Responsible Vendor Act and within the time frames provided therein. Every underage operative who testified admitted she or he had been "carded" at the door and that none had been issued wristbands. The parties stipulated that all of the individuals named in the four Notices to Show Cause (except for those alleged to have sold or given alcoholic beverages) were under the legal drinking age on the dates indicated by the respective Notices to Show Cause and that although each of these individuals "was actually in possession of alcoholic beverages as plead (sic), there was no evidence that any of the alcoholic beverages were obtained from Respondent's employees, agents, or servants." The stipulation listed the underage persons of the Notices to Show Cause but did not employ the term "consumption" which was specifically used only in the second Notice to Show Cause (GA11890496). Petitioner put on no witnesses as to "consumption." Likewise, Petitioner did not have admitted in evidence any confiscated alcoholic beverages alleged to have been sold by Respondent's agents/employees, nor did Petitioner present any laboratory reports to establish that any substance sold was alcohol. The only evidence of alcohol content is discussed infra. With regard to Craig Cinque's attitude and Central City's compliance with the Responsible Vendors Act, the testimony of Eileen Tenly and of William Cooter has been weighed and considered. Ms. Tenly is a totally noncredible witness whose testimony demonstrates an "axe to grind," and whose candor and demeanor is unpersuasive of anything except her animosity for Mr. Cinque. Petitioner's Investigator William Cooter, however, testified credibly that after having numerous conversations with Mr. Cinque on the subject of underage sales, Mr. Cinque stated that he was not worried about losing his alcoholic beverage license because he could get another one in his mother's name. On the other hand, Mr. Cooter, by his own testimony, has been invited by Mr. Cinque to instruct and has, in fact, instructed Mr. Cinque's employees on how to prevent underage drinking. The evidence as a whole, but most particularly that of Prince Miles, Respondent's janitor, who is a credible witness, is persuasive that patrons sometimes smuggle alcoholic beverages onto the licensed premises and that each time the establishment closes, commercial alcoholic beverage containers which are not part of the inventory sold by Respondent must be swept out. Since this smuggling activity must substantially reduce Respondent's profits, it is a logical inference that such smuggling is contrary to Respondent's policy and that Respondent does not encourage or condone it, whether done by adults or minors. I. Notice to Show Cause GA11890374; September 16, 1989 through February 9, 1990; sale to Toombs, Kittles, Goldtrap, and Ormsbee by Green, Halladay, Howell, and Grimes and possession by Peters, Conf, Kelly, Garcia, Fernandez, Shiskin, Brejhanan, Benz, Yawn, and Plettner All of the violations charged in Notice to Show Cause GA11890374 arose prior to Respondent's becoming a certified Responsible Vendor on April 13, 1990. On September 16, 1989, Ryan Conf and Alejandra Peters were each under the age of 21 and in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises as pled. On September 19, 1989, Central City bartender David Green sold the Division's underaged operative, Bridgette Toombs, a liquid beverage in a long- neck, factory-produced 12-ounce bottle labelled "Michelob Dry." At that time, the licensed premises was not busy and Mr. Green noted that Ms. Toombs had no wristband. He therefore checked Ms. Toombs' underage ID and instructed her that since she was old enough to drink, she should go get a wristband. This transaction was observed by Petitioner's agent, Ms. Pendarakis, but Ms. Pendarakis did not overhear the conversation. After delivering a sample of the liquid beverage to Ms. Pendarakis in the ladies' room, Ms. Toombs crossed in front of Mr. Green's bar on her way to exit the licensed premises. Mr. Green sent word to Ms. Toombs by another Central City employee that he wanted to see her. Ms. Toombs complied with Mr. Green's request and showed him her underage ID once more. At that point, Mr. Green recognized his error in thinking that Ms. Toombs was 21 or over and called over several other Central City employees, all of whom viewed the ID showing Ms. Toombs was actually two months short of 19 years old. Mr. Green was not arrested until after the ID was passed around, so it may be inferred that his recognizing his mistake was not the result of any confrontation with Petitioner's agents or law enforcement officers or due to his perception that he had been "caught." Indeed, Petitioner's witness, Ms. Toombs, attributed Mr. Green's illegal sale to her as a mistake in subtraction. Mr. Green had previously successfully passed all tests required under the licensee's policy in existence before the Responsible Vendor tests were available. On October 20, 1989, Charlotte Kelly and Alezandro Garcia, who were under the age of 21, were each in the actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1989, Cesar Fernandez, who was under the age of 21, was in possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On the same date, underage operative Megan Kittles was inside the licensed premises. She was not wearing a wristband, and her hand was stamped indicating that she was under 21. She first approached a white male bartender who checked her and refused to serve her. She then ordered a rum and coke from Respondent's bartender, Craig Halladay. Mr. Halladay did not check Ms. Kittles' ID and served her a liquid beverage which Mr. Szabo of the Division testified that he had identified by smell as containing alcohol. No one saw the drink mixed, and Mr. Szabo admitted that he did not know what kind of alcohol the drink contained. He stated that he "would not swear it was rum." Mr. Szabo also was not aware until formal hearing that Respondent sold any nonalcoholic mixed drinks. Although the evidence is weak, it is persuasive that Ms. Kittles was served alcohol. Mr. Halladay successfully passed the licensee's policy test before this incident and the Responsible Vendor test afterwards. Also on October 21, 1989, Matthew Goldtrap, another underage operative, ordered a "Budweiser" and