The Issue Did Respondent sell an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of 21, in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Action issued June 1, 1998?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, Respondent held license number 47-02960, series 2-APS, authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages on the premises of Timesaver #9, located at 2415 Jackson Bluff Road, Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Kamel Beshara Goor is the sole corporate officer and owner of Timesaver #9. On the evening of May 29, 1998, Eric Von Strosnider entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity on behalf of Petitioner Agency. Mr. Strosnider was born February 18, 1981, and carried a valid driver's license showing his correct birth date. Mr. Strosnider removed a single can of "Bud Lite" beer from the beer section of the store and presented it to Mr. Goor for purchase. Mr. Strosnider remembered clearly he picked up a "Bud Lite" because that was the type of beer he always selected during an attempted undercover buy. He paid for the "Bud Lite" and left the store. He immediately met with his Agency contact. Mr. Strosnider's appearance in court and as evidenced by his photograph taken on May 29, 1998, was such that an ordinarily prudent person would wish to determine that his age was, in fact, over 21, before selling him an alcoholic beverage. Mr. Strosnider testified that Mr. Goor might have asked him if he had an "ID," but he was certain that Mr. Goor did not ask to see his "ID." Mr. Strosnider had his driver's license with his correct birth date with him, but since he was not asked to present it, he did not provide any identification to Mr. Goor. Leon County Sheriff's Deputy Vernon Willis, who was dressed in plain clothes and present in the store, witnessed Mr. Strosnider's purchase of a can labeled "beer" but did not hear any request for identification. Mr. Goor did not remember asking for identification. He did not recognize Mr. Strosnider in court and denied any sale to Mr. Strosnider. He clearly testified that he would not sell alcohol to someone who appeared under thirty years of age if he or she said they had identification without checking that identification. However, with some vacillation, he also stated that his standard operating procedure is to ask for identification, and if the customer reaches for identification, he does not need to read it, but if a customer makes any excuse about not having identification with him or her, Mr. Goor refuses to sell. He finally said that if he sees the identification and the customer is under 21 years of age, he does not sell alcoholic beverages to him. Upon the totality of the evidence and the respective candor and demeanor of the witnesses, I find that the sale of beer to a minor under the age of 21 occurred without any misleading by the minor.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 47- 02960, series 2-APS, for seven days, and imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Kling, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 J. Joseph Hughes, Esquire 1017-A Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License based upon Respondent's president selling, serving or giving an alcoholic beverage, on the licensed premises, to a person under the age of twenty-one contrary, to Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rose Anne, Inc., d/b/a Scooters, holds license number 74-05039 SRX, Series 4COP issued by Petitioner for the premises located at 217 North Woodland Boulevard, Deland, Florida. Scott A. Price is the president and owner of that business. On October 22, 1997, Petitioner, through its agents, made random checks of businesses holding alcoholic beverage licenses issued by Petitioner. Those checks were made in Deland, Florida. In particular, the checks were designed to determine if businesses holding alcoholic beverage licenses were acting in compliance with the prohibition against selling, serving or giving alcoholic beverages on their licensed premises, to persons under the age of twenty-one, in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent's premises was one of the licensed premises checked on that date. Petitioner's employees involved in the random checks included Special Agents Betty D. Adazzio, Melissa Winford and Kristin Hunt, operating with the assistance of Sergeant Steve Dovi of the Deland Police Department. The law enforcement personnel were supported in their activities by Ryan N. Luttrell, an under-aged person, who was used to determine if persons within the licensed premises under consideration would sell, serve or give Mr. Luttrell an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. Mr. Lutrell was born on November 23, 1978, as reflected on a Florida driver's license issued to him. That driver's license bore a picture of Mr. Luttrell which accurately depicted his appearance at the time. The license also indicated in bold print that Mr. Luttrell was under twenty-one years of age. In contact with Mr. Price, within Respondent's licensed premises, Mr. Luttrell used the license as a means of identification. Mr. Luttrell entered the licensed premises on the date in question. At that moment Mr. Price was tending the bar in the premises. Mr. Price brought Mr. Luttrell a menu and asked Mr. Luttrell if he wanted anything to drink. Mr.Luttrell told Mr. Price to give Mr. Luttrell a minute to decide. Mr. Luttrell then asked Mr. Price for a Bud Lite, an alcoholic beverage which is a beer. Mr. Luttrell also ordered cheese sticks. Mr. Price asked Mr. Luttrell for identification. Mr. Luttrell then produced the driver's license that has been described. Mr. Price briefly looked at the driver's license. Then Mr. Price took the driver's license to another area within the premises and held the license up by a chart. Mr. Price came back to where Mr. Luttrell was seated and asked what Mr. Luttrell would like. Mr. Luttrell repeated that he wanted a Bud Lite. Mr. Price filled a glass with beer and brought it back to Mr. Luttrell's location placing the glass of beer and a napkin in front of Mr. Luttrell. Mr. Price remarked that the cheese sticks would be right out. Mr. Luttrell asked Mr. Price where the bathroom was. Mr. Luttrell took the beer in the glass with him and took a