Findings Of Fact Respondent Mary L. Alexander holds beverage license No. 28-0041, Series 2-COP. Under this license she sells beer and wine at Whisper's Cafe, a business which she has owned and operated for approximately two years in Bunnell, Florida. (Testimony of respondent) Respondent employs a cook and a part-time bartender, who also serves as a disc jockey. The cook works primarily in the kitchen. At around 8:30 P.M., the bartender begins operating the juke box and remains in the dance area of the licensed premises, an area separated by a wall from the rest of the premises. Respondent (or a substitute bartender), works primarily in the bar and pool table area, which is located between the dining and dance areas of the premises. (Testimony of respondent) The evidence establishes, without contradiction, that two of respondent's bartenders committed three separate drug violations on the premises during April and May, 1982. Two violations involved bartender Ronney Locke, one involved bartender Fred Austin. I. Two Drug Violations by Bartender Locke On April 30, 1982, Maria Scruggs, a DABT Beverage Officer, entered Whisper's Cafe in an undercover capacity. Approximately twenty customers were on the premises--four or five were standing at the bar. Officer Scruggs ordered a drink at the bar. Several minutes later, Thomas Alexander, respondent's son, approached her and a conversation ensued. She asked him if he had any marijuana she could buy. He replied that he did not, and then referred the question to bartender Ronney Locke. Mr. Locke, offering to check around the bar, approached Clarence Lorick, a customer, who then delivered a small quantity of marijuana to Mr. Alexander for $5.00. Mr. Alexander, seated at the bar, rolled a marijuana (cannabis) cigarette in his lap and gave it to Officer Scruggs, who then left the premises. The cigarette was rolled in an open manner and in plain view of others on the premises. Respondent was not on the premises during this transaction and was unaware of its occurrence. (Testimony of Scruggs, respondent, P-1) On May 7, 1982, Officer Scruggs reentered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. She began to talk, separately, with respondent and bartender Locke. She asked Mr. Locke if any cocaine or marijuana was available. He replied that he would check with the other customers for a $5.00 bag of marijuana. He approached Ginnie Lee Caskins a customer, Who then approached Officer Scruggs and handed her a manilla envelope containing marijuana (cannabis). Officer Scruggs said nothing and handed her $5.00. This exchange of money and marijuana took place under the bar and out of view of the other customers on the premises. Although respondent was on the premises, she was not close by and did not see the exchange or overhear the conversation. (Testimony of respondent, Scruggs, P-2) II. Drug Violation by Bartender Austin On May 12, 1982, Alphonso Junious, another DABT Beverage Officer, entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. He asked bartender Fred Austin, an employee of respondent, if he knew where he could buy some marijuana. Mr. Austin walked to the door and summoned Clarence Lorick, who then entered the premises. After a brief conversation, Mr. Lorick handed a small quantity of marijuana (cannabis) to Officer Junious, who, in turn, handed him $5.00. This exchange took place in a secretive manner and occurred after respondent had left the premises. She was also unaware of this drug transaction. (Testimony of Junious, respondent, P-3) III. Drug Violation by Respondent DABT also contends that on May 14, 1982, respondent unlawfully aided, counseled, or procured the sale or delivery of marijuana (cannabis) to Officer Junious. Respondent denies it. The evidence, although conflicting, substantiates DABT's contention. On May 14, 1982, Officer Junious reentered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. He purchased a beer from respondent, who was tending bar. While seated at the bar, he overheard respondent tell an unidentified female patron that she (respondent) had been to a musical concert and had to leave to get something to smoke. Officer Junious, construing this to mean marijuana, said to her, "I could use something to smoke too," or words to that effect. Respondent replied, "Boot got some." (Testimony of Junious) Officer Junious knew who "Boot" (Henry Brown) was, having previously purchased marijuana from him in an undercover capacity. Officer Junious then left the premises, found "Boot" outside, and purchased a small quantity of marijuana (cannabis) from him for $5.00. (Testimony of Junious) These findings are based on the testimony of Officer Junious. Respondent denies that she said "Boot got some" or that she had any conversation with Officer Junious on May 14, 1982. She also denies that she said she could use something to smoke, and states that she does not smoke either tobacco or marijuana. Taking into account her bias and interest in the outcome of this proceeding, the testimony of Officer Junious is more credible and is accepted as persuasive. IV. Respondent's Supervision of the Premises Respondent, periodically, reminded her employees that no marijuana was allowed on the premises. She took no other action to ensure that drug violations would not occur on the premises. (Testimony of respondent On May 27, 1982, arrest warrants were executed by DABT and the licensed premises was searched. No illicit drugs were found on the premises. (Testimony of Scruggs) There is no evidence that marijuana has ever been smoked in the licensed premises. Neither does the evidence support a finding that respondent knew that marijuana had been, or was being, sold or delivered on the premises. The four separate drug violations committed on the licensed premises, and the manner in which they were committed, however, support a conclusion that these violations of law were fostered, condoned, or negligently overlooked by respondent, and they occurred, at least in part, due to respondent's failure to diligently supervise her employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be suspended for a period of 90 days. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of December,1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1982.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of its license under the beverage law. Specifically, Respondent purportedly violated the actions set forth in two counts, as follows: Count I--Respondent failed to "provide the required service area, seating and equipment to serve 200 persons full course meals at tables at one time as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes"; and Count II--Respondent failed to "provide at least 4,000 square feet of area dedicated to the operation of the restaurant as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes." Respondent has also raised the issue of whether Petitioner should be estopped from enforcement actions concerning the alleged violations.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, issuing and monitoring licenses to businesses within the state relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is the holder of an alcoholic beverage license, No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR (the "License"). An SR, or Special Restaurant, license is a unique kind of license which was issued by the Division prior to the establishment of quota licenses. Holders of SR licenses are allowed to sell beer, wine and liquor, package sales and sales by the drink on the premises. Quota licenses are issued based on a population ratio, i.e., no more than one license per 7,500 people in a given geographic area may exist. When Respondent obtained its SR license in 1979 (by way of transfer from the original owner of that license), the existing statutes mandated that the License be housed in a building of not less than 4,000 square feet with room in the building to seat at least 200 people at any one time. The statutes also required that food be served at all times the establishment was open. In 1979, when Respondent filed an application seeking to obtain the transfer of the SR license that had been issued in 1957, the application included an Affidavit from Marianne Gunn agreeing to a specific location (2704 Anderson Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida)1 for the business, which was to be known as the Stardust Lounge. The Affidavit affirmed Marianne Gunn's agreement to maintain the premises with the necessary equipment and supplies to seat 200 people at any one time. The Affidavit affirmed that the building housing Stardust Lounge would be at least 4,000 square feet in size. The License was then transferred to