The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent properly denied Petitioner's entitlement to a quota beverage license in Bradford County, Florida. At the formal hearing the Petitioner called as witnesses Allen F. Nash and, by deposition, L. B. Schoenfeld. Petitioner also testified on her own behalf. The Respondent called as its only witness Allen F. Nash. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence four exhibits. The Respondent offered no exhibits into evidence. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that these proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions in this order, they were considered by the Hearing Officer and rejected as being not supported by the evidence or unnecessary to the disposition of this cause.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this case is an applicant for a quota beverage license and filed her initial application for that license on October 23, 1981. That application was titled "Preliminary Application for New Quota Alcoholic Beverage License." Paragraph five of the instructions contained in the preliminary application referred to above states: This is Part I of a two (2) part application. Part II will be fur- nished to you if selected in the drawing. Part II includes among other things, health approval (if required), zoning approval and proof of right of occupancy. On October 13, 1982, the Petitioner was notified by letter from the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco that she had been selected in the random drawing on October 6, 1983, for a new quota beverage license for Starke, Bradford County, Florida. This letter informed Petitioner that her name had been drawn and that the agency must act on her application within 180 days of the drawing. Paragraph three of that letter states: We suggest that you contact our Jackson- ville field office located at the Richard P. Daniel Building, 111 East Coastline Drive, Suite 514, Jacksonville, as soon as pos- sible. You must file your complete appli- cation which will include, among other items, a location, zoning approval, and fingerprints, if you are not already a current licensee, for yourself and those to be interested with you in your business. Please bear in mind that our agency has only 180 days from the date of the drawing to act upon your application. We urge you to move forward in order to save time necessary to process the appli- cation and complete the investigative process. On October 22, 1982, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco forwarded to Petitioner the forms necessary to complete Part II of the application process. Those forms and the accompanying letter were received by the Petitioner. Petitioner failed to file Part II of the application and on April 7, 1983, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco by letter notified the Petitioner that her entitlement to a quota beverage license had been disapproved. The authority for such disapproval was given as Florida Statute 561.17 and Florida Statute 561.19. The information which was to be provided subsequent to the drawing, which was not included in the preliminary application, included: Information relating to the right of the applicant to occupy the premises to be licensed. The health approval of the premises to be licensed. This approval must be signed by a proper representative of the state/county health authorities. Information relating to the zoning of the premises to be licensed. A portion of the second application form in section 7 must be completed by the local zoning authorities and must reflect that the premises to be licensed complies with the local zoning ordinance for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for a quota beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire 516 North Duval Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida u2301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented in whether an agent or employee of Respondent sold alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21, in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administration Action issued September 10, 1997, and if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, Respondent held alcoholic beverage license no. 74-01498, series 2APS, for an establishment known as My Super Store ("the licensed premises"), located at 701 South Martin Luther King Boulevard, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida. Daytona Beach Police Department opened an investigation of the licensed premises after it received numerous complaints of illegal activity at the licensed premises. Paris Anthony is a black female born on June 13, 1977, and was 19 years old on May 5 through May 21, 1997. On May 5, 1997, Ms. Anthony entered the licensed premises and selected a bottle marked "beer" from the store's cooler. The bottle bore the manufacturer's trade mark for "Bud Ice." Ms. Anthony brought the beer to the sales counter and tendered payment to the cashier. The cashier accepted payment for the beer, but did not ask Ms. Anthony for any identification before