obtained a 12-ounce bottle labelled "beer" from a floor waitress named Shannon Howell. Mr. Goldtrap had no wristband but did have a stamp on his wrist. He gave the container to Investigator Smith. Mr. Szabo then took both of Respondent's employees into custody. Mr. Goldtrap does not drink alcohol. Investigator Smith did not testify, but it is inferred from the description of the beer bottle and the circumstances of the transaction as a whole that Mr. Goldtrap was served an alcoholic beverage. Ms. Howell successfully passed the licensee's test prior to this incident. On January 19, 1990, Scott Shiskin, Michael Brejhanan, and Carolyn Benz, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On February 9, 1990, Central City bartender Steve Grimes sold Petitioner's 19-year old operative Octavia Ormsbee a liquid beverage. Ms. Ormsbee, who had no wristband on, was first denied a sale of alcoholic beverage at the downstairs back bar after Respondent's bartender there checked her underage ID. Ms. Ormsbee then went to an upstairs bar and ordered a "Bud Light." She was told by Mr. Grimes, a bartender at that bar, that they were out of "Bud Light," and by agreement, a beer bottle labelled "Budweiser" was substituted. Ms. Ormsbee does not drink alcohol and did not testify that what she received from Mr. Grimes was alcohol. The bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee was turned over to Officer Byrd of the Gainesville Police Department. Officer Byrd, who is familiar with alcoholic beverages through his own education, training, practice, and experience, identified the contents of the bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee as being "beer." Officer Byrd turned the bottle over to Petitioner's agent Cooter. Also on this occasion, Preston Yawn and Eric Plettner, who were under the age of 21, were each actually in possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Mr. Grimes had successfully passed the licensee's policy test prior to this incident. All of the underaged operatives who testified concerning this Notice to Show Cause testified that Petitioner's adult operatives forbade them to drink (consume) what they were sold and that they did not consume any. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constituted their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, mere possession does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 2/ Therefore, Petitioner has only established that on September 19, 1989 Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to Petitioner's underage operative Bridgette Toombs; that on October 21, 1989, Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Megan Kittles; that also on October 21, 1989, Respondent's floor waitress sold Petitioner's underage operative Matthew Goldtrap an alcoholic beverage; and that on February 9, 1990, Respondent's bartender sold the Division's underage operative Octavia Ormsbee an alcoholic beverage. One of these sales was clearly a mistake and two other operatives had to go to two bartenders each before an illegal sale was made. II. Notice to Show Cause GA11890496; June 8, 1990 through June 16, 1990; sale to Wearner by Edge and to Seligman by Lemberger and Bergine and possession by Tetstone, Lockey, Klug, Skipper, and Bissell On June 8, 1990, Jennifer Tetstone and Amy Lockey, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. On June 16, 1990, Ann Klug, Shana Skipper, and Michael Bissell were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Also on June 16, 1990, Central City bartenders Michael Edge, Michael Bergine, and Robert Lemberger, respectively, sold each of the Division's underage operatives Kathy Wearner (who did not testify but who was stipulated to be underage) and Charles Seligman an alcoholic beverage. Neither underaged operative wore a wristband or was requested to produce an ID for purposes of the respective sales. As of date of formal hearing, the Respondent continued to employ these same bartenders. All of these bartenders had successfully completed the Responsible Vendor test before these incidents. Mr. Edge also had passed the licensee's earlier policy test. The underaged operative, Kathy Wearner, asked Michael Edge for "a Budweiser" and was sold liquid in a "Budweiser" beer bottle inverted in a drinking glass. Officer Rockey of the Gainesville Police Department convincingly described the liquid that came out of the bottle as beer, an alcoholic beverage. He turned the materials confiscated over to an unnamed agent of Respondent and has not seen them since. On the same date, Central City bartender Robert Lemberger sold a 12-ounce bottle labelled "Budweiser" to 18- year-old operative Charles Seligman. Mr. Seligman was at all times without a wristband and bearing a stamp on his hand. Mr. Seligman delivered the bottle he received from Mr. Lemberger to Officer Posey of the Gainesville Police Department who had watched the entire transaction. Mr. Seligman later purchased a 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to Officer Posey. Mr. Seligman purchased a third 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to one of Petitioner's agents, Ernest Wilson. Mr. Seligman does not drink alcohol. Agent Wilson does drink alcohol and testified that the bottle Charles Seligman handed him was, in fact, beer. Although Agent Wilson also testified that Mr. Seligman's first name was "Tom" and that Mr. Seligman had purchased a rum drink, nonetheless, Mr. Wilson was convincing that the bottle handed him by Mr. Seligman did, in fact, contain beer, an alcoholic beverage. Officer Posey convincingly described the first bottle he received from Mr. Seligman as containing beer, an alcoholic beverage, and upon all the circumstances, the undersigned infers that the second bottle given Officer Posey also contained beer. All the underaged operatives who testified on this Notice to Show Cause testified that they were forbidden to drink (consume) what they were sold and did not do so. