The Issue Whether or not on or about the 14th of March, 1976, Pearlie Mae Smith, a licensed vendor, did have in her possession, permit or allow someone else, to wit: Junior Lee Smith, to have in their possession on the licensed premises, alcoholic beverages, to wit: 5 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to s. 562.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact On March 14, 1976, and up to and including the date of the hearing, the Respondent, Pearlie Mae Smith, held license no. 72-65, series 2-COP with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. The licensed premises is located at 1013 West Malloy Avenue, Perry, Florida. On the morning of March 14, 1976, Officer B.C. Maxwell with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage acting on an informant's information, searched the informant to determine if the informant had monies other than the money that the officer had given him or any alcoholic beverages on his person. Once the informant had been searched and it was determined that the informant was carrying with him only the money that the officer had given him to purchase alcoholic beverages, the informant was sent into the subject licensed premises. The informant returned with a half-pint bottle of alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold on the licensed premise and indicated that this purchase was made from one Junior Lee Smith. Later in the morning, around 11:30, officers of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage entered the licensed premises and an inspection of those premises revealed a bag containing 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka in the kitchen area of the licensed premises. This bag and contents were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit #2. The 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka are alcoholic beverages which are not allowed to be sold under the series 2-COP license on the subject premises. When the officers entered, the same Junior Lee Smith was in the licensed premises and indicated that he was in charge of the licensed premises and had been selling alcoholic beverages for "quite some time" together with his wife, Pearlie Mae Smith, the licensee. The bag he indicated, had been whiskey that had been left over from the night before.
Recommendation It is recommended that based upon the violation as established in the hearing that the licensee, Pearlie Mae Smith, have her beverage license suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Winson, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mrs. Pearlie Mae Smith 1013 West Malloy Avenue Perry, Florida
The Issue The parties stipulated as to the identification of all drugs seized and purchased by the investigators. The issues presented in this case are as follows: Whether the individual counts as set forth in the Notice to Show Cause took place as alleged; Whether Jerry Alden ("Alden") was an employee, agent or servant of the Respondent; Whether Respondent was culpably negligent in the supervision of the licensed premises. Both parties have submitted posthearing proposed findings of fact. A ruling has been made on each proposed findings of fact in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations in the Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent, Michael George Shlepr, d/b/a Eau Gallie Inn, was the holder of a valid Alcoholic Beverage License #15-1912, series 4-COP, issued by the Petitioner to the Respondent for the Eau Gallie Inn located at 1841 Avocado Avenue, Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. On January 22, 1986, Detective Bruce Triolo of the Melbourne Police Department ("MPD") entered the licensed premises as part of an undercover investigation of narcotics trafficking. Triolo was accompanied by a confidential informant who frequented the licensed premises and was well known by the patrons and employees of the licensed premises. During said evening, Triolo was approached by an individual known as Jerry Alden (and also referred to as "Jerry Holden" during the hearing), who asked Triolo if he wanted to buy marijuana. Triolo indicated he desired to purchase marijuana and thereafter met Alden in the parking lot of the licensed premises where Triolo purchased two bags of marijuana from Alden. On January 23, 1986, Triolo again entered the licensed premises as part of an undercover investigation. Triolo and Alden negotiated the sale of marijuana inside the licensed premises and Triolo met Alden in the picnic area adjacent to the building (see diagram in Petitioner's Exhibit 1) where Triolo purchased marijuana from Alden. This picnic area was included in the diagram of the licensed premises and made a part thereof at the suggestion of an agency employee after the undercover investigation of the licensed premises had begun. This area is irregularly shaped and has at least one entrance to it which cannot be observed from inside the licensed premises. On January 24, 1986, Triolo again entered the licensed premises as part of an undercover investigation. Triolo discussed purchasing marijuana from Alden. On this occasion, Alden asked the bartender, "Lynn," to hand him his jacket. Lynn brought Alden his jacket from a small office area behind the bar and gave it to Alden. Alden took a bag of marijuana from the jacket and delivered it to Triolo while they were sitting at the bar of the licensed premises. On January 28, 1986, Triolo entered the licensed premises as part of an undercover investigation and spoke with the bartender identified as "Bruce." Triolo asked Bruce where he could find Alden and was advised that Alden "was around." Triolo asked Bruce about purchasing marijuana and Bruce offered to sell Triolo one marijuana cigarette. Bruce took $1.50 from Triolo's change that was on the bar as payment for the cigarette. On January 31, 1986, Triolo entered the licensed premises as part of an undercover investigation. Triolo negotiated with Alden in the licensed premises the purchase of marijuana, which was delivered and paid for in the men's bathroom of the licensed premises by Alden. At that time, Alden asked Triolo if he was interested in purchasing any cocaine. Triolo said that he was and Alden left and returned in approximately 15 minutes. At that time, Alden met Triolo by the picnic table in the picnic area. Alden showed Triolo several cocaine rocks and sold Triolo one for $20.00. During the time that this transaction was taking place, the bartender, "Shawn," was standing at the back door of the licensed premises observing what was taking place in the picnic area. On February 25, 1986, Triolo entered the licensed premises with Agent Richard White of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco as part of an undercover investigation. Triolo purchased a bag of marijuana from Alden while sitting at the bar. Shawn, who was the bartender, handed Alden the bag of marijuana from behind the bar and Alden delivered the bag to Triolo. On February 26, 1986, Triolo entered the licensed premises as part of an undercover investigation. While there, he discussed the purchase of marijuana from "Marie," another patron. Marie delivered the marijuana to Triolo inside the licensed premises and Triolo passed the marijuana to White in the open while both men were sitting at the bar in the licensed premises. As part of an undercover investigation, on March 7, 1986, Triolo entered the licensed premises where he negotiated the purchase of a bag of marijuana with Alden. Alden only had one bag and a white female patron had also indicated she wanted to purchase a bag of marijuana. Alden met with the white female and Triolo at the picnic table in the picnic area and split the bag of marijuana between the white female and Triolo. On the same night, a patron, Brian Riordon, sold and delivered cocaine to Triolo in the parking lot of the licensed premises. On March 9, 1986, Triolo and White attended a party in the licensed premises for which they had purchased tickets as part of the continuing investigation. On this occasion, which was on a Sunday, Shlepr was present and served beer to Triolo and White at 11:57 a.m., contrary to Melbourne City Ordinance that prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages prior to 1:00 p.m. on Sundays. On March 13, 1986, White entered the licensed premises as part of an undercover investigation with Triolo. White engaged in wagering on a game of liar's poker with another patron, "Tim," at the bar in front of the bartender. On March 14, 1986, Triolo entered the licensed premises and negotiated the purchase of marijuana with Alden. Triolo gave Alden $60.00; however, Alden returned and said he could not get the marijuana and gave Triolo his money back. The negotiations for the purchase took place in the licensed premises. On March 15, 1986, White entered the licensed premises with Triolo as part of their investigation. White began playing pool for money with Alden and another patron. The bartender, Lynn, was present and observed their gambling. On March 19, 1986, Triolo entered the licensed premises as part of an undercover investigation and discussed with Alden purchasing marijuana. Alden advised Triolo that "the marijuana was on its way over." In a short while, a white male patron, Dennis Thorp, arrived and delivered the marijuana to Alden, who in turn delivered it to Triolo. Subsequently, on March 19, 1986, Alden sold a stolen outboard motor to Triolo at an apartment in the vicinity of the licensed premises. The negotiations for the purchase of the stolen outboard motor took place on the licensed premises. On March 20, 1986, Triolo entered the licensed premises with White as part of an undercover investigation. Alden, with Dennis Thorp, sold and delivered marijuana to Triolo on the licensed premises. White engaged in a pool game with Alden for money on the same evening. As part of the continuing investigation, on March 26, 1986, Triolo entered the licensed premises where he discussed the purchase of marijuana with Alden. He subsequently drove Alden to a house in Melbourne which Alden entered and returned with several bags of marijuana. Alden explained that he had more orders for marijuana than he had bags of marijuana. As a result, the potential purchasers, to include Triolo, met with Alden at the picnic table in the picnic area at the Eau Gallie Inn where the bags were split. Triolo received part of a bag in return for driving Alden to pick up the drug. On April 1, 1986, Triolo entered