accepting payment and selling the beer to her. When Ms. Anthony asked for a receipt for the beer, the cashier, in a raised voice, commented to Ms. Anthony, "Well, you're not old enough, are you?" or words to that effect. Ms. Anthony answered that she was not, but was nonetheless permitted to leave the premises with the bottle of beer. During the conversation between the cashier and Ms. Anthony, Respondent was seated an arm's length away from the cashier. Respondent was not talking to anyone at the time. Although Respondent looked up at Ms. Anthony and the cashier during the exchange reported in paragraph 5, above, he took no action in response to the assertion that Ms. Anthony was not of legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages. On May 7, 1997, Ms. Anthony entered the licensed premises and selected a bottle marked "beer" from the store's cooler. The beer bore the manufacturer's trademark for "Bud Ice." Ms. Anthony brought the beer to the sales counter and tendered payment to the same cashier who was working behind the counter on May 5, 1997. The cashier did not ask Ms. Anthony for any identification before accepting payment and selling the beer to her. Ms. Anthony departed the licensed premises with the bottle of beer. The Respondent was observed on the premises by Ms. Anthony at the time of the purchase. On May 21, 1997, Ms. Anthony entered the licensed premises and selected a bottle marked "beer" from the store's cooler. The beer bore the manufacturer's trademark for "Bud Ice." Ms. Anthony brought the beer to the sales counter and tendered payment to the same cashier who was working behind the counter on May 5 and May 7, 1997. The cashier did not ask Ms. Anthony for any identification before accepting payment and selling the beer to her. Ms. Anthony departed the licensed premises with the bottle beer. The Respondent was observed on the premises by Ms. Anthony at the time of the purchase. At hearing, nine months after the incident, Ms. Anthony appeared to be a young woman of an age that a prudent person would check to determine whether she was 21 years old. Respondent testified he had no employees at the time of the violations, but allowed "volunteers" to help him on the licensed premises, including Benette Lisa Brown. According to the Respondent, he was always on site, and in charge. The "volunteers," according to Respondent, did not work the cash register; however, Respondent's testimony was not consistent with Ms. Anthony's and that of a former "volunteer." Respondent's testimony was not credible. The person at the sales counter was working under the supervision of Respondent who was present on the premises each occasion Ms. Anthony purchased beer. At the time of the violations, Respondent did not have signs posted on the licensed premises informing customers that the vendor had a policy against serving alcoholic beverages to underage persons and informing customers that the purchase of alcoholic beverages by an underage person or the illegal use of or trafficking in controlled substances will result in ejection from the licensed premises and prosecution. The training of employees or agents was inadequate and their supervision poor.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's alcoholic beverage licensee No. 74-01498, series 2APS, be suspended for a period of 30 days, and it is further recommended that Respondent be ordered to pay a $1,000 civil penalty to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas D. Winokur, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joan Lowe, Esquire 520 North Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114-2188 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to issuance of a quota liquor license.
Findings Of Fact By Notice of Selection dated August 20, 1990, Respondent informed William Davis Tharpe that it had approved his application for the grant of a new quota liquor license in Brevard County. By application received on September 28, 1990, by the Cocoa Beach District office of Respondent, Mr. Tharpe and Bimini's Beachside of Cocoa Beach, Inc. jointly applied to Respondent for the transfer of the Notice of Selection from Mr.Tharpe to Bimini's Beachside. By Transfer of Notice of Selection dated November 2, 1990, Respondent informed Petitioners of the approval of the application for transfer of the Notice of Selection. In material part, the Transfer of Notice of Selection states: * * * Enclosed is a notice of fee payment due for the transfer of the Notice of Selection. By law, this must be paid to the Division within 45 days of the date of this letter. Please be sure to return the payment notice with your remittance. . . . Failure to remit the transfer fee to this office . . . within the 45 day period allotted will be deemed as a waiver of your right to file for the new quota license. The application will be denied and the next applicant with priority shall be given consideration for a new quota license. Therefore, you must immediately contact the office whose address is listed on the bottom of this letter. They will be able to supply