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the other minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constitutes their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 3/ Therefore, Petitioner has established only that on June 16, 1990 Respondent's personnel sold one alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Wearner and three alcoholic beverages to the Petitioner's underage operative Seligman. III. Notice to Show Cause GA11900209; September 22, 1990 through September 29, 1990; service to, or consumption by Stanton, Coody, Willis, and, Torres On September 22, 1990, Amy Stanton and Janet Coody, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. On September 29, 1990, Betty Willis and Jose Torres, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 4/ IV. Notice to Show Cause GA11900254 October 19, 1990 through November 16, 1990; 9 counts possession by Harriett, Ortega, McKinney, Nelson, Smith, Winter, Joyner, Cooke, Sammon; "giving" by Blackwell and Strawser On October 19, 1990, Steven Harriett, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1990, Jamie Ortega, who was under the age of 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 20, 1990, Brian McKinney, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 15, 1990, Karen Nelson, Hollie Smith, Michael Winter, and Julia Joyner, all underage, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 16, 1990, Denise Cooke and Teresa Sammon, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 5/ No evidence was introduced to establish the allegations of Counts 4 and 6 of Notice to Show Cause GA11900254, alleging "giving."
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic and Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order dismissing Notices to Show Cause GA11900209 and GA11900254; finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890374, imposing a total of $1750 in civil fines therefor; and finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890496, imposing a total of $2000 in civil fines therefor. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 28th day of June, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner originally held alcoholic beverage license no. 26-532, Series 4-COP, as an individual. He transferred this license to M & S, Inc., a Florida corporation, about one year ago. Petitioner is a 50 percent shareholder in this corporation. Jimmy G. Maddox holds the other 50 percent stock interest. Petitioner and Maddox are currently engaged in civil litigation involving the corporate licensee. Respondent referred to this civil suit in its notice disapproving the transfer application, citing the pending litigation as a basis for disapproval. Petitioner has not purchased the license from the corporation or entered into any agreement in contemplation of license transfer. Rather, he believes he is entitled to the return of the license because he received no consideration for the prior transfer from either the corporation or Maddox. Alternatively, Petitioner asks that the prior transfer to the corporation be set aside due to this lack of consideration.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 26-532, Series 4-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1982 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Fischette, Esquire Suite 1916 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert T. Sussman, Esquire 3030 Independent Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Thomas Olhausen and Henry Stripling, d/b/a Trackside Lounge, hold Beverage License No. 23-1647, Series No. 4-COP, which was issued for the current year. On or about June 5, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold a controlled substance, namely cocaine, to Beverage Officer Terminello while he was on the licensed premises known as Trackside Lounge in Dade County, Florida. On or about June 8, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold cocaine to Beverage Officer Dodson while he was on the Trackside Lounge premises. On or about June 12, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold cocaine to Beverage Officer Terminello while he was on the premises of Trackside Lounge. The Respondent Henry Stripling did not go onto the Trackside Lounge between the dates of March 10 and June 10, 1983, pursuant to a restraining order issued on March 10, 1983, by the Dade County Circuit Court. This March 10, 1983, court order appointed two receivers to supervise the operation of the business known as Trackside Lounge. Pursuant to this authority the receivers employed Thomas Olhausen to operate and manage the business. Thus, Thomas Olhausen was not subject to the restraining order which barred Henry Stripling from entry onto the Trackside Lounge premises. The Respondent Henry Stripling had no connection with the sale of cocaine by the Respondent Thomas Olhausen to the Beverage Officers on June 5, 8 and 12, 1983. The court order of March 10, 1983, did not attempt to effect a judicial transfer of the beverage license held by the Respondents. The court appointed receivers did not file an application for a beverage license pursuant to Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, and there is no evidence that the receivers attempted to transfer the beverage license held - by the Respondents pursuant to Section S61.32(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, or Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Adminstrative Code. The court appointed receivers did not file a certified copy of the order appointing them as receivers with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco pursuant to Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the alcoholic beverage license held by the Respondents, Thomas Olhausen and Henry Stripling, being number 23-1647, Series No. 4-COP, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 26th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark A. Jacobs, Esquire 18204 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 Richard F. Hayes, Esquire Suite 20 4601 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Cornelia T Brown, doing business as the Oasis Restaurant Bar and Lounge, is the holder of beverage license No. 45-356, Series 2-COP. This license allows the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises, located on Douglas Road, Groveland, Florida. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is an agency of the State of Florida which has its responsibility the licensure and regulation of beverage license holders in the State of Florida. On June 12, 1980, pursuant to a search warrant, Lake County Sheriff and Groveland Police officials accompanied by Petitioner's Beverage Officer, conducted a search of the licensed premises. Respondent was present throughout the investigation. Among the items seized as suspected controlled substances were seven plastic baggies and eight small manila envelopes containing a total of 52.1 grams of cannabis. Currency in the amount of $2,273,67 was also seized. The cannabis and currency were contained in a purse belonging to Respondent. The purse was discovered in the kitchen of the licensed premises, an area not open to bar/restaurant patrons or other members of the public.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violations as alleged in Counts 1, 2 and 4. It is further RECOMMENDED that County 3, which duplicates County 2, and Count 5, be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's License No. 45-356 be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 30th day of September 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Cornelia T. Brown Route 1, Box 350-7 Groveland, Florida 32736 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Allen McGhee and Latarra Hargarett, d/b/a A Touch of Class, is licensee of a facility located at 208 South Paramore Avenue, Orlando, Florida. The alcoholic beverage license #58-02721, 2COP series, was most recently renewed for the period October 1, 1991 through September 30, 1992. Allen McGhee did not appear at the hearing and is apparently in custody as a result of the activities that are the subject of this license discipline proceeding. Latarra Hargarett, a/k/a/ Gibbs, is the current sole lessee of the premises at 208 South Paramore Avenue. She has also contracted to purchase Allen McGhee's share of A Touch of Class nightclub, and has commenced payment pursuant to the contract. The parties have agreed to resolution of this proceeding as follows: The current license is revoked, and $3,000.00 civil penalty and $1,500.00 investigative costs are imposed. This license discipline is without prejudice to Latarra Gibbs' right to file an application for a beverage license in her own name at the 208 South Paramore Avenue location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, recommended that the agency enter its Final Order reflecting the parties' stipulated disposition as stated herein. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 31st day of October, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy Waller, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Joerg F. Jaeger, Esquire Katz, Jaeger & Blankner 217 E. Ivanhoe Blvd., North Orlando, FL 32804 Richard W. Scully, Director Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
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.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Emad F. Abdelmeseh, d/b/a Emad's Texaco is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs in defending the charges made against him in the case of Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco vs. Emad F. Abdelmeseh, d/b/a Emad's Texaco, Division of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 91-1618, under the provisions of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q-2.035, Florida Administrative Code (formerly 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code) and, if so, the amount which Petitioner is entitled to recover.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Petitioner was licensed by the Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, to sell alcoholic beverages from the premises of Emad's Texaco, having been issued license number 63-2090, 2APS. The Petitioner timely filed the petition in the instant case in accordance with Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code (now Rule 60Q-2.035, Florida Administrative Code). The Respondent timely filed a written response alleging that Respondent was substantially justified in issuing the Notice To Show. With its response the Respondent filed an Affidavit challenging the amount of attorney's fees and cost requested by the Petitioner. However, this Affidavit was subsequently withdrawn and the Respondent made no further effort to contest the attorney's fees and costs incurred by the Petitioner. Emad Abdelmeseh is domiciled in the state of Florida and is the sole proprietor of an unincorporated business known as Emad's Texaco, located at 101 East Memorial Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida. Emad's Texaco employs less than 25 employees, and the Petitioner's net worth is less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00). Petitioner is a "small business party" as that term is defined under Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes. On July 11, 1990, agents for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division), John Blair and Brad Nelson, participated in a joint investigation with the City of Lakeland Police Department (CLPD) in the illegal selling of alcoholic beverages to minors. Throughout the course of this investigation the Division's agents were on official duty. Agents Blair and Nelson met with the CLPD detectives and Smalley prior to the investigation and remained with the investigation until its conclusion, including the investigation of Emad's Texaco. The Division, through its agents Blair and Nelson, fully participated in the investigation conducted on July 11, 1990, including Emad's Texaco, and did not simply rely on the CLPD's independent investigation to institute action against Emad's Texaco. This case was not what the Division considers an "adopted case" - one handled entirely by another law enforcement agency which request the Division to prosecute. Therefore, the investigation, as far as agents Blair and Nelson were concerned, should have been conducted in accordance with the Division's Policy and Procedure. The investigation of July 11, 1990, involved the use of an underage operative by the name of J. Karen Smalley n/k/a J. Karen Raschke (Smalley) with previous experience working with the Division, and documented as an underage operative by the Division. Prior to July 11, 1990, Smalley had also been used as an underage operative by the CLPD. During the July 11, 1990 investigation, Smalley was being paid by, and was under the direction of, the CLPD. Before leaving the Police Department to assist in the investigation on July 11, 1990, Smalley was instructed by both