The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent or its agent illegally sold alcohol to a minor and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Moe's Petroleum Corp., d/b/a Plantation Texaco, is a small, privately-owned gas station and convenience store. It is owned and operated by Mohammed Shareed. Mr. Shareed and his wife are the primary full-time employees of the business. For the period relevant to this matter, Sharika Salmon was a part-time employee. The business sells both gasoline and commercial items to its customers. Sale of packaged alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) is allowed under the business' alcohol beverage license, No. 16-06936, Series 2 APS. Mr. Shareed has owned and operated the business for about two years. He has not been previously cited for violating the terms of his alcohol beverage license. Ms. Salmon is a college student. She obtained a part- time position at the business following discussions between her aunt and Mr. Shareed. It was decided that Ms. Salmon could work a few hours each afternoon after class whenever possible. She averaged about 12 hours per week while employed at the business. She was trained as to how to operate the cash register and other machines. Part of her training included specific instructions to ask customers for identification when they purchased alcohol. She understood she was not to sell alcohol to anyone under the age of 21 years. Mr. Shareed advised his employees daily about checking for identification when alcohol was purchased. He placed visible written signs in the store advising customers that minors could not purchase alcohol. On November 16, 2006, at approximately 7:50 p.m., Investigative Aide #FL0033 entered the business. He was working for the Division as an underage cooperative. His job was to attempt to purchase alcohol from various businesses. On the night of November 16, 2006, he did about 15 "buys" during the 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. time frame. The purchase at Mr. Shareed's business was one of those. On the evening in question, Investigative Aide #FL0033 (at that time 18 years old) entered the business, went to the beer cooler in the back, and selected a six-pack of Heineken beer. He took the beer to the front counter and, along with a pack of gum, placed it on the counter. The investigative aide gave the clerk (Ms. Salmon) a ten-dollar bill from investigative funds entrusted to him for that purpose. She took the bill, made change, and handed the change and the beer to the investigative aide. He took his purchases and left the store. No words were exchanged between the investigative aide and the clerk during the sales transaction. Ms. Salmon did not ask the investigative aide for identification in order to ascertain his age. At the time of the transaction, Mr. Shareed was standing just to the clerk's right side concentrating on paperwork related to previous gasoline purchases. He was no more than two or three feet from the clerk. Mr. Shareed was standing at a 90-degree angle from the counter and the clerk. He was not involved in the sale transaction and did not specifically remember it occurring. Mr. Shareed gave his employees the right to act independently once they were trained. He did not monitor or oversee their every move. During the transaction, Special Agent Fisten was also in the store, posing as a customer. He was standing behind the investigative aide during the sale and did not hear any words spoken during the entire transaction. The investigative aide took the beer outside where it was taken by Special Agent Smith, who placed it in a bag, marked it for identification, and initialed the identification receipt. The beer was then placed in the trunk of Special Agent Smith's vehicle. The special agents then went back into the store and notified Mr. Shareed that they were charging him with sale of alcohol to a minor, a violation of his license. He was cited and instructed about the administrative process. The agents took information from Ms. Salmon as well. In fact, they asked her for identification due to the fact that she looked so young. (Ms. Salmon quit her job after this incident because the process upset her.) During the sale transaction, Mr. Shareed was doing paperwork incident to gasoline purchases made earlier in the day. He was preoccupied with that work and did not notice the sale as it occurred. Mr. Shareed's testimony on that fact is credible; it is not likely that he actively watches or participates in every sale that occurs during the day. Mr. Shareed was not involved in the sale; had he been, he would have requested identification from the investigative aide. The policy of the business was to require identification from anyone purchasing beer who looked young. The business had never previously been cited for violation of its license. Nor was the Division investigating the premises on the basis of a complaint or allegation. Rather, the business was simply chosen at random because it was in the area the Division was focusing on that particular day. Mr. Shareed's testimony that he trained his wife and other employees to check identification was credible. Conversely, the testimony of the investigative aide and other agents appears cloudy concerning the distinguishing facts of the sales transaction at issue compared to numerous other transactions during that same evening. Petitioner is seeking to impose a fine of $1,000 and a suspension of Respondent's license for a period of seven consecutive days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, dismissing the charges against the license of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2007.
