The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Beverage Laws as alleged in Notice to Show cause dated January 3, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Dorsa Inc., trading as The Establishment, held 2-COP license No. 61-00066 to sell alcoholic beverages at 311 Pennsylvania Avenue, San Antonio, Florida. On October 31, 1990 several Beverage agents entered The Establishment where a Halloween party was in progress among the St. Leo College students. Upon entering the bar an employee at the door checked identification and stamped the back of the entering patron's hand. An underage operator with DABT entered with another agent and the stamp placed on the back of the minor's hand could not be distinguished from the stamp on the hand of the adult agent. The minor went to the bar and purchased beer on two occasions without further questioning or identification by the bartender. Bartenders had been directed to sell beer to those with stamps or wrist bands as they had been cleared by the bouncer at the door as age-qualified to purchase alcoholic beverages. During the evening of October 31-November 1, 1990 several minors were arrested for possessing alcoholic beverages (beer) in bottles with Annheuser- Busch labels and several others had purchased beer from the bartender. The ages of these minors were verified by driver's licenses possessed by these patrons. One of the DABT agents, Sgt. Timothy Allen, had a discussion with James John Redman III who appeared to be in charge of The Establishment. Allen was told by Redman that Redman was the new owner of The Establishment and the papers verifying this ownership were in an attorney's office in Miami. No application to change ownership has been presented at the district office of the Petitioner.
Recommendation It is recommended that the 2-COP alcoholic beverage license No. 61-00066 issued to Dorsa Inc., trading as The Establishment, be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 7th day of June, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Lance Joseph, Esquire 9990 S.W. 77 Avenue, Suite 210 Miami, FL 33156 Richard W. Scully, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Janet E. Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Don D. Conn, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact On April 26, 1982, the Petitioner Dania Bank, filed a request with the Respondent Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to record a lien holder's interest against alcoholic beverage license 16-15 issued to the Respondent Chula, Inc., doing business as Chalet Ole and Chula Liquors. The lien was created on July 3, 1981, and filed with the Secretary of State on August 10, 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco denying the Petitioner Dania Bank's request to record a lien against alcoholic beverage license number 16-15. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 31st day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard E. Whitney, Vice President The Dania Bank 255 East Dania Beach Boulevard Dania, Florida 33004 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Milan Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverage license should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a Florida business man who operated initially a business called the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, located at 1342 Washington Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, and subsequently a business called Tony Cafeteria, located at 340 1/2 Northwest 12th Avenue, Miami, Florida. Petitioner was the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-8402, Series 1 APS, for the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market on Miami Beach. Respondent, on May 3, 1988, served on Petitioner an emergency order of suspension of license number 23-8402, series 1 APS, "in order to protect the public safety and welfare from immediate and continuing danger of drug trafficking and illegal delivery of controlled substances in and about the licensed premises." Concurrently with the emergency order of suspension, Respondent served a notice to show cause on Petitioner alleging eight counts of narcotics transactions on the licensed premises and one count of maintaining a nuisance of the licensed premises. Petitioner did not request a hearing on the charges that resulted in the emergency order of suspension and the notice to show cause. On June 27, 1988, Respondent published its Final Order revoking Petitioner's alcoholic beverage license number 23-8402, Series 1 APS. The Final Order was served on Petitioner on July 5, 1988. That Final Order included the following conclusion: The facts set forth hereinabove demonstrate that the licensee has fostered, condoned, and/or negligently overlooked trafficking in and use of illegal narcotics and controlled substances on or about the licensed premises and has failed to exercise due diligence in supervising its employees and managing its licensed premises so as to prevent the illegal trafficking and use of narcotics on the licensed premises. In addition to the narcotics violations described in the notice to show cause regarding the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, alcoholic beverages were being sold for consumption on Petitioner's licensed premises, and patrons on the licensed premises were gambling on pool games. The International Coffee Shop and Minit Market was located near a large elementary school. The cocaine transactions negotiated and consummated on the licensed premises during April 1988 were open and in plain view. No effort was made to conceal these activities. Children were frequently on the licensed premises during April 1988 when cocaine transactions were being openly negotiated and consummated. The first cocaine transaction at the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market during Officer Santana's undercover investigation was between Officer Santana and a patron named Clara Rodriguez. The transaction took place just inside the entrance of the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, lighting conditions were good, and no effort was made to conceal the transaction. Petitioner was standing immediately next to Officer Santana when the cocaine transaction took place. Petitioner made no effort to stop the transaction, or to summon law enforcement, or to evict Ms. Rodriguez or Officer Santana. Petitioner commented, in Spanish, that "if you're not going to eat or drink anything, you're going to have to leave," or words to that effect. During the 13 days following the cocaine transaction described immediately above, seven additional cocaine transactions were openly conducted on the premises of the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market:. Four of these transactions were permitted by Petitioner's employee Estella; three were permitted by