Detective Phillips and Agent Blair, on separate occasions, concerning her duties and responsibilities in regard to the investigation. During the course of the investigation on July 11, 1990, Smalley was sent on to the premises of Emad's Texaco for purposes of attempting to purchase an alcoholic beverage. Smalley went to the cooler area in Emad's Texaco's licensed premises and took a six-pack of beer to the check-out counter. Amad Abdelmeseh asked to see Smalley's identification. Smalley either handed her driver's license to Amad Abdelmeseh or laid her driver's license on the check-out counter. Emad Abdelmeseh looked at Smalley's driver's licenses which showed her date of birth to be July 24, 1970, just a few days short of being 20 years of age. Although the photograph of Smalley on the driver's license was taken in 1986, she still maintained her youthful appearance on July 11, 1990. On July 11, 1990, Smalley's hair was blonde, having dyed her hair which was brown when the driver's license was issued. However, Smalley did not dress-up or wear make-up on July 11, 1990, so as to appear older than her age of almost 20 years. There was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that at the time Smalley was attempting to purchase the six-pack of beer on July 11, 1990, that she: (a) told Emad Abdelmeseh that she was 21 years of age or older or; (b) produced a driver's license, other than the driver's license referred to above, that listed a date of birth which would have indicated an age of 21 years or older or; (c) in any fashion attempted to misrepresent her age as being 21 years or older After looking at Smalley's driver's license, Emad Abdelmeseh sold Smalley the six-pack of beer. After making the purchase of beer, Smalley exited Emad's Texaco and advised Detective Phillips that she had made a purchase of beer from the person inside the store. Detective Phillips advised Detective Tim Snyder of the purchase. Detective Snyder then went inside Emad's Texaco and identified Emad Abdelmeseh as the person who had sold the beer to Smalley. On August 8, 1990, Agent Blair served a Notice of Intent To File Administrative Charges against Emad Abdelmeseh's alcoholic beverage license as a result of his sale of alcoholic beverage to Smalley. On August 8, 1990, Abdelmeseh complained to Agent Blair about the lapse of time between Smalley making the purchase of beer on July 11, 1990 and the serving of the Notice of Intent on August 8, 1990. Emad Abdelmeseh did not complain to Agent Blair on August 8, 1990 that Smalley had misrepresented her age to him when she made the purchase of beer on July 11, 1990. In fact, Emad Abdelmeseh did not advise Agent Blair, or anyone else with the Division, of his allegation that Smalley had misrepresented her age to him on July 11, 1990, when she purchased the beer from him until after the Notice To Show Cause was issued by Lt. Robert Bishop. After the Notice of Intent was served on Emad Abdelmeseh, Agent Blair prepared a draft Notice To Show Cause and a synopsis for review by Lt. Robert Bishop, District Four Supervisor. Lt. Bishop has been a supervisor with the Division for 23 1/2 years. On August 16, 1990, Lt. Robert Bishop, acting with authority from the Division Director, issued a Notice To Show Cause which was served against the Petitioner's alcoholic beverage license on August 17, 1990 alleging that Petitioner had sold alcoholic beverages from the premises of Emad's Texaco to a person under the age of 21 years contrary to Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The issuance of the Notice To Show Cause was the initiation of the case against the Petitioner and the Division was not a nominal party in this case. In issuing the Notice To Show Cause, Lt. Bishop relied solely on the information in the Notice To Show Cause and the synopsis prepared by Agent Blair without any further investigation or discussion with Agent Blair. The Division had used Smalley as an underage operative on several occasions prior to the investigation on July 11, 1990, and had found her to be a credible and reliable underage operative. Therefore, the Division reasonably relied on Smalley in the issuance to the Notice To Show Cause to Emad Abdelmeseh, notwithstanding that on July 11, 1990, Smalley was being paid by, and was under the direction of, the CLPD. Agent Blair has been an agent with the Division for 16 years and his reports, according to Lt. Bishop, are impeccable. Therefore, Lt. Bishop had no problem in issuing the Notice To Show Cause to Emad Abdelmeseh based solely on Agents Blair's report, notwithstanding that Agent Blair's report did not specifically indicate that he had strictly adhered to the Division's Policy and Procedure. Although the record reflects that Agent Blair did not strictly adhere to the Division's Policy and Procedure on July 11, 1990, there is competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that the CLPD detectives basically filled in the gaps, so the speak. It is clear from the testimony of Lt. Bishop that even if had he made further inquiry of Agent Blair concerning Agent's Blair's adherence to policy and procedure, it would not have changed Lt. Bishop's mind about issuing the Notice To Show Cause because there was a reasonable basis in law and fact to issue the Notice To Show Cause - there was credible evidence that Emad Abdelmeseh had sold an alcoholic beverage to an underage operative in violation of the Florida Statutes. Along with the Notice To Show Cause served on Emad Abdelmeseh there was a Notice Of Informal Conference which provided for an Informal Conference between the Division and Emad Abdelmeseh on August 28, 1990 at 3:00 p.m. It was at this informal conference on August 28, 1990, that Emad Abdelmeseh first advised anyone from the Division of his allegation that Smalley had misrepresented her age to him on July 11, 1990. The Informal Conference did not resolve the issues and a Request For Formal Hearing signed by Emad Abdelmeseh and dated September 4, 1990 was filed with the Division. In the Request For Hearing Emad Abdelmeseh sets out what he considers to be the disputed issues of fact. In this request there is an allegation that the underage operative was misleading in that when asked if she was 21 years of age she continued to purchase the beer as if she was an adult. There was no mention of Smalley presenting her driver's license By letter dated February 12, 1991, Emad Abdelmeseh again sets out what he considers to be the facts. Among other things, he alleges that Smalley claimed that she was over the age of 21 years and that she did present her driver's license for identification. On March 11, 1991, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for conduct of a formal hearing. The Division prosecuted this action in the case of the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco vs. Emad Abdelmeseh, d/b/a Emad's Texaco, Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 91-1618. On October 30, 1991 the Division exercised its administrative discretion and entered an Order of Dismissal dismissing the charges against Emad Abdelmeseh set forth in the Notice To Show Cause issued on August 16, 1990. The reasons behind the Division's dismissal of the case were not presented at the hearing on April 29. 