the licensed premises as part of the ongoing investigation and discussed the purchase of marijuana with Alden. Alden sold and delivered marijuana to Triolo on the licensed premises. Subsequently, Alden approached Triolo with another white male, identified as "Ted" and discussed with Triolo the purchase of cocaine. Triolo gave money to Ted, and Ted and Shawn, a bartender at the Eau Gallie Inn, left the licensed premises together and returned with cocaine. Ted delivered cocaine to Triolo on the licensed premises. No evidence was received that Shawn was on duty the night in question. On April 3, 1986, Triolo entered the licensed premises as part of the continuing investigation. On this occasion he negotiated the purchase of marijuana from Alden and Thorp and cocaine from Alden and Ted on the premises. The cocaine was delivered in the picnic area. Evidence was not clear on where the marijuana was delivered. On April 4, 1986, Triolo entered the licensed premises as part of the continuing investigation. A patron, Mark Harrold, injected himself with drugs in the bathroom of the licensed premises while Detective Triolo guarded the door. On April 5, 1986, Triolo and White entered the licensed premises as part of the continuing investigation and spoke with Alden. A purchase of marijuana was negotiated and money was delivered by Triolo to Alden; however, when Alden returned with the marijuana, he had less marijuana than potential purchasers. Alden went into the kitchen area behind the bar where he split a bag and delivered half to Bruce, the bartender on duty, and half to Triolo. Alden approached White on the premises about purchasing a Colt revolver which Alden represented had been stolen. On April 9, 1986, Triolo entered the licensed premises as part of the continuing investigation. On this occasion, Alden delivered to Agent White in Triolo's presence, cocaine which White held up to the light and examined while standing at the pool table in the licensed premises. On said night, no marijuana was available for purchase; however, a number of people were in the picnic area smoking marijuana and free-basing cocaine. Also on April 9, 1986, Alden approached Triolo about purchasing some amphetamines. Alden left the premises and when he returned, sold to Triolo a substance represented to be amphetamines. However, upon analysis it was determined to be a caffeine derivative. Alden collaborated in this transaction with a patron known as "Doc Holliday." On the night of April 11/12, 1986, Agent White entered the licensed premises as part of the investigation. He discussed purchase of marijuana with Alden, who left the premises and returned after midnight. Alden delivered marijuana to White in the men's room. Shawn the bartender was in the toilet, came out, and saw Alden and White concluding the purchase of the drugs. Shawn asked if Alden would have a bag left which he could purchase. On April 15, 1986, Agent White brought up marijuana with the licensee, Shlepr, who was tending bar. Shlepr told White to put the marijuana back in his pocket; that he did not want to see it in the licensed premises. On April 16, 1986, Alden sold and delivered cocaine to Triolo on the licensed premises. Conflicting testimony was received concerning the status of Alden as an employee. The records of the licensed premises do not reflect Alden was an employee; however, the records of at least one other employee were also demonstrated to be incomplete or inaccurate. The licensee, Shlepr, testified that Alden was not an employee but was a regular patron who voluntarily would do helpful things around the licensed premises on occasion. Shlepr gave Alden free drinks on occasion in recognition of Alden's patronage and help. Triolo and White observed Alden on occasion taking beer from the stock room to the bar, clearing tables, and in one instance going next door to get Shlepr change. Triolo and White also observed that Alden had easy access to the area behind the bar, the small office behind the bar, the telephone, and cash register. Testimony was also received that during a portion of the investigation, Alden was dating one of the regular barmaids. Another of the regular bartenders testified Alden was not an employee. Based upon the most credible evidence, it is found Alden was not an employee; however, Alden was clearly permitted too much freedom in the licensed premises. The licensee, Shlepr, worked full-time on the evening shift at a local business in Melbourne at all times relevant to this complaint. He was on the premises from noon until the commencement of his shift and returned to the licensed premises after he got off work to close the licensed premises. He did not have a manager on the premises and the only employee present when Shlepr was not there was the bartender. The bartenders were given great freedom; one going so far as giving away drinks. The only two allegations which Shlepr could have observed or participated in were when Shlepr served the investigators beer on Sunday, March 9, and when White showed Shlepr marijuana on April 15. There is no allegation Shlepr had knowledge of the other incidents. Gary Michael Gordon was a substitute bartender during the period of the investigation at the Eau Gallie Inn, during which time and unto the present he was the Respondent's roommate. The identification of all the drugs mentioned above is accurate. There have been no previous disciplinary actions against this licensee. No evidence was introduced in support of counts 24 and 32. Respondent had no direct knowledge of the drug trafficking and gambling.
Recommendation Considering the fact that the violations of Sections 561.29(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes, arise primarily from acts of omission and not commission, and that only very minor and technical violations were attributable to the Respondent personally, it is recommended that the Respondent's license be suspended for six months; that he be fined $1,000; and that his presence or the presence of a responsible manager on the premises be required as a condition for continued operation. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of May 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 28th day of May 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 86-1343 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985) on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Both Petitioner and Respondent filed proposed findings of fact in this case. These proposed findings were read, considered, and adopted unless the proposed finding was rejected for the reason stated. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. (NOTE: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact contains two paragraphs numbered "3"; the paragraphs are herein referred to as Page 2, Paragraph 3, or Page 3, Paragraph 3. All other paragraphs in Petitioner's findings are referred to by their indicated number. Page 2, Paragraph 3 Adopted in part; rejected in part and rewritten in paragraph 25. Page 3, Paragraph 3 Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 18. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Rejected; contrary to evidence. Adopted in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 22. Adopted in paragraph 24. While the evidence taken as a whole might lead to this conclusory fact, this proposal is rejected. The facts surrounding the individual incidents are clear enough to permit the hearing officer to conclude that the Respondent knew or should have known about the conduct and was negligent in his supervision. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Respondent's repeated proposal that there was no evidence that Respondent had knowledge of the incidents is modified and adopted in paragraphs 29 and 30. Adopted. Rejected - argument. Reject first and last sentence as argument or summarization. Adopts second sentence in paragraph 25. Rejected; contrary to evidence. Description and nature of picnic area is addressed in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraphs 2 and 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. 9&10. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraphs 12 and 14. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20. Adopted in part in paragraph 29. Rejected in part as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in part in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraphs 21, 22 and 24. Rejected as to Dowd and Taylor because they worked earlier shifts during the day when a different group of patrons were at the bar. Rejected as to Gary Gordon because of credibility. Rejected as contrary to evidence. Rejected as cumulative summary of specific findings relating to each charge. First sentence: Similar findings were made in paragraph 23; the remainder is rejected based upon lack of credibility. Adopted in paragraph 28. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Mr. James Kearny Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 David W. Dyer, Esquire Post Office Box 3648 Indiatlantic, Florida 32903