Petitioner's employee Angel. Five patrons, Nuri, Pipo, Maria, Clara, and Betty, were involved in these cocaine transactions. Petitioner attributes the activity on his licensed premises that resulted in the license revocation to the undesirable neighborhood of the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market and the undesirable persons who frequented the International Coffee Shop. The neighborhood of Tony Cafeteria is no better than the International Coffee Shop neighborhood. In response to a complaint, Sergeant Herrera and other members of the Miami office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco went to Tony Cafeteria on December 2, 1989. Petitioner's employee, Ms. Baez, sold a beer to an undercover Law Enforcement Investigator on the premises of Tony Cafeteria. Ms. Baez was cited for selling an alcoholic beverage without a license. Twenty cans and bottles of beer were seized on the premises by the officers. Petitioner works full time, 40 hours a week, at the Fountainbleau Hilton and is considered by the Head Houseman to be "a fine, dedicated worker." Three friends of Petitioner opined that Petitioner is a trustworthy, moral person. The Petitioner has never been arrested or convicted of any criminal offense. The Petitioner did not have actual knowledge of the narcotics transactions that resulted in the revocation of the alcoholic beverage license at the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, nor was he aware that any gambling was taking place on the pool tables. In January 1990, Petitioner was issued a temporary beverage license for Tony Cafeteria, with which he operated until his license application was disapproved by Respondent. During the three-month period he operated with the temporary license he was not cited for violation of the beverage law.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a final order in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a alcoholic beverage license. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of July 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Vidal Marino Velis, Esquire 2100 Coral Way, Suite #300 Miami, Florida 33145 John B. Fretwell, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue By Notice to Show Cause filed December 19, 1977, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the alcoholic beverage license number 60-0883 issued to James R. Rogers, trading as Ray's Tavern. As grounds therefor it is alleged that Rogers, in order to secure a license to sell alcoholic beverages, made false written statements to the agents of Respondent in violation of 537.06 and 561.29 F.S. One witness was called by Petitioner and four exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact On December 21, 1977, notice of the hearing scheduled to commence on January 12, 1978 at 1457 N. Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida was served on Respondent by a beverage agent of Petitioner. (Exhibit 1) In answer to question 13 on the application for Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License, which asked "Has a license covering the place described in this application or any other place in which any of' the above named persons were at the time interested ever been revoked by the Director?" Respondent answered "No". (Exhibit 2). By Order of the Director of the Division of Beverages dated September 30, 1955 (Exhibit 3) the alcoholic beverage license issued to James R. Rogers, Curley's Tavern, aka Ray's Tavern was revoked for maintaining gambling paraphernalia and permitting gambling on the licensed premises.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner’s request to renew a lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62- 08383 on or about July 8, 2011, should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent is the state agency charged with the licensing, regulation, and enforcement of Florida’s alcoholic beverage laws pursuant to section 20.165(2)(b) and chapters 561- 568, Florida Statutes, including recordation of liens against alcoholic beverage licenses and provision of notice to lienholders pursuant to section 561.65. Petitioner is the holder of a recorded lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62-08383, a 4COP spirituous alcoholic beverage license, commonly referred to as a quota license, which was issued pursuant to sections 561.20(1) and 565.02(1)(a)-(f) for use in Pinellas County. Liens and Security Interests in Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Section 561.65 governs mortgages, liens, and security interests against spirituous alcoholic beverage licenses. DABT has a lien section within its Bureau of Licensing that is responsible for the oversight of lien recordings and lien searches. To perfect a lien or security interest in a spirituous alcoholic beverage license that may be enforceable against the license, the entity holding the security interest or lien must record it with DABT within 90 days of the date of creation of the lien or security interest, using forms authorized by DABT. The forms adopted by DABT require the names of the parties and the terms of the obligation being recorded. § 561.65(4), Fla. Stat. Form DBPR ABT-6022, Application for Mortgagee’s Interest in Spirituous Alcoholic Beverage License, is used to record a new lien, a lien assignment or assumption, or a lien renewal or extension. The form is adopted by rule. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61A-5.0012. Upon receipt of a request to record a lien or the renewal of an existing lien, DABT will review the provided documentation and, if the documentation is in order on approved forms and accompanied by the security agreement and statutorily- required payment, will record the lien or lien renewal. If there is a deficiency noted during review of the lien documentation submitted, DABT will issue a 14-day deficiency notice to the requesting entity to provide any missing information. If timely corrected, DABT will record the lien or lien renewal. Section 561.65(4) provides that any lien or security interest filed with DABT on or after July 1, 1995, expires five years after recordation by DABT unless renewed by the lienholder within six months prior to its expiration date. Statutory Notice Requirements to Lienholders Recording a lien not only makes it enforceable, but provides assurance to the lienholder that it will receive notice of pending actions by DABT against the license that may compromise the lien’s vitality. Section 561.65 also sets forth requirements for DABT to provide notice to lienholders of both pending actions against encumbered licenses and any suspension or revocation of a license subject to a lien. Specifically, section 561.65(3) provides that “such lienholder shall be notified in writing of the filing of an order to show cause as to why the license should not be suspended or revoked; and also