Findings Of Fact During the month of September 1988, petitioner, David J. Caplan, agreed with, unbeknownst to him, a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration to secure and deliver to the agent 12 kilograms of cocaine for $16,500 per kilogram (kilo). On September 27, 1988, petitioner picked up one kilo of cocaine from his supplier and transported it in his vehicle to his residence. Within his residence, petitioner met with the agent and a confidential informant (CI), and delivered the one kilo of cocaine to the agent in exchange for $16,500. On September 28, 1988, following negotiations regarding the purchase of the balance of the cocaine, petitioner picked up two kilos of cocaine from his supplier, transported it by truck to his residence, and hid it in a garbage can adjacent to his garage. Upon the arrival of the agent and CI, petitioner removed the cocaine from the garbage can, and displayed it to the agent inside his residence. After examining the cocaine, the agent and CI left the residence under the announced intention of going to get the money for the purchase of the two kilos, and once away from the residence the agent gave the signal to other agents for petitioner's arrest. Upon arrest, petitioner cooperated with the agents, and directed them to the two kilos of cocaine, which he had hidden in the rafters of his garage. 1/ Subsequently, petitioner was charged and pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine. On February 21, 1990, respondent, Department of Revenue (Department), issued a Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Findings which assessed a tax of $9,900, a penalty of $2,475, an additional penalty of $4,950, and interest of $1,589.25, together with interest thereon at the rate of $3.25 per day after February 21, 1990, against petitioner, pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes. At petitioner's request, the Department reconsidered such assessment, and on May 7, 1991, issued a revised assessment against petitioner, assessing a tax of $9,900, a penalty of $2,475, and interest of $1,589.25, together with interest at the rate of $3.25 per day after February 21, 1990. The factual basis for the assessment was the petitioner's involvement in the cocaine transactions described in the foregoing findings of fact. Petitioner filed a timely petition seeking a formal hearing to contest the Department's assessment. At hearing, petitioner contended that the cocaine in question was not his, that he merely acted as a go-between for the agent and his supplier, and that he was therefore not involved in any sale, use or distribution of the subject cocaine. Moreover, with regard to the second transaction, which involved the two kilos of cocaine, petitioner contended that no liability for any tax could attach because the sale was not consummated, i.e.: petitioner had not yet actually exchanged the cocaine with the agent for the agreed purchase price. Petitioner's contentions regarding the limited nature of his involvement is contrary to the credible proof, and petitioner's contentions regarding the implications of that participation are contrary to the law, discussed infra. Succinctly, petitioner actively participated in the transportation, storage, distribution and sale of the cocaine, and he is subject to the implications of such activity under the provisions of Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes. Notwithstanding his active participation in the sale of the cocaine, petitioner averred at hearing that such participation was not voluntary. Rather, petitioner contended that his participation resulted from pressure asserted by a friend of long standing (Lupo) who, unbeknown to him, had become a confidential informant. 2/ According to petitioner, Lupo pressured him into locating a supplier of cocaine for the agent and CI involved in the subject transactions, as a consequence of hounding him for an old $1,600 debt petitioner had incurred for purchasing cocaine at a time he was addicted to the drug, and by an oblique remark the confidential informant made that "he knew my kid played outside," which petitioner averred he interpreted to be a threat to do something to his son. Petitioner's contention that his participation in the subject transactions was not voluntary or, stated differently, that he was entrapped, is rejected as contrary to the more credible proof. Here, the proof demonstrates that petitioner's motivation was financial and that he had a familiar relationship of long standing with Lupo and his ultimate supplier (Greenburg) which, coupled with the lack of sincerity and precision to his testimony, make his protestations of duress ring hollow. Regarding his financial motivation, the proof demonstrates that when approached by Lupo, petitioner was financially strapped, and stood to make $500 for each kilo he could deliver. Had the entire transaction been consummated for the agreed 12 kilos, petitioner stood to make a quick $6,000. Regarding the relationships that existed, the proof demonstrates that petitioner had been friends with Lupo and Greenberg for over twenty years, had actually lived with Greenberg for ten years, and that there was no apparent change in that relationship when he was approached by Lupo and introduced to the agent in this case. Considering the length of their relationship, and the lack of conviction in petitioner's testimony, it is concluded that petitioner's participation in this transaction was not compelled by any threat from Lupo, but by his own financial needs. In sum, the proof supports the conclusion that petitioner did engage in the unlawful sale, use, distribution, transportation or storage of cocaine as set forth in the Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Findings, and that the Department's assessment of tax, penalty and interest set forth in its revised assessment was reasonable and appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order concluding that petitioner, David J. Caplan, is liable for taxes, penalties and interest pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes, and assessing the amount of such liability at $13,964.25, plus interest at the rate of $3.25 per day from February 22, 1990. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of March 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 30th day of March 1992.
