Findings Of Fact On August 10, 1977, Petitioner filed an application for an Adult Congregate Living Facility License. Thereafter, on nine separate occasions Petitioner was visited by representatives of Respondent, the Dade County Fire Department, and the Dade County Health Department. The results of the inspections by these governmental agencies were numerous lists showing deficiencies in Petitioner's staff, physical plant, sanitary practices, and in diets being furnished to the residents of the facility. At the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner's President admitted that the deficiencies noted in the May 22, 1978 letter of Respondent's Supervisor of the Aging and Adult Services Program, which was marked as Petitioner's Exhibit Number 3, were correct as of the date of the letter. Petitioner contends, however, that the deficiencies noted in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 3 have since been corrected. However, the issue in this proceeding is whether there was substantial competent evidence in existence on May 22, 1978, to justify the denial by HRS of Petitioner's application for an Adult Congregate Living Facility License. Corrections made by Petitioner after that date are irrelevant to this proceeding, although Petitioner would not, of course, be estopped to show correction of these deficiencies in a later application. Inspections conducted by or on behalf of HRS on April 7, 1978, May 12, 1978, and May 16, 1978, showed that staff on duty at Petitioner's facility was inadequate to properly supervise residents in the facility. On the April 7, 1978, visit, there were only one or two staff members on duty to care for thirty-four residents of the facility. The inspection conducted on May 16, 1978, revealed only one staff member on duty. The Administrator of the facility on both occasions was not in attendance at the facility at the time of the inspections. Fire inspections on Petitioner's facility were conducted on January 6, 1978, and again on April 20, 1978. The January 6, 1978, inspection resulted in a lengthy list of deficiencies, which included citations for no building evacuation plan, improper fire extinguishers, lack of proper latching devices on doors, improper hanging of doors, improper installation and maintenance of electrical equipment, no emergency lighting, obstruction in facility corridors, lack of exit signs, lack of smoke detectors, insufficient landing size on stairways, improper storage of flammable chemicals, and improper safety precautions in the electrical equipment room. The April 20, 1978, inspection also resulted in a lengthy list of deficiencies, including lack of an evacuation plan, no record of evacuation drills having been held, lack of proper latching devices on stairway fire doors, and lack of exit signs. There is no evidence of record from which to conclude that these deficiencies were corrected prior to the date on which HRS denied Petitioner's application for a license to operate an Adult Congregate Living Facility. Sanitary inspections of Petitioner's facility were conducted on August 29, 1977, and April 18, 1978. The August 29, 1977 inspection resulted in a lengthy list of deficiencies which is contained in Petitioner's Exhibit Number Among these deficiencies were improper doors, windows and screens in the facility, lack of handrails, improper lighting, improper heating, insufficient number of toilets for the existing number of residents in the facility, and numerous electrical code violations. The inspection conducted on April 18, 1978, revealed many of the same deficiencies noted in the earlier inspection. In addition, a serious fly problem was observed in the kitchen area which was caused by improper sanitary procedures in the kitchen and disrepair of windows, screens and doors. In addition, live roaches and roach eggs were observed in the kitchen, also due to improper sanitary procedures. Further, a live rat and significant quantities of rat droppings were also observed in the kitchen area. The April 18, 1978 inspection also revealed cracked ceilings, holes in walls, malfunctioning lights, holes in floors, and use of a common drinking cup at the water fountain in the facility. There is insufficient evidence in the record in this cause to appropriately demonstrate that the deficiencies noted in the August 29, 1977 and April 18, 1978 inspections were adequately corrected prior to the denial of Petitioner's request for a license on May 22, 1978. On May 12, 1978, the kitchen facilities belonging to Petitioner were inspected by an HRS staff nutritionist. On the day of the inspection, the Administrator was not in attendance at the facility, and the only staff member present was a young woman who had difficulty communicating in English, and who was in charge of both residents of the facility and total food service, including preparation, serving and cleaning. The lunch menu posted for the date of the inspection did not provide one third of established recommended dietary allowances. The menu was also calculated to be deficient in calories, protein, calcium, iron, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Thiamine, Riboflavin and Niacin. The food on hand in the facility did not correspond to posted menus, and the meal observed together with the food inventory were not sufficient for the age group residing in the facility and could result in malnutrition. The kitchen area was dirty, and food preparation utensils required scrubbing and sanitizing. Dishes were being washed with tepid water which was not sufficient for sterilization, and other sterilization methods being used for kitchen utensils were not sufficient to sterilize them. A serious fly problem existed in the kitchen, at least in part due to poor installation of doors. It was impossible to determine the qualifications of the Food Service Supervisor, no policy manual regarding food preparation was found in the facility, and no job description, work assignment, orientation plan, training record, health exam, or employee evaluation could be located for food service personnel. There were no written menus approved by a qualified consulting dietician, no written procedures for ordering, receiving and storing foodstuffs, and no food preparation or recipe file.