the lienholder shall be furnished a copy of any order of suspension or revocation.” (Emphasis added). In other words, two separate notices are required: one when the agency institutes proceedings against the licensee and a second if the agency action against the licensee results in a suspension or revocation of the license. Respondent does not assert and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that Petitioner had knowledge of or participated in the cause for revocation of the license at issue in this proceeding, or that Petitioner would not otherwise be entitled to notice of the revocation proceeding. The holder of a recorded lien is entitled to notice because the lienholder has the right to enforce the lien against the licensee within 180 days after the entry of any order of revocation or suspension of the license. Section 561.65(3) specifies that “the 180 days within which to file for enforcement of the lien by the lienholder shall commence running from the date of the mailing of the copy of the order of revocation or suspension.” Thus, the 180-day period runs from when notice is sent to the lienholder, not from the entry of the final order of suspension or revocation. Once notice is provided to the lienholder, any enforcement of the lien is through foreclosure proceedings in circuit court. The process for foreclosure proceedings is outlined in section 561.65(5). Most importantly, both section 561.19(2) and section 561.65(1) provide that no revoked quota beverage license encumbered by a lien or security interest perfected in accordance with section 561.65 shall be issued until the 180-day period (from mailing of the suspension or revocation order) has elapsed or until such enforcement proceeding is final. Re-issuance Through Double Random Drawings Quota licenses may become available three ways: 1) when a dry county goes wet (i.e., a county that previously prohibited the sale of alcohol decides to allow it), three initial quota licenses are issued for the county; 2) when there are population increases in a county, an additional quota license is issued for every population increase of 7,500; and 3) when a quota license in a county has been revoked. When any of those instances occur, pursuant to the directive in section 561.19(2), quota licenses are issued through the use of a double random public drawing. While a revoked quota license may be reissued in a double random quota drawing, if a revoked quota license is encumbered by a perfected and recorded lien or security interest, as discussed previously, it may not be reissued until the 180-day period has elapsed or until enforcement/foreclosure proceedings are final. Damon Larry is currently the assistant bureau chief of licensing, and oversees the annual quota drawing. Each year, he runs a report of all revoked quota licenses and, if the revocation is final, determines whether the 180-day period has elapsed. Before a revoked quota license is placed in the double random drawing, there is communication between staff in different sections within the Department to determine if a license is eligible for inclusion in the quota drawing. The communications involve the quota drawing section, the licensing section, the administrative case unit, the Office of the General Counsel, and the lien section. During this process, DABT staff will determine whether there is a lien attached to the license and, if so, whether there was notice to the lienholder, and whether the 180 days has elapsed or foreclosure proceedings no longer remain pending. If all of these conditions have been met, the revoked license is placed in the quota drawing for reissuance under a new license number. The revoked license number is then deleted from the Department’s database. Petitioner’s Lien Against Alcoholic Beverage License No. 62-08383 Turning to the facts of this case, Daniel A. King, as debtor, executed and delivered a Demand Promissory Note in favor of Rebco on or about April 18, 1997, in the principal amount of $61,000, and simultaneously executed a security agreement in favor of Rebco, as the secured party, pledging license number 62-08383 (the License) as collateral for repayment of the sums due and owing under the Promissory Note. Rebco submitted the promissory note and security agreement to DABT for initial recordation as a lien against the License on or about May 1, 1997, within 90 days of the date of the creation of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien against the License effective May 8, 1997. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on May 8, 2002. Rebco submitted a request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about November 7, 2001, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement, and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective November 7, 2001. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on November 7, 2006. Rebco submitted a second request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about July 26, 2006, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective August 1, 2006. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on August 1, 2011. The License Revocation Proceedings On or about November 16, 2006, at a time when the lien was recorded in the records of DABT, DABT filed administrative charges against Daniel J. King, holder of the License, in Case number 2006-049240, alleging that the licensee failed to operate the License in accordance with section 561.29(1)(f). DABT was unable to achieve personal service on Mr. King, so it published notice of the administrative action in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. The published notice did not identify Petitioner, and no evidence was presented to indicate that DABT sent a copy of the notice to Rebco. Rebco clearly had a recorded lien against the License when the disciplinary action was filed against the License. DABT did not notify Petitioner of the pending action. On or about June 22, 2007, after receiving no written defense in the disciplinary proceeding, DABT issued a Final Order revoking the License effective July 31, 2007. The Final Order of Revocation was not served on Rebco, the owner of the security interest in the License. Petitioner had a recorded lien against the License on file with DABT both when proceedings were instituted against the License and on the date of the entry of the Final Order of Revocation. Stephanie Coxwell works in the administrative case unit of DABT and has done so for at least the last 14 years. The administrative case unit is responsible for determining whether an alcoholic beverage license that is pending revocation or suspension is encumbered by a lien and for notifying any lienholder of the revocation or suspension of an encumbered license. DABT’s practice was to mail any lienholder notice of the license suspension or revocation, along with a copy of