Respondent by the Division. Approximately one year after receiving the License and commencing operations, the Stardust Lounge burned down. Some undisclosed portion of the building remained, but no business could be operated on the site. It would have been difficult to rebuild the building under the then-current building codes. Further, the City of Fort Myers expressed its opposition to the existence of an alcoholic beverage establishment at that site. Some time after the fire, Respondent asked the Division to place the License in an inactive status (also known as placing a license in escrow). The request from Respondent asked that the License be placed in escrow for up to eight months. Respondent represented that it was in negotiation with the City of Fort Myers concerning a land swap to settle certain claims Respondent had against the city. Respondent estimated the negotiations would go on for approximately two months. Respondent advised the Division that if negotiations were successful, it would allow the License to be cancelled upon transfer of the premises to the city. If the negotiations were not successful, Respondent estimated it would need at least six months to sell the property at a private sale. It was Respondent's intent that the License be "taken care of" along with the land deal. "That's what that was all about," Fox testified at final hearing. Based upon Respondent's request, the Division apparently placed the License in escrow. There was no documentation presented at final hearing to substantiate this fact. However, the Division sent Respondent a bill each year to renew the License despite there being no physical site for operating a business by the licensee. Respondent dutifully paid the renewal fee each year. Eighteen years after the License was placed in escrow, the State of Florida commenced condemnation proceedings relating to a portion of the premises where the Stardust Lounge had formerly existed.2 During this nearly two-decade hiatus, Respondent continued to renew the License each year upon notice from the Division. Respondent's counsel sent a letter to the Division dated June 27, 2000, which said in pertinent part: We send you this letter at the request of our client, Mrs. Fox. . . . She has a liquor license in escrow with the Department. Due to the condemnation taking, she will not be able to utilize the license at this location and she has agreed that if this license can be moved to another location, it would not be an issue in the condemnation case. The letter did not address the issue of Respondent's prior representation that the License would be cancelled within eight months of its May 21, 1982, letter, some 18 years earlier. The Division responded to Respondent's counsel in a letter dated the very next day which stated in pertinent part: I am responding to the request of you and the licensee wanting to know if the liquor license that is held in the name of Marianne Gunn, DBA Stardust Lounge is movable. In the case of the property being taken by the state, the license may be moved one time and only one time. Providing that we have copies of all paperwork involved with the property condemnation taking. This license is not a moveable license unless in a case like this. The only thing that the licensee needs to understand is that it is changing location only one time. The Division's letter did not mention the escrow status of the License, either. The inartfully worded request and nebulous response added to the confusion concerning the status of the License. There is no evidence indicating whether any information concerning the condemnation was ever provided to the Division. Respondent could not say at final hearing when the condemnation actually occurred, how much land was taken, or how much was paid for the land. The License apparently remained in escrow at that time pending a move to some other location. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that the reason for her negotiations with the City of Fort Myers in 1982 was partly because the city did not want the bar located at the site where it had burned down. She testified that she had received insurance proceeds from the fire and intended to rebuild the lounge, but the city objected. That was the only testimony given as to why the lounge was not rebuilt during the 18 years it remained in escrow. Glen Fox testified that the original site of the Stardust Lounge would not be acceptable for rebuilding the structure after the fire due to certain building code issues. Both Mr. and Mrs. Fox testified that there was insufficient land available to build on site after the property condemnation taking. Fox testified that she owned three lots at the corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Cranford Avenue. Those lots were 50-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep (for a presumed total lot size of 150-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep). Fox does not know the size of the lots after the condemnation proceeding. It has long been the policy of the Division, pursuant to its interpretations of the Beverage Law set forth in statute, that SR licenses could not be moved from their original location. In 2005 or 2006, a licensee who was operating a business in American Beach filed a lawsuit against the Division seeking to move his SR license to a different location. As a result of the lawsuit, the Division changed its existing policy to allow for such a change. The new policy was posted on the Division's website for review by SR license holders. There is no evidence that SR license holders were notified about the change in policy by any other means. Respondent does not remember receiving any notice whatsoever regarding the change in policy. Within four to six months, and as a result of further legal research by Division attorneys, the Division once again altered its policy concerning the transfer of SR licenses. The newly-revised policy established the current Division position, i.e., that no SR license could be moved for any reason. Further, the policy states that all licensed premises must be in continuous operation or else the license would be forfeited. Again, the Division posted the new policy on its website and notified all SR license holders by way of letters to their establishments (or, in the case of Respondent, to the last known address). It is unclear from the record whether the letter was ever sent to or received by Respondent, although the Division obviously had Respondent's address because it sent renewal notices there each year. Some time after the change in policy, the Division determined that Respondent's license must be terminated or revoked. At that time, there were no premises associated with the License. The last time the License was in operation was 1979 or 1980, some 28 years prior to the Administrative Action being filed. The official address of the premises on the License during each of the renewal periods since 1980 had been "Escrow." That is, there was no site address associated with the License. There was obviously some address associated with the License, however, since Fox received annual billing statements from the Division. In November 2007, the Division issued an Administrative Action against Respondent concerning the License. The Administrative Action alleged that Respondent had not complied with the requirements of the License, i.e., size of premises and on-going operations. The Division indicated that it would sanction the License, including, but not limited to, revocation. Respondent does not dispute the fact that it is not complying with the requirements for an active license, but maintains that its escrowed license is exempt from those requirements. The License, despite being inactive for 28 years, is still apparently valid at this point in time (based on the Division's acceptance of Respondent's renewal payments each year). The License may have some monetary value, but there was no competent, substantial evidence presented at final hearing as to what the value might actually be. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that she did not know how much the License was worth, only that "nothing is worth as much as it used to be." Fox cannot remember how much she paid for the License when it was transferred to her. She cannot remember how much she asked for the License when she offered it for sale. She cannot remember how much was offered for the License as part of the condemnation sale. Fox does know that she paid an annual fee each year for renewal of the License. She does not know what the fee was each year, but "I paid whatever the state told me was due." (The Division testified that the annual fee was $1,820.00. Presuming 28 years of payments, the total paid to-date would be approximately $50,960.) When suggested to Fox by her counsel that the License was worth $300,000, she agreed with that amount, but could not substantiate why that amount was valid. Fox testified that she would like a "reasonable time" to market the License for sale. She did not express what a reasonable time might be, but has not been able (or willing) to sell the License for over 28 years. Respondent put the License "out for feelers" three or four years ago, but did not include an asking price for the License. About seven months ago, someone told Fox that the License was worth approximately $326,000, but there is no support for that estimate. Patrick Roberts, former law enforcement major with the Division, opined that he would have handled Respondent's case differently had it come across his desk. He opined that the requirement for 4,000 square feet and seating for 200 people should only apply to an existing business, not one in escrow. Roberts agreed that only quota licenses are allowed escrow status by statute. Roberts did not express any opinion as to the requirement that a business be on-going at all times. Roberts agreed that an SR license should not be placed in escrow, but said he'd try to negotiate a settlement, rather than file an Administrative Action. He did concur that an Administrative Action might be necessary if all else failed. Roberts did not opine that an Administrative Action was improper, only that it wasn't his first choice of action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, revoking Respondent, Fox Marianne Gunn, d/b/a Stardust Lounge's, License No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 11th day of June, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco is estopped from denying petitioner's application for a transfer of a special restaurant license.
Findings Of Fact In December, 1981, Applicant applied for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 23-02433, 4-COP SRX, a special restaurant license held by Charlies the Lakes Restaurant, Inc. & Willman Co.. DABT denied the application, contending that the licensed premises did not meet minimum seating or square footage requirements. (P-1, letter of denial dated April 8, 1982). The licensed premises, known as the Lakeside Cafe, is located at 6125 Miami Lakes Drive, Miami Lake percent, Florida. It has less than 4,000 square feet of service area and is able to seat less than 200 patrons at tables. (P-1, R-1 Stipulation of counsel) Applicant contends that since DABT granted a special restaurant license (4 COP-SRX) to the present and previous licensees, it is now estopped to deny the application. Although DABT has continuously granted such a license, license applicants have twice filed affidavits indicating that the licensed premises meets square footage and seating requirements. In 1976 and 1980 two separate applicants filed sworn affidavits stating that the licensed premises occupied 4,000 or more square feet of floor space and could accommodate 200 or more patrons at tables. On November 17, 1981, Applicant signed an agreement to purchase the licensed premises from the present licensee for $210,000.00. Under that agreement, the present licensee was required to transfer its interest in the beverage license to applicant. (P-3)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Applicant's application to transfer license No. 23-02433, 4-COP SRX, be DENIED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1982.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Joel Albert Collinsworth held a valid Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco liquor license for the premises known as the Silver Bullet Bar and Lounge (hereinafter licensed premises), located at 12 North Ninth Street, DeFuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida. Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The license held by Respondent is number 76- 330, Series 2-COP and is limited to the sale of beer and wine on the licensed premises. Investigator Don Taylor is a police officer with the DeFuniak Springs, Florida, Police Department. On Thursday, December 10, 1987, Investigator Taylor entered the licensed premises and seized glass containers of liquid that were marked as Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, and 4. The containers were only partly full. Investigator Taylor, has on many occasions, observed, smelled and tasted distilled spirits (and testified that the liquid was whiskey and not wine or beer.) Respondent, Joel Albert Collinsworth was on the licensed premises at the time Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 were seized and was immediately placed under arrest by Investigator Taylor. The three (3) glass containers were taken to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement laboratory in Pensacola, Florida for testing and identification of the liquid contained in the three (3) bottles. The lab results shows that the liquid contained a high concentration of ethyl alcohol. Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Investigator Roy Harris, an 18 year veteran of the Division testified that the concentrations of alcohol listed in Exhibit 5 were sufficiently high that they could not be anything other than distilled spirits. The 2-COP license held by the Respondent allowed only consumption on the premises of beer and wine. The license does not permit possession, consumption or sale of distilled spirits on the licensed premises. The evidence showed that distilled spirits were being possessed and/or consumed on the premises owned and operated by Respondent under his beverage license. Such possession and consumption constitute a violation of Section 562.02, Florida Statutes. Petitioner requested that Respondent's license be revoked for the violation of the Liquor Law. No mitigating facts were presented by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That Respondent is guilty of the offense set forth in the Notice to Show Cause issued on January 13, 1988, and that Petitioner should revoke the license of Joel Albert Collinsworth, d/b/a Silver Bullet Bar and Lounge. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 22nd day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1295 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact contained in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 have been adopted in substance in so far as material. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 W. Paul Thompson, Esquire Post Office Drawer 608 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Lt. Tom Stout, District Supervisor Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 160 Governmental Center Suite 401, 4th Floor Pensacola, Florida 32501 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent, Club Manhattan Bar and Grill, LLC, d/b/a Club Manhattan Bar and Grill (Respondent), committed the acts alleged in the administrative complaints dated September 13, 2010, and December 1, 2010, and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons holding alcoholic beverage licenses. § 561.02, Fla. Stat. Respondent is licensed under the Florida beverage law by the Department. Respondent holds a 4COP/SRX special restaurant license issued by the Department with Alcoholic Beverage License No. 68-04347. Ms. Stokes is the licensee of record for Respondent. Consequently, Respondent is subject to the Department's regulatory jurisdiction. Respondent's series 4COP/SRX is a special restaurant license that permits it to sell beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on the licensed premises. Additionally, the licensee must satisfy seating and record-keeping requirements and must comply with 51 percent of its gross sales being food and non- alcoholic beverages. See § 561.20(2)(a)4., Fla. Stat. Respondent's restaurant is located in Sarasota County, Florida, and, pursuant to the 4COP/SRX license, must have seating and capability to serve 150 customers at any one time. On August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn conducted an inspection of Respondent's business premises. He conducted the inspection based on complaints made to the Department that Respondent was operating as an after-hours bar, rather than a restaurant. At this initial inspection, which occurred at 2:30 p.m. on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn found the restaurant did not have any customers or menus. Further, he noticed that the premises had seating for only 92 people and a large dance floor. Further, he observed that the walls had signs advertising drink specials and late-night parties. Special Agent Flynn met Ms. Stokes, Respondent's