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, denying Petitioner's Application for a License to Operate an Adult Congregate Living Facility. RECOMMENDED THIS 5th day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stuart E. Wilson, Esquire Franklin International Plaza 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 100 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Leonard Helfand, Esquire DHRS District XI Legal Counsel State Office Building 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128
The Issue Whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined on the grounds stated in Petitioner's Notice to Show Cause dated April 13, 1983.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent possessed alcoholic beverage license numbered 68-776, Series 2-COP, located at 1968 Unit A 27th Street, Sarasota, Florida, where he operated the Town Hall Restaurant. During the last year and a half prior to April 13, 1983, officers of the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) have been called to Respondent's place of business on a frequent basis for various infractions of the law. Numerous narcotics arrests have been made outside of, but in the immediate vicinity of, the Respondent's restaurant, and there have been responses to other crimes, such as assaults and robberies, in the area. Sgt. Peter Viana, SPD, works primarily in this area of town, which contains primarily black oriented businesses, and has smelled marijuana in Respondent's business place on several occasions. In addition, SPD Detective James Fulton related that police intelligence within that same time frame, the last year and a half, indicates repeated sales of narcotics both inside and outside Respondent's establishment. Beverage Officer Keith Hamilton was assigned to an investigation of bars and restaurants in the area of Respondent's business during late March and early April 1, 1983. He is a qualified narcotics investigator and is familiar with the appearance, smell, and taste of such substances as marijuana and cocaine. Early in the morning of March 22, 1983, Hamilton entered the Town Hall Restaurant and went up to the bar to order a beer. There he met "Precious," the barmaid/bartender, who is a male transvestite. During the course of the conversation, Hamilton asked Precious if he could do him a favor. When Precious agreed, Hamilton gave $10 to Precious, who then went over to a patron elsewhere in the room. When Precious returned to Hamilton, he gave him his change and a paper bag which contained a substance later analyzed at the laboratory of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and determined to be 1.7 grams of marijuana. All tests referred to herein were accomplished by this laboratory. Later that same morning, having returned to the Town Hall Restaurant, Hamilton asked Precious about the availability of cocaine. Precious said he did not know much about it, but would try. Hamilton gave $23 to Precious, who went over to another customer in the bar, made a purchase of some substance, returned to the bar, and after waiting on one other customer, transferred what he had purchased to Hamilton. This substance was subsequently tested and determined to be cocaine. During this second visit to the Town Hall, Hamilton observed other individuals in the building smoking what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes and what he believed to be two sales of the substance. He held this opinion because of the way the cigarettes were wrapped, burned, and held in the peculiar fashion of the marijuana "joint." That same evening, March 22, 1983, Hamilton went to the Town Hall for the third time and this time met with another male transvestite bartender known as "Buffy." He asked Buffy about the possibility of getting some marijuana, but Buffy was reluctant and told him to deal direct. Therefore, Hamilton called over one of the other patrons who he knew to be a dealer and purchased what was subsequently tested and identified as 1.6 grams of marijuana. Again, at this time, he observed other patrons at the pool table in the building to be smoking what he believed was marijuana. About 11:00 p.m. that same night, Hamilton made a fourth buy in the Town Hall Restaurant, this time through Precious, who followed the prior procedure and made the purchase from an unidentified black male. This time, the substance tested out to be 1.6 grams of marijuana. When Hamilton went into the Town Hall again on March 23, 1983, Buffy was on duty and again refused to be the direct conduit for a purchase of marijuana. However, Hamilton contacted other patrons in the restaurant from whom he purchased two $6 bags of what was later tested and identified as marijuana. Again, at this time, no attempt was made to hide the marijuana, and Hamilton observed other people in the bar smoking what he