1992 or November 17, 1992. The Petitioner is the prevailing small business party as that term is defined in Section 57.111(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The hourly rate and the total number of hours expended by Petitioner's attorney, and others under his control, and the costs incurred in the defense of the Petitioner as set out in Amended Affidavit and attached as Exhibit B to the Petitioner's Amended Petition in the amount of $11,429.77 are reasonable, and should be the amount awarded in the event Petitioner is successful in presenting his Amended Petition. There is competent, substantial evidence to establish facts to show that at the time the Notice To Show Cause was issued on August 16, 1990 the Division had made a meaningful inquiry into the matter and there was a reasonable basis in fact and law to initiate the action. No special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust.
The Issue Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance; cocaine, and whether said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 in U.S. currency, and whether said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage license premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine contrary to Section 893.13, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc. d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $2,200, U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. A count seven was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. A count eight was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. Whether or not on or about November 20, 1976, a bottle of non-tax paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered on the licensed premises, and whether or not said bottle bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid, contrary to Section 562.16, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 1, 1976, and continuing until on or about November 24, 1976, the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did maintain a public nuisance, to wit; maintain a place where controlled substances were illegally sold, kept or used, contrary to Section 823.10, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not investigation revealed that on or about November 20, 1976, the Respondent, its agent, servant, or employee, did remove, deposit, or conceal a beverage, to wit, one (1) 2,000 cc bottle of Ron Medeliin Rum, with the intent to defraud the state of tax, contrary to Section 562.32, F.S. and Section 562.30, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this complaint the Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, was the holder of a license no. 23-1901, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, and that license was for the premises located at 1601 Collins Avenue Miami Beach, Florida. The management of the licensed premises makes arrangements to hire entertainment in the form of musicians. This arrangement is made through agreement with the band leader. One of these agreements was made with a band leader who had as his band member Leouigildo Hernandez. On September 28, 1976, Officer E. Santiago, of the Miami Beach, Florida, Police Department entered the licensed premises and while in the licensed premises entered into discussion with Hernandez. Hernandez left the bar proper and came back with an amount of a substance known as cocaine. Santiago paid Hernandez $100 for the quantity of cocaine and the sale was consummated in the licensed premises. On October 30, 1976, Officer Santiago returned to the licensed premises. Santiago had been in the licensed premises many times prior to that occasion. Among the persons he had seen in the bar was Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales. Morales was the girlfriend of Anthony Bilbao, one of the principals in the ownership of the licensed premises. Morales had also served Santiago drinks in the bar on more than 50 occasions. On the evening in question, October 30, 1976, discussion was entered into between Santiago and Morales about the purchase of a substance known as cocaine. Morales produced a quantity of the cocaine and reached across the bar that she was standing behind and handed the quantity of the substance cocaine to Santiago, who was in the area where customers were served at the bar. Santiago paid her $100 for the cocaine. In the late hours of November 4 and early hours of November 5, 1976, Santiago again entered the licensed premises, his purpose for going to the licensed premises was to purchase a large quantity of cocaine from Morales. This arrangement had been entered into based upon the sample of cocaine that had been provided him on October 30, 1976. Morales left the licensed premises and returned 3 to 5 minutes later with a quantity of cocaine, for which Santiago paid her $2,200. On one of the above occasions of a purchase of cocaine from Morales, while in the licensed premises, Morales had conferred with Anthony Bilbao. In the course of that conference, Bilbao told Morales to be careful to whom she sold because "you don't know him", meaning Santiago. In the course of an investigation in the license premises on November 28, 1976, a bottle of non-tax-paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered in the licensed premises, which bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid. The size of the bottle was 2,000 cc.