manager and holder of the license, and informed her that the beverage license required that Respondent be able to serve 150 customers at one time. Also, Special Agent Flynn requested the required business records concerning the purchase of alcoholic beverage invoices from the distributors for a 60-day proceeding period. Ms. Stokes did not have the requested records on the premises. On August 19, 2010, Special Agent Flynn sent Ms. Stokes a written request, requesting alcoholic purchase invoices for a 60-day period before August 19, 2010. The request allowed Ms. Stokes 14 days to compile the records and to provide the records to the Department. The record here showed by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not produce records for the audit period. On September 8, 2010, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Special Agent Flynn returned to Respondent's premises. Again, he found that Respondent did not have the required seating number and ability to serve 150 customers at one time. Special Agent Flynn offered credible testimony that, during the September 8, 2010, inspection, he found Respondent had only 106 available seats. Further, consistent with his inspection on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed facts showing that Respondent was a late-night bar, as opposed to a restaurant. The evidence showed that on September 8, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed that Respondent did not have any customers, menus, and very little food in its small kitchen. Special Agent Flynn, however, did observe that Respondent continued to have its large dance floor, disc jockey booth, advertised drink specials, and posters advertising late-night parties. Clearly, Respondent was being operated as a bar, rather than a restaurant as required by its license. At the September 8, 2010, inspection, Special Agent Flynn again requested Respondent's business records that he had previously requested for the 60-day time period before August 19, 2010. Ms. Stokes provided a few invoices for purchases of food and non-alcoholic beverages. These invoices were dated after the August 19, 2010, date that Special Agent Flynn had requested and did not cover the requested 60 days prior to the August 19, 2010, request. These records included food and beverage purchases by Respondent from retailers, but did not contain any records concerning the points of sale at the restaurant. Ms. Nadeau, an auditor for the Department, offered credible testimony concerning the Department's request for business records from Respondent for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. On August 27, 2010, Ms. Nadeau set up an audit request for the period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, based on information provided by Special Agent Flynn. The Department provided Ms. Stokes with an audit engagement letter that requested business records. Ms. Nadeau testified that on September 10, 2010, she was contacted by Ms. Stokes. Ms. Stokes informed Ms. Nadeau that Ms. Stokes had become the owner of the restaurant in June 2010 and that she did not have the required records. Ms. Nadeau informed Ms. Stokes to provide all the records requested in the audit engagement letter that Ms. Stokes had and to try to obtain the prior records from the previous managing member of Respondent. On September 22, 2010, Ms. Stokes mailed to the Department records she claimed met the audit period. The records consisted of guest checks for July and August 2010, which only showed food purchases and no alcoholic beverage purchases. Further, Ms. Nadeau found that the records were not reliable, because the records contained numerous personal items not related to the restaurant, such as baby wipes, cotton swabs, and boxer shorts. Consequently, the record clearly and convincingly shows that Respondent failed to provide the required business records for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. Next, based on Respondent's failure to provide any reliable records, the Department was unable to conduct an audit of the business. Records provided by Respondent indicated that the only sales that occurred on the premises were for food. However, the testimony showed that Respondent's business included the sale of alcohol and marketed the sale of alcoholic beverages for late-night parties. Mr. Torres, the senior auditor for the Department, credibly testified that he conducted an independent review of Ms. Nadeau's initial audit findings. Mr. Torres, who has been employed with the Department for 27 years, reviewed the records provided by Respondent. He credibly testified that Respondent's guest checks were very questionable because they showed all food sales, but no alcohol, which was not consistent with Special Agent Flynn's observations. The evidence further showed that Ms. Stokes became the managing member of Respondent in June 2010. Ms. Stokes provided the Department with a change of corporate officers and named herself as registered agent, rather than apply for a new license. This distinction would later become important because, as explained by Ms. Nadeau, in the Department's eyes, there is a continuation of ownership. Under a continuation of ownership, Ms. Stokes was required to have business records for the time period before she became the managing member of Respondent. Ms. Stokes credibly testified that she did not have any records before June 20, 2010; thus, Respondent was unable to provide records for the audit period. Ms. Stokes candidly admitted that her restaurant had been struggling financially, which is why she had worked to catering special events to draw foot traffic.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license and finding that Respondent violated: 1. Section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by failing to provide the required service area, seating, and equipment to serve 150 persons full-course meals at tables at one time as required by its license; 2. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, by not providing the requested business records; and 3. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by not providing the requested business records. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find that the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 23rd day of September, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent, doing business as The Knight Out, was the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 72-79, series 1-COP. Prior to the hearing . . . in this cause, Respondent had turned in his license to the Petitioner. To the rear of the licensed premises, Respondent operated a bottle club known as The Knight Club. The Knight Club is attached to and shares restroom facilities with The Knight Out. On March 27, 1975, Respondent was served with a "Notice to show cause why beverage license should not have civil penalty assessed against it or be suspended or revoked" on the grounds that on Sunday, January 26, 1975: his employee, Vicki Lynn Williamson, at approximately 2:00 am., did sell at the licensed premises, an alcoholic beverage, a can of Budweiser beer, to beverage officer L. E. Williams during the time that the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited, in violation of City of Perry Ordinance 394 enacted pursuant to F.S. s. 562.14; at approximately 4:00 a.m., he sold at the licensed premises an alcoholic beverage, one can of Budweiser beer, to beverage officer Williams in violation of City of Perry Ordinance 394; at approximately 5:00 a.m., he sold at the licensed premises an alcoholic beverage, one can of Budweiser beer, to beverage officer Williams in violation of City of Perry Ordinance 394; at approximately 6:05 a.m., he refused to admit to the licensed premises beverage officer Jack Garrett, while in the performance of his official duties, contrary to F.S. s. 562.41; and at approximately 6:05 a.m., he had in his possession, custody and control, at the licensed premises a partially full 4/5 quart of Smirnoff Vodka, an alcoholic beverage not authorized to be sold by him, in violation of F.S. s. 562.02. Beverage officer L. E. Williams went to The Knight Out the weekend of January 24, 1975, in order to conduct an undercover investigation of the licensed premises. He observed the Respondent, between 11:30 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. on January 24th, remove four cases of beer from The Knight Out and place them into a small room in The Knight Club portion of the premises. At about 1:00 a.m. on January 25th, Williams paid a $2.00 cover charge, entered The Knight Club and remained there until 6:00 a.m. On Saturday night, January 25th, beverage officer Williams