sample of the beer and placed it in a vial. Mr. Luttrell went back to the bar area, and in further conversation with Mr. Price, Mr. Luttrell claimed that his pager had gone off, and used that excuse as a reason to exit the licensed premises. Once outside, Mr. Luttrell realized that he had not paid for the beer and Agent Adazzio sent Mr. Luttrell back into the premises to pay it. Mr. Luttrell re-entered the premises. Mr. Price was still behind the bar. Mr. Luttrell paid Mr. Price for the beer that Mr. Price had given Mr. Luttrell. Mr. Luttrell then again exited the licensed premises. At the time of the incident Respondent was not qualified as a Responsible Vendor pursuant to Section 561.705, Florida Statutes, and entitled to protections against suspension or revocation of its beverage license for the illegal sale of an alcoholic beverage to a person not of lawful drinking age, as envisioned by Section 561.706, Florida Statutes. Respondent's disciplinary history involves a violation of Section 561.501, Florida Statutes, for failure to timely file surcharge reports and to remit surcharges collected for periods in 1990. That case was resolved by entry into a Consent Agreement on December 17, 1990, in which Respondent acknowledged the violations and agreed to remit the sum of $250.00, as a civil penalty. This circumstance was in association with Respondent doing business as Scooters Coast To Coast at U.S. Highway #1, MM92.5, Tavernier, Monroe County, Florida, under license number 54-00658, Series 2COP.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: It is recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of the aforementioned provisions and imposing a seven day suspension, together with a civil penalty of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan C. Felker-Little, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Scott A. Price, President Rose Anne, Inc., d/b/a Scooters 102½ West Rich Avenue Deland, Florida 32720 Richard Boyd, Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent, La Copa Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a La Copa Supermarket, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-1995, series 2APS, for the premises located at 3940 East 4th Avenue, Hialeah, Florida. On January 9, 1986, Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), following a complaint of sales to underaged persons, began an investigation at the licensed premises. On that date, underaged volunteer, Scott Laurence Spayd (Spayd), date of birth June 5, 1968, entered the licensed premises under the supervision of DABT Investigator, Carol Houston. Spayd purchased a six-pack of Busch beer from Respondent's sales clerk, Alicia Hernandez, without any request for identification or inquiry concerning his age. By notice dated January 13, 1986, DABT advised Respondent of the arrest of Ms. Hernandez for the foregoing sale of alcoholic beverages to an underaged person. The notice also advised Respondent that future violations could result in charges being filed against its license. /1 On February 4, 1986, underaged volunteer, James Jenkins (Jenkins), date of birth April 4, 1969, entered the licensed premises under the supervision of DABT Investigator, Hector Garcia. Jenkins purchased a can of Schaeffer beer from Respondent's sales clerk, Yolanda Martinez, without any request for identification or inquiry concerning his age. By letter dated February 6, 1986, DABT advised Respondent of the arrest of Ms. Martinez for the foregoing sale of alcoholic beverages to an underaged person. The letter further provided: . . . Since this is our final warning to you, we would strongly urge you to personally ad- dress this problem. If you, your agents, ser- vants, or employees violate FSS 562.11 again, we will file a Notice to Show Cause, which will include past violations as well as any future violations, at which time your license will be subject to formal revocation or suspension proceedings. On July 29, 1986, underaged volunteer, Jeraldine Cutler (Cutler), date of birth April 28, 1968, entered the licensed promises under the supervision of DABT Investigator, Ralph Campbell. Cutler purchased a four-pack of Champale Cooler, an alcoholic beverage, from Respondent's sales clerk, Maria Mena, without any request for identification or inquiry concerning her age. Respondent does not dispute the sale of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons as detailed in the preceding paragraphs. Rather, Respondent contends that it has acted reasonably to curb such sales by posting signs near the cash register which state that it is unlawful to sell alcoholic beverages to under aged persons and by instructing its personnel to demand identification from youthful appearing persons. According to Respondent, its clerks are instructed to check the date of birth appearing on the patron's drivers license to insure they are 21 years of age. In the instant case, each sales clerk averred that the underaged volunteer to whom she sold alcoholic beverages appeared to be of legal age. The clerks' testimony is not, however, credible. None of the underaged volunteers appeared to be of legal age, and no ordinary prudent person could have concluded otherwise. Their youthful appearances, which were obvious at the hearing held over one year after the sales, were such that identification should have been checked. This conclusion is buttressed by the reaction of other licensees when faced with a request to purchase alcoholic beverages from the same volunteers. Spayd has been used by DABT in approximately 100 investigations and was refused service approximately 75 percent of the time. Jenkins has been used 26 times and has been refused service 20 times. Cutler has been used approximately 60 times and has been refused service approximately 50 percent of the time. In addition to averring that Cutler appeared to be 21 years of age at the time of the sale, Ms. Mena also averred that she was not aware at the time that Champale Cooler was an alcoholic beverage. Such assertion does nothing to bolster Respondent's defense since, if true, it demonstrates a basic failing in Respondent's efforts to prevent the sale of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. DABT's policy and procedure manual establishes a penalty guideline for cases of this nature. Where, as here, three sales of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons have occurred, and the licensee has been given written notice after the first and second offense, the prescribed penalty is a $1,000 civil penalty and a 20 day suspension of the license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered imposing a civil penalty of $1,000 against Respondent, and suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of 20 days. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 17th day of March, 1987.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent or its agent illegally sold alcohol to a minor and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Moe's Petroleum Corp., d/b/a Plantation Texaco, is a small, privately-owned gas station and convenience store. It is owned and operated by Mohammed Shareed. Mr. Shareed and his wife are the primary full-time employees of the business. For the period relevant to this matter, Sharika Salmon was a part-time employee. The business sells both gasoline and commercial items to its customers. Sale of packaged alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) is allowed under the business' alcohol beverage license, No. 16-06936, Series 2 APS. Mr. Shareed has owned and operated the business for about two years. He has not been previously cited for violating the terms of his alcohol beverage license. Ms. Salmon is a college student. She obtained a part- time position at the business following discussions between her aunt and Mr. Shareed. It was decided that Ms. Salmon could work a few hours each afternoon after class whenever possible. She averaged about 12 hours per week while employed at the business. She was trained as to how to operate the cash register and other machines. Part of her training included specific instructions to ask customers for identification when they purchased alcohol. She understood she was not to sell alcohol to anyone under the age of 21 years. Mr. Shareed advised his employees daily about checking for identification when alcohol was purchased. He placed visible written signs in the store advising customers that minors could not purchase alcohol. On November 16, 2006, at approximately 7:50 p.m., Investigative Aide #FL0033 entered the business. He was working for the Division as an underage cooperative. His job was to attempt to purchase alcohol from various businesses. On the night of November 16, 2006, he did about 15 "buys" during the 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. time frame. The purchase at Mr. Shareed's business was one of those. On the evening in question, Investigative Aide #FL0033 (at that time 18 years old) entered the business, went to the beer cooler in the back, and selected a six-pack of Heineken beer. He took the beer to the front counter and, along with a pack of gum, placed it on the counter. The investigative aide gave the clerk (Ms. Salmon) a ten-dollar bill from investigative funds entrusted to him for that purpose. She took the bill, made change, and handed the change and the beer to the investigative aide. He took his purchases and left the store. No words were exchanged between the investigative aide and the clerk during the sales transaction. Ms. Salmon did not ask the investigative aide for identification in order to ascertain his age. At the time of the transaction, Mr. Shareed was standing just to the clerk's right side concentrating on paperwork related to previous gasoline purchases. He was no more than two or three feet from the clerk. Mr. Shareed was standing at a 90-degree angle from the counter and the clerk. He was not involved in the sale transaction and did not specifically remember it occurring. Mr. Shareed gave his employees the right to act independently once they were trained. He did not monitor or oversee their every move. During the transaction, Special Agent Fisten was also in the store, posing as a customer. He was standing behind the investigative aide during the sale and did not hear any words spoken during the entire transaction. The investigative aide took the beer outside where it was taken by Special Agent Smith, who placed it in a bag, marked it for identification, and initialed the identification receipt. The beer was then placed in the trunk of Special Agent Smith's vehicle. The special agents then went back into the store and notified Mr. Shareed that they were charging him with sale of alcohol to a minor, a violation of his license. He was cited and instructed about the administrative process. The agents took information from Ms. Salmon as well. In fact, they asked her for identification due to the fact that she looked so young. (Ms. Salmon quit her job after this incident because the process upset her.) During the sale transaction, Mr. Shareed was doing paperwork incident to gasoline purchases made earlier in the day. He was preoccupied with that work and did not notice the sale as it occurred. Mr. Shareed's testimony on that fact is credible; it is not likely that he actively watches or participates in every sale that occurs during the day. Mr. Shareed was not involved in the sale; had he been, he would have requested identification from the investigative aide. The policy of the business was to require identification from anyone purchasing beer who looked young. The business had never previously been cited for violation of its license. Nor was the Division investigating the premises on the basis of a complaint or allegation. Rather, the business was simply chosen at random because it was in the area the Division was focusing on that particular day. Mr. Shareed's testimony that he trained his wife and other employees to check identification was credible. Conversely, the testimony of the investigative aide and other agents appears cloudy concerning the distinguishing facts of the sales transaction at issue compared to numerous other transactions during that same evening. Petitioner is seeking to impose a fine of $1,000 and a suspension of Respondent's license for a period of seven consecutive days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, dismissing the charges against the license of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2007.