the final order, soon after entry of the final order. It is this mailing of the notice and final order that commences the 180 days referenced in section 561.65. For at least the last 14 years, DABT has used a form “notice to lienholder” to notify lienholders of the revocation or suspension of an alcoholic beverage license, accompanied by a copy of the final order revoking or suspending the license. The notification form is a public record maintained by DABT. It is this notification, and not the publication of the pending action, that provides notice to the lienholder. Internal correspondence from Ms. Coxwell within the licensure file for the License indicates that in December 2006, she requested a lien search with respect to the License. Ms. Coxwell was advised by return e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the license. On or about March 21, 2007, Ms. Coxwell requested research for any bankruptcy proceedings affecting the License. She was again informed by intra-agency e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the License. Ms. Coxwell replied by e-mail that she was aware that there was a lien, but that they would notify the lienholder of the administrative action “in the usual way.” However, Ms. Coxwell’s March 27 e-mail was sent three months before the final order revoking the license, not simultaneous to the Order. There is no record that notification was sent to Rebco, either at the time of the administrative action, or after issuance of the final order. Beverly Peebles works in Rebco’s corporate office located at 701 Tennessee River Drive, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35661, and has done so since 1990. She is responsible for receiving, retaining, and disbursing any mail received by Rebco. Ms. Peebles testified regarding the process used to copy, scan into the company’s electronic database, and distribute any mail received by Rebco. Rebco did not receive any notice concerning the administrative action or the revocation of the License until Rebco received the letter denying the recordation of its lien renewal against the license in 2011. Rebco’s address was at all times on file with the DABT since the inception of the lien against the license in 1997. It is found that the DABT did not notify Rebco that there was an administrative action filed against the License, and did not notify Rebco of the Final Order of Revocation against the License. The licensure file contains all other expected documents from the first recordation of the lien in 1997 to the present. It does not include a copy of notice to Rebco of either the pending action or the Final Order of revocation. Moreover, both a letter dated August 19, 2011, to counsel for Rebco, as well as an e-mail dated March 21, 2007, from Ms. Coxwell, contain handwritten notes regarding the failure to send proper notification. The notes, which are clearly hearsay, are part of public records maintained in the normal course of business, and corroborate Ms. Peebles’ testimony that no notification was received. They also corroborate evidence of the absence of any record of notification to Rebco in DABT’s records of regularly-conducted activity. The August 19, 2011, letter contains a handwritten note at the top stating, “$61K lien no lien ltr sent,” and the e-mail dated March 21, 2007, referenced in paragraph 32, contains the following note: “are we the only group/people who check for current liens recorded before deleting the license? It was deleted on 5/4/2011. Lien was still recorded at that time.”2/ Respondent has presented no credible evidence to indicate that the notice was somehow sent despite the lack of any documentation to that effect contained in the DABT’s records. While the handwritten notes standing alone do not establish that no notice was sent, they do indicate that a question was raised internally regarding whether adequate notice was provided. Despite the failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the License was placed in the 2010 double random drawing held on March 10, 2011, at a time when a valid lien against the License was duly recorded. Only one license for Pinellas County was included in the drawing for that year, and no licenses for Pinellas County have been issued in a double random quota drawing since then. Shortly after the random drawing, the license number assigned to the License was removed from the Department’s system and a new number assigned to the license issued as a result of the drawing. While there is no direct testimony on the issue, it can be inferred that the purchaser of the new license received the license with no notice that there was any outstanding lien on the right to engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages in Pinellas County under the new license. While it is DABT’s practice to delete a revoked license number from its database, no evidence or statutory reference was presented to support the premise that there is a legal impediment to renewing an existing lien for a revoked license when no notice of the revocation was provided. Given the Department’s failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the 180-day period identified in section 560.65 never began to run. On or about July 6, 2011, Rebco timely submitted a third request to DABT to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division, which request was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement. DABT notified Rebco by letter dated July 19, 2011, that it was unable to record the lien renewal because it was not submitted for recordation within 90 days of its creation. The July 19, 2011, notice of denial was issued based upon a review of the lien renewal request submitted to DABT, because the executed ABT6022 lien-recording form submitted with Rebco’s third renewal request mistakenly identified the effective date of the lien renewal as April 18, 1997, the date of the creation of the original lien. On or about July 25, 2011, Rebco submitted an amended form ABT6022 correcting the effective date for renewal of the lien as August 1, 2011. On August 3, 2011, DABT notified Rebco that it was unable to record the renewal of the lien against the License because “the alcoholic beverage license being pledged as collateral was revoked by the Division on July 31, 2007,” following service of a Notice of Action through publication in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. No action taken by Rebco compromised the vitality of its recorded lien against the License. To the contrary, Rebco faithfully adhered to the recording requirements outlined by statute to record and renew its lien. DABT, however, failed to take the action required by section 561.65 to provide notice to Rebco of the pending action and subsequent revocation of the License. As a result, the 180- day period required by section 561.65 did not run before the License was placed in the quota drawing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order approving the renewal of Rebco’s lien in the License at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2015.