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Alice Waldo, holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 45- 00293, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as the SILVER DOLLAR CAFE located in Lake County, Florida. On or about February 4, 1989, an investigator employed by Petitioner entered the licensed premises of Respondent. While in Respondent's facility, the investigator observed several patrons smoking a substance, which by its smell and usage, he believed to be marijuana. The investigator then met with a patron, ordered a small quantity of crack cocaine and handed the patron some money for the forthcoming purchase. The patron then asked Respondent to hold the money while he left the premises to retrieve the controlled substance from his automobile. Shortly thereafter, the patron returned with the cocaine. The investigator showed the substance to Respondent's daughter, who had taken her mother's place at the bar. The purpose of displaying the drug to the proprietor, or the proprietor's daughter in this instance, was to later illustrate that Respondent condoned the use and sale of the drug in connection with her licensed premises. A field test by the investigator and a later laboratory test confirmed the identity of the substance purchased as crack cocaine. Petitioner's investigator again entered Respondent's facility on or about February 10, 1989. On this occasion, the investigator purchased a quantity of marijuana from a female patron, then took the substance over to the bar where he proceeded to roll a marijuana cigarette in the presence of Petitioner. At no time did Petitioner inform the investigator that controlled substances were not allowed on the licensed premises. Upon later laboratory analysis, the substance was confirmed to be marijuana. Upon leaving Respondent's facility on February 10, 1989, Petitioner's investigator met an individual within 10 feet of the front door of the premises who sold him a quantity of a substance later determined by laboratory analysis to be crack cocaine. On or about February 24, 1989, Petitioner's investigator entered Respondent's facility. On the front porch of Respondent's facility, the investigator purchased a quantity of a substance later determined by the investigator's field test and a subsequent laboratory analysis to be crack cocaine. After completing the purchase of the substance, the investigator went inside the facility, placed the material on the counter and recounted to Respondent that it had just been purchased on the front porch. Respondent made no reply to the investigator's announcement and, instead, complied with his request for change for a $20 bill. Upon receipt of the change, the investigator wrapped the crack cocaine in a $1 bill in Respondent's presence. On February 28, 1989, Petitioner's investigator again entered Respondent's facility. He approached a black female named "Lilly" and gave her $20 for the purchase of crack cocaine. However, after the lady accepted the $20 and left to retrieve the cocaine, she did not return. The investigator complained to Respondent that "Lilly" had failed to deliver the drug to him. The investigator also told Respondent that the lady could keep the $20 if Respondent would get him some of the drug. At that time, Respondent referred the investigator to a group of three male patrons on the front porch of the facility who appeared to be smoking marijuana. At no time during this incident did Respondent take any steps to prevent the use of any controlled substances on the licensed premises. Subsequently, Petitioner's investigator returned to Respondent's facility on or about March 4, 1989. He purchased a beer and went outside to the front porch of the facility. He observed a number of furtive transactions where currency was passed between certain individuals. He noticed Respondent go to one of the automobiles in the facility parking lot, get into the automobile, engage in conversation with the occupants and shortly thereafter emerge from the automobile. Respondent went back into the facility. The investigator approached a black male and gave him $20 for some crack cocaine. The black male took the investigator's money, then went directly to the automobile where Respondent had been previously. He returned shortly thereafter to the investigator with two pieces of a substance which later tested positive, via field test and laboratory analysis, as cocaine. During another visit to Respondent's facility on or about March 9, 1989, Petitioner's investigator observed a patron rolling what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes in Respondent's presence. While Respondent took no action to prohibit the use or possession of the apparently controlled substance, she did get her coat and leave shortly after the investigator's arrival. On or about March 11, 1989, Petitioner's investigator reentered Respondent's facility. The investigator purchased a small quantity of crack cocaine from a black male on the front porch of the facility. The investigator then took the controlled substance inside the building and displayed it to Respondent, telling her that he had just obtained the drug on the porch. Respondent asked the investigator if he was going to smoke the drug, and he replied yes. Later, a field test and laboratory analysis confirmed the drug to be cocaine. On or about March 17, 1989, Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's facility. This time the investigator purchased a small quantity of a drug on the front porch of the building which, upon subsequent field test and laboratory analysis, was confirmed to be cocaine. After completing the purchase, the investigator took the substance inside and showed it to Respondent. Later in the evening, the investigator engaged Respondent in conversation on the front porch and related to her that he had observed numerous drug transactions taking place in her facility. Respondent smiled in acknowledgment of the investigator's statement and replied that she certainly hoped he was not a policeman. He told her that he was not a policeman. Respondent took no action to prohibit further use or transactions relating to drugs on the premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Respondent's beverage license bearing number 45-00293, Series 2- COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1989 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-10. Addressed. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: EDWIN R. IVY, ESQUIRE BOX 3223 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 THOMAS A. KLEIN, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 STEPHEN R. MACNAMARA, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 LEONARD IVEY, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of Florida statutes pertaining to alcoholic beverage licenses, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The Petitioner contends that Respondent violated the provisions of Sections 561.29(1)(a) and (c) by condoning and/or negligently overlooking trafficking in illegal, controlled substances on his licensed premises. The Respondent contends that he took all reasonable steps to prevent any unlawful activities from occurring on his licensed premises, and that to the extent any unlawful activities were conducted on his licensed premises, he neither condoned nor negligently overlooked them.
Findings Of Fact Robert Pauley is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 60-1229, Series 2-COP. The licensed premises is located at 4458 Purdy Lane, West Palm Beach, Florida, and is operated under the name "The Treehouse Saloon". The Treehouse Saloon is a "topless bar". It offers so-called adult entertainment to members of the public as well as beer and wine for consumption on the premises. The entertainment consists of women who dance nude or semi- nude. The premises includes numerous tables and a bar where patrons sit, pool tables, restrooms, an office where the Respondent conducted business, a disc jockey's booth, and a dance floor where the women performed. The Treehouse Saloon has been closed since June 8, 1983, when the Petitioner issued an emergency suspension order and notice to show cause. During May and June, 1983, John T. Slavin, an agent employed with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department, was acting in an undercover capacity. He took on the appearance and wore clothes compatible with the role of a member of a motorcycle gang. He had been directed to frequent topless lounges in Palm Beach County and to work undercover to determine if illegal drug activities or prostitution were occurring. On May 5, 1983, Slavin entered the Treehouse Saloon. During the evening, he made friends with "Duane" who was working in the saloon as a disc jockey. Slavin asked Duane about the prospects of purchasing cocaine. Duane told Slavin that that could be arranged and that it would cost $60 for three- fourths of a gram. Slavin gave Duane $60. Duane left the disc jockey area and approached one of the dancers whose name was "Barbara." Duane then returned to Slavin and advised him that the "product" was on the way. A short time later, Barbara approached Duane, then Duane brought a matchbox to Slavin. The matchbox contained a transparent plastic bag with white powder in it. After he left the bar, Slavin 7 field-tested the "product" then turned it over to a chemist employed with the Sheriff's Department. The "product" was cocaine. The sale was made at approximately 2:00 a.m. On or about May 12, 1983, Slavin entered the Treehouse lounge at approximately 11:45 p.m. He saw Duane and asked whether Duane was "playing oldies." This was a signal meaning that Slavin wished to purchase more cocaine. Duane said that he was "playing oldies nightly" and asked Slavin how much he wanted. Slavin handed Duane $60. A short time later, Duane delivered a cigarette pack to Slavin and told Slavin that a cigarette was missing. Slavin found two transparent bags containing a white powder inside the cigarette pack. Slavin later field-tested the contents and delivered them to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On or about May 13, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon at approximately 11:30 p.m. Shortly after mid- night on May 14, he approached Duane's booth and asked if they could do business. Duane said "yes," but that it would take a little longer for the delivery due to a special event (a "banana eating contest") that was being presented. Slavin gave Duane $60 which Duane put in his pocket. Later that morning, Duane put a pack of matches in Slavin's pocket. Slavin went to the men's room and found two plastic bags with a white powder inside. He later field-tested the contents then delivered them to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On or about May 18, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon at approximately 10:30 p.m. He saw Duane at the bar and asked him why he was not in the disc jockey's booth. Duane indicated that he was squabbling with the management and would be taking some time off. Duane asked Slavin if he was interested in "some white" which is a "street name" for cocaine. Slavin asked if Duane could get him a gram. Duane said that he could. Slavin gave Duane $80. Later, Duane handed Slavin an aspirin tin. There were two small bags of white powder inside the tin. Slavin later field tested the contents then delivered them to a chemist. The product was cocaine. On this occasion, Duane said that he would be away for a while. Slavin asked Duane who could supply "coke" (cocaine) in Duane's absence. Duane named three dancers: "Linda," "Doree," and "Barbara." Although Duane was not in the disc jockey's booth on that occasion, he did appear to be directing other employees, including dancers, in their activities. On or about May 19, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon at approximately 1:00 a.m. He talked to