Findings Of Fact On December 15, 1981, Petitioner's beverage officer conducted a routine inspection of Respondent's licensed premises. He found a draft beer keg with an embossed Anheurser-Busch label leading to a spigot at the bar labelled "Miller High Life". Petitioner seized the keg and requested that Anheuser-Busch officials test the contents. Their brewers, who are trained beer tasters, established that the keg contained Anheuser-Busch and not Miller product. The evidence was inconclusive as to whether the Respondent or the Miller beer distributor was responsible for the mix-up. However, there was no intentional deception by Respondent and the misrepresentation is determined to have been accidental.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 563.03, Florida Statutes (1981), and imposing a civil penalty of $100. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of March, 1982. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 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 March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esq. Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Earle Bennett, Esquire 2726 College Street Jacksonville, FL 32205
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Emad F. Abdelmeseh, d/b/a Emad's Texaco is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs in defending the charges made against him in the case of Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco vs. Emad F. Abdelmeseh, d/b/a Emad's Texaco, Division of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 91-1618, under the provisions of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q-2.035, Florida Administrative Code (formerly 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code) and, if so, the amount which Petitioner is entitled to recover.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Petitioner was licensed by the Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, to sell alcoholic beverages from the premises of Emad's Texaco, having been issued license number 63-2090, 2APS. The Petitioner timely filed the petition in the instant case in accordance with Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code (now Rule 60Q-2.035, Florida Administrative Code). The Respondent timely filed a written response alleging that Respondent was substantially justified in issuing the Notice To Show. With its response the Respondent filed an Affidavit challenging the amount of attorney's fees and cost requested by the Petitioner. However, this Affidavit was subsequently withdrawn and the Respondent made no further effort to contest the attorney's fees and costs incurred by the Petitioner. Emad Abdelmeseh is domiciled in the state of Florida and is the sole proprietor of an unincorporated business known as Emad's Texaco, located at 101 East Memorial Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida. Emad's Texaco employs less than 25 employees, and the Petitioner's net worth is less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00). Petitioner is a "small business party" as that term is defined under Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes. On July 11, 1990, agents for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division), John Blair and Brad Nelson, participated in a joint investigation with the City of Lakeland Police Department (CLPD) in the illegal selling of alcoholic beverages to minors. Throughout the course of this investigation the Division's agents were on official duty. Agents Blair and Nelson met with the CLPD detectives and Smalley prior to the investigation and remained with the investigation until its conclusion, including the investigation of Emad's Texaco. The Division, through its agents Blair and Nelson, fully participated in the investigation conducted on July 11, 1990, including Emad's Texaco, and did not simply rely on the CLPD's independent investigation to institute action against Emad's Texaco. This case was not what the Division considers an "adopted case" - one handled entirely by another law enforcement agency which request the Division to prosecute. Therefore, the investigation, as far as agents Blair and Nelson were concerned, should have been conducted in accordance with the Division's Policy and Procedure. The investigation of July 11, 1990, involved the use of an underage operative by the name of J. Karen Smalley n/k/a J. Karen Raschke (Smalley) with previous experience working with the Division, and documented as an underage operative by the Division. Prior to July 11, 1990, Smalley had also been used as an underage operative by the CLPD. During the July 11, 1990 investigation, Smalley was being paid by, and was under the direction of, the CLPD. Before leaving the Police Department to assist in the investigation on July 11, 1990, Smalley was instructed by both Detective Phillips and Agent Blair, on separate occasions, concerning her duties and responsibilities in regard to the investigation. During the course of the investigation on July 11, 1990, Smalley was sent on to the premises of Emad's Texaco for purposes of attempting to purchase an alcoholic beverage. Smalley went to the cooler area in Emad's Texaco's licensed premises and took a six-pack of beer to the check-out counter. Amad Abdelmeseh asked to see Smalley's identification. Smalley either handed her driver's license to Amad Abdelmeseh or laid her driver's license on the check-out counter. Emad Abdelmeseh looked at Smalley's driver's licenses which showed her date of birth to be July 24, 1970, just a few days short of being 20 years of age. Although the photograph of Smalley on the driver's license was taken in 1986, she still maintained her youthful appearance on July 11, 1990. On July 11, 1990, Smalley's hair was blonde, having dyed her hair which was brown when the driver's license was issued. However, Smalley did not dress-up or wear make-up on July 11, 1990, so as to appear older than her age of almost 20 years. There was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that at the time Smalley was attempting to purchase the six-pack of beer on July 11, 1990, that she: (a) told Emad Abdelmeseh that she was 21 years of age or older or; (b) produced a driver's license, other than the driver's license referred to above, that listed a date of birth which would have indicated an age of 21 years or older or; (c) in any