Findings Of Fact 1. Respondents Janet and Leonard Spivak acquired Hel- Len's Culinary Den II while they were still married, and their joint ownership persisted even after their divorce. Their marriage was dissolved some two or three years before the hearing. 2 During the month of October, 1979, Mr. Spivak was working as an accountant five days a week and helping out at the restaurant on weekends. On October 12, 1979, he was busy at the pizza oven 30 or 40 feet from Janet Spivak when he heard a disturbance and looked up to see Mrs. Spivak being arrested. She had just sold drugs, including 100 tablets of methaqualone, to an undercover deputy sheriff. Leonard Spivak had had no prior knowledge of his former wife's involvement with illicit drugs. At the time of Mrs. Spivak's arrest, Joseph Williams, the Broward County deputy sheriff to whom Mrs. Spivak sold the drugs, also arrested one Goldsmith, who had arranged the transaction at Williams' behest. Before his conversation with Goldsmith on October 12, 1979, Williams had no reason to suspect that drugs were being sold at Hel-Len's Culinary Den II. After her arrest, Mrs. Spivak produced all other pills and medications in her possession, upon instructions to do so. Among the pills were black capsules containing phentermine, a stimulant sometimes prescribed for weight loss, and blue diazapam tablets, which are sold under the trade name of Valium. Both of these drugs Mrs. Spivak kept for personal consumption.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondents' license. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Yochmowitz, Esquire Suite 906, Dupont Plaza Center Miami, Florida 33131 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Judith Blake Persky, is a licensed practical ours holding License No. 39779-1 issued by the Florida State Board of Nursing. On or about May 30, 1978, the Respondent converted to her own use a controlled substance, Dilaudid. She admitted this to her supervisor, and she was suspended and referred to a psychiatrist for evaluation. The psychiatric evaluation determined that the Respondent was not dependent upon drugs. Upon this determination, the Respondent was reinstated and continued to work at the Hollywood Medical Center. On or about March 6, 1979, members of the staff at the Hollywood Medical Center discovered that stocks of Dilaudid, more than twenty (20) doses, maintained in the Intensive Care Unit and the Progressive Care Unit, had been tampered with and the tampering disguised. As a result of this discovery, members of the staff with access to these stocks were polygraphed. The Respondent, when advised that her responses indicated deception, admitted she had taken the drugs in question and prepared a hand-written admission. The handwritten admission asserts that the Respondent had been coerced into taking the drugs by threats of physical harm to her and to her husband.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and fully considering the facts in mitigation, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida State Board of Nursing suspend the license of the Respondent for one year. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Judith Blake Perskey 202 South Federal Highway Dania, Florida 33314 Geraldine B. Johnson, R. N. Board of Nursing 111 Coastline Drive East, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issues in this cause arise out of allegations that the Respondent violated the provisions of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, by procuring amphetamines, procuring controlled substances for himself, procuring a controlled substance other than in the course of his dental practice, and failing to fulfill statutory record keeping requirements. At the hearing, the Petitioner called Investigator Greg P. Clift and Deputy Claude Davidson as witnesses. The Petitioner offered and had admitted two exhibits. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 is a certificate from the custodian of records for the Florida State Board of Dentistry and Exhibit No. 2 is a composite exhibit consisting of 11 D.E.A. Form 222. Respondent presented no evidence by way of live testimony and offered one composite exhibit which was admitted for the purpose of showing the character and reputation of the Respondent. That exhibit consists of eight letters from persons within the community who are familiar with the Respondent and his reputation as a dentist. Both counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed recommended orders for consideration by the undersigned Hearing Officer. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law contained within those proposed recommended orders are not adopted herein, they were considered and determined to be either irrelevant to the issues of this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact By stipulation, it was agreed and I find that Respondent is and at all times relevant to this proceeding was a licensed dentist in the State of Florida holding License No. 0004802. During the period of May, 1979, through October, 1981, the Respondent ordered and procured the following drugs from the Interstate Drug Exchange in Plainview, New York: DATE DRUG AMOUNT 05/11/79 Quaalude 100 at 300 mg. 08/20/79 Percodan 100 at 5 mg. 11/06/79 Quaalude 500 at 300 mg. 01/08/80 Quaalude 500 at 300 mg. 01/08/80 Percodan 100 at 5 mg. 05/12/80 Quaalude 500 at 300 mg. 06/16/80 Percodan 100 at 5 mg. 08/21/80 Percodan 100 at 5 mg. 08/21/80 Quaalude 500 at 300 mg. 10/21/80 Dexedrine 100 at 15 mg. 11/17/80 Quaalude 500 at 300 mg. 02/13/81 Quaalude 500 at 300 mg. 10/05/81 Percodan 100 at 5 mg. These drugs were not procured by the Respondent for the purpose of utilizing them in the treatment of dental patients as a part of and in the course of his dental practice. The drugs were procured by the Respondent for himself for personal use, and he did, in fact, use the drugs himself. The Quaaludes and Percodan were taken by the Respondent because of problems he was having as a result of a difficult divorce that he was going through. The Dexedrine was procured by the Respondent for the purpose of losing weight, but because of the effect that it had upon him, he took only a few of the tablets and threw away the rest of the tablets. At the time the Respondent ordered and received the drugs listed in Paragraph 2 above, there was no investigative protocol contained in the records of the Florida State Board of Dentistry, nor had one been submitted regarding the prescribing, procuring, or use of amphetamines by Dr. Michael Radell, the Respondent. None of the drugs ordered were used by the Respondent in treating dental patients in the course of his dental practice. The only records maintained by Respondent with regard to those drugs listed in Paragraph 2 of this Recommended Order were the D.E.A. Form 222s which appear in Petitioner's Exhibit 2. No other records were prepared or maintained by the Respondent with regard to those drugs. The Respondent is an orthodontist and generally orthodontia does not require the use of Quaaludes. The Respondent does not use Percodan in his practice. During the course of the investigation, the Respondent was cooperative and polite at all times to Investigator Clift and Detective Davidson.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found not guilty of Counts I, II, and III of the administrative complaint and that the charges be dismissed with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 6 day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6 day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Julie Gallager Staff Attorney 1844 Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Varn Executive Director Board of Dentistry 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Byrd, Esquire 1844 Main Street Sarasota, Florida 33577 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 11, 1990, and issued certificate number 4-90-502-02. On May 31, 1990, Dawn Rees was working in concert with the Police Department of Williston, Florida, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as a confidential informant regarding illegal drug activity in the Williston area. In the course of her work, Rees would meet with various individuals and attempt to buy illegal drugs. As a prelude to each of these meetings, Rees would be searched by law enforcement officials to determine that she had no illegal drugs on her person. Then, she would be "wired" or fitted with sonic monitoring equipment and sent to negotiate the illegal drug purchase. Upon her return from the drug rendezvous, Rees would turn over any contraband purchased by her and submit again to a personal search. Rees' conversations with the persons from whom she sought to buy drugs was monitored and recorded by authorities via the broadcast of those communications to them through the "wire" worn by Rees. On the evening of May 31, 1994, Rees went to the residence where Respondent lived and spoke with William Lynch, a friend of Respondent who also resided in the house, concerning the purchase of an ounce of marijuana. The conversation between Lynch and Rees took place on the front porch of the residence. Lynch told Rees that he could get the marijuana for her. Later that evening, Rees, equipped with the hidden listening device described above, returned and entered the residence to get the promised marijuana. Sometime later, Rees left the residence and met with law enforcement authorities. As stipulated by the parties at the final hearing, a field test of the substance obtained from Lynch in the residence by Rees, and provided to authorities that night, identified the drug as marijuana. As established by Rees' testimony at the final hearing, she was involved in several other investigations as a confidential informant during the same general time span that she was also involved in the drug purchase at Respondent's residence. Rees testified from the basis of her recollection of events that had occurred several years prior to final hearing. Respondent was present and operating a "Nintendo" game when Rees entered the house. Respondent engaged in conversation with Rees, but did not observe the later exchange of money for marijuana between her and Lynch. The exchange, as established by Lynch's candid and credible testimony, took place in a back bedroom of the house, out of the presence of Respondent. Respondent testified that he had no knowledge of the transaction or the presence of illegal drugs in the