a dancer called "Doree." Doree's actual name is Diana Donnell. Since then, she has been arrested. Slavin asked Doree if she could get him some "coke." She told Slavin that it would cost $40 for a half gram. Slavin asked if he could buy a full gram, and she said "yes." Doree then performed as a dancer, after which Slavin gave her $80. At that time, he was standing right next to the dance floor. A short time later, Doree returned with two small plastic bags which contained a white powder. Later, Slavin field-tested the powder and turned it over to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On or about May 25, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon shortly after noon. He sat at the bar next to a dancer whose name was "Samantha." Slavin asked her where Doree was, and was told that Doree was not working there anymore. Slavin asked Samantha if she could help him buy a half gram of cocaine. She said "yes" and that it would cost $40. Slavin placed $40 on the bar between them. She placed a cigarette pack on the bar and told him that there was a half gram inside. She took the money. The witness examined the contents of the cigarette pack, removed a plastic bag which contained a white substance, and returned the cigarettes to Samantha. Samantha told Slavin that he could buy from her in the future. Later, Slavin field-tested the product and delivered it to the chemist. The product was cocaine. Later in the day on May 25, 1983, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon. He saw Samantha and asked her if he could buy another half gram. She told him it would cost $40. Slavin gave her $40 and she went into the dressing room that was on the premises. When she came out, she gave him a transparent package that had white powder inside. Later, Slavin field-tested the contents and delivered it to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On May 31, 1983, at approximately 10:45 p.m. Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon. He talked to a dancer known as "Mama She She." Slavin asked if Samantha was available and was told that she was not there. Maid She She, whose actual name is Michelle West, said that she had "done a line of coke" earlier which was "dirty," but had given her a "good high." She told Slavin that a half gram would cost $40. Shortly after midnight, Slavin gave her $40. He did not receive anything from Mama She She until approximately 3:50 a.m. On several occasions in the interim, Slavin talked to Mama She She about it, but she indicated she was having some difficulty obtaining the cocaine. Eventually, she gave him a clear bag that had powder inside. She told Slavin that she would be working the next day (June 2) from 11:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. and that the witness could buy more then. Later, Slavin field-tested the contents of the bag and delivered them to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On or about June 2, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon at approximately 3:30 p.m. He saw Mama She She and talked to her. She asked him if he was interested in "a half or a whole." He said "A half." She returned a bit later and said that there was nothing there then, but that if he would wait, she could probably get it. Later, she told Slavin that she was a bit reluctant to sell to him because he had not given her a "line" from his purchases. Slavin told Mama She She that he was buying it for friend to whom he owed money. At approximately 7:30 p.m., Mama She She still had not delivered anything to Slavin. She asked if he could drive her home, which he agreed to do. As they were leaving, another dancer, "Barbie," came in. Barbie asked Slavin if he recognized her. She told him that he had gotten cocaine from her through Duane in the past. Slavin asked if he could get a half gram, and Barbie said "yes." Slavin then took Mama She She home and returned at approximately 8:30 p.m. Barbie gave him a plastic bag with white powder inside. Slavin later field- tested the product and delivered it to the chemist. The product was cocaine. All of the women that Slavin dealt with at the Treehouse Saloon were dancers. They were either scantily clad or nude. They would dance for three songs on the dance floor, and customers would put money in their garter belts. A bartender and a bouncer were also present at the saloon. From time to time, a bartender or the disc jockey would tell a dancer it was her turn. The Respondent had hired the dancers as "independent contractors." Whatever their status at the Treehouse Saloon, the dancers were subject to direction from the Respondent or his managers. A list of rules for dancers provided, among other things, that no hard liquor or drugs were allowed on the premises and that the first offense would result in termination. The dancers were required to sign an "independent contractor agreement." The contract provided that dancers would not be considered an agent or employee of the saloon for any purpose. Despite these provisions, the dancers were clearly subject to direction by the bartender or disc jockey at the saloon. In addition, they were required to wait on tables, to circulate among customers, to work their complete shifts, to tip the bartender, and to perform other functions. They were clearly subject to the supervision and control of the Respondent, the bartender, or the disc jockey. When Slavin made the cocaine purchases described above, he communicated with Duane or the dancers in a normal conversational tone. A normal conversational tone in the Treehouse Saloon would he somewhat loud because loud music was constantly playing. The transactions were made in a somewhat secretive manner. A person who was carefully observing or monitoring the premises, however, would necessarily have been suspicious of Slavin, Duane, and the dancers. The Respondent did post rules in various locations of the Treehouse Saloon which provided that illicit drugs were not allowed. His dancers' rules provided to the same effect. Other than that, it does not appear that the Respondent took any steps to properly monitor his premises to assure that such activities were not occurring. Given the number of transactions and the nature of the transactions undertaken by Slavin, the transactions would have been observed by a manager who was reasonably observing and monitoring the premises. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that the Respondent was directly involved in any drug trafficking or that he condoned it. The evidence does, however, establish that he was negligent in not properly monitoring the licensed premises to assure that illegal activities were not being undertaken there.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation, finding the Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the notice to show cause and suspending his beverage license for a period of two years. RECOMMENDED this 14 day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 14th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Albert R. Wilber, Jr., Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 301 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Mr. Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be suspended or revoked on charges that its licensed lounge: (1) was resorted to be persona using illicit drugs or was used for the keeping or selling of' illicit drugs; and (2) constituted a public nuisance by virtue of such illicit drug activity.
Findings Of Fact Respondent and the Licensed Premises Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license No. 27-00312 (Series 2- COP). Under this license he owns and operates a lounge known as the "Laugh Inn" at 49 Navy Boulevard, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. The lounge sells beer, wine, and food to its customers. (Testimony of W. Flynn; P-13.) The Laugh Inn ("licensed premises" or "premises") has two main rooms with a connecting passageway. The front room contains tables, chairs, pool tables, and a bar. To the rear of the bar is an enclosed storage room separating the front from the rear room. The passageway connecting to the rear room is approximately 6 feet wide. On the north aide of the passageway are three restrooms. The rear room contains additional tables and chairs, pool tables, pinball machines, and a "football" table. Because the two main rooms are separated by the storage room, a person tending bar in the front room would be unable to see the rear room area. The rear room ceilings contain three exhaust fans to remove smoke and odors. (Testimony of W. Flynn; R-1.) The licensed premises does not include any area outside the lounge. No property outside of the lounge building was included in the sketch attached to respondent's application for an alcoholic beverage license. Be owns land in back of the premises on which he has placed a small trailer. Be owns a narrow strip of land on each side of the premises and a 3-foot-wide strip of land in front, facing Navy Boulevard. The front parking area--where customers ordinarily park their cars--is neither owned nor controlled by respondent. This parking area is on publicly owned property. Several windows on the premises face the parking area, but they have curtains which are ordinarily closed during business hours. There are no other windows on the premises from which the front parking area can be seen. (Testimony of W. Flynn; R-1.) II. Illicit Drug Activities on or Adjacent to Licensed Premises In April, 1982, undercover officers from the Escambia County Sheriff's Office began an investigation to determine whether violations of the controlled substances law were occurring on the licensed premises. On April 20, 1982, Deputy Linda Dees of the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office took delivery of a controlled substance--approximately 25.6 grams of cannabis (marijuana) --from Eric Babcock, a patron of the premises. The delivery took place on the premises at the front bar, where Deputy Bees and Mr. Babcock were seated. He placed the bag of cannabis into her purse--which was on her lap below the bar--and she paid him $35. (Testimony of Dees.) On that same day, April 20, 1982, Deputy Marilyn Medlin of the Escambia County Sheriff's Office took delivery of a controlled substance--approximately 12 grams of cannabis--from Mike Milstead, another patron. Although discussions for the purchase took place in the licensed premises--in a normal tone of voice- -the drugs were delivered and paid for in a