fashion attempted to misrepresent her age as being 21 years or older After looking at Smalley's driver's license, Emad Abdelmeseh sold Smalley the six-pack of beer. After making the purchase of beer, Smalley exited Emad's Texaco and advised Detective Phillips that she had made a purchase of beer from the person inside the store. Detective Phillips advised Detective Tim Snyder of the purchase. Detective Snyder then went inside Emad's Texaco and identified Emad Abdelmeseh as the person who had sold the beer to Smalley. On August 8, 1990, Agent Blair served a Notice of Intent To File Administrative Charges against Emad Abdelmeseh's alcoholic beverage license as a result of his sale of alcoholic beverage to Smalley. On August 8, 1990, Abdelmeseh complained to Agent Blair about the lapse of time between Smalley making the purchase of beer on July 11, 1990 and the serving of the Notice of Intent on August 8, 1990. Emad Abdelmeseh did not complain to Agent Blair on August 8, 1990 that Smalley had misrepresented her age to him when she made the purchase of beer on July 11, 1990. In fact, Emad Abdelmeseh did not advise Agent Blair, or anyone else with the Division, of his allegation that Smalley had misrepresented her age to him on July 11, 1990, when she purchased the beer from him until after the Notice To Show Cause was issued by Lt. Robert Bishop. After the Notice of Intent was served on Emad Abdelmeseh, Agent Blair prepared a draft Notice To Show Cause and a synopsis for review by Lt. Robert Bishop, District Four Supervisor. Lt. Bishop has been a supervisor with the Division for 23 1/2 years. On August 16, 1990, Lt. Robert Bishop, acting with authority from the Division Director, issued a Notice To Show Cause which was served against the Petitioner's alcoholic beverage license on August 17, 1990 alleging that Petitioner had sold alcoholic beverages from the premises of Emad's Texaco to a person under the age of 21 years contrary to Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The issuance of the Notice To Show Cause was the initiation of the case against the Petitioner and the Division was not a nominal party in this case. In issuing the Notice To Show Cause, Lt. Bishop relied solely on the information in the Notice To Show Cause and the synopsis prepared by Agent Blair without any further investigation or discussion with Agent Blair. The Division had used Smalley as an underage operative on several occasions prior to the investigation on July 11, 1990, and had found her to be a credible and reliable underage operative. Therefore, the Division reasonably relied on Smalley in the issuance to the Notice To Show Cause to Emad Abdelmeseh, notwithstanding that on July 11, 1990, Smalley was being paid by, and was under the direction of, the CLPD. Agent Blair has been an agent with the Division for 16 years and his reports, according to Lt. Bishop, are impeccable. Therefore, Lt. Bishop had no problem in issuing the Notice To Show Cause to Emad Abdelmeseh based solely on Agents Blair's report, notwithstanding that Agent Blair's report did not specifically indicate that he had strictly adhered to the Division's Policy and Procedure. Although the record reflects that Agent Blair did not strictly adhere to the Division's Policy and Procedure on July 11, 1990, there is competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that the CLPD detectives basically filled in the gaps, so the speak. It is clear from the testimony of Lt. Bishop that even if had he made further inquiry of Agent Blair concerning Agent's Blair's adherence to policy and procedure, it would not have changed Lt. Bishop's mind about issuing the Notice To Show Cause because there was a reasonable basis in law and fact to issue the Notice To Show Cause - there was credible evidence that Emad Abdelmeseh had sold an alcoholic beverage to an underage operative in violation of the Florida Statutes. Along with the Notice To Show Cause served on Emad Abdelmeseh there was a Notice Of Informal Conference which provided for an Informal Conference between the Division and Emad Abdelmeseh on August 28, 1990 at 3:00 p.m. It was at this informal conference on August 28, 1990, that Emad Abdelmeseh first advised anyone from the Division of his allegation that Smalley had misrepresented her age to him on July 11, 1990. The Informal Conference did not resolve the issues and a Request For Formal Hearing signed by Emad Abdelmeseh and dated September 4, 1990 was filed with the Division. In the Request For Hearing Emad Abdelmeseh sets out what he considers to be the disputed issues of fact. In this request there is an allegation that the underage operative was misleading in that when asked if she was 21 years of age she continued to purchase the beer as if she was an adult. There was no mention of Smalley presenting her driver's license By letter dated February 12, 1991, Emad Abdelmeseh again sets out what he considers to be the facts. Among other things, he alleges that Smalley claimed that she was over the age of 21 years and that she did present her driver's license for identification. On March 11, 1991, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for conduct of a formal hearing. The Division prosecuted this action in the case of the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco vs. Emad Abdelmeseh, d/b/a Emad's Texaco, Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 91-1618. On October 30, 1991 the Division exercised its administrative discretion and entered an Order of Dismissal dismissing the charges against Emad Abdelmeseh set forth in the Notice To Show Cause issued on August 16, 1990. The reasons behind the Division's dismissal of the case were not presented at the hearing on April 29. 1992 or November 17, 1992. The Petitioner is the prevailing small business party as that term is defined in Section 57.111(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The hourly rate and the total number of hours expended by Petitioner's attorney, and others under his control, and the costs incurred in the defense of the Petitioner as set out in Amended Affidavit and attached as Exhibit B to the Petitioner's Amended Petition in the amount of $11,429.77 are reasonable, and should be the amount awarded in the event Petitioner is successful in presenting his Amended Petition. There is competent, substantial evidence to establish facts to show that at the time the Notice To Show Cause was issued on August 16, 1990 the Division had made a meaningful inquiry into the matter and there was a reasonable basis in fact and law to initiate the action. No special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust.