the forms and instructions necessary to file a complete application for the "grant" or "issuance" of the license as well as answer any questions. . . . Please bear in mind that you must pay the applicable transfer fee and file either application within 45 days of the date of this letter which is calculated to be December 17, 1990. We urge you to move forward promptly in order to save time necessary to process the application and complete the investigative process. The Transfer of Notice of Selection was on the letterhead of the Department of Business Regulation and signed by the Chief, Bureau of Licensing and Records on behalf of the Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco. A courtesycopy of the Transfer of Notice of Selection was shown to have been sent to the "Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, District #12 Rockledge" at the address of the District office in Rockledge. After receiving the Transfer of Notice of Selection, Mr. Taylor, who is the president and sole shareholder of Bimini's Beachside, arranged a meeting with Joan Root of the Rockledge District office. At the meeting, Mr. Taylor applied for and received a temporary license to sell liquor, which was signed by another individual of the Rockledge District office. In connection with the temporary license, Mr. Taylor paid Ms. Root $437.50--apparently by personal check. At the same meeting, Mr. Taylor presented Ms. Root with a personal check dated November 12, 1990, in the amount of $26,250 and payable to the Department of Business Regulation. This check, for which ample funds existed at the payor bank, was for payment of the transfer fee referenced in the Transfer of Notice of Selection dated November 2, 1990. Ms. Root declined to accept the larger check and informed Mr. Taylor that he had to send that money to the Division office in Tallahassee. She also told him that the check had to be from the corporation and that the fee had to be paid by the deadline of December 17, 1990, as set forth in the Transfer of Notice of Selection. Mr. Taylor mailed a corporate check in the amount of $26,250 to the Division office in Tallahassee, but not untilDecember 21, 1990, according to the postmark on the envelope. Respondent received the check on December 28, 1990. By letter dated January 8, 1991, Respondent informed Petitioners that it was rescinding its prior approval and notifying them of Respondent's intent to deny the new quota liquor license because the fee had been untimely paid. Following an exchange of correspondence that failed to resolve the dispute, Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing. Petitioners expended over $20,000 to obtain Mr. Tharpe's rights in the new quota liquor license, as well as additional costs in connection with the preparation of the business premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order voiding the Transferee Notice of Selection previously sent to Petitioners. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-1761 Treatment Accorded Petitioners' Proposed Findings 1 (first two sentences): adopted. 1 (third sentence): rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 1 (fourth sentence): rejected as subordinate. 1 (last sentence): rejected as recitation of testimony. 2-3: rejected as irrelevant. 4: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 5: first sentence adopted. Remainder rejected as irrelevant. The November 2 letter clearly states when the transfer fee had to be paid to Tallahassee. Nothing in the handling of the matter by Respondent warrants the relief that Petitioners seek. The result in this case is harsh when the mere neglect of Mr. Taylor is weighed against the loss of more than $20,000 and the value of a new quota liquor license. However, in the absence of other factors, such as some ambiguity or confusion for which Respondent is responsible, the law does not permit a recommendation compelling Respondent to give Mr. Taylor another chance. This case does not raise the issue whether Respondent has such discretion and, if so, whether it should be exercised here. 6: rejected as irrelevant. The evidence concerning a single extension involved an applicant who was not a transferee. In any event, Petitioners failed to request an extension during the 45-day period. 7: rejected as not finding of fact. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings Except as otherwise noted, all proposed findings are adopted or adopted in substance. 7: rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 9-17 and 24: rejected as subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Janet E. Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Richard W. Scully, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Jack L. Taylor 400 W. Cocoa Beach Cswy. Cocoa Beach, FL 32931 John B. Fretwell Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007
The Issue Whether petitioner's suspension of respondents' license should be terminated or extended, or whether other disciplinary action should be taken against the license for the reasons alleged in the notice to show cause?