vehicle located in the parking area in front of the licensed premises--an area neither owned nor controlled by respondent. (Testimony of Medlin; Seven days later, on April 27, 1982, Deputy Medlin purchased a controlled substance--three tablets of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) --from Lydia Quinonas, another patron. The purchase and delivery took place in the rear room of the premises, where Deputy Medlin and Ms. Quinonas were seated. The three tablets were small in size--smaller than ordinary aspirin tablets; Ms. Quinonas delivered the tablets by placing the palm of her hand over the deputy's upturned palm and dropping the tablets. During this transaction, several other persons were in the rear room playing pool. The area was well lighted. (Testimony of Medlin.) On the same day--April 27, 1982--Deputy Dees purchased approximately 21.7 grams of cannabis from Steve Sweat and Kenny Crabtree, patrons of the bar. They also gave Deputy Bees the remaining portion of a marijuana cigarette. The delivery and sale of these drugs took place outside the licensed premises in a truck parked in the front parking area--an area neither owned nor controlled by respondent. Deputy Dees placed the drugs inside her purse where they remained until delivered to law enforcement authorities. (Testimony of Dees.) On May 3, 1982, Deputy Medlin purchased a bag containing approximately 18 grams of cannabis from Thurston Raines, a bar patron. The delivery took place in a private vehicle parked in a well-lighted area in front of the premises. (Neither the vehicle nor the area in which it was parked was owned or controlled by respondent.) Deputy Medlin immediately placed the cannabis into her purse where it remained until delivered to the Sheriff's Office. (Testimony of Medlin.) Later in the evening on May 3, 1982, Deputy Dees i1purchased approximately 17 grams of cannabis from Eric Babcock, a patron of the bar. Mr. Babcock removed a grocery bag concealed above the ceiling in the rear room of the premises. They then proceeded to a private vehicle parked in front of the premises where Deputy Dees selected one of what appeared to be several bags of cannabis in the grocery sack. After placing the bag and the grocery sack in her purse, they returned to the rear room of the premises, where Mr. Babcock returned the grocery bag to its hiding place. (Deputy Dees concealed the grocery bag in her purse when they reentered the premises because Mr. Babcock did not want to be seen carrying it.) The ceiling of the rear room was recently replaced and respondent was not informed of any cannabis having been stored in the ceiling. (Testimony of Dees.) On May 4, 1982, Louis Austie gave Deputy Medlin the remaining portion (.3 gram) of a marijuana cigarette. The cigarette was being smoked by several persons standing outside the front door of the licensed premises. When a sheriff's patrol car entered the lot, Mr. Austie quickly extinguished the cigarette and gave it to Deputy Medlin. This drug transaction took place on property neither owned nor controlled by respondent. (Testimony of Medlin.) During the evening of May 14, 1982, Deputy Medlin telephoned Kay Towney, the night bartender on the premises, and asked her if she knew anyone who would sell her marijuana. Ms. Towney replied that there was a customer on the premises who would sell it to her. Deputy Medlin then proceeded to the premises where Ms. Towney introduced her to Tom Suggs, a customer. After negotiating the sale of .25 ounces of marijuana, Deputy Medlin and Mr. Suggs proceeded to a private car in the front parking area; the delivery took place inside the parked vehicle. (In a subsequent statement given to police officers, Ms. Towney stated that she was aware of drug trafficking on the licensed premises; that she helped arrange drug transactions between her customers; that she knew Eric Babcock had hidden drugs in the ceiling; and that she knew Mr. Babcock, Mark Padgett, and one other person were drug dealers.) (Testimony of Medlin, Kiker.) On May 14, 1982, Mark Padgett approached Deputy Medlin on the premises and asked her if she wanted to buy some quaaludes. She responded that she did. He then delivered a drug to Deputy Medlin in the parking lot area in front of the premises. Subsequent laboratory analysis revealed that drug was not a controlled substance. (Testimony of Medlin.) On several occasions during her investigation, Deputy Medlin observed people in the rear room of the premises smoking what appeared to be marijuana. Since she is familiar with the odor of marijuana smoke, her conclusion is accepted as persuasive. (Testimony of Medlin.) On three or four separate occasions during April, 1982, Stewart Stamm- -a person familiar with the appearance and odor of burning marijuana--saw customers smoking marijuana in the rear room of the licensed premises. He also has purchased marijuana from patrons of th& bar approximately 30 times. (Testimony of Stamm.) On May 26, 1982, Deputy Medlin engaged in an open and loud conversation with Kay Towney, the night bartender. The conversation took place at the bar on the premises and concerned the use of quaaludes. Other customers were 5 to 7 feet away. Ms. Towney then sold to Deputy Medlin what she represented to be two quaalude tablets. 2/ (Testimony of Medlin.) On April 20, 1982, Deputy Medlin observed Kay Towney remove what appeared to be brushes from a compartment in the pool table in the rear room on the premises. A few minutes later, a patron returned to the pool table, opened the compartment and inserted several clear plastic bags containing what appeared to be marijuana. (The bags have not been recovered, so their contents have not been definitively identified.) (Testimony of Medlin.) III. Respondent was Unaware of Illicit Drug Activities on or Adjacent to Licensed Premises Respondent did not know that illicit drug activities had occurred and were occurring on or adjacent to the licensed premises; neither did Frances Flynn, his wife, who acted as the night manager until October, 1981, when she left for eight months to care for her terminally ill brother-in the State of Washington; neither did Doris Sheldon, the daytime bartender; neither did Carolyn Burch, the employee who closed the premises each morning at 2:30 a.m. (Testimony of W. Flynn, F. Flynn, Sheldon, Burch.) Respondent employed Larry Harrison and Pat Randolph to clean in and around the licensed premises on a daily basis. Mr. Harrison and Ms. Randolph would occasionally find in the parking area the remains of what they suspected to be marijuana cigarettes; but there is no evidence that they ever informed respondent of their suspicions. (Testimony of Harrison, Randolph.) No law enforcement officers, including agents of the DABT, have ever informed respondent that they suspected or had reason to believe that illicit drug activities were occurring on the licensed premises. Several regular customers of the bar testified that they had never sheen controlled substances being used, sold, or stored inside or outside the licensed premises. (Testimony of Saucier, Settles, Finney, Donlon.) All of the purchases of the controlled substances described in section II above were initiated by the undercover officers involved. Most of the described purchases and deliveries of controlled substances occurred in the front parking area--an area neither owned nor controlled by respondent and which is not part of the licensed premises. IV. Failure to Diligently Supervise and Maintain Surveillance of Licensed Premises During Evening Hours The illicit drug transactions described above occurred, for the most part, during the evening hours. During those hours--from 6:00 p.m. to 2:30 a.m.--Kay Towney served as the night bartender. Frances Flynn, wife of respondent, ordinarily served as the night-shift manager and supervised the night bartender; but Ms. Flynn was absent from October, 1981, to May, 1982, when she was caring for her ill brother in Washington. (Testimony of W. Flynn, F. Flynn.) Ms. Towney was hired by respondent toward the end of 1981--while his wife was in Washington. At the job interview, respondent asked her if she used drugs; she answered she had used marijuana in the past. During April and May, 1982--when the drug transactions already mentioned took place--Ms. Towney was the only employee regularly on the premises during the night shift. Although respondent considered her a bartender, she considered herself the night manager. (Testimony of W. Flynn.) In April and May, 1982--when the alleged violations occurred-- respondent did not normally supervise and maintain surveillance of the premises during the night shift. He would open the bar at 10:00 a.m. and work there throughout the day, until 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. Then he would go home; Ms. Towney was instructed to call him if any problems arose. During Ms. Flynn's eight- month absence, respondent employed David Saucier to periodically inspect the premises during the night shift. Mr. Saucier inspected the premises approximately ten times and did not observe any illicit drug activities on or adjacent to the premises. (Testimony of W. Flynn, Saucier.) During the time in question--April and May, 1982-- it is concluded that respondent was negligent in that he did not exercise due diligence in supervising and maintaining surveillance of the licensed premises during the evening hours. illicit drug activities occurred repeatedly on the premises-- particularly in the rear room. Such activities were open and persistent and recur- ring. Marijuana was openly smoked in the rear room. The fact that the three exhaust fans may have helped remove the smoke--thus limiting it to the rear room--does not excuse respondent's failure to monitor the rear room area. The person nominally in charge of the premises during the night shift was aware of the illicit drug activity; she not only condoned it but actively participated in it. Although respondent was normally absent from the premises during the night shift, he employed a friend to inspect the premises only about ten times during the night-shift manager's eight-month absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage' license be suspended for sixty (60) days, subtracting therefrom the number of days such license has been suspended due to the emergency suspension order served May 28, 1982. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 1982, In Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1982.