again went to The Knight Out and, at about 11:30 p.m., again observed Respondent moving five cases of beer from The Knight Out to the rear portion, The Knight Club. Williams entered The Knight Club during the early hours of January 26, 1975, carrying a can of beer with him. He left at approximately 2:30 a.m., met with other beverage agents, and returned to The Knight Club at about 3:45 a.m., paying the cover charge of $2.00. At 4:00 a.m. and again at 5:00 a.m. on January 26, 1975, Williams purchased from Respondent Poppell cans of Budweiser beer at seventy-five cents per can. Williams retained control of the two beer cans and at about 6:30 a.m. he tagged them as evidence. They were admitted into evidence at the hearing as Exhibits 4 and 5. At approximately 6:05 a.m. on January 26, 1975, beverage officer Jack Garrett, along with several other law enforcement agents, knocked on the front door of The Knight Club seeking entrance thereto. Respondent told Garrett to get in front of the peephole on the door so that he could see who was there. Garrett, who had known Respondent for some fifteen years, testified that he showed his identification card to Respondent through the peephole, whereupon Respondent replied that he would not let him in. Beverage officer T. A. Hicks, present with Garrett at the time, confirmed these events. Respondent and two other witnesses present at the scene testified that Respondent asked the persons at the front door to identify themselves, but that no response was received. Shortly thereafter, Officer Garrett, along with other law enforcement officers, went around to the other side of The Knight Club and entered, without knocking, the ladies rest room which led to the inside of The Knight Club. Once inside, they met Respondent leaving a small room with a handful of liquor bottles. One such bottle was seized - - a partially filled bottle of Smirnoff Vodka - - and was received into evidence at the hearing as Exhibit 6. Shirrell Woodalf testified that she had come to The Knight Out on the morning in question with another couple. When the other couple left, they gave her their bottle of Smirnoff Vodka. She then gave the bottle to Respondent to keep for her in his office. Woodalf identified Exhibit 6 as being the same bottle as that left with her and given to Respondent. Four witnesses who often frequented The Knight Club testified that patrons of the Club always brought their own beer or other alcoholic beverages into the Club. Respondent would cool their beer for them and keep their bottles in his office if they so desired. Respondent sometimes charged a small fee for cooling the beer and he sold setups for mixed drinks. These four witnesses never saw Respondent sell either beer or other alcoholic beverages in The Knight Club.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that: Paragraphs 1 and 5 of the notice to show cause be dismissed; Respondent be found guilty of violating F.S. ss. 562.14 and 562.41, as set forth in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the notice to show cause; and Respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked. Respectfully submitted and entered 26th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Charles Nuzum Director Division of Beverage 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street, Room 210 Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Conrad C. Bishop, Jr., Esquire Weed & Bishop P.O. Box 1090 Perry, Florida 32347
The Issue This case concerns an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent. Count I to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: Penny Reid, related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on July 26, 1981, and August 22, 1981. Count II to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: Penny Reid, related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on July 16, 1981, and July 20, 1981, and September 9, 1981. In addition, there are allegations of a sale of lysergic acid diethylamid, on July 16, 1981. 2/ Count III to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Eve" related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on August 14, 1981, and with the sale of the substance cocaine, on August 15, 1981. Count IV to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Kitty," related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on August 15, 1981, and with the sale of the substance cocaine on September 26, 1981. Count V to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03, 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Orlando," related to sales of the substance cannabis, on July 26, 1981. Count VI to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03, 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Julie," related to sales of the substance cocaine on September 26, 1981. Count VII to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent, between July 16, 1981, and October 2, 1981, of maintaining a place, namely the licensed premises, which was used for keeping or selling controlled substances, in particular methaqualone, cocaine and cannabis, in violation of Subsections 893.13(2)(a).5 and 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Count VIII contends that between July 16, 1981, and October 2, 1981, the Respondent, by actions of its agents, servants or employees and patrons, kept or maintained the building or place which was used for illegal keeping, selling or delivering of substances controlled under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, and in doing so violated Section 823.10, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Count IX accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Annie D. Bryant, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count X accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Danita Buchin, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count XI accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Barbara Jean O'Rourke, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count XII accuses the Respondent, on April 20, 1981, through its corporate officers, directors, stockholders, employees, agents, or servants, of failing to file a sworn declaration of the transfer of voting stock of the corporate licensee, in violation of Rule 7A-3.37, Florida Administrative Code. Count XIII accuses the Respondent, through actions of its corporate officers, directors, stockholders, employees, agents, or servants, on May 4, 1981, of failing to notify the Petitioner of a change of corporate officers within ten (10) days of that change, in particular, within ten (10) days of the resignation of George and Florrie Pappas, as corporate officers and directors of the corporate licensee, in violation of Rule 7A-2.07(2), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Effective August 18, 1980, Pappas Enterprises, Inc., which trades or does business as Foremost Liquors and Hideaway Lounge, at 1005 East 49th Street, in Hialeah, Dade County, Florida, was licensed by the Petitioner to sell alcoholic beverages. At that time, the sole officers listed for the corporation were George and Florrie Pappas. George Pappas was listed as the sole shareholder. In May, 1981, Miguel Rodriguez purchased the shares in the corporation, Pappas Enterprises, Inc. At that time, in his attorney's office, he executed a personal data sheet and certificate of incumbency for the benefit of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; however, this personal data sheet proposing Rodriguez as a new officer and shareholder of the subject corporation was not filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco until October 14, 1981. Furthermore, the first official request for change of corporate officers, owners and shareholders from the Pappases to Rodriguez was not filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco until November 4, 1981. Prior to October 14, 1981, the Respondent corporation, in the person of Miguel Rodriguez, was served with a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint containing the first eight (8) counts alluded to in the Issues statement in this Recommended Order. The date of this service was October 2, 1981. Subsequent to that time, an amendment was allowed adding the remaining counts to the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent, through actions of Miguel Rodriguez, in his effort to protect his interest in the Respondent corporation, which he had purchased, and in view of the fact that he had effective control of the licensed premises during all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, has requested a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, following