Findings Of Fact Respondents Raymond and Gwendolyn House hold alcoholic beverage license No. 27-00177, Series 4-COP, for Ray's Lounge & Package at 501 East Baars Street in a crime-ridden section of Pensacola, Florida. Until petitioner closed them down on October 27, 1991, as far as respondents and their managers knew, the licensed premises stood, in recent times, like an island in a veritable sea of open illegality. Mrs. House stationed security guards in front of the lounge, and assigned them the duty of keeping undesirables out. Young people ignore "no loitering" signs in the area and congregate on street corners, spilling into the street, blocking traffic and keeping "older folks" from passing. In the neighborhood outside respondents' establishment, drug sales take place in plain view of passersby. Although the authorities have closed the lounge, these problems persist. Except on Saturdays and Sundays when her husband opened the bar, Mrs. House arrived at ten in the morning and stayed until seven or eight at night, when she turned things over to the assistant manager, Ernestine Dunklin, or to her son Michael. Sometimes she came back after supper. The parents of six grown children, one of whom was allegedly prosecuted for selling heroin in the lounge in July of 1982, Mr. and Mrs. House have owned Ray's Lounge & Package for 18 years. Mr. House, who has worked at the Naval Air Station for two decades, leaves most of the management to his wife. Maggie Baldwin, who had worked at Ray's Package & Lounge for the last 15 years, arrived at seven and stayed until closing. She usually sat just inside the entrance, where she checked younger patrons' IDs. Neither Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Dunklin nor Ms. House has ever seen drugs used or distributed inside the lounge, or anybody appearing to use or sell drugs there. In the last few months, young women named Brenda and Senora worked at the lounge. Mario, another of the Houses' four sons and a full-time "installer" for Cox Cable, filled in for Ernestine Dunklin on August 24, 1991, when she was away at a cousin's wedding, but he has not worked at the lounge since. Like his brothers Raymond Jr., and Herman, he sometimes patronized the bar. On the night of September 1, 1991, however, Mario House was at home. John Anderson "Bud" McCants, who looked to be in his fifties, spent a lot of time at the lounge, where he was permitted to "bus" tables for tips. Although never on respondents' payroll, he also acted as a waiter, bringing drinks to patrons' tables and taking their money to a barmaid who (unlike him) was authorized to operate a cash register. He ran errands for Ms. House and often drove her home from the lounge. For these services, she paid him in cash. Many people who frequented Ray's Lounge & Package, in some cases three or four times weekly, among whom are Barbara Livingston, Helen Gaines, Randy Jean Peeples Broughton, and professional people including a doctor, an engineer, and Elmer Jenkins, a retired college professor who serves on the Escambia County School Board, have never seen or smelled drugs being used or sold there. Willie James Crenshaw, who lives four or five houses from Ray's Package & Lounge, was a regular customer Sunday nights. At least then, the crowd was mostly 50-ish and older, the proprietors' generation. But young "jits" also patronized the lounge, and respondents felt constrained to take steps to keep the premises "clean." A metal sign on the front door reads: ANYONE CAUGHT FIGHTING OR USING ANY ILLEGAL DRUGS ON THESE PREMISES WILL BE BARRED FROM THIS CLUB FOR LIFE AND SUBJECT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW THANK YOU THE MANAGEMENT Respondents' Exhibit No. 1. Inside, signs were posted "from one end to the other," including in the bathrooms, advising patrons that monitors were on the look out for illegal activities. Friends, a grandson and employees did help monitor, including occasionally checking both bathrooms. When Ms. House thought she saw drugs being sold outside, she called the Escambia County Sheriff's Department, sometimes as often as five or six times a night. Between October 26, 1990, and October 31, 1991, sheriff's deputies made 289 trips to Ray's Package & Lounge. Perhaps partly because of her calls, law enforcement officials decided to "target" Ray's Lounge & Package. Undercover Agents Dispatched Casey Roberts, a "professional contract operator" whose primary occupation since 1972 has been as a confidential informant for law enforcement, found himself idle after some 60 domestic and an additional, approximately 60 international exploits. When he asked a friend at a federal agency for work, his friend put him in touch with Ray Reed, a special assistant to Escambia County's Sheriff, Charlie W. Johnson. The Escambia County Sheriff's Department also asked to "borrow" an undercover operative from Orange County. Orange County Deputy Sheriff