The Issue The issue presented in this case is whether the Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent sold alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21, in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice To Show Cause issued October 8, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Jin I. Jeon, (licensee), held license number 39-03637, series 2-APS, authorizing him to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of the Diwan Food Store, located at 7504 N. Florida Avenue, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida (premises). On or about September 16, 1992, Special Agent A. Murray, Special Agent K. Hamilton, Investigative Aide D. Snow and Intern M. Dolitsky went to Diwan Food Store to investigate complaints of alcoholic beverage sales to minors. Investigative Aide D. Snow's date of birth is November 11, 1973. She was 18 years of age on September 16, 1992. In accordance with the intructions of the law enforcement officers, Investigative Aide Snow entered the premises and selected a one-quart bottle of Budweiser beer, an alcoholic beverage, from a cooler. The bottle of beer was sealed and clearly marked as an alcoholic beverage. She proceeded to the cash register, where the Respondent was waiting. Snow paid the Respondent, who rang up the sale on the register. The Respondent did not request to see Snow's identification, nor did he ask her whether she was at least 21 years of age. The Respondent's defense was that he was not the person who sold Snow the beer. When he was confronted with the charges, he disclaimed any knowledge of them and blamed an employee, Min Sup Lee, whom he believed must have been the person involved in the sale. He immediately fired Lee because of the charges. Lee testified that he was employed by the Respondent from March 1992 through January, 1993. Lee testified that he worked for Respondent six days a week, primarily at night, and that he was the person in charge of the cash register the majority of the time. He asserted that he probably worked the cash register on the night of the violation. However, he denied ever having seen either Special Agent Murray or Special Agent Hamilton, or Investigative Aide Snow, and he denied any knowledge of the incident. It seems clear that Lee was not the person who sold the beer to the Investigative Aide Snow. Communication problems (the Respondent's English language limitations) may be at the root of the Respondent's inability to understand and to carry out his responsibilities as a vendor under the Beverage Law. Later on the evening of the sale in question, Special Agent Murray returned to the store to talk to the Respondent about the violation but she was not confident that he understood anything she was saying. It is possible that, due to the Respondent's lack of facility with the English language, he did not understand that Murray was charging him with illegal sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor and that, when, some time later, the Respondent came understand the nature of the charge against him, he assumed that his employee must have been responsible. On the other hand, it is possible that the Respondent knows full well his responsibilities under the Beverage Law, and knows full well that he failed to meet those responsibilities on September 16, 1992, but that he knowingly and unfairly tried to use his employee to avoid his own responsibity. In any event, it is found that it was the Respondent, not Lee, who sold the beer to Snow and that, in all likelihood, Lee either was not working on September 16, 1992, or was occupied elsewhere with other responsibilities when Snow and Murray were in the store. The Division's standard penalty for the violation alleged in the Notice to Show Cause is a twenty-day license suspension and a thousand dollar ($1,000.00) civil penalty. This standard penalty has been noticed as proposed Rule 7A-2.022, Penalty Guidelines, pending public workshop and approval.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent guilty as charged in the Notice to Show Cause; (2) suspending the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for twenty days; and (3) ordering the Respondent to pay a $1,000 civil penalty. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Jin I. Jeon 7504 N. Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604 John Harrison, Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Donald D. Conn, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1000
The Issue Whether or not on or about October 31, 1975, the Respondents, Bossie Mae and Willie Mae Browdy, licensed under the beverage laws as a package store, and/or their agent, servant or employee, to wit: Bossie Mae Browdy did allow or permit the consumption of alcoholic beverages on their licensed premises, contrary to Rule 7A-3.05, Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on or about November 1, 1975, the Respondents, Bossie Mae and Willie Mae Browdy, licensed under the beverage laws as Browdy's Mini Market with a 2-APS license to wit: Bossie Mae Browdy did allow gambling (card) on the licensed premises, contrary to Section 849.08, Florida Statutes and in violation of Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At present, and on October 31, 1975 and November 1, 1975, the Respondents, Bossie Mae and Willie Mae Browdy are and were the holders of a beverage license with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage number 69-299, 2-APS. On October 31, 1975, Eugene Fogel, a Division of Beverage enforcement officer entered the premises licensed by the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, which was operated by the Respondents at Avenue B on Chuluota Road, Oviedo, Florida. While in the store he observed an unknown black female consuming a beverage which was marked Millers High-Life. This consumption was taking place in the presence of the Respondent, Bossie Mae Browdy, and in the course of the consumption a conversation was taking place between the unknown black female and Bossie Mae Browdy. The bottle which Officer Fogel observed was marked with identifying information which the officer based upon his experience, felt indicated that it contained an alcoholic beverage. On November 1, 1975, officer Fogel returned to the licensed premises of the Respondents and entered into a card game in a porch like area which is immediately at the front of the store and connected to the store. This card game was between Fogel and several black males who were participating in a card game when he approached. The game took place over 45 minutes and money was exchanged at 25 cents a game for the winner, for a total amount of approximately $2.00. During the course of the game, Bossie Mae Browdy came to the door and looked out at the card game being played.