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Action dated June 22, 2004, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is the state agency charged with administering Florida's alcoholic beverage and tobacco law. § 561.02, Fla. Stat. (2004). The Food Mart holds a Series 2-APS license, numbered 16-13705. On June 2, 2004, the Division conducted an inspection of the premises of the Food Mart. The inspector found six bottles filled with a cream-colored liquid. One bottle was on the counter, next to the cash register, and the other five bottles were inside a cabinet behind the cash register, wrapped in newspaper. The bottles contained a homemade Haitian beverage called cremasse. A friend made the beverage for Mr. Cebatien Dierestil, who intended to serve the beverage at a party at his home. The person who made the beverage took the six bottles to the Food Mart to give it to Mr. Dierestil, but Mr. Dierestil was not in the store at the time. A Food Mart employee placed the bottle of cremasse on the counter, even though it was for Mr. Dierestil's personal use. Cremasse contains a small amount of alcohol, but Mr. Dierestil did not know the exact amount. During the inspection of Food Mart on June 2, 2004, the Division found 97 packages of cigarettes offered for sale that did not carry the stamps indicating that the applicable taxes had been paid on the cigarettes. Some of the 79 unstamped packages of Newport cigarettes and of the 18 unstamped packages of Marlboro cigarettes were commingled with other packages of cigarettes displayed over the cash register, and others were in full cartons placed in the area where the extra inventory of cigarettes was kept. The cigarettes were purchased from a person that came by the Food Mart, and the invoice for the cigarettes was not among the invoices Mr. Dierestil provided to the Division's inspectors. Mr. Dierestil was not aware that the cigarette packages were supposed to carry tax stamps. The Division failed to present evidence establishing the alcoholic content of the liquid inside the bottles found at the Food Mart.
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 Dismissing Count 1 of the Administrative Action against Cebatien and Marc Dierestil; Finding that Cebatien and Marc Dierestil violated Sections 210.18(1) and 210.15(1)(h), Florida Statutes; Finding that, because of these statutory violations, the Division is authorized to impose administrative penalties on Cebatien and Marc Dierestil pursuant to Section 561.29(1) and (3), Florida Statutes; Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 and ordering payment of the excise tax owing on the unstamped packages of cigarettes for the violation of Section 210.18(1), Florida Statutes; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 for the violation of Section 210.15(1)(h), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 27th day of January, 2005.
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether Respondents' beverage license should be suspended or revoked or otherwise disciplined for sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses Ervin A. Hooper, Patricia Perkins, Christine Ellis, Paul C. Davis, and John Sokol. Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit. Respondent Richard N. Jiosne testified on behalf of Respondents and Respondents also called John Hanks as a witness. Respondents offered and had admitted two exhibits. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondents submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions in this order, they were rejected as being not supported by the evidence or as unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to these proceedings, the Respondents Richard N. and Ann N. Jiosne were the holders of beverage license No. 39-186, Series 2APS. The license is issued to a drive-through beverage establishment located in Brandon, Florida, and known as the Beverage Castle. The licensed premise is a drive-through facility which sells beer, along with other grocery items and sundries. The Beverage Castle is operated by Mr. and Mrs. Jiosne, along with their son and an employee named John Hanks. Late in the afternoon or early evening of July 22, 1983, Patricia Perkins and Christine Ellis drove into the Beverage Castle for the purpose of buying beer. They drove in and stopped and a young boy that appeared to be between 12 and 14 years old came to the car and asked what they wanted. The driver, Patricia Perkins, told him that they wanted a six pack of Michelob beer and he immediately went to a cooler and removed a six pack of Michelob beer and handed it to an older gentleman. The older gentleman then handed the beer to Patricia Perkins and collected her money for the beer. At no time was Patricia Perkins asked for identification. She had not purchased beer at this establishment previously. The young boy was Ritchie Jiosne, the son of Mr. and Mrs. Jiosne, the owners. The older gentleman was John Hanks, the evening manager of the Beverage Castle. On July 22, 1983, Patricia Perkins was 16 years old and her date of birth is December 30, 1966. The passenger in the automobile, Christine Ellis, at the time of the purchase was 17 years old and her date of birth is December 28, 1965. Prior to Patricia Perkins and Christine Ellis entering the Beverage Castle, a deputy of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department had had the licensed premises under surveillance. He had observed several cars drive through with individuals who appeared to be young purchasing beer without being required to show identification. The officer also observed the purchase made by Patricia Perkins and Christine Ellis and observed no identification being shown by Patricia Perkins to either of the individuals working at the Beverage Castle that evening. The owners have a policy against selling alcoholic beverages to minors. There is a sign posted next to the register which states: LOOK WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT, WILL NOT, AND REFUSE TO SERVE ANYONE!, WHO IS ASKED AND DOES NOT HAVE PROPER I.D. HAVE YOUR CARD READY. The employees have been instructed to not serve alcoholic beverages to minors and to check identification. The Beverage Castle has a reputation within the high school students of Brandon, Florida, as a place where minors can buy beer. A prior violation was brought against the Respondents' license within the past year for sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor. That case resulted in recommended dismissal by the Hearing Officer and the Director of the Division of alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco adopted that recommendation and dismissed the case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Respondents guilty of the charge as set forth above