Julia A. Chatman arrived in Pensacola in time to accompany Mr. Roberts to Ray's Package & Lounge on August 24, 1991. Both wore "wires," microphones and transmitters that Mr. Reed and Escambia County Deputy Sheriff Roosevelt Walker, Jr. (on every occasion but two) monitored from a vehicle nearby. As it happened, August 24, 1991, was Mrs. House's 63rd birthday. Entering the bar, the agents found what Mr. Roberts described as a "happy type of environment." After a half-hour visit to the bar between four and six o'clock that afternoon, the undercover agents returned around supper time and stayed an hour and a half. The birthday celebrants had shrimp for dinner. About ten o'clock that night, undercover agents Roberts and Chatman returned a third time and purchased a small plastic bag of cocaine from Bud McCants for $40 or $50. An occasional user of marijuana and cocaine, Mr. McCants, a "known liar and cheat," also has a problem with alcohol. (But somebody else had put the Crown Royal he was accused of stealing in his jacket pocket, he testified.) The uncontroverted testimony was that Mrs. House did not know that he "did drugs." After the purchase, the undercover agents left the bar and gave the cocaine to their handlers, then returned a fourth time and bought two more plastic bags of cocaine from "Bud" McCants for $40 each. Although she was on the premises the whole time, Mrs. House was unaware of either transaction. Both occurred while the bar was crowded. Each packet was on the order of an inch square, contained approximately one gram and could be carried unobtrusively in the palm of the hand. The next day Ms. Chatman and Mr. Roberts returned for an hour or two, and found only seven or eight other customers. Mrs. House was not at the bar then. (Her husband was not on the premises on any of the occasions on which the undercover agents visited.) Casey Roberts bought two pills containing hydromorphone hydrochloride or "Dilaudid" from Raymond House, Jr. First Roberts gave Raymond $100. A little while later Raymond left the premises. As he returned, Roberts met him at the door and received the pills in a "hand exchange." On August 30, 1991, agent Roberts paid Mr. McCants $40 for cocaine, only 25 or 30 feet from where Mrs. House, unaware of the transaction, was cleaning collard greens. On September 1, 1991, Roberts bought cocaine from McCants for $50 on two separate occasions. On September 4, 1991, Roberts again bought cocaine from McCants for $50, and also bought a single pill of hydromorphone hydrochloride (delivered in a folded napkin) for $60 from Raymond House, Jr. On September 7, 1991, the undercover agents returned to Ray's Lounge & Package Store. Ms. Chatman asked Senora where she could get some "blow," by which she meant cocaine (although Senora originally understood her inquiry to relate to marijuana.) Senora spoke to Michael Collins who approached Ms. Chatman. Eventually a third person, Dave, gave her cocaine in exchange for $50. Altogether the undercover agents went inside Ray's Lounge & Package on eight separate days, as many as four times on a single day. On ten to fifteen of these trips, they failed to obtain drugs. Ms. Chatman testified that the first time she offered Raymond House, Jr. drugs, he said "No, I don't deal with that," and returned money she had thrust on him. Now facing criminal charges, he did not testify himself. Licensees Not Shown To Be Culpable Ms. House testified convincingly that she did not know anything about any of the drug transactions proven at hearing, and that she was shocked and angry when she learned of them (on or after October 27, 1991.) The other evidence is completely consistent with her testimony in this regard. Nothing in the evidence suggested that Raymond House, Sr. had any knowledge of the transactions. The respondents knew that their son, Raymond House, Jr., was accused of agreeing to sell a packet of heroin over the telephone while working in the lounge in 1982. In fact, they removed the telephone on that account. Events in 1982 resulted in administrative proceedings against their license. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Petitioner also proved that, in a case of mistaken identity, Bud McCants was arrested in 1986 on the licensed premises; and that, as it turned out, he had a single marijuana cigarette on his person at that time. But the evidence did not show that respondents knew about the marijuana (which had not occasioned the arrest.) Except for reports months and years earlier of drug use or dealing by patrons, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly show that respondents had reason to know (before October 27, 1991) of any illegal activity on the licensed premises since 1982, much less than they condoned, encouraged or fostered it. Mrs. House responded diligently and appropriately to any report of illegal activity that reached her, as far as the credible evidence showed.