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondents, Bossie Mae and Willie Mae Browdy, be fined in the amount of $100 for the offense as established through this administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of November, 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: Charles Curtis, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Carl Thompson, Esquire 25 South Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Prior to October 1977 the Nite Gallery, Inc., a nightclub featuring topless dancers, held license 2-COP No.58-1175 and the stock was owned by Sherrill Ann Perkins and Dorothy Jean Copeland. The owners were anxious to sell and placed an advertisement which was seen by Robert Waldorf, who visited the bar to discuss price. Waldorf was accompanied by Richard Bragg and Mary Jo Kelly. Following discussion, Waldorf, who did all the talking for the purchasers, agreed to purchase the business for $12,000 and gave each of the owners a check for $1,000, receipt of which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. On 13 October 1977 the operation of the bar was taken over by Waldorf, although the two owners were still holders of the license. The $1,000 checks given as down payment were on the account of Sharon's Novelties, at Winter Park National Bank, an account on which Waldorf was the only one authorized to sign checks. During the next few weeks, Waldorf wrote numerous checks on this same account to pay for various equipment, supplies and labor for the Nite Gallery. In Application for Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License stamped 8 November 1977 (Exhibit 6), Dorothy Copeland signed the Affidavit of Seller stating the license was transferred to Mary Jo Kelly who signed the affidavit of buyer that "no other person except as indicated herein, has an interest in the alcoholic beverage license for which these statements are made." Nowhere in the application was reference made to Waldorf. In 1973 Waldorf was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee of offenses involving the transportation in interstate commerce of forged securities and was sentenced to three years confinement with a three years probation period running concurrently with the confinement. (Exhibits 1 and 2). As a result of these felony convictions, Waldorf is ineligible to hold an alcoholic beverage license in Florida. At the time of these transactions, Waldorf and Mary Jo Kelly had been living together for approximately two years. She worked as a dancer and B-girl in various nightclubs, usually in a club where Waldorf also worked. Kelly had no experience or knowledge respecting the operation of a bar or any other business, and all decisions, including the decision to buy the bar and all management decisions thereafter, were made by Waldorf. The sellers, Copel and and Perkins, were informed that Waldorf was the one purchasing the bar and that the license was being put in Kelly's name because Waldorf was ineligible to hold the license. This information came from Waldorf. On November 2, 1977 Waldorf signed a promissory note (Exhibit 5) promising to pay Copeland $300 per month until the balance of the $5,000 owed her for the purchase of the Nite Gallery was paid. Immediately prior to and following the transfer of the license to Respondent, Kelly danced at the Nite Gallery occasionally but otherwise had little, if anything, to do with the business. Waldorf did the hiring and firing, kept the accounts, signed checks for the bills owed, zeroed out the cash register, provided the bartender with funds each day to open the bar, and held himself out and performed all the functions of an owner in fact. Waldorf made arrangements for radio advertising for the Nite Gallery and paid for this service. (Exhibit 10). In his application for telephone service ordered 4-2-78 for his residence, Waldorf stated his occupation for the past two years was owner of the Nite Gallery. (Exhibit 12). After the license was transferred to Mary Jo Kelly, Waldorf opened another bank account on which both he and Kelly were authorized to sign checks. Kelly often signed blank checks which Waldorf completed to pay various expenses of the Nite Gallery. Kelly made no deposits in this account, maintained no record of expenditures from this account, and she had no information regarding the disposition of, or the amount of, money passing through the cash register at the Nite Gallery. Respondent testified that she provided all of the money used to purchase the Nite Gallery and to pay the initial bills from her earnings as a dancer. She also testified that this same source of funds provided the capital needed to buy a house, boat and two or three cars including a Continental Mark IV driven by Waldorf. Respondent further testified that she made $400 per week from tips as a dancer at the. Fiesta Club in Orlando immediately before purchasing the Nite Gallery and that she made $400-$500 per week in tips at the Nite Gallery. Her testimony was that the dancers worked on tips only. Exhibit 8, which is a cash and expense report for the Nite Gallery for December 1, 1977, shows that four dancers shared $17 for their work that evening. Although this was shown on Exhibit 8 as Commissions, other testimony indicated it was accumulated at $1 for each drink the customers bought for four dancers in one evening. These figures strongly militate against Respondent receiving $400-$500 per week in tips at this