The Issue Did the licensee repeatedly sell alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21?
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Jayprakash Patel, d/b/a United Discount Beverage, held alcoholic beverage license number 11-00952, Series 2-APS, for a premises known as United Discount Beverage, each side of U.S. Highway 301, Hawthorne, Florida. Joseph Donnelly, a person under the age of 21, purchased alcoholic beverages on April 27, 1990, to wit: three six packs of beer and two bottles of MD 20/20 wine, without identification at United Discount Beverage from Kirtie B. Patel, an employee of the business. Joseph P. Donnelly had purchased alcoholic beverages without identification on previous occasions at United Discount Beverage from Kirtie B. Patel. Madonna Bristow observed Joseph B. Donnelly purchase alcoholic beverages from United Discount Beverages on April 27, 1990 and on several other occasions previous to that date. Mr. Glen Molander observed Joseph P. Donnelly and Madonna Bristow carrying packages from United Discount Beverage on April 27, 1990. A vehicle driven by Joseph P. Donnelly was involved in an automobile accident on April 27, 1990, and was towed to a secured impoundment on that date. His mother, Kathlene L. Donnelly, recovered six cans of beer and two bottles of MD 20/20 wine from the car. Mrs. Donnelly took the beer and wine to her residence where she concealed it. On May 2, 1990, Inv. Jernigan the six cans of beer and two bottles of MD 20/20 wine obtained from the Donnelly's residence. Inv. Jernigan marked these items as evidence and stored in the vault at the Gainesville Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco District Office. Investigator Jernigan identified at hearing the six cans of beer and two bottles of MD 20/20 wine he had recovered from the Donnelly's residence. Joseph P. Donnelly identified this evidence at hearing as a portion of the alcoholic beverages which he had purchased at United Discount Beverage from Kirtie B. Patel on April 27, 1990. Joseph Donnelly and Madonna Bristow observed many other individuals who they knew to be under twenty-one years old purchase alcoholic beverages from United Discount Beverage without identification. Kirtie B. Patel plead guilty to a charge of selling alcoholic beverages to a person under age 21 in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Petitioner's exhibit number 1, to wit: underage operative M. Goldtrap on December 14, 1989. Kirtie B. Patel plead nolo contendere to a charge of selling alcoholic beverages to a person under age 21 in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Petitioner's exhibit number 2, to wit: Joseph P. Donnelly on April 27, 1990. Licensee, Jayprakash Patel, has previously admitted in an administrative proceeding to have been in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a) within Section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes, to wit: three sales of alcoholic beverages by his employees to persons under the age of 21 during the period May 11, 1989 through December 14, 1989. Jayprakash Patel has become a Responsible Vendor since April 27, 1990.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the alcoholic beverage license held by Respondent, Jayprakash Patel, d/b/a United Discount Beverage, license number 11-00952, Series 2-APS, be suspended for six (6) months and a $1,000.00 civil penalty be imposed. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric S. Haug Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Don Reid Post Office Box 133 Gainesville, FL 32602 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Janet E. Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, James A. Singleton, doing business as Harvey's Bar B Que, possessed 2-COP Beverage License No. 60- 2295 at his place of business at 717 North Tamarind Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida. A 2-COP beverage license permits the sale of only beer and wine for on-premises consumption. No hard liquor is permitted to be sold, served or stored on the premises covered by the license. On December 17, 1982, armed with a search warrant properly issued based on probable cause provided by confidential informants, a West Palm Beach Police Department patrol headed by Lt. (then Sgt.) Eugene G. Savage entered Respondent's premises at 5:15 p.m. In a separate room to the rear of the building they found 2.2 pounds of a leafy vegetable matter packaged, some in 40 small manila envelopes (nickel bags) and some clear plastic bags. This vegetable substance was subsequently analyzed at the Palm Beach County Crime Laboratory and determined to be marijuana. At the same time, the officers also found 92 sealed half-pint bottles of hard liquor consisting of rum, vodka, gin and brandy. When Respondent was arrested at the time of the search, he had over $400 on his person. None of this money had serial numbers which matched those of money used in an undercover purchase of marijuana several days previously. Respondent explained the large sum of money as being the proceeds of his biweekly paycheck from his regular job on the railroad which he had received on December 15, 1982. Since there was no evidence to show that the undercover purchase of marijuana, which formed a part of the basis for the probable cause to issue the search warrant, was made from Respondent, there is no reason to doubt his explanation. Respondent contended he did not know anything about the marijuana. He has a full-time job with the railroad, a job he has held for 30 years, and had turned the running of his restaurant, which he had purchased for his retirement years, over to his son. His son, who has a record of prior arrests and incarceration for drug abuse, had assured him he would not do anything wrong. Since the search, the son has gotten into some undisclosed additional trouble and has run away. As for the liquor, Respondent contends that he purchased it for the personal consumption of his wife and himself. He bought it in large amounts to get it cheap. However, the half-pint is the favored size of the "Saturday Night" drinker, and, because of the large volume and the diverse nature of the stock, it is clear it was purchased for resale. Respondent is 60 years old and hopes to work for the railroad a few more years before he retires to run his restaurant. In fact, he has to work, he says, to pay off the fines incident to this situation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's alcoholic beverage license No. 60-2295 be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 2nd day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Boggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James