The Issue Whether or not on or about August 9, 1975, Martha L. Washington, a licensed vendor did have in her place of business, one (1) four-fifths brokenseal bottle of Barcardi Rum, Light, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to Section 562.02, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that a civil penalty in the amount of $200.00 be imposed against the license of Martha L. Washington for the violation established through the allegation of the subject Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Martha L. Washington 1085 Palmetto Street Bartow, Florida
Findings Of Fact Respondents hold alcoholic beverage license number 60- 0122, series 2- COP, and do business at 704 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach under the name of The Brass Bull. Respondents have operated The Brass Bull for six years without any complaints from law enforcement agencies until the execution of a search warrant on the premises on November 29, 1994. On September 12, 1984 the Petitioner and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office began an investigation of The Brass Bull and met with a confidential informant, hereinafter referred to as CI, who was employed at the time as a dancer at The Brass Bull. The CI agreed to make introductions for law enforcement officers to employees on the premises and was paid $150 on November 26, 1964 for making these introductions. The CI had been placed on probation in July, 1983 and was on probation during this investigation. The CI's husband was placed on probation on September 11, 1984. On September 14, 1984 Investigator Kenneth Goodman, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, and Sergeant David R. Harris, Riviera Beach Police Department, entered the licensed premises and talked with a dancer identified as "Linda" about the purchase of some marijuana. Linda gave Investigator Goodman a single marijuana cigarette analyzed as containing 260 milligrams of cannabis, but she did not have any to sell. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris met another dancer on the premises, identified as "Sunrise," on September 19, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine. Sunrise was later identified as Dawn Birnbaum. Sgt. Harris gave Sunrise $40, she left the premises through the front door, returned in a few minutes and handed Sgt. Harris two aluminum foil packets later analyzed as containing 200 milligrams of cocaine. Investigator Goodman also purchased 100 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise on September 19, 1984. These sales took place on the premises while other patrons were present, although Sunrise left the premises to obtain the cocaine for the sales. On September 25, 1984, Sgt. Harris entered the licensed premises with Investigator Richard Walker, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Investigator Walker purchased 505 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise who left the premises to obtain the cocaine but returned to complete the sale on the premises. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were on the licensed premises on October 6, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase cocaine with a dancer identified as Christine Flynn. They each gave Flynn $45, she left the premises, returned and handed them each a plastic baggie containing a total of 590 milligrams of cocaine. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. On October 12, 1984, Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris entered the premises and met a waitress identified as April Finster. Investigator Goodman asked to buy some marijuana. She went into a back room on the premises and returned with one marijuana cigarette containing 300 milligrams of cannabis, which she gave to Investigator Goodman. On October 16, 1984, Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer identified as "Blondie" on the premises and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine from Blondie. The CI was present during this discussion, took $20 from Sgt. Harris, and then left the premises with Blondie. When Blondie and the CI returned, the CI gave Sgt. Harris a plastic bag which was heat sealed and filled with 110 milligrams of cocaine. Blondie stated that she always heat sealed her bags. Later Sgt. Harris gave Blondie $100, she brought him $70 change and then went into the dressing room. When Blondie exited the dressing room she approached the CI and they approached the table where Sgt. Harris was sitting. The CI placed a book of matches on the table and Blondie told Harris the cocaine was in the book of matches. Sgt. Harris found a heat sealed plastic bag containing 135 milligrams of cocaine in the matches. There were other patrons on the premises when these transactions took place. Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer named "Lola" on the premises on October 30, 1984. Sgt. Harris gave Lola $80, she entered the dressing room and then returned to where Sgt. Harris was seated with a white towel around her hand. Inside the towel was a bag containing 800 milligrams of cocaine. While on the premises with Sgt. Harris on October 31, 1984, Investigator Walker gave Lola $100. She left the premises and returned with a plastic bag containing 560 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Walker. On November 6, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris, and Investigator Goodman gave Lola $55. Lola approached a white male patron and then returned to Investigator Goodman and gave him a plastic bag containing 400 milligrams of cocaine. On November 20, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris. Lola approached Investigator Goodman and asked him if he wanted to buy some cocaine. He gave her $50, she left the premises and returned with a bag containing 300 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Goodman. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were also on the licensed premises on September 28, October 9 and 10, November 1 and 5. On each occasion they discussed the purchase of controlled substances as defined in Section 893.03, F.S., with Respondents' employees who were on the premises at the time of these discussions. No actual transactions took place on these dates. In brief summary of the foregoing, during the period of September 14 to November 20, 1984, transactions involving the sale of a total of 3.7 grams of cocaine and gifts of 560 milligrams of cannabis took place at The Brass Bull between Respondents' employees and Investigators Goodman and Walker, and Sgt. Harris. There were also five occasions when the purchase of controlled substances was discussed with Respondents' employees on the premises but no actual transaction took place. The CI was on the premises during most of these occasions, introducing the law enforcement officers to the various employees. The transactions usually took place while other patrons were on the premises, and included Respondents' employees passing the controlled substances on or above the table at which the officers were seated. On some occasions the employees left the premises after receiving money from the officers and returned a short time later with the controlled substance which they then gave to the officers on the premises. Respondents do not take an active role in managing The Brass Bull. They rely on a day manager and a night manager to hire, fire and discipline employees, to schedule the dancers, and to enforce the rules which are posted in the employees' dressing room. Rule 11 prohibits employees from having drugs or "liquors" on the premises, and states that anyone having these substances on the premises will be terminated immediately. Respondents never met with employees, other than their managers with whom they met or talked almost daily. Conversations and meetings with the managers were usually social, however, and generally did not involve business matters. Business meetings with the managers were held infrequently. Robert Meloche only visited the premises at 7:00 a.m. when no one else was present in order to review the prior night's receipts. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents employed various dancers on the licensed premises under the terms of an Entertainment Booking Agreement. All dancers were required to sign the booking agreement and agree to working conditions prescribed by the Respondents, including compensation arrangements, the number and color of their costumes, work hours, and the additional duties of cleaning and serving tables. Respondents also prescribed a set of seventeen (17) rules for all dancers and other employees. The above referenced individuals named Linda, Sunrise, Christine Flynn, April Finster, Blondie, Lola, and the Confidential Informant were employees of Respondents' at the licensed premises during the time relevant to this case. In making the above findings, the undersigned Hearing Officer has considered proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4., F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary or not based on competent substantial evidence. Specifically, Respondents' proposed findings as to Counts 14, 15 and 16 are rejected since they are not based on competent substantial evidence and are otherwise immaterial and irrelevant.