establishment. Respondent's testimony that her earnings provided the funds for a house, boat, and three cars in addition to the costs involved in opening the Nite Gallery is simply not credible. The testimony by Orange County Sheriff's deputies that one of them was struck by an employee of the Nite Gallery while on the premises was unrebutted All of the witnesses, including Respondent, testified that Respondent performed no role in the day-to-day management of the Nite Gallery and that Respondent did not have the experience or ability to run a business. At the time Respondent surrendered her license to Petitioner in March, 1979 she voluntarily submitted to questioning and the tape of that interrogation and the transcript of the tape were admitted into evidence as Exhibits 21 and Therein Respondent gave her age as 20 years old and stated that Waldorf had directed her absence from the first hearing. At Waldorf's direction she went to Pennsylvania and entered the hospital for a short period so she could truthfully advise her attorney that she was in the hospital in Pennsylvania during the March hearing. During this interrogation Kelly stated that she received no income from the Nite Gallery, that Waldorf ran the business, and that she had no knowledge of how the business was doing.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, J. F. Walthier III and Andrew Erickson, are the holders of a current valid beverage license, No. 46-00210, Series 2-APS, held in the name of Walthier, J. F. III and Ericks. This license is for a premises located at 4721 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The Respondents conduct their business at this licensed premises under the name Foam and Fizz. This beverage license series entitled the Respondents to sell a class of alcoholic beverage for consumption off the licensed premises. One of the categories of alcoholic beverages allowed for sale under the terms and conditions of the license is beer. The subject beverage license was issued by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The Petitioner is charged with the licensure and regulation of the several alcoholic beverage license holders within the State of Florida. In pursuit of its function, the Petitioner has brought an Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause against the named Respondents and the terms and conditions of that complaint may be found in the issue statement of this Recommended Order. The facts in this case reveal that between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on January 25, 1980, three young men under the age of eighteen drove to the licensed premises for purposes of purchasing beer. Once the car was parked, Ira J. Frasure and dames Craig McDowell exited the car. On that date, Ira J. Frasure was seventeen years of age and James Craig McDowell was sixteen years of age. They left Frank Edward Gordon in the automobile, where he would remain during the pendency of the other juveniles' activities in the licensed premises. Once in the store, Frasure retrieved a six-pack of Budweizer beer and McDowell picked up several single cans of Budweizer beer. The beer which had been picked up by the juveniles was presented at the checkout counter to Barbara Joyce Walthier, the wife of one of the licensees and an employee in the licensed premises. At that point, Frasure paid Walthier for the beer from money which he had and money which had been given to him by McDowell. The juveniles then left the store. Neither of the juveniles had been asked for any form of identification prior to the sale of the alcoholic beverages, nor had they been asked about their ages, and they did not make any comment concerning their ages. Frasure's date of birth is September 30, 1962, and at the time of the purchase he was approximately six feet one inch tall and had a mustache. Frasure gave testimony in the course of the hearing and appeared to be eighteen years of age or older at that time. Investigative officers who saw Frasure on January 25, 1980, said they felt he appeared to be less than eighteen years of age. McDowell's date of birth is February 9, 1963, and at the time of the hearing he appeared to be less than eighteen years of age, and this comported with the impression of the investigating officers when they saw him on January 25, 1980. At the time Frasure purchased the beer from the clerk, Barbara Joyce Walthier, she was not busy with other customers to the extent that it would hinder her ability to check the appearance of Frasure and McDowell; however, business on the evening in question had been moderate to heavy at times and she does not remember seeing Frasure and McDowell. Barbara Joyce Walthier was working in accordance with a set of instructions from the licensees, in the person of her husband, to the effect that she should always require written identification prior to purchase from those persons who looked like they should be "carded". Moreover, she had been instructed that those persons who have beards are not normally "carded". Other factors to be considered, per instruction she had been given, were to require written identification from those persons who acted suspiciously while in the store, or who parked a great distance away from the store after driving slowly by. In keeping with these instructions, she routinely requires written identification from patrons. Finally, there was a sign in the licensed premises which stated, "Under age don't ask".
Recommendation In view of the fact that this is a single count violation and in view of the physical appearance of Ira J. Frasure at the time of the alcoholic beverage purchase in question, that appearance leading one to believe that he was eighteen years of age or more, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondents be required to pay a fine in the amount of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) in lieu of suspension or revocation and it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that if this civil penalty is not paid within thirty (30) days of the rendition of the final order, that the Respondents' beverage license be suspended for a period of fifteen (15) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allan Parvey, Esquire 2201 Main Street Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