Recommendation It is, accordingly recommended that petitioner terminate the suspension of respondents' license forthwith, and dismiss the notice to show cause filed against the license. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-6985 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 14 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2, 6, 11, 13, 17, and footnote 2, the evidence did not clearly establish that Raymond House, Jr. worked as a manager of the lounge or that respondents employed him in any other capacity. Credible testimony put him behind the bar helping himself to drinks, but Ms. Dunklin, who was responsible for work assignments, testified that he was not an employee, and was not ever scheduled to work; and her testimony has been credited. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 3 and footnote No. 1, the evidence showed that the Houses and Mr. McCants had known each other since 1968 or 1969, but not that he had worked for them continuously since then. At all pertinent times, however, the evidence did establish that he was a de facto employee of the licensees, even though not on the payroll. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 6 and 7 and footnotes Nos. 3, 4 and 5, Casey Roberts' testimony was wholly unreliable (and came to a sudden halt when he was asked to testify without referring to the administrative complaint.) His descriptions of accused sellers and others, which he rattled off with seemingly great assurance, bore no resemblance to reality. But for Ms. Chatman's testimony and that of the law enforcement officers who monitored conversations electronically, none of the transactions with Roberts would have been established. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 15 and 18, there was no evidence of drug use or drug dealing that was not carefully hidden from respondents and their managers. Bud McCants did not testify otherwise, (even though Bud McCants was brought to the hearing from jail where he is awaiting trial on charges of selling cocaine, giving him a strong incentive to cooperate with the authorities.) The fact that patrons discarded a marijuana cigarette, "suspected cocaine," and pills when the raid occurred on October 27, 1991, does not mean these items were visible beforehand, or intended for use or sale on the premises. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 16, the only evidence of conviction was hearsay. Respondents' proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 5, respondents did not produce all the regular customers. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 7, the monitoring officers received uninterrupted transmissions from the undercover agents' microphones, and could hear (usually loud) music as they entered the lounge, even if they did not have visual contact then. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 10, although petitioner proved drug transactions occurred, petitioner did not prove that respondents knew this or were in any way responsible for it. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Leo A. Thomas, Esquire Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas Mayer & Mitchell P.O. Box 12308 Pensacola, FL 32501 Richard W. Scully, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverage license should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a Florida business man who operated initially a business called the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, located at 1342 Washington Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, and subsequently a business called Tony Cafeteria, located at 340 1/2 Northwest 12th Avenue, Miami, Florida. Petitioner was the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-8402, Series 1 APS, for the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market on Miami Beach. Respondent, on May 3, 1988, served on Petitioner an emergency order of suspension of license number 23-8402, series 1 APS, "in order to protect the public safety and welfare from immediate and continuing danger of drug trafficking and illegal delivery of controlled substances in and about the licensed premises." Concurrently with the emergency order of suspension, Respondent served a notice to show cause on Petitioner alleging eight counts of narcotics transactions on the licensed premises and one count of maintaining a nuisance of the licensed premises. Petitioner did not request a hearing on the charges that resulted in the emergency order of suspension and the notice to show cause. On June 27, 1988, Respondent published its Final Order revoking Petitioner's alcoholic beverage license number 23-8402, Series 1 APS. The Final Order was served on Petitioner on July 5, 1988. That Final Order included the following conclusion: The facts set forth hereinabove demonstrate that the licensee has fostered, condoned, and/or negligently overlooked trafficking in and use of illegal narcotics and controlled substances on or about the licensed premises and has failed to exercise due diligence in supervising its employees and managing its licensed premises so as to prevent the illegal trafficking and use of narcotics on the licensed premises. In addition to the narcotics violations described in the notice to show cause regarding the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, alcoholic beverages were being sold for consumption on Petitioner's licensed premises, and patrons on the licensed premises were gambling on pool games. The International Coffee Shop and Minit Market was located near a large elementary school. The cocaine transactions negotiated and consummated on the licensed premises during April 1988 were open and in plain view. No effort was made to conceal these activities. Children were frequently on the licensed premises during April 1988 when cocaine transactions were being openly negotiated and consummated. The first cocaine transaction at the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market during Officer Santana's undercover investigation was between Officer Santana and a patron named Clara Rodriguez. The transaction took place just inside the entrance of the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, lighting conditions were good, and no effort was made to conceal the transaction. Petitioner was standing immediately next to Officer Santana when the cocaine transaction took place. Petitioner made no effort to stop the transaction, or to summon law enforcement, or to evict Ms. Rodriguez or Officer Santana. Petitioner commented, in Spanish, that "if you're not going to eat or drink anything, you're going to have to leave," or words to that effect. During the 13 days following the cocaine transaction described immediately above, seven additional cocaine transactions were openly conducted on the premises of the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market:. Four of these transactions were permitted by Petitioner's employee Estella; three were permitted by Petitioner's