service of him at the licensed premises as agent in fact for the corporation. The hearing was allowed to go forward upon the request made by Rodriguez because Rodriguez's substantial interests are at stake. The requested transfer of ownership and substitution of officers filed on November 4, 1981, is unresolved pending the outcome of the proceedings herein. See Subsection 561.32(2), Florida Statutes. On July 15, 1981, in the evening hours, Beverage Officer, Louis J. Terminello, went to the licensed premises known as the Hideaway for purposes of conducting an undercover narcotics investigation. Once he had entered the premises, he spoke with one of the employees, Penny Reid, a dancer. Upon his inquiry concerning the subject of narcotics Reid told him that she would sell him methaqualone tablets for $3.00 each and lysergic acid diethylamid (LSD) for $5.00 per dosage. In order to consummate the transaction, she explained that she would need to leave the licensed premises. Around 12:15 A.M. on July 16, 1981, Reid approached Miguel Rodriguez and asked permission to leave the licensed premises. She was granted that permission and Reid and Terminello went to a residence location off the licensed premises where a purchase was made of ten (10) methaqualone tablets and four (4) units of LSD at the unit prices as have been indicated. The Beverage Officer and dancer then returned to the licensed premises around 1:30 A.M. On July 20, 1981, at around 9:45 P.M., Officer Robert Chastain entered the licensed premises and spoke with Penny Reid. This conversation ensued when Reid approached Chastain. The subject of drugs was discussed and subsequent to that time, Reid received permission to leave the licensed premises. (She was still employed by the Respondent.) On the date above, Reid and Chastain went to a residence and purchased ten (10) methaqualone tablets. The price for the tablets was $30.00. When they returned to the bar, while in the premises, Reid removed one methaqualone tablet from the napkins in which they were wrapped and gave Chastain nine (9) tablets. Terminello came back to the licensed premises on the evening of July 25, 1981, and spoke with the dancer Reid. During the conversation methaqualone was discussed and she indicated that she did not have that substance at the time. She said she might have some of the material available to her later that night. Reid left the licensed premises around 11:35 P.M. on July 25, 1981, to return around 11:55 P.M. While in the licensed premises she exchanged five (5) methaqualone tablets at $3.00 per tablet, in return for $15.00 on July 26, 1981. This transaction took place in the hall area near the rest rooms in the licensed premises and no effort was made on the part of Reid to disguise the transaction. On July .26, 1981, during his visit to the licensed premises, at approximately 1:30 A.M., Officer Terminello spoke to a man who identified himself as "Orlando" and who claimed to be a manager at the premises and the son of Miguel Rodriguez. In fact, "Orlando" was not a manager at the licensed premises nor the son of Rodriguez. During this conversation, Terminello asked "Orlando" where he could get coke, meaning the controlled substance cocaine. "Orlando" responded that he might get the cocaine on some occasion but not on that evening. "Orlando" did give Officer Terminello marijuana, also known as cannabis, a controlled substance. This item was given to Officer Terminello as he was departing the premises on July 26, 1981. Terminello returned to the licensed premises on August 14, 1981, around 9:45 P.M. On that evening, he spoke with a dancer identified to him as "Eve" who was later determined to be Eve Mae Carroll. Carroll was employed as a dancer in the licensed premises. While seated at a table near the front door, Carroll told Terminello that she would sell "quaaludes" meaning methaqualone at a price of $2.50 a tablet and a total of three (3) tablets. Terminello paid her the prescribed price and she delivered the substance methaqualone to him while seated at the table. She also indicated that she would sell him cocaine at a later time, in that she was expecting a delivery of that substance. At around 12:30 A.M. on August 15, 1981, a further discussion was held between Terminello and Carroll and while standing at the bar, Terminello purchased cocaine from Carroll. On August 15, 1981, at around 12:45 A.M., Terminello spoke with another dancer employed in the licensed premises who was identified as "Kitty" whose actual name is Kathleen Keddie, who explained to him that she had some "ludes," meaning methaqualone. She wanted $4.00 for each tablet and while seated at a table in the bar area, Terminello purchased two (2) methaqualone tablets from Kitty. On August 22, 1981, Terminello was back in the licensed premises at approximately 9:50 P.M. and was seated at the bar talking to Penny Reid who told him she was going to get some "ludes," methaqualone. This activity was to occur on her next break from dancing as an employee in the licensed premises. She left the licensed premises with a patron and returned at around 10:25P.M. and handed Terminello a paper towel containing five (5) methaqualone tablets for which he paid her $15.00. On September 9, 1981, Terminello was again at the licensed premises and was approached by Penny Reid. He asked her for "ludes or acid" meaning methaqualone or LSD, respectively. She told Terminello that she would have to go to a house to obtain these items. She then asked the manager to leave and Terminello and Reid went to the residence where methaqualone was purchased and suspected LSD as requested by Terminello. (She was still employed by the Respondent.) On September 16, 1981, while pursuing the investigation, Terminello again returned to the licensed premises and spoke with Reid who was still an employee at the premises. She told Terminello that she could go to a residence and obtain narcotics. At this time Terminello was accompanied by another Beverage Officer, Robert Chastain. After entering into a discussion on the evening in question, the two (2) officers went with Reid to an off-premises residence where methaqualone and suspected LSD were purchased. On this occasion, Reid took part of the methaqualone purchased as a "tip" and carried those methaqualone tablets back into the licensed premises when the officers and the dancer returned to the licensed premises. On September 19, 1981, Officer Terminello talked to Reid who remained employed at the licensed premises and the discussion concerned narcotics. Then they left the licensed premises and went to a residence where cocaine and methaqualone were purchased. Reid kept three (3) of the methaqualone tablets as a "tip" and she carried those methaqualone tablets back into the licensed premises when Terminello and the dancer returned to the bar. When they had returned to the licensed premises on September 19, 1981, Terminello was approached in the bar by a Michael Harrington who asked Terminello if he wanted to buy coke, meaning cocaine. Harrington then indicated that they should go out into the parking lot of the premises which they did and in the presence of another patron, Alexis Pagan, Terminello purchased a gram of cocaine. On September 25, 1981, Terminello returned to the licensed premises and spoke to an employee/dancer previously identified as Kathleen Keddie. Keddie told him that her "old man" could bring some cocaine into the premises and make some of it available to Terminello. This conversation took place around 9:45 P.M. on that evening. At approximately 12:05 A.M. on September 26, 1981, while seated at the bar, Terminello purchased approximately one (1) gram of cocaine from Keddie for $75.00. In the early morning hours of September 26, 1981, Terminello was also approached by a Julie Murphy who was employed as a cocktail waitress in the licensed premises and she told Terminello that she could sell him cocaine cheaper, at $55.00 a gram. She indicated she would serve as a go-between, intermediary, and told Terminello to leave the premises and come back later. Terminello left and returned at around 3:00 A.M., and while at the bar, purchased the cocaine from Murphy at the agreed upon price of $55.00. During the course of Terminello's investigation at the licensed premises, on a number of occasions he saw people sniffing what, from his expertise in law enforcement, appeared to be cocaine and, from the appearance and odor, using cigarettes thought to be marijuana. These activities occurred in the bathroom areas, halls and package store area. Augusto Garcia who was employed as a manager in the licensed premises was observed at times in the proximity of the activities