house. Accordingly, Rees' testimony, absent further corroboration by other direct admissible evidence, that Respondent knew illicit drugs were on the premises and observed the drug transaction, cannot be credited. A transcript, presented at the final hearing and purportedly derived from the tape of conversations had between Rees and persons in the residence garnered via the "wire" worn by Rees, offers no proof in support of a contention that Respondent was aware of the presence or sale of illegal drugs on the premises. As established by the credible testimony of Respondent, and corroborated by Lynch, Respondent was unaware of the presence of illicit drugs in the residence or the sale of such drugs in the residence at any time, contrary to allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Later, Lynch moved out of the residence. Respondent was arrested several months later in connection with the incident. By stipulation of the parties, it is established that those charges were subsequently nolle prossed by the Office of the State Attorney, 8th Judicial Circuit of Florida. The evidence presented by Petitioner of Respondent's knowledge and possible participation in the possession and sale of an illicit drug, marijuana, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, is met by Respondent's credible denial of any knowledge as to the alleged events. Further, Respondent's assertion of innocence is corroborated by the testimony of William Lynch. It is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent knew that drugs were in the house on the night in question or that Respondent knew of the drug sale to Dawn Rees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of June, 1994. DON W. 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 10th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2 Accepted. 3-4 Rejected, the transcript reference shows that Respondent was arrested on February 5, 1991, following the May, 1990 incident. 5-6 Accepted. 7-8 Subordinate to HO's findings on these points. Specifically, Ms. Rees is found to have been mistaken about the content of her conversations with Respondent and without a basis to draw the conclusion that Respondent was a willing and knowledgeable participant in illegal activity. Subordinate to HO findings. Respondent had the transcript admitted to show its lack of probative value. At no time does Respondent adopt the transcript in order to prove the case against himself. Rejected, relevance. Accepted. Rejected, relevance. Accepted. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Pauline Ingreham-Drayton Attorney at Law Florida Department of Law Enforcement 711 B Liberty Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard Bova, Jr. 624 S.W. 70th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32608 Leon Lowry, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues joined in this litigation concern an administrative complaint brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation (Petitioner) against David D. Turner, M.D. (Respondent), charging him with the violation of Section 458.331(1)(c), Florida Statutes, related to an alleged conviction in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, for the offense of conspiracy (adulterated and misbranded drugs) in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code, Sections 331(b) and 333(a), all in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 371.
Findings Of Fact Part A. Facts which are alleged in the Administrative Complaint, admitted by Respondent: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0010840. Respondent's last known address is Post Office Box 267, Orange Park, Florida 32073. On September 27, 1985, Respondent was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta, Georgia, of the offense of conspiracy (adulterated and misbranded drugs) in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code, Sections 331(b) and 333(a), all in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 371. Part B. Facts found based upon an examination of the record established at hearing: An explanation of his involvement in the federal case was given by the Respondent in the course of the present hearing, and it is found at pages 225 through 235 of the transcript which was provided at the conclusion of the administrative hearing. Dr. Turner concedes that he pled to the misdemeanor charges as alluded to in paragraph 3 of these fact findings and made a knowing plea. The pharmaceuticals that were being provided to the contact person, who had identified himself to the Respondent as Mark Taylor, actually Tom Hall, are not controlled substances. They were items provided to Respondent by pharmaceutical representatives, generally described as hypertensive, birth control pills and antihistamines. Respondent indicated, in the course of the hearing, that the person who identified himself as Taylor said he was representing a wholesale pharmaceutical distributor from Georgia which was controlled by a Dr. Wallace (mastermind in this fraudulent scheme), a licensed physician in the state of Georgia. Initial contact between Dr. Turner and Hall aka Taylor took place in late 1982 or early 1983. The arrangement that was arrived at had Respondent give sample pharmaceuticals to Taylor by allowing Taylor to pick up discarded drugs once or twice a month. Respondent received what is referred to as an "administrative charge," a cash remuneration of $100, for handing over the pharmaceuticals. Taylor/Hall stated that he had an interest in acquiring surplus pharmaceuticals from various physicians and hospitals for redistribution into the wholesale