employee Angel. Five patrons, Nuri, Pipo, Maria, Clara, and Betty, were involved in these cocaine transactions. Petitioner attributes the activity on his licensed premises that resulted in the license revocation to the undesirable neighborhood of the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market and the undesirable persons who frequented the International Coffee Shop. The neighborhood of Tony Cafeteria is no better than the International Coffee Shop neighborhood. In response to a complaint, Sergeant Herrera and other members of the Miami office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco went to Tony Cafeteria on December 2, 1989. Petitioner's employee, Ms. Baez, sold a beer to an undercover Law Enforcement Investigator on the premises of Tony Cafeteria. Ms. Baez was cited for selling an alcoholic beverage without a license. Twenty cans and bottles of beer were seized on the premises by the officers. Petitioner works full time, 40 hours a week, at the Fountainbleau Hilton and is considered by the Head Houseman to be "a fine, dedicated worker." Three friends of Petitioner opined that Petitioner is a trustworthy, moral person. The Petitioner has never been arrested or convicted of any criminal offense. The Petitioner did not have actual knowledge of the narcotics transactions that resulted in the revocation of the alcoholic beverage license at the International Coffee Shop and Minit Market, nor was he aware that any gambling was taking place on the pool tables. In January 1990, Petitioner was issued a temporary beverage license for Tony Cafeteria, with which he operated until his license application was disapproved by Respondent. During the three-month period he operated with the temporary license he was not cited for violation of the beverage law.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a final order in this case denying the Petitioner's application for a alcoholic beverage license. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of July 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Vidal Marino Velis, Esquire 2100 Coral Way, Suite #300 Miami, Florida 33145 John B. Fretwell, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined on the charge that it violated Sections 212.15(2)(b) and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), by failing to remit taxes collected pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes (1981).
Findings Of Fact On May 4, 1981, respondent was issued alcoholic beverage license No. 16-2232 SRX, Series 4 COP. The license has now expired. (Testimony of Boyd; P- 1.) On June 26, 1951, the Florida Department of Revenue issued a warrant for the collection of delinquent sales and use tax due and unpaid by respondent. The warrant states that respondent is indebted to the Department of Revenue for delinquent sales tax, penalty, and interest, totaling $22,710.66. This indebtedness remains outstanding and unpaid. (Testimony of Fox; P-2.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the notice to show cause filed against respondent be dismissed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 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 15th day of September, 1982.
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked for violating a stipulation stated on the record in a prior license revocation proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 16-2337, Series 2-APS and owns and operates Hammer's Package Store, the licensed premises, at 3231-A West Broward Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In 1981, DABT filed two administrative actions to revoke respondent's alcoholic beverage license pursuant to Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. The charges were, apparently, disputed and a hearing officer requested, since the cases were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. Thereafter, on April 18, 1981, Hearing Officer Robert T. Benton, II, conducted a Section 120.57(1) hearing on the charges. At hearing, both parties were represented by counsel: DABT by James N. Watson, Jr., a staff attorney for the Department of Business Regulation; respondent by Ray Russell, whose address was 200 S. E. 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301. At the outset, counsel for both parties advised Hearing Officer Benton that they had reached "an agreement" (P-1, p. 3), thus obviating the need for a hearing on the charges. Counsel then recited, on the record, the terms of their settlement agreement: respondent was given 90-days in which its corporate entity could be sold, with the period beginning to run from March 19, 1981--the next day--and ending on June 16, 1981; when the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period expired, whichever occurred first, respondent was to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation; respondent waived its right to an evidentiary hearing on the charges and to appeal any matters covered by the agreement; and, from the time the corporate entity was sold or the 90-day period for sale expired, no corporate officers, directors, or shareholders of respondent would again engage in the alcoholic beverage business, make any application for a beverage license, apply for transfer of a beverage license, or hold an interest in any business involved in the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages. (DABT Ex. 1, p. 5-8). Without objection from respondent's counsel, DABT's counsel described the consent order (or settlement agreement) as "in the nature of a final administrative action and [respondent] acknowledges that its failure to abide by such would subject him to the provisions of Florida Statutes 120.69 (P-1, p. 6). Although this settlement agreement was effective and began to operate immediately (the 90-day period for sale commenced the next day) DABT's counsel contemplated that a written and signed consent order embracing the terms of the settlement agreement would be subsequently issued. Although such follow-up action was intended, it never occurred. DABT never issued a written order, consent or otherwise, embracing the terms of the settlement agreement. Hearing Officer Benton and, at least one party, thereafter relied on the settlement agreement. The hearing officer closed both Division of Administrative Hearings files, and DABT no longer prosecuted respondent under the pending charges. Since June 16, 1981, the expiration of the 90-day period provided in the agreement, respondent has continued to operate its licensed alcoholic beverage premises, has failed to sell its corporate entity, and has failed to surrender its alcoholic beverage license. Respondent has presented no evidence justifying or excusing its failure to surrender its alcoholic beverage license to DABT for cancellation on or before June 16, 1981. Neither does it seek to withdraw from or set aside the settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1983, 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 26th day of May, 1983.