A. Singleton c/o Harvey's Bar B Que 717 North Tamarind Avenue 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 sold alcoholic beverages in violation of a municipal ordinance concerning the hours of sale of such beverages and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the state agency charged with regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages and tobacco in Florida. Respondent, Ferrell A. Melton and Nora J. Melton, d/b/a Prince Grocery (Respondent), is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 30-00004, Series 2APS. This license authorizes the Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of Prince Grocery, located at 705 West Columbus Drive, Tampa, Florida (licensed premises). Prince Grocery is a neighborhood store. The City of Tampa Code, Article I, Section 3-3, prohibits places within its city limits and licensed by the State of Florida to sell alcoholic beverages after 3:00 a.m. and before 1:00 p.m. on Sunday. On September 21, 1997, Officer Anthony Pullara of the Tampa Police Department was dispatched to Respondent's licensed premises at approximately 3:00 a.m. Officer Pullara was dispatched to investigate complaints that Respondent was selling alcoholic beverages after hours. When Officer Pullara began the investigation of Respondent, he did not immediately go on the licensed premises, but rather positioned himself directly across the street from and facing the licensed premises. This location placed Officer Pullara about 200 feet from the licensed premises and gave him a clear view of the outside of the store and the parking lot. To aid his vision from this distance and to get a view of what was occurring inside the licensed premises, Officer Pullara used binoculars. On Sunday, September 21, 1997, between 3:00 a.m. and 3:55 a.m., Officer Pullara observed several persons enter the licensed premises. In each instance, the person would go to the front door of the premises and then knock on the door. Respondent, Nora Melton, who was inside the premises, would unlock the door and allow the person to come inside. After a short time inside, the patron would leave the premises carrying a brown paper bag that appeared to contain something. Officer Pullara could not see the contents of the bags. However, from the size and shape of the bags, the bags appeared to contain objects about the size of either bottles of beer or a quart of beer. Although Officer Pullara never verified the contents of any of the bags, he suspected that the bags contained beer. At approximately 3:55 a.m. on Sunday, September 21, 1997, George Munoz went to the front door of the licensed premises and appeared to knock on the door. Thereafter, George Munoz entered the premises. From Officer Pullara's vantage point, he observed Respondent and Munoz in the licensed premises appearing to engage in a friendly conversation. Officer Pullara also observed Respondent gather some bags from the front register area and then escort Munoz to the rear of the store. For the brief time Respondent and Munoz were in the rear of the store, they were out of Officer Pullara's view. When they returned to the front area of the licensed premises to the area where the cash register was located, Officer Pullara observed Munoz give something to Respondent. It then appeared to Officer Pullara that Respondent escorted Munoz to the front door and unlocked it so that he could leave. Munoz then exited the licensed premises carrying a brown paper bag. From Officer Pullara's observation's, the transaction with Munoz appeared to be similar to the transactions that Officer Pullara had observed between Respondent and other individuals who had come to the licensed premises between 3:00 a.m. and 3:55 a.m. on this same day. As Munoz was leaving the licensed premises, Respondent came to the front door and she and Munoz continued to engage in a conversation. Due to his position, Officer could not hear what the Respondent and Munoz were saying to each other, but it appeared to him to be a friendly conversation. After Munoz left the licensed premises, he went toward the car from which he had earlier exited. However, prior to getting into the vehicle Munoz pulled down the brown bag and a plastic bag contained therein, revealing two quarts bottles bearing the name "Schlitz Malt Liquor." In describing this event, Officer Pullara testified that "[Munoz] held them up in the air in front of his face, as if showing the other occupant of the vehicle that he had in fact purchased the beer." Officer Pullara then drove his police car into the parking lot of the licensed premises and observed Munoz get into his vehicle with the two quarts of Schlitz Malt Liquor. After Munoz pulled out of the parking lot, Officer Pullara stopped him. Officer Pullara then confiscated the two quarts of malt liquor. After he confiscated the malt liquor from Munoz, Officer Pullara returned to the licensed premises and arrested Respondent Nora Melton for after-hour sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent was charged with the after-hour sale of alcoholic beverages and resisting an officer. Munoz did not testify at trial and Respondent Nora Melton was subsequently acquitted of the charge related to after-hour sale of alcoholic beverages. As a result of the events of September 21, 1997, Respondent was convicted of resisting arrest although adjudication was withheld on this charge. There is no dispute that, on September 21, 1997, Munoz got two quarts of Schlitz Malt Liquor from the licensed premises. However, Respondent's version of how Munoz came in possession of the malt liquor is at odds with that of Officer Pullara. According to Respondent, a female customer who had been in the licensed premises earlier telephoned Respondent and indicated that Respondent had forgotten to give the customer the cigarettes which she had purchased. Respondent knew this customer. However, when the customer called, Respondent did not recall whether she had given the customer the cigarettes. Nonetheless, Respondent gave the customer the benefit of the doubt and told her that if she came "right now . . . I'll give them to you." After the telephone conversation, the customer arrived at the licensed premises to retrieve the cigarettes. Respondent went to the front door and unlocked it to let the customer in, but did not relock the front door once the customer was inside. After Respondent gave the customer the cigarettes, the customer decided to purchase lottery tickets, which were located on the front counter area of the licensed premises. During the course of these transactions, Respondent and the customer engaged in a casual conversation in the front counter area of the licensed premises. While Respondent and the customer were engaged in conversation, Munoz, who appeared to be drunk, entered the premises through the unlocked