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's license number 60-0122, series 2-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 1st day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Quinto Patio Bar, Inc., d/b/a Quinto Patio Bar, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-02231, series 2-COP, for the premises known as Quinto Patio Bar, 1552 West Flagler Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. In August 1987, a joint task force was formed consisting of police officers from Metropolitan Dade County and the City of Miami, as well as investigators of the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) , to investigate narcotics complaints against numerous business establishments in Dade County. Among the businesses targeted was the licensed premises at issue in this case. On August 27, 1987, DABT Investigator Oscar Huguet and City of Miami Investigator Pedro Pidermann, operating undercover, entered the licensed premises in furtherance of the aforesaid investigation. Accompanying Investigators Huguet and Pidermann was a confidential informant (CI), who would accompany them on subsequent visits. During the course of this visit, and three other visits that predated September 5, 1987, the investigators familiarized themselves with the licensed premises, and became acquainted with the employees and patrons of the bar. On September 5, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann, in the company of the CI, returned to the licensed premises. Upon entering the premises, the investigators proceeded to play a game of pool and directed the CI to see if any drugs were available in the bar. The CI walked to the bar, spoke with employee Maria, and accompanied her back to the pool table. At that time, Maria offered to sell the investigators a gram of cocaine for $50. Investigator Pidermann handed Maria a $50 bill, Maria removed a clear plastic packet of cocaine from her pants' pocket and handed it to the CI, and the CI handed it to Investigator Huguet. Huguet held the packet up to the light at eye level, and then commented that it "looks like good stuff." This transaction took place in plain view, and in the presence of several patrons. On September 16, 1987, Investigator Huguet and the CI returned to the licensed premises and seated themselves at the bar. Huguet struck up a conversation with the barmaid Maria, and asked whether she had any cocaine for sale. Maria responded that the individual (later identified as Bandera) who brings in the "stuff" had not come in yet, but to come back the next day. Huguet told Maria he would return the next day and to reserve two grams for him. On September 17, 1987, Investigator Huguet and the CI returned to the licensed premises to make the purchase of cocaine arranged the previous day. Upon entry, Maria told Huguet that the man (Bandera) who sold the cocaine had just left through the front door. Huguet gave the CI $100, and told him to follow the individual and make the purchase. These conversations occurred in the presence of Yolanda, another employee of the licensed premises. After the purchase from Bandera, the CI returned to the bar and handed Investigator Huguet 4 clear plastic bags of cocaine. Huguet examined the bags at eye level and in the presence of Maria, and placed them in his shirt pocket. On September 18, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann, together with the CI, returned to the licensed premises and began playing pool. A short time later Bandera entered the bar and, upon being motioned over by the CI, approached the investigators. Upon greeting Bandera, Huguet asked him how much cocaine $100 would buy. Bandera replied "two grams", whereupon Huguet borrowed $50 from Pidermann to which he added $50 from his pocket, and tried to hand it to Bandera. Bandera, who had not previously met the investigators, told him no, to meet him in the restroom. Huguet met Bandera in the restroom, and purchased two grams of cocaine for $100. Upon exiting the restroom, Huguet observed Maria looking at him, held up the two clear plastic bags of cocaine, and mouthed the words "thank you" to her. On September 24, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann, together with the CI, returned to the licensed premises. During the course of this visit, Bandera was observed seated at the bar conversing with Maria. Pidermann and the CI approached Bandera, and asked whether he had any cocaine for sale. Bandera responded yes, and invited Investigator Pidermann to the restroom to consummate the transaction. Pidermann met Bandera in the restroom and purchased two grams of cocaine for $100. Upon exiting the restroom, Investigator Pidermann displayed the cocaine to Investigator Huguet and the CI above the bar. This display occurred in plain view and in the presence of several patrons. On September 25, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann, together with the CI, returned to the licensed premises and proceeded to play pool. A short time later, Bandera entered the bar, approached the pool table, and placed two clear bags of cocaine on top of the pool table in front of Investigator Huguet. Huguet asked Bandera how much the cocaine would cost and he stated $100. Huguet gave Bandera the money, picked up the packets and held them at eye level for examination. This transaction took place in plain view, in the presence of numerous patrons, and was observed by employee Asucercion. On October 2, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann returned to the licensed premise. During the course of this visit, Huguet engaged Maria in general conversation and inquired as to the whereabouts of Bandera. Maria advised Huguet that Bandera was probably at the Yambo Bar, and that if he wanted cocaine to see him there. Investigator Huguet left the licensed premises and went to the Yambo Bar, located approximately one block away. There he met with Bandera and told him that he wanted to purchase cocaine but that Pidermann had the money at the Quinto Patio Bar. Bandera told Huguet he would meet him out back of the licensed premises. Huguet returned to the Quinto Patio Bar and spoke with Investigator Pidermann in the presence of employee Asucercion. Huguet told Pidermann that for $100 Bandera would supply the cocaine. Pidermann gave Huguet the money, and Huguet went out back to purchase the cocaine from Bandera. After the purchase from Bandera, Investigator Huguet returned to the bar and placed two clear plastic bags of cocaine on the bar counter in front of Investigator Pidermann and Asucercion. Pidermann picked up the cocaine, examined it, and placed it in his pocket. On October 3, 1987, Investigators Huguet and Pidermann returned to the licensed premises and seated themselves at the bar. While the investigators were being served by Maria and an unidentified barmaid, Huguet inquired as to the whereabouts of Bandera. Maria replied that he was probably at the Yambo selling cocaine. Investigator Huguet left the licensed premises, met Bandera at the Yambo Bar, and arranged the same drug deal they had made the previous day. Huguet returned to the Quinto Patio Bar and spoke with Investigator Pidermann in the presence of Maria. Huguet again told Pidermann that for $100 Bandera would supply the cocaine. Pidermann gave Huguet the money, and Huguet went out back to purchase the cocaine from Bandera. After the purchase from Bandera, Investigator Huguet returned to the bar and seated himself next to Pidermann. In front of Maria and the unidentified bar maid, Huguet wrapped the two clear plastic bags of cocaine in a napkin and handed them to Pidermann. All of the events summarized in the preceding paragraphs took place at the licensed premises during normal business hours. At no time did respondent's employees express concern about any of the drug transactions. In fact, the proof demonstrates that the employees knew that cocaine was being sold, delivered, or possessed on the licensed premises on a regular, frequent, and flagrant basis. Ms. Dominga Lora (Lora), is the sole corporate officer of the licensee and owner of 100 percent of its stock. According to her, she is generally always on the licensed premises, and usually is seated at a small table by the pool table. Notwithstanding the fact that the lighting within the premises is good, Lora averred that she had no knowledge of any drug transactions on the premises and, in fact, doubted that any did occur. Lora's testimony is not credible. The proof is clear and convincing that the drug transactions previously discussed did occur on the licensed premises, and that they occurred in an open manner visible to patrons and employees alike. If reasonably diligent, Lora had to observe that drug transactions were occurring on the licensed premises but failed to make any reasonable effort to prevent them. Under the circumstances, it is concluded that Lora knew such sales occurred or negligently overlooked them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 23-02231, series 2-COP, issued to Quinto Patio Bar, Inc., d/b/a Quinto Patio Bar, for the premises located at 1552 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of May, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Rene Valdes 1830 N.W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Daniel Bosanko, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the notice to show cause.