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent's application for a quota beverage license should be granted. At the formal hearing, the Respondent called as witnesses Mr. Berry Wiggins and Mr. Alfred S. Bridges, president and sole shareholder of the Respondent. Petitioner called as witnesses Sgt. Norman Stephens, Beverage Officer John T. McMullen, Alfred S. Bridges and Barry Schoenfeld. The parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not consistent with the findings and conclusions in this order, they were considered by the Hearing Officer and rejected as being not supported by the evidence or unnecessary to a resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds beverage license number 62-248-4-COP SR. This license is issued to the licensed premises known as the Blue Fountain Restaurant and Lounge located at 1045 North Greenwood Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. The beverage license held by Respondent is a special restaurant license with specific requirements relating generally to the sale of food, seating capacity, and hours of operation. These requirements must be met during daily operation in order for the Respondent to retain its beverage license. On January 29, 1979, Respondent by and through its president and sole shareholder, Alfred S. Bridges, applied to the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for a consumption on premises quota license for the Blue Fountain Restaurant and Lounge. Quota licenses do not have the special requirements applicable to special restaurant licenses and are limited in number by the population in each county where issued. On March 22, 1979, the Respondent's application was denied on the basis that no quota beverage licenses were available in Pinellas County. Respondent was informed by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco that additional licenses would probably be available in 1980 following the 1980 census. The Respondent did not dispute the fact that there were in fact no quota licenses available at the time that his application was submitted and considered, and the denial of Respondent's application on that ground by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco was proper. Following the 1980 census, the legislative program for the selection of persons to receive quota beverage licenses by lottery became effective. The Respondent twice applied for such a license but was not drawn in the lottery on either occasion, and therefore was not entitled to a quota license of those applications. The licensed premises is located in an area which is predominantly black and poor. The individuals residing in this area do not frequently utilize the restaurant facilities at the licensed premises and generally cannot afford to order full course meals. There are numerous fast-food restaurants in the same area as the licensed premises and this coupled with the limited financial resources of the patrons in the area makes it financially difficult for Respondent to operate under a special restaurant license. The requirement that the Respondent be able to serve at any given time a certain number of full course meals and the cost of operating a kitchen and food service also places a substantial financial burden on the Respondent. There is no statutory authority or agency rule which permits the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to grant an application for a quota beverage license based on hardship. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco has never issued a quota beverage license based on hardship and has no policy of considering hardship as a criteria for obtaining such a license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a Final Order denying Respondent's application for a quota beverage license. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 23rd day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel J. Bosanko, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Alfred S. Bridges, President Willow Run, Inc. d/b/a Blue Fountain Restaurant and Lounge 1045 North Greenwood Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33515 Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether, on four separate occasions, agents, servants, or employees of respondent sold alcoholic beverages to persons under 19 years of age, in violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes, as alleged in petitioner's Notice to Show Cause.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 16-2587, Series 2-APS, be revoked for multiple violations of the Beverage Law. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1983, 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 6th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Boggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Don Allen, Esquire 600 S.W. 4th Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33315 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 16-637 S, Series 4-COP, be revoked for multiple violations of the Beverage Law. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of August, 1983, 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 5th day of August, 1983.