front door and then reached around the customer for a bag. Respondent had known Munoz for several years and warned the customer that Munoz was a "dangerous person." As Munoz proceeded to the back of the store where the beer was located, Respondent told him that he could not purchase any beer because it was after 3:00 a.m. Munoz told Respondent, "Wait and see what I do." Munoz continued to the back of the store, moved a barricade that was in front of the beer, and removed two quarts of malt liquor. When Munoz returned to the front of the licensed premises, Respondent ordered him to give her the beer because he was not going to "[take] it outside." Respondent came from behind the counter where she had been standing, got between the customer and Munoz, and tried to grab the beer from Munoz. Munoz refused to give Respondent the beer and began "turning around and swinging the beer at [Respondent]." While Respondent was attempting to take the beer from Munoz, she thought of using a bat to break the beer bottles but decided against doing that for fear that he would hurt her. Respondent's concern for her own safety was based on her knowledge or belief that on an earlier occasion Munoz had broken his girlfriend's arm and "knocked her eye out." Respondent told Munoz that if he left the premises with the beer, she would "charge" him with shoplifting. Despite Respondent's threats and attempts to grab the malt liquor from Munoz, he left the licensed premises with the two quarts of malt liquor. While in the parking lot, Munoz removed or lowered the bag and displayed the two quarts of Schlitz Malt Liquor, by waving it in front of his face. At the time of the investigation which is the subject of these proceedings, Respondent had known Munoz for many years. Although Munoz had been a customer of the licensed premises, Respondent has had problems with him. About six years ago, Munoz gave Respondent a "bad check" which he never paid. Respondent believes that her problems with Munoz are due to his anger toward her because she always asks him about paying the check. On Monday morning, at about 11:00 a.m., September 22, 1997, Respondent went to the police department to file an incident report regarding Munoz taking the malt liquor from the licensed premises. Immediately after filing that incident report, Respondent went to the Internal Affairs Office and filed a complaint against Officer Pullara. The basis of Respondent's complaint against Officer Pullara was that he had mistreated her when he arrested her on September 21, 1997. Petitioner filed the subject Administrative Action against Respondent based on a complaint and report from the Tampa Police Department regarding an alleged violation of a City of Tampa Code provision relating to the hours that alcoholic beverages may be sold. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent Nora Melton stayed at the licensed premises. She began staying there because of the increased number of burglaries occurring on the licensed premises. Respondent usually locked the front door to the premises at about 10:00 p.m., but the business did not close at this time. If someone who Respondent knew came to the front door of the licensed premises after 10:00 p.m., she would open it and let that person come inside to make a purchase. Since the September 21, 1997, incident, however, the shutters to the licensed premises are put down no later than 2:30 a.m. and no customers are allowed into the premises. The testimony of Respondent was credible and was unrebutted by Petitioner. Petitioner acknowledged that George Munoz has a long criminal record dating back to July 10, 1979, with his last arrest listed as July 23, 1997, about two months before the subject incident. The records reviewed at hearing by Agent Thompson reflected only arrests and not the disposition of the arrests. According to the records, Munoz has been arrested for: unlawful use of a weapon; theft; at least three incidents involving the purchase of cocaine; delivery and control of cocaine; disorderly conduct; petty theft; criminal mischief; burglary of a structure; burglary of a dwelling; at least two incidents involving probation violations; escape; domestic assault; domestic battery; at least two incidents of trespass; battery; and trespass of a structure. The record also revealed that a warrant had been recently issued against Munoz for domestic violence, aggravated battery, and driving under the influence. In an Administrative Action signed on June 2, 1998, Respondent was charged with violating a city ordinance relating to the hours that alcoholic beverages may be sold. The matter was disposed of by an informal hearing and Respondent was fined $250.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order (1) finding that Respondent did not violate Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by selling alcoholic beverages after hours in violation the Tampa City Code; and (2) dismissing the charge in the Administrative Action. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas D. Winokur Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Nora J. Melton, pro se 705 West Columbus Drive Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Fred Earl Chappie, filed an application for a 2-COP beverage license on April 21, 1983 with Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). He intends to use the license at the Watermelon Inn & Truckstop, a business which he owns and operates, and which is located approximately seven miles north of Chiefland, Florida, on Highway 19. A 2-COP license authorizes the licensee to sell beer and wine for consumption on the premises. On May 16, 1983 Respondent denied the application on the grounds Chappie "had been convicted within the last past five years, in this state" and had "falsely sworn to a material statement" on his application. The denial prompted this proceeding. An applicant for a beverage license is required to submit a sworn application with the Division. The application form contains the following question: Have you ever been arrested or charged for a violation of soliciting for prostitution? Chappie answered no to this question. However, a background check of Chappie by the Division revealed Chappie had pled guilty to the charge of "soliciting for prostitution" on April 11, 1979 in County Court for Hillsborough County, Florida. The application form also requires the applicant to swear or affirm that the information given on the form is true and correct. Chappie did so despite the incorrect response to the above question. Chappie acknowledged that he had been arrested on a charge of solicitation for prostitution in March, 1979, and paid a $75 fine when he subsequently pled guilty to that charge a month later. However, he stated the incorrect response was unintentional for he did not know that a male (vis a vis a female) could be charged with that crime and accordingly he responded to the question in the negative. He also acknowledged that he had indeed sworn that all answers in the application were correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Fred Earl Chappie for a beverage license be DENIED without prejudice to refiling the same when the five-year statutory period of time since his conviction has passed. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of October, 1983, 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 24th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Earl Chappie Post Office Box 622 Chiefland, Florida 32626 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Milan Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Findings regarding general matters The Respondent, Ernest Scott, d/b/a Sonny's Stardust Lounge and Restaurant, is the holder of a special alcoholic beverage license for premises located at 5181 N.W. 9th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. His current license number is 16-00368SRX. The type of license held by the Respondent is a special license authorized by Chapter 61-579, Laws of Florida. The Respondent purchased the licensed premises as a going business in 1983. At that time the business had a similar license, which license was transferred to the Respondent when the Respondent purchased the business. Findings regarding sales to minors On December 15, 1989, Respondent's employee, Lillian C. Pender, unlawfully sold an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of twenty-one years. The beverage sold was a 12-ounce can of Budweiser beer. The minor to whom the sale was made was Jerry Wieczorek, age 16, date of birth April 11, 1973. 2/ On January 12, 1990, the Respondent, Ernest Scott, unlawfully sold an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of twenty-one years. The beverage sold was a 12-ounce can of Budweiser beer. The minor to whom the sale was made was Seth Ross, age 18, date of birth August 22, 1971. At the time of the alcoholic beverage sale on January 12, 1990, Seth Ross was engaged as an under age "Investigative Aide." His primary function in that capacity was to attempt, under the watchful eyes of the Division's Investigators, to purchase alcoholic beverages from various premises licensed to sell alcoholic beverages. When his efforts were successful, the Division Investigators would arrest the person who sold the alcoholic beverage to the Investigative Aide and would issue a notice to the licensee. All Investigative Aides, including Seth Ross, were instructed not to make any false statements about their age, not to use any false identification documents, and to answer truthfully any questions regarding their age that might be asked by the person from whom they were attempting to buy alcoholic beverages. Shortly after 8:00 p.m. on the evening of January 12, 1990, Seth Roth entered the licensed premises and walked up to the bar. The Respondent, Ernest Scott, was on duty behind the bar. Ross asked the Respondent for a Budweiser and in response the Respondent asked Ross for identification. Ross handed the Respondent a valid Florida driver license that contained Ross' correct date of birth, namely August 22, 1971. The Respondent looked at the driver license and then said to Ross, "This makes you twenty." Ross replied, "No, it makes me eighteen." The Respondent said something to the effect that that was "good enough," and sold a Budweiser beer to Ross. Ross paid for the beer and then walked over to where two Division Investigators were sitting and delivered the beer to them. 3/ Findings regarding seating accommodations The furniture inventory at the time of Respondent's purchase of the licensed premises included the following: 49 four seat tables, 5 two seat tables, and 206 chairs. Except as specifically noted in the findings which follow, that original inventory of furniture has been continuously located on the licensed premises. Since the purchase of the licensed premises the Respondent has added some furniture to the licensed premises, including at least 5 small chairs and one large table. On December 18, 1989, Investigator R. W. Dees went to the licensed premises, contacted the Respondent, and conducted an inspection of the licensed premises. On the basis of the inspection, Investigator Dees concluded that the licensed premises were not being maintained in compliance with Chapter 61-579, Laws of Florida, and he issued a notice to that effect to the Respondent. 4/ The notice constituted a warning to the Respondent, as well as specific instructions regarding what the Respondent was required to do to be in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 61-579, Laws of Florida. At the time of the inspection on December 18, 1989, the Division's policy with regard to first offenses regarding the accommodations required by special acts like Chapter 61-578, Laws of Florida, was to issue a warning and to allow the licensee ten days within which to take the necessary corrective action. On the basis of the record in this case it cannot be said with certainty how many patrons could be served full course meals with the accommodations on the licensed premises at the time of the inspection on December 18, 1989. 5/ However, by the next day the Respondent had taken steps to remedy any deficiencies in that regard, and on December 19, 1989, there were sufficient tables and chairs on the licensed premises to serve at least two hundred patrons at tables. On January 12, 1990, Investigators Krauss and Dees conducted another inspection of the Respondent's licensed premises. At the time of the inspection on January 12, 1990, there were a sufficient number of tables and chairs on the licensed premises for service of at least two hundred patrons. 6/
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that there has been no violation of Chapter 61-579, Laws of Florida, and dismissing the charges set forth in the second and fourth paragraphs of the Notice To Show Cause; Concluding that the Respondent did violate Section 562.11, Florida Statutes, by reason of the sale, by the Respondent's employee, of an alcoholic beverage to a minor, as charged in the first paragraph of the Notice To Show Cause; Concluding that the Respondent did violate Section 562.11, Florida Statutes, by reason of the sale, by the Respondent, of an alcoholic beverage to a minor, as charged in the third paragraph of the Notice To Show Cause; and Imposing a penalty consisting of a fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the violation described in subparagraph (b) of this recommendation and an additional fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the violation described in subparagraph (c) of this recommendation. RECOMMENDED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of September, 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1990.