market. Taylor also represented that the primary distribution would occur to needy people. As indicated to Respondent, the distributor contemplated eventually having physicians buy stock in the distributorship and in the interest of goodwill, in the interim, Respondent and other physicians were expected to contribute generic pharmaceuticals. At Taylor/Hall's suggestion, Respondent contacted Dr. Wallace to confirm Taylor's explanation of the arrangement for providing Taylor the pharmaceuticals. Dr. Wallace confirmed Taylor's representations and gave the names of four or five other doctors in Florida whom the Respondent could contact about the enterprise. These pharmaceuticals were not items intended for resale. Respondent, as the federal prosecutor's memorandum for sentence indicated and as he testified to in the administrative hearing, did not realize that the pharmaceuticals were being resold on the market upon the false representation that they were drugs that could be disposed of in this fashion, as opposed to those not for resale. He believed that they were going to Dr. Wallace for purposes other than resale. The legal problem with Dr. Turner's arrangement with Mr. Taylor was that the sample drugs that comprised Dr. Turner's surplus are marked "not for resale." Although Dr. Turner was not aware of it, Mr. Taylor was taking the pharmaceuticals obtained from Dr. Turner back to Atlanta and repackaging them for distribution at a profit. Petitioner's Exhibit 9 admitted into evidence is the prosecution's sentencing memorandum which was made available to the court in the disposition of the criminal proceedings against the Respondent as previously described. This document sets forth the factual underpinnings for the receipt of the Respondent's plea of guilty in federal court and is accepted as fact in the administrative hearing in determining the basis for the conviction described in paragraph 3 of these factual findings. Of significance in the present case are the following remarks found within this sentencing memorandum related to the criminal defendants, among them the Respondent: * * * The defendants realize that such packaging and labeling would have had to be removed by someone before ultimate sale to consumers with prescriptions, since consumers normally would not pay for drugs marked as free samples. The defendants were not aware of what methods co-conspirators would employ to effect this removal. Nor were the defendants aware of how the now adulterated and misbranded drugs would be stored, handled, resold, and dispensed. * * * AGAIN, THESE DEFENDANTS HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE METHODS EMPLOYED BY CO-CONSPIRATORS WHICH RESULTED IN ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING. Further, these defendants received very little payment for their sample in comparison to the amount realized from their ultimate resale after the adulteration and misbranding. During the same time period that each doctor was involved in selling his samples, he also signed a number of letters requesting stock bottles of prescription medication free of charge for his personal use from many different drug manufacturers. Upon receipt, these stock bottles would be included with the sample drug picked up by Tom Hall or Robert Morrill and resold through the same parties. The stock bottles did not have to be removed from their original packaging and labeling since they bore no restrictive use markings. * * * All doctors except Cooper were confronted by the FBI in January 1985. They all gave false exculpatory statements, either denying the letter-writing scheme altogether or denying receipt of any proceeds from the stock bottles and sample drugs. * * * However, soon after retaining legal counsel all of the doctors involved in the sample and letter writing schemes contacted the government and offered their full cooperation. They returned to Atlanta at their own expense where they were fully debriefed. They told the complete truth and remain ready to testify before the Grand Jury and at subsequent trials when called upon to do so, including the case of Robert Morrill who is already under indictment for controlled substances and tax violations. * * * The current defendants have done everything in their power to make amends for their past illegal activities, many of which were undertaken without full knowledge or consideration of their ramifications. Without assistance from three defendants the government would not have been able to make such a national impact on drug "diversion" and the distribution of adulterated and misbranded drugs, both of which seriously jeopardize the health of the drug consuming public, as well as increase the cost of prescription medication. * * * David L. Turner - May 1983 through December 1984. Dr. Turner, unlike the other Florida doctors, dealt with Hall rather than Morrill. His sale of samples and stock bottles obtained for personal use continued longer than anyone, but McAlister and Contreras. He also ordered a few extra pharmaceuticals at low purchase prices for clinic use which he resold to Hall. However, this activity was miniscule compared to the other "diversions" uncovered in this investigation. Dr. Turner was fully cooperative. His background and lack of other criminal activity is a positive factor in his favor. Petitioner's Exhibit 8 sets forth the adjudication of the subject case involving the federal prosecution against the Respondent, to include the correction of the court's order upon motion of counsel for the Respondent. The highlights of the disposition of the case included a ten-day jail term as a