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Dave Fulcher, held alcoholic beverage license number 46-00378, Series 2-COP, issued by petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). Respondent used the license to sell beer and wine (for on-premises consumption only) at a small establishment known as Club 82 located at 3250 Anderson Avenue (recently renamed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard) Fort Myers, Florida. As a part of an ongoing narcotics investigation, a Division investigator, Raylius Thompson, visited respondent's establishment on sixteen separate occasions in January and February 1991 to determine whether illegal narcotics were being sold and used on the licensed premises. As a result of that investigation, the Division issued a notice to show cause and emergency order of suspension on February 14, 1991. That agency action prompted respondent to request a hearing. Respondent's license has remained suspended during the course of this proceeding. The club consists of a single room approximately 35' x 45' in size. Besides a small counter bar on one side of the room, there are booths located on both side walls and tables scattered in between. The lounge has a raised floor extending from the back wall with a dance area immediately in front of the stage area. Agent Thompson found the premises to be "moderately" lighted during each of his visits and this was not disputed. Because of the compactness of the establishment, and the nature of the lighting, a customer seated at the bar counter could easily observe all activities in the lounge. At the outset of the hearing respondent stipulated that all suspected drugs purchased by agent Thompson were in fact cocaine and that the laboratory reports confirming that fact could be received in evidence without the necessity of the Division producing the laboratory technician who conducted such tests. There was also no dispute over the chain of custody of the drugs between the time agent Thompson purchased them and the time they were tested by the laboratory. On January 4, 1991, agent Thompson entered the licensed premises around 6:30 p.m. and took a seat at the bar. A black male named Ernest Taylor, also known as Musso, was the bartender on duty. A few minutes later, a white female entered the premises and asked Musso for some controlled substances. The bartender reached behind the counter, retrieved several rock type substances appearing to be rock cocaine (crack or rocks), placed them in a white cup and gave them to the female. The substance was exchanged for U.S. currency. Thompson then asked Musso the cost of the rocks and was quoted a price of $10.00 per piece. Thompson told Musso he was leaving the premises for a few minutes, gave Musso $20.00 in U.S. currency, and requested that Musso save two rocks for him. When Thompson returned a few minutes later, the bartender gave Thompson a napkin containing two pieces of rock cocaine. On January 5, 1991, Thompson returned to the licensed premises at approximately 7:40 p.m. He observed a black male known as James Taylor, a/k/a "Rabbit", who Musso said was his brother, selling what appeared to be crack cocaine to patrons. Thompson observed a white female speak to Rabbit who then retrieved a bag from behind a speaker located on the northern wall. After removing a small item from the bag, Rabbit exchanged the item with the female for U.S. currency. That same evening, Thompson asked bartender Musso for one piece of crack cocaine. Musso retrieved a plastic container from his pocket and exchanged one piece of rock cocaine for $10.00 of U.S. currency. Later on that evening, Thompson observed a black female named "Freida" selling what appeared to be cocaine at the door. Thompson approached the female, asked to purchase some crack, and gave her $10.00 of U.S. currency for one piece of crack cocaine. The exchange occurred in an open manner and was visible to other persons in the lounge. At 12:01 a.m. on January 6, 1991, Thompson returned to the licensed premises where he observed several patrons and bartender Musso selling suspected controlled substances. Also present in the lounge was Rabbit. Thompson asked Rabbit about purchasing crack cocaine. Rabbit called over another patron who removed a zip lock baggie from his pocket. The unidentified patron removed one piece of crack cocaine from the bag and exchanged it with agent Thompson for $10.00 of U.S. currency. The transaction occurred in an open manner. On the evening of January 6, 1991, Thompson returned to the licensed premises and asked bartender Musso for two rocks. Musso retrieved a baggie from his pocket, removed two pieces of crack cocaine, wrapped them in a white napkin, and gave them to Thompson in exchange for $20.00 of U.S. currency. On January 7, 1991, Thompson returned to the licensed premises at approximately 7:55 p.m. An hour later, Thompson asked bartender Musso for one rock. Musso obtained the rock cocaine from behind the bar, placed it in a napkin and gave it to Thompson in exchange for $10.00 of U.S. currency. On January 11, 1991, Thompson returned to the licensed premises around 8:30 p.m. After Thompson asked bartender Musso for two rocks, Musso retrieved two rocks from his pocket and exchanged them for $20.00 of U.S. currency. Around 8:00 p.m. on January 22, 1991, Thompson again visited the licensed premises. After taking a seat at the bar, Thompson asked bartender Musso for one piece of rock cocaine. Musso replied that he did not have any, but directed another black male seated at the bar to sell Thompson some drugs. The black male, later identified as "Eddie", removed two pieces of rock cocaine from his pocket and gave one to Thompson in exchange for $10.00 of U.S. currency. Thompson showed the purchased cocaine to Musso and complained the rock was too small. Musso advised Thompson not to worry, that he would have more cocaine for Thompson the next day. On January 23, 1991, Thompson entered the licensed premises at approximately 8:55 p.m. Bartender Musso walked over to Thompson and stated, "I got some tonight." He then removed a plastic baggie from his pocket containing a number of pieces of suspected controlled substances. Thereafter, Thompson purchased two pieces of rock cocaine in exchange for $20.00 of U.S. currency. On January 24, 1991, Thompson returned to the licensed premises and spoke with bartender Musso, who inquired as to the number of pieces of rock cocaine Thompson wished to purchase. Thompson asked for two and was given two pieces of rock cocaine in exchange for $10.00 of U.S. currency. At approximately 7:45 p.m. on January 26, 1991, Thompson entered the licensed premises and was approached by bartender Musso who asked him how much cocaine he wanted to purchase. Thompson then exchanged $10.00 of U.S. currency for one and a half pieces of rock cocaine. The cocaine was retrieved by Musso from a shelf behind the bar. On February 1, 1991, Thompson entered the licensed premises and spoke with Rabbit, who was carrying a baggie of rock cocaine in his hand. When Rabbit asked Thompson what he wanted, Thompson replied that he wanted two pieces. Thompson then exchanged $20.00 of U.S. currency for two pieces of rock cocaine. Later on that evening, Thompson observed Rabbit smoking suspected marijuana and observed another patron cutting a white powdery substance, consistent in appearance with cocaine, on top of the bar counter. On February 2, 1991, Thompson entered the licensed premises and purchased one piece of rock cocaine for $10.00 of U.S. currency from Rabbit who retrieved the rock cocaine from behind a wall partition. Thompson also observed other individuals selling suspected controlled substances on the licensed premises. When bartender Musso learned that Thompson had purchased cocaine from his brother, he cautioned Thompson that the agent should purchase crack from him (Musso), and not his brother. On February 4, 1991, Thompson returned to the licensed premises where he purchased two pieces of rock cocaine from bartender Musso for $20.00 of U.S. currency. Musso retrieved the rock cocaine from behind the bar. During the course of the evening, Thompson also observed other individuals retrieve what appeared to be rock cocaine from behind the speakers on the walls. On February 6, 1991, Thompson entered the licensed premises and observed an individual named "Wayne" on duty as the bartender. Musso, who was a patron that evening, approached Thompson and sold him three pieces of rock cocaine for $30.00 of U.S. currency. The exchange between Musso and Thompson occurred in plain view of the bartender. On February 11, 1991, while inside the licensed premises at approximately 10:00 p.m., Thompson observed several individuals smoking what appeared to be marijuana. Thompson also purchased from bartender Musso two pieces of rock cocaine for $20.00 of U.S. currency. Agent Thompson returned to the premises for a final visit on February 14, 1991. During that visit he met with bartender Musso at the bar counter and purchased two and one-half pieces of rock cocaine for $20.00 U.S. currency. On February 15, 1991, Division investigators secured a search warrant and executed a raid on the licensed premises. During the course of that search, the agents seized numerous pieces of rock cocaine, a number of aluminum foil packets of cocaine in a powdery form, and marijuana butts. Respondent has owned and operated Club 82 since December 1979. Fulcher described the bar as catering to extremely rough and dangerous individuals who were difficult to control. Although he has tried to stop the use of drugs, Fulcher said he was unable to get customers to obey him unless he had a gun or called law enforcement officers. He also stated that if law enforcement officers were called, he feared for his safety once the law enforcement officers had departed. Fulcher generally did not go on the premises except to open up the bar in the early evening and to lock it up around midnight. He claims he was "totally surprised" by the drug sales that occurred during Thompson's investigation. However, he did not deny that they took place and admitted that while cleaning up the premises, he would sometimes find aluminum foil packets and marijuana butts. He conceded that Musso had a key to the premises and had actively managed the business for the last year or so. Except for a small sign by the front door advising that drugs were prohibited, there was no evidence that respondent actively took steps to prevent such illicit activity or adequately supervised his employees to insure that state drug and beverage laws were obeyed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1989) and that his license number 46-00378 be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX for Case No. 91-1110 Petitioner: Proposed findings 1-17 and 19-25 have been substantially adopted in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding 18 has been rejected as being irrelevant since the transaction did not occur on the licensed premises. Proposed finding 26 was deemed to be unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy C. Waller, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Mr. Dave Fulcher 2802 Price Street Fort Myers, FL 33916 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