referred to immediately above and Garcia was also observed by Officer Terminello in the men's room snorting what appeared to be cocaine. On one occasion Garcia was observed near the front door to the bar and package area where a marijuana type cigarette was being smoked in the presence of Garcia, by an employee who worked in the package store. Reid had also told Terminello that she had been fired as an employee at the licensed premises because she was so "luded" out that she fell off the stage. Nonetheless, she had been rehired. Terminello had observed Miguel Rodriguez in the licensed premises during the course of the investigation, mostly in the package store and on occasion in the bar area. Terminello did not speak with Rodriguez during the investigation. On October 2, 1981, the petitioning agency served the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint at the licensed premises. Following this service, an inspection was conducted in the licensed premises of the lockers of several dancers, for which the dancers had the keys. These dancers were employees at the licensed premises on that date. The search of the lockers and purses of the dancers led to the discovery of marijuana. The dancers in question were Annie D. Bryant, Danita Buchin and Barbara Jean O'Rourke. (Following the October 2, 1981, service of the Administrative Complaint on Miguel Rodriguez, and with Rodriguez's knowledge of the pendency of narcotics allegations being placed against the dancers, Kathleen Keddie, Annie D. Bryant and Danita Buchin, those individuals were allowed to remain as employees in the licensed premises.) During the time in question by the Administrative Complaint, Augusto Garcia acted as a manager in the licensed premises. He had been hired by Miguel Rodriguez. His normal hours of employment were 6:00 P.M. through as late as 4:30 A.M., except for Fridays and Saturdays when he worked a couple of hours. When he was on duty, Rodriguez was ordinarily at the licensed premises. Rodriguez had instructed Garcia to be cognizant of drug problems in the licensed premises and to keep the bar quiet and peaceful. In particular, Rodriguez had instructed Garcia not to allow drugs in the bar and if someone was found with drugs to throw him out. An individual identified as Hector who is a friend of Garcia's assisted in these matters. Garcia indicated the policy of management at the licensed premises was to check the person of the dancers and their bathroom and dressing area to discover narcotics. Nevertheless, testimony by Kathleen Keddie, a person implicated in these matters for narcotics violations and an employee at the bar as a dancer established the fact that she had never been searched for narcotics. Rodriguez was not told by Garcia about people selling drugs in the licensed premises, Garcia would simply "throw them out." Garcia did tell Rodriguez about people "sniffing" what he suspected to be cocaine. At the time Garcia served as a manager in the licensed premises, one Willie Rolack also was a manager in the licensed premises. Willie Rolack's duties as manager were primarily associated with the package store, in contrast to the bar, area. He would periodically go in the bar to check to see if there were fights occurring and to determine if drugs were being used. Rolack had been instructed by Rodriguez to call the Hialeah Police Department if persons who were using drugs would not depart the premises. At times, the Hialeah Police Department has assisted in removing those patrons. Additionally, some employees at the licensed premises had been dismissed for drug involvement as observed by Rolack. Miguel Rodriguez worked sixteen (16) to eighteen (18) hours in the licensed premises, mostly in the package store; however, he did have occasion to check the bar area while at the licensed premises. Rodriguez had told the dancers that he would not tolerate their involvement with drugs and he had instructed customers who were found with drugs that they should leave and not return. He had a policy of not allowing the dancers to leave the licensed premises except on occasion to go for food at nearby restaurants; however, as has been determined in the facts found, the occasions of the departures of the dancers were fairly frequent and not always for the purposes of obtaining food. Rodriguez, through his testimony, verifies a general policy of checking dancers' lockers and pocketbooks and watching their activities. The lockers as have been indicated before were controlled by the dancers themselves who had keys. Prior to July, 1981, and in particular, in June, 1981, one Alexis Pagan had worked as the bar manager and had been dismissed for drug involvement. Nonetheless, the same Alexis Pagan had been observed in the licensed premises during the times set forth in the administrative charges, to include the instance mentioned before.
Findings Of Fact 10. The Division hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Finding of Fact in foto, as set forth in the Recommended Order.
Conclusions The Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter’Division’), after consideration of the complete record of this case on file with the Division, hereby enters this Final Order.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner originally held alcoholic beverage license no. 26-532, Series 4-COP, as an individual. He transferred this license to M & S, Inc., a Florida corporation, about one year ago. Petitioner is a 50 percent shareholder in this corporation. Jimmy G. Maddox holds the other 50 percent stock interest. Petitioner and Maddox are currently engaged in civil litigation involving the corporate licensee. Respondent referred to this civil suit in its notice disapproving the transfer application, citing the pending litigation as a basis for disapproval. Petitioner has not purchased the license from the corporation or entered into any agreement in contemplation of license transfer. Rather, he believes he is entitled to the return of the license because he received no consideration for the prior transfer from either the corporation or Maddox. Alternatively, Petitioner asks that the prior transfer to the corporation be set aside due to this lack of consideration.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 26-532, Series 4-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1982 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Fischette, Esquire Suite 1916 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert T. Sussman, Esquire 3030 Independent Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Respondent violated Section 562.12(1), Florida Statutes, by selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not authorized by law and/or maintaining a place where alcoholic beverages were sold unlawfully; (2) Whether Respondent violated Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, by failing to comply with the terms set forth in a prior Final Order of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; and (3) If so, what sanctions should be imposed against Respondent's alcoholic beverage licenses.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Easy Way of Lee County, Inc., d/b/a Hollywood Underground, holds a bottle club license number 46- 03606, issued by the Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Department/Division) and has held such license since June 1995. Under this license, Respondent operates a bottle club known as Hollywood Underground (the licensed premises/the premises or Hollywood Underground) located at 16440 South Tamiami Trail, Unit 1, Fort Myers, Florida. At all times relevant to this action, Mattheos Milonas was the director, president, secretary, and treasurer of Easy Way of Lee County, Inc., d/b/a Hollywood Underground, and the holder of the above-referenced alcoholic beverage license. On or about February 12, 1999, Peggy Duffala, a special agent with the Department, organized an undercover on-site investigation of Hollywood Underground, based on a complaint that Respondent was in violation of certain laws pertaining to the sale of alcoholic beverages without a proper license. On February 12, 1999, Agent Duffala, and two other special agents of the Department, Agent David Perez and Agent Patrick McEnroe, went to the licensed premises to further the investigation. When Agent Duffala arrived, she conducted surveillance in the parking lot of the licensed premises for approximately one and a half hours. During that time, Agent Duffala observed patrons entering and exiting the premises, but saw no patrons entering the premises carrying alcoholic beverages or containers of any kind in their hands. On February 12, 1999, at or near 2:30 a.m., acting in an