condition of probation, a period of probation of 36 months, the possibility of the service of imprisonment for a period of one year and the necessity of performing three days per week for a period of one year related to community service. Respondent also had to pay a fine of $1,000 and a special assessment of $25. Petitioner's Exhibit 10 admitted into evidence is a statement from the Respondent's probationary officer in the federal criminal prosecution in which the affiant Fred Fortenberry, federal probation officer, attests to the Respondent's carrying out of his obligation for community service dealing with the care and treatment of indigent persons in the Pureal Medical Center in Orange Park, Florida, where Respondent is employed. That obligation for community service had not been concluded, but has been faithfully executed up to the point of the affidavit which was given on September 29, 1986. The affiant Fortenberry also indicated that the Respondent was complying with other terms and conditions of probation.
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 Petitioner Robert Friedman, who has resided in Miami, Florida since January 1973, filed an application with Respondent for registration as a real estate salesman on January 9, 1978. Question 6 of the application was answered by the Petitioner as follows: 6. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? Yes If yes, state details including the outcome in full: Arrested in Feb. '72; charged with sale of dangerous drugs - sentenced to 6 mos. in Allenwood & 2 yrs. probation - Prior to Feb. '72, approximately 5 arrests - all dismissed. Respondent issued an Order denying the application on May 22, 1978, because Petitioner failed to disclose in his application the fact of his arrest in Dade County, Florida, on January 25, 1974, on a charge of grand larceny. The Order also noted that the February 1972 arrest disclosed by Petitioner in the application actually occurred in February, 1971. Based on the foregoing, Respondent found that Petitioner had not made it affirmatively appear that he met the qualifications for registration contained in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6, Pleadings.) A Federal Bureau of Investigation Record showing numerous arrests of Petitioner by state and federal authorities dating from 1966, primarily on charges alleging drug offenses, was received in evidence without objection by Petitioner. Petitioner testified that the record was true. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Testimony of Friedman.) On January 25, 1974, Petitioner was arrested in Miami, Florida, on a charge of grand larceny in violation of Section 811.021, Florida Statutes. He was found guilty of the offense in the Dade County Circuit Court, Case No. 74- 964, on April 26, 1974, but adjudication of guilt was withheld and he was placed on probation for a period of eighteen months. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3-5). Petitioner testified at the hearing and admitted his failure to list the 1974 arrest on his application to Respondent. His explanation for the omission was that the Circuit Judge had told him that he could "forget about it" because adjudication of guilt had been withheld, and his lawyer had said that it would never interfere in the future. Petitioner denied that he was attempting to deceive the Respondent in his application, but had attempted to forget the arrest and did not intentionally omit it from his application. He further testified that he had been a drug addict who had been in a methadone program of treatment until about two and one-half years ago, but that he was now leading a normal life without drugs. (Testimony of Petitioner.)
Recommendation That the application of Robert Friedman for registration as a real estate salesman be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Jr. Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert Friedman 242 Southwest 78th Place Miami, Florida 33144 THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November 1978.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent Maria I. Casas, held license number PS0014711 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Pharmacy. When the events herein occurred, respondent was prescription department manager for Cuca Pharmacy, Inc. (Cuca) at 11048 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida. The president and permittee of the pharmacy was Hortensia Lopez-Perez who does not hold a pharmacist license. Respondent has been licensed as a pharmacist in the State of Florida since 1975. In February, 1984 Alberto Fernandez was performing undercover operations in the Miami area for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) for the purpose of enforcing federal narcotic laws. On February 17, he received information from an informant that ten kilograms of cocaine could be purchased for $21,000.00 per kilogram from two individuals named Zayas and Santos. Be was told the cocaine was stored at Cuca. Fernandez arranged a meeting with Zayas and Santos in Hialeah, but no sale was consummated since Zayas and Santos were unable to produce any cocaine. On February 25, Fernandez again received a telephone call from his informant and was told to go to Cuca and meet an individual named Jesus Avila who was interested in dealing some cocaine. There he was introduced to Avila by an undisclosed individual, and the three negotiated a sale of ten kilograms at the rear of the store. There is no evidence that Casas was aware of these negotiations or that she was even on duty at this time. In any event, Avila agreed to sell ten kilograms