believed to be marijuana. Hamilton again returned to the Town Hall Restaurant on the morning of March 24, 1983. When he entered, he saw neither Precious nor Buffy and was, instead, approached by the Respondent. Hamilton ordered a chicken sandwich, but Smith told him no food was ready. He then asked Smith if he knew where he, Hamilton, could get some marijuana, but Smith said he did not. Hamilton started out of the building, but happened to notice that one of the employees who was mopping the floor was one of the same people from whom his prior purchases were made. On the spot, with Smith standing by, Hamilton then purchased another 1.7 grams of what was tested and identified as marijuana. Later that day, March 24, 1983, Hamilton again went into the Town Hall, approached and was again rebuffed by Buffy, and instead made a purchase from some other unidentified individual in the bar. At that time, there were few patrons in the bar, and Hamilton observed the smoking of what appeared to him to be marijuana. When Hamilton entered the bar on March 25, 1983, Precious refused to deal with him and suggested that he deal with another black male named "Georgia." After observing Georgia make sales of some substance to other patrons, Hamilton approached him and purchased what was later tested and found to be marijuana. During the entire time Hamilton was in the Town Hall Restaurant on this date, he observed the open smoking of what he identified as marijuana from the method of smoking and the smell. Hamilton was again refused by Buffy ire the Town Hall on April 9, 1983. However, there was another patron at the bar who agreed to get him some stuff" and who then left the area. Shortly afterwards, a black male named "Sylvester" came into the restaurant, approached him, and sold him $20 worth of what was later tested and identified as cocaine. During this entire time, Buffy, an employee of Respondent, was standing behind and across the bar directly across from the sale--a distance of less than three feet. Hamilton's instructions prior to the operation were to attempt to purchase drugs in not only this establishment but also in others in the area, and he did. He offered no inducements separate from the purchase, though an informant accompanying him on one visit offered sexual favors to Buffy. A raid was conducted at the Town Hall on April 13, 1983, by agents of Petitioner and SPD. Marijuana was found on only one patron. Respondent Smith has had his beverage license for this establishment for approximately 14 months, during which time he has had no problem with Petitioner or other law enforcement authorities. It is his practice when hiring personnel to tell them to keep drugs out. His hours at the bar are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday and from 11:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. While at this establishment, he is usually near the pool table. Though he does not recall being approached by Hamilton at the bar, he agrees that what Hamilton said transpired is probably correct, except for the sale of drugs. Respondent has a good reputation in the community as a law-abiding citizen. Several witnesses who have been in the Town Hall at different times of the day and night claim not to have seen anyone using drugs there.
Recommendation On the basis of the facts and conclusions above, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's alcoholic beverage license be suspended for one year and that he pay a fine of $100 for each violation as alleged in Allegations 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 in the Notice to Show Cause dated April 13, 1983. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold H. Moore, Esquire Post Office Box 4311 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Mr. Gary R. Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold M. Rasmussen Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether a civil penalty should be imposed upon the Petitioner for alleged violations of Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owns an adult congregate living facility. On May 28, 1985, Jim Temkin, an employee of the Respondent, inspected the Petitioner's facility. As a result of this inspection, Mr. Temkin noted four violations of the rules and regulations governing the operation of Florida adult congregate living facilities. (Other deficiencies, not relevant to this proceeding, were also noted). The deficiencies noted in Mr. Temkin's May 28, 1985, inspection report were as follows: ACLF 1 Styrofoam plastic ceiling is used in the dining room, sleeping rooms, hallway, bathrooms and laundry, the kitchen has a particle board ceiling all of which appear to be combustible. . . . . ACLF 2 The kitchen has a gas range and an electrical range without exhausts or automatic extinguishing systems. . . . . ACLF 3 The outside chimney stark [sic] for the gas heater in the resident dining room does not extend above the roof. . . . . ACLF 5 Bed No. 1 & No. 2 have unprotected windows into the dining room. The deficiencies quoted in finding of fact 3 (hereinafter referred to as "ACLF 1, 2, 3 or 5"), were discussed with the Petitioner by Mr. Temkin at the conclusion of his inspection. The Petitioner was given the opportunity to select reasonable dates for correction of the problems noted by Mr. Temkin. The Petitioner accompanied Mr. Temkin during his inspection on May 28, 1985. The following dates were agreed upon by the Petitioner and Mr. Temkin for the correction of the deficiencies noted in finding of fact 3: ACLF 1: February 1, 1986. ACLF 2: September 28, 1985. ACLF 3: July 8, 1985. ACLF 5: July 8, 1985. On March 24, 1986, Mr. Temkin returned to the Petitioner's facility to determine if the deficiencies noted in his May 28, 1985, report had been corrected. Deficiencies ACLF 3 and 5 had not been corrected. Deficiencies ACLF 1 and 2 had only been partially corrected. Therefore, as of March 24, 1986, the Petitioner had failed to correct the deficiencies within the correction periods agreed upon by the Petitioner and the Respondent. ACLF 1 involved the use of materials for the roofs of the rooms noted by the Respondent in violation of Section 6-5.1.3 of the Life Safety Code, National Fire Prevention Association Codes and Standards. Use of these materials constituted an indirect hazard to residents of the facility. As of March 24, 1986, the hazardous material had been replaced with sheet rock in only the back bedrooms. ACLF 2 involved the use of a range without proper fire protection. Failure to have the proper protection constituted an indirect hazard to residents because fire could easily spread from the kitchen to other parts of the facility. The Petitioner could have chosen from at least two methods to correct this problem. The Petitioner chose to install fire doors on the two exists from the kitchen. As of March 24, 1986, only one door had been installed. ACLF 3 involved an outside exhaust from a gas heater. Mr. Temkin estimated that the exhaust extended only 9 inches above the roof. Mr. Temkin did not measure the exhaust. Instead, Mr. Temkin merely observed the exhaust from the ground. Mr. Temkin's estimate is insufficient to prove that the exhaust was less than 2 feet above the roof. ACLF 5 involved two windows between two bedrooms and the "dining room." In fact, the windows were between two bedrooms and a sitting room; not the dining room. These windows did not, however, provide sufficient protection from fire outside the bedrooms to meet Chapter 17 of the Life Safety Code, National Fire Prevention Association Codes and Standards. The windows constituted an indirect risk to residents because fire could easily spread from the sitting room into the bedrooms. On May 1, 1986, Mr. Temkin inspected the Petitioner's facility again. ACLF 1, 3 and 5 had still not been corrected. Therefore, a new date was agreed upon for the correction of these items: August 1, 1986. The new date was not an extension of time. The new date was given simply because the Petitioner had failed to meet the originally prescribed date and a completion date had to be re-established. At no time before or after the original completion dates for ACLF 1, 2, 3 and 5 did the Respondent agree to a different completion date in substitution of the original dates or extend the original extension dates. The Petitioner took steps to correct ACLF 1, 2, 3 and 5. The steps taken by the Petitioner were not, however, successful in insuring that the deficiencies were corrected by the completion date originally agreed to by the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Petitioner has not been charged at any other time with a violation of the law applicable to the operation of an adult congregate living facility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner be found guilty of, and a total civil penalty of $200.00 be imposed for, violating the Class III deficiencies identified by the Respondent as ACLF 1 and 2. It is further: RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner be found not guilty of the Class III deficiencies identified by the Respondent as ACLF 3 and 5. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 January, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Narvel Armstrong, pro se Post Office Box 261 Vernon, Florida 32462 John R. Perry, Esquire Assistant District 2 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Respondent, public lodging establishment, violated the provisions of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a public lodging establishment licensed by the State of Florida, having been issued license number 15-00043-H for apartment units located at 14 Carmalt Street, Cocoa Beach, Florida. The Petitioner received a consumer complaint on October 10, 2001, that one of the tenants in the Respondent public lodging establishment had been without electrical power and hot water for at least three days. On October 11, 2001, Ed Weimer, Safety and Sanitation Specialist with Petitioner ("inspector") conducted an inspection of the Respondent public lodging establishment. The inspector observed that Units 5 and 16 were occupied but had no electrical power. The inspector observed that when other tenants operated light switches in Unit 5 and 16 the lights did not come on. Extensions cords had been run through the windows of units without power from units with power. In addition, a common area hallway was also without electrical power. On October 11, 2001, the inspector provided notice of the observed violations by posting a copy of the Lodging Inspection Report at the site, sending a copy of the Report by certified U.S. mail to the Respondent, and by orally communicating the contents of the Report by telephone to the Respondent's principal Rudolph Hardick, Alice Hill, the manager of the apartment complex, and an unidentified secretary in the Respondent's office. Since the violations were observed after 12:00 p.m. on October 11, 2001, the Respondent was give notice that remedial action was required to be taken by 10:00 a.m. the following day rather than that same day. On October 12, 2001, at approximately 10:10 a.m., the inspector conducted a follow-up inspection of the licensed premises and observed that the violations noted in the Lodging Inspection Report dated October 11, 2001, had not been corrected. On October 12, 2001, the inspector completed a Call Back/Re-Inspection Report and provided notice that same day of said follow-up inspection and report by personally delivering a copy of the Call Back/Re-Inspection Report to Respondent's manager, Alice Hill. The mechanism by which proper lighting, heating, cooling, and/or ventilation is terminated or interrupted is not relevant to the statutory obligation of each licensed public lodging establishment to maintain such lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation with strict regard to the health, comfort, and safety of guests. Without electrical power, none of the requirements stated in Section 509.221(3), Florida Statutes, can be satisfied, to wit, maintenance of proper lighting, heating, cooling, and/or ventilation and the operation of the licensed premises with strict regard to health, comfort, and safety of the guests. The Respondent had adequate time, notice, and opportunity to correct the observed violations but failed to do so. The Respondent has not offered any explanation or mitigation for its failure to comply with its statutory obligation under Section 509.221(3), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be enter finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 509.221(3), Florida Statutes, and that an administrative fine of $1,000 be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 11th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Rudolph Hardick Fourteen Carmalt, Inc. Post Office Box 320615 Cocoa Beach, Florida 32932 Tiffany A. Short, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Susan R. McKinley, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Harlen Brown, was called and testified that he is a member of a corporation which owns the property which is the subject of this hearing and is located at 477 Northwest Lucy Street, Florida City, Florida. He testified that the licensee rented the space from the corporation on a month to month basis and that he was aware of the charges pending against the licensee. 1/ Brown stated that he was experiencing problems with licensee Washington and that residents of the community had also expressed their problems which were in the nature of a nuisance to the community but that the residents are not criminally inclined. Brown indicated that he would file an application to operate the premises as a beer and wine disco arrangement and that it was his intent to renovate the premises and cater to adults and not minors. He expressed the opinion that the problems stemmed from the prior lessees. Brown urged that if the licensee's license was revoked, that it be done without prejudice. Michael Somberg, a beverage officer for approximately 18 months testified that he visited the Spot Bar on November 2, 1975, along with public safety officers Swain, Davis and others at approximately 12 o'clock, based on complaints that minors were consuming alcohol. Police officers that were also on the scene made an I.D. check of all the occupants on the premises and detained a juvenile, Larry Melvin, whose age as subsequently established revealed that he was 15 years old. He at the time of his detainment was carrying a sealed can of Miller's Beer. Somberg tasted and smelled the beer and determined that it was an alcoholic beverage. He placed Melvin under arrest and the beer was given to Officer E. W. Pfitzenmaier, who in turn submitted it to the crime laboratory bureau of the Metropolitan Dade County Public Safety Department for a laboratory analysis report. The examination conducted on the beer submitted that it contained ethyl alcohol 2.01 percent by volume or 1.61 percent by weight. Somberg testified that there was a flurry of activity on the premises when they announced themselves as beverage agents and/or policemen and that there was an attempt by the patrons to rid themselves of several packets and other items which turned out to be contraband. Somberg found one aluminum packet which contained 8 small packets of what appeared to him to resemble cocaine. He also gathered small amounts of marijuana and other paraphernalia from the floor of the premises. He retained the paraphernalia and had a field reagent test conducted on the narcotics. Present with Somberg was Officer Pfitzenmaier who also assisted in gathering the large wrapper which contained the 8 small packets of the white substance which according to him resembled cocaine also. Pfitzenmaier testified that he, at all times, maintained the confiscated items under his care, custody and control until turned over to the Dade County Laboratory Department. The various reports and items were received in evidence and marked for identification as Board's Exhibits 3 through 10. Also introduced was the notice of hearing which was issued to Licensee Washington and as Exhibit Number 12 the notice to show cause why his license should not be revoked. An examination of the items revealed that the licensee and/or his agents sold to a minor a liquid containing ethyl alcohol; that among the items confiscated was heroin and marijuana i.e., 13.6 grams of marijuana and heroin and 8 small packets containing cocaine. Also introduced was a carton containing 100 packages of non Florida tax paid cigarettes which were found on the licensed premises on January 8, 1976. This possession violates Florida Statutes 561.29(1)(B).