undercover capacity, Agent Perez and Agent McEnroe entered the licensed premises. Upon entering the premises, Agent Perez paid a $5.00 cover charge and received a wristband. Perez brought no alcohol into the premises with him on that evening. Once inside the licensed premises, Agent Perez went to the bar where he was approached by bartender Norman Vanderbiest. After Vanderbiest asked him what he would like, Agent Perez ordered a Budweiser beer. Vanderbiest retrieved the beer from the cooler behind the bar and gave Agent Perez the beer. After Perez asked how much the Budweiser cost, Vanderbiest responded, "$3.00." Agent Perez then gave $3.00 to Vanderbiest, who subsequently rang up the sale and placed the money in the cash register. At no time during the transaction described in paragraph 6 did Vanderbiest ask Agent Perez if he had brought any alcoholic beverages with him to the licensed premises. In fact, Agent Perez had not brought any alcoholic beverages into the licensed premises on August 12, 1999. Furthermore, prior to February 12, 1999, Agent Perez had never visited the licensed premises, and thus, had never taken any alcoholic beverages there. After Agent Perez purchased the Budweiser beer, he moved from the main bar area to the west end of the bar where he remained for about ten minutes. While situated at the west end of the bar, Agent Perez observed several patrons approach the bar and speak with Vanderbiest. Agent Perez was unable to hear what was being said but he observed Vanderbiest serve each patron an alcoholic beverage. After receiving the alcoholic beverages, each patron would then give Vanderbiest money. At no time during these transactions did Agent Perez observe patrons present cards to Vanderbiest to punch. Furthermore, Agent Perez did not see Vanderbiest check a logbook before he served alcoholic beverages to those patrons. From the west end of the bar, Agent Perez saw 10 to 15 patrons entering the licensed premises. During that time, Agent Perez observed that none of the patrons entering the premises brought alcoholic beverages with them. Agent Patrick McEnroe entered the premises on February 12, 1999, at about 2:30 a.m. Upon entering the premises, Agent McEnroe paid a $5.00 cover charge. Agent McEnroe brought no alcoholic beverages into the licensed premises with him nor did he receive a ticket or card to be punched. Once inside the premises, Agent McEnroe went to the bar and ordered a Bud Light beer from bartender, Norman Vanderbiest. Vanderbiest informed Agent McEnroe that the cost was $3.00, then retrieved a Bud Light beer from the cooler and handed it to Agent McEnroe. Agent McEnroe gave the bartender $3.00 for the beer. Agent McEnroe purchased three bottles of beer that evening. In none of these transactions did Vanderbiest ask Agent McEnroe if he brought any beer with him nor did he ask Agent McEnroe for a card to be punched. Later that evening, after Agents Perez and McEnroe exited the premises, Division agents, assisted by the Lee County Sheriff's Office, entered and raided the premises. During the raid, agents seized 571 containers of alcoholic beverages, $315.00 in cash from the cash register, and two notebooks. One of the notebooks seized was a log book containing entries listing alleged patrons' names along with an alcoholic beverage type, a number assigned to the beverage, and a date. The last entry in the log book was made on February 6, 1999, six days prior to the raid. Neither Agent Perez nor Agent McEnroe was listed in the logbooks. During the raid, Division agents entered the premises and arrested the manager of the club. Subsequently, the manager pled guilty in the Lee County Circuit Court to the criminal charge of keeping or maintaining a place, the licensed premises, that sold alcoholic beverages without a proper license on February 12, 1999. The licensed premises had procedures that governed how employees of Hollywood Underground were to accept and distribute beer and liquor brought into the premises by patrons. When a patron brought beer into the licensed premises, an employee of the club was to write on a card the number and kind of beer that the patron brought to the premises. Once this information was recorded on the card, the employee would give the card to the patron. After the club employee accepted the beer from and issued the card to the patron, in order for the patron to retrieve one or more of the beers, the patron was to present the card to the bartender. The bartender was to then give the patron the requested number of beers and punch the card the corresponding number of times, thereby indicating to both the bartender and patron the number of beers the patron had been given and how many remained. To facilitate ease in the dispensing of the beer, like brands of beer were commingled and placed in a cooler with other containers of identical brands. No attempt was made to designate or label containers of beer by the patrons who brought them into the premises. With regard to liquor, the policy of Hollywood Underground was that bottles of liquor brought in by patrons were to be identified in a manner to ensure that patrons were served liquor only from the bottles that they brought to the premises. In accordance with this policy, when a patron brought a bottle of liquor into the licensed premises, an employee of the club was to put a label on each bottle and write a number on the label. Next, in a log book, the employee was to write the number designated on the club's label, the kind of liquor, and the name of the patron who brought in that bottle of liquor. On February 12, 1999, these policies were not implemented by employees of the licensed premises as evidenced by the transactions involving Agents Perez and McEnroe. In the fall of 1998, Tom Lloyd, a videographer for Channel 6 television, followed Division agents into the licensed premises for purposes of an undercover television news story regarding illegal sale of alcoholic beverages by Respondent. Lloyd did not bring any alcoholic beverages with him to the licensed premises. Nevertheless, while sitting at the bar, Lloyd was approached by a bartender who solicited an order from Lloyd for an alcoholic beverage. Lloyd requested a rum and coke and was sold a rum and coke for $4.00 by the bartender. Prior to the Administrative Action which is the subject of this proceeding, three other administrative actions have been filed against Hollywood Underground for violations of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. All of the three previously filed administrative actions resulted in disciplinary action against Respondent's license. Respondent was charged in two separate administrative actions (DBPR Case Nos. 46-95-0582 and 46-95-0089) with selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not permitted by license, in violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. These two cases were resolved by combined Consent Order (Final Order No. BPR-96-02540), wherein Respondent paid a $5,000 civil penalty and agreed that its "agents, servants, or employees would not sell or supply alcoholic beverages to any person other than the patron who brought such alcoholic beverages onto the premises." Respondent also agreed to diligently "ensure that no alcoholic beverage would be dispensed to any person that did not bring such alcoholic beverage onto the premises." In DBPR Case No. 46-97-0890, Respondent was charged for the third time with selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not permitted by license, a violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. This case was resolved by Consent Order (Final Order No. BPR-98-06888), wherein Respondent paid a $7,500 civil penalty and agreed to take corrective action regarding the unlawful sale of alcohol on the premises. Respondent agreed to prevent further occurrences of violations of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. In paragraph 6 of the Consent Order, Respondent agreed and acknowledged that revocation of its alcoholic beverage license would be the appropriate sanction for any subsequent administrative action against the Respondent's license alleging failure of the Respondent to comply with the beverage laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Action; that Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 39-01181 be revoked; and that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $1,000 per count for a total of $2,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 16th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Julius F. Parker, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkerson, Bell and Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