to Fernandez for an undisclosed price. As a good faith gesture, the two further agreed to meet at a nearby shopping center where Fernandez would display the money and Avila would show the drugs. if both parties were satisfied, the sale would be consummated at Cuca. Fernandez went to the shopping center at the designated time, but Avila never showed. Fernandez then returned to the drug store where the permittee (Lopez-Perez) told him the cocaine was on its way and not to worry. Although Casas was on duty when Fernandez met with Lopez-Perez, it is found she was not privy to the conversation as it related to a shipment of cocaine. Several hours later Fernandez received a telephone call advising that the cocaine had arrived and to return to Cuca. He did so and met with Avila and Lopez-Perez in the rear of the store. The three agreed on a sale within a few days. Again Casas was not a party to these discussions. On February 29, Fernandez received another telephone call from his informant and was told the cocaine could be purchased at Cuca around 3:00 p.m. At the designated time, Fernandez, Lopez-Perez and the informant went to the rear of the store. Casas joined them a moment later to use the restroom which was also located in the rear of the store. As Casas came out of the restroom, Lopez-Perez pulled a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance from a metal cabinet and gave it to Fernandez. Although Casas was in the vicinity of the transfer, it is found she did not know the nature of the transaction. This is because Casas had no reason to believe that drugs were being illicitly transferred, and she was only in the rear of the premises for a matter of moments to use the restroom. After her business was completed she returned to the front of the store. Shortly thereafter, both Casas and Lopez-Perez were arrested by federal agents for allegedly violating federal narcotic laws. The contents of the bag transferred from Lopez-Perez to Fernandez were subjected to a chemical analysis and found to contain 2.2 pounds (one kilogram) of 95 percent cocaine hydrochloride, a controlled substance and legend drug which requires a prescription to dispense. The drug was dispensed to Fernandez without a prescription. Records of Miami area drug wholesalers introduced into evidence reflected that Cuca did not order any cocaine for prescription purposes during the period from January 1, 1982 - through June 30, 1984. This was confirmed by Casas' testimony. As prescription manager it was her responsibility to maintain all drug records providing for the security of the prescription department. Lopez was convicted on August 16, 1984 on two counts of violating federal statutes. She is now appealing her conviction. Although Casas was arrested with Lopez-Perez Casas was not convicted of any crime relating to the illicit drug transactions in question. There is no evidence that Casas was involved in or knowingly condoned the illegal drug activity, or that she was negligent in supervising the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the two administrative complaints against respondent be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of January 1986, in Tallahassee Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 84-1612 & 85-0968 PETITIONER: Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 1. 7. Essentially covered in finding of fact 3. 8. Essentially covered in finding of fact 3. 9. Essentially covered in finding of fact 4. 10. Covered in finding of fact 5. 11. Covered in finding of fact 5. 12. Covered in finding of fact 5. 13. Covered in finding of fact 6. 14. Covered in finding of fact 6. 15. Covered in finding of fact 1. 16. Covered in finding of fact 5. 17. Covered in finding of fact 7. 18. Covered in finding of fact 1. 19. Covered in finding of fact 7. 20. Covered in finding of fact 1. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire 130 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL32301 Rolando A. Amador, Esquire 799 Galiano, Suite 206 Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Findings Of Fact Holtzberg is a pharmacist holding a license issued by the Florida Board of Pharmacy. R & B Pharmacy, Inc. is a permittee holding a permit issued by the Florida Board of Pharmacy. Albert Holtzberg is the owner/operator of R & B Pharmacy, Inc. The drugs enumerated in the complaint were discovered on the premises of R & B Pharmacy by V. K. Bell, agent of the Board, during an inspection. These drugs were in containers which were not their original containers and which did not bear labels containing names and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and an accurate statement of the contents interms of weight, measure, or numerical count. The drugs found by Bell and enumerated in the complaint were purchased by Holtzberg for the purpose of resale and delivered to Holtzberg in plastic bags with the labels inside the bags. These labels had not been placed on the containers in which Holtzberg had placed the drugs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Board of Pharmacy suspend the license of Holtzberg for one year and that the permit of R & B Pharmacy, Inc. be suspended until Albert Holtzberg has satisfied the Board that a qualified pharmacist has been appointed in the manner required by law as manager of the prescription department of R & B Pharmacy. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Harvey I. Silverman, Esquire 4620 West Commercial Boulevard Suite 2 Tamarac, Florida 33319 Michael Schwartz, Esquire Ellis Building Suite 201 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301