Recommendation Based upon the violations as established in the hearing on the notice to show cause, it is recommended that the license no. 23-1901 held by Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee ,Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Michael B. Solomon, Esquire Division of Beverage Theodore M. Trushin, Law Office The Johns Building 420 Lincoln Road, Number 600 725 Bronough Street Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Nathaniel Barone, Esquire 777 N.E. 79th Street Miami, Florida 33138
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, revoke alcoholic beverage license number 23-1341, Series 2-COP, held by Maritza Garcia, d/b/a Maritza's Pub. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings 1550 Hearings J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 23rd day of May, 1985.
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for transfer of an alcoholic beverage license should be granted, or denied on the ground that the license has been revoked.
Findings Of Fact On January 25, 1977, Armando Calo, through counsel, filed a Notice of Lien with DABT stating that he was a bona fide mortgagee on an alcoholic beverage license (4-COP, lic. no. 23-1901) held by the Intimo Lounge, Inc., 1601 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. Citing Section 561.65, Florida Statutes, he enclosed a copy of his chattel mortgage and a check payable to DABT in the amount of $5.00. (P-1) By return letter dated February 4, 1977, C. L. Ivey, Jr., DABT's Licensing Supervisor, acknowledged receipt of Mr. Calo's Notice of Lien and stated that it would be made part of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license file. At that time, administrative license revocation proceedings were pending against Intimo Lounge, Inc. So Mr. Ivey sent a copy of his February 4, 1977 acknowledgment letter to DABT's Miami Office, and included this notation: P.S. John: You need to immediately notify Attorney Solomon's [Calo's attorney's] office if and when an order to revoke is issued. He will then go to court to seek a judicial transfer. (P-2) On March 22, 1977, Charles A. Nuzum, DABT's Director, executed an order revoking Intimo Lounge, Inc.`s alcoholic beverage license. (R-1) Eight days later, on March 30, 1977, Armando Calo sued Intimo Lounge, Inc., seeking to foreclose his chattel mortgage on its alcoholic beverage license. By letter of the same date, counsel for Mr. Calo, citing Section 561.65, Florida Statutes, notified DABT of the filing of the foreclosure action; he also asserted that Mr. Calo had no knowledge of or participation in the causes for which the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license was revoked. Copies of subsequent pleadings filed in the action were sent to DABT's legal department. DABT thus knew the suit was filed and was aware of its continued progress. (Testimony of Barone; P-3, P-4, P-11) The Circuit Court of Dade County ultimately entered a final judgment of foreclosure in Mr. Calo's favor. On August 17, 1979, pursuant to such judgment, the Clerk of the Court sold the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license, at public sale, to intervenor Rene Valdes, 1710 N.W. 7th Street, Suite 7201, Miami, Florida for $25,000. Notice of the sale was published in the Miami Review, a newspaper circulated in Dade County. On August 28, 1979, the Clerk issued a Certificate of Title pursuant to Chapter 45, Florida Statutes. This Certificate certified that Intimo Lounge, Inc.`s alcoholic beverage license (4-COP, license no. 23-1901) had been sold to Rene Valdes on August 17, 1979, and that "no objections to the sale have been filed within the time allowed for filing objections." (Testimony of Valdes; P-5, P-6) Although DABT was aware of the protracted mortgage foreclosure litigation involving the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license --which it had earlier revoked -- it never protested or sought to block the foreclosure action. It was not a party to the action; neither did it attempt to become one. (Testimony of Barone, Valdes) In September, 1979, a month after the judicial foreclosure sale, Nathaniel Barone, counsel for Intimo Lounge, Inc., wrote R. B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary of the Department of Business Regulation, asking what steps were necessary to keep the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license viable. An internal memorandum suggests that DABT was, at first, unprepared to answer that question and preferred, instead, to delay answering until an application for the license was filed. But, on October 4, 1979, Harold F. X. Purnell, the Department's General Counsel replied on behalf of Secretary Burroughs: It is the Division's position that the . . . license has been and presently is revoked pursuant to the actions pre- viously taken by [DABT]. Further, that in the absence of an order of appropriate jurisdiction entered in a proceeding to which the Division is a party we are powerless to transfer such license. (Testimony of Barone; P-7, P-10) Meanwhile, Rene Valdes, notified DABT of his purchase of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license and asked that it be held in escrow while he found a suitable purchaser and location. When DABT refused, Mr. Valdes petitioned the court, which had rendered the foreclosure judgment, to require DABT to process and transfer the license. The court denied his petition, at least in part, because DABT was not a party to the proceeding. After the court hearing, Mr. Valdes, together with his attorney, Charles Kelly, and DABT's counsel, Mr. Purnell, met outside the chambers and discussed their next step. Mr. Kelly discussed seeking a mandamus ordering DABT to issue the license. Mr. Purnell suggested, instead, that Mr. Valdes find a location and purchaser for the license, then submit an application to DABT -- something which Mr. Valdes had not yet done. Although Mr. Purnell did not assure them that the application would be approved, both Mr. Valdes and Mr. Barone gained an impression that it would be. 2/ Mr. Valdes, following Mr. Purnell's suggestion, found a location and buyer, then applied for a transfer of the license. DABT's denial resulted in this proceeding. (Testimony of Barone, Valdes) Under Section 561.65(1), Florida Statutes (1977), a lender licensed by the state holding a lien on an alcoholic beverage license had the right to enforcement of his lien against the license within 12 days after any order of revocation, provided it was revoked for causes which the lienholder had no knowledge and did not participate. If the lienholder purchased the license at foreclosure sale, he could operate under it or transfer it to a qualified person. Until August 17, 1980, it was DABT's long-standing practice and policy to make no distinction between licensed and unlicensed lenders (lien-holders). It allowed both licensed and unlicensed lienholders to file notice of liens against beverage licenses and honored the subsequent transfer of the license if the lien was enforced within 12 days of revocation. This practice was abruptly changed on the basis of an agency legal opinion. On August 17, 1980, one month before Gui-Dom filed its application, DABT's General Counsel rendered a legal opinion limiting Section 561.65 relief to lenders licensed by the state. After that date, until 1981, when the legislature removed the "licensed lender" language of Section 561.65, DABT applied Section 561.65 literally and only accepted liens filed by licensed lenders. (Testimony of LaRosa; P-13) But in October, 1980, DABT did not deny Gui-Dom's application for transfer of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license because Armando Calo, the lienholder, lacked a lender's license. Instead, the application was denied because the license had been earlier revoked. As later explained by Barry Schoenfeld, DABT's Chief of Licensing: 2 [DABT] felt at the time that . . . there really was no license, that the license had already been revoked, and that there was no license for the court to sell [to Valdes]. (P-13, p. 25). But Section 561.65 specifically permits liens, under specified conditions, to survive license revocation. When asked to explain DABT's position in light of Section 561.65, Mr. Schoenfeld replied, "I don't know that I can explain it." (P-13, p. 16) Neither could Mr. Schoenfeld adequately explain why, in cases similar to this, DABT has approved license transfers while, here, they have not. (P-13, p. 23) It was not until after the denial of Gui-Dom's application that DABT contended that Section 561.65, Florida Statutes (1977), provides no relief because Armando Calo was not a licensed lender. (P- 9, P-13). Rene Valdes, a beverage license broker, operates a business known as "Beverage License, Inc." He specializes in obtaining and transferring alcoholic beverage licenses for clients and has a working knowledge of the Beverage Law, including DABT rules and practice. When he purchased the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license at the judicial sale, he did not know that it had been revoked by DABT. He did, however, know that there was license revocation litigation between Intimo Lounge, Inc. and DABT. He also knew that DABT had issued an emergency order suspending Intimo Lounge, Inc.'s license; and he knew that there were circuit court foreclosure proceedings involving the license. Yet he failed to ascertain the status of the license -- either by checking the files of DABT or the circuit court. But even if he had discovered that the license had been revoked, under DABT's long-standing practice and interpretation of Section 561.65, it would have made no difference. The license would have "survived" revocation because Armando Calo had timely enforced his lien. And it could have been sold at a judicial sale and transferred to a new qualified purchaser. (Testimony of Valdes, Harris; P-13) DABT has provided no record foundation for its abrupt discontinuance of prior agency practice and policy in August, 1980, a policy which allowed both licensed and unlicensed lien holders to file and timely enforce liens against beverage licenses. This policy enabled a lien to survive license revocation; and the license, which had been revoked earlier could then be transferred by judicial sale. The only explanation given for the change in policy, a change which DABT now relies on as cause for denying Gui-Dom's application, is that the agency changed its legal interpretation of Section 561.65 (1977). (Testimony of LaRosa; P-13)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Gui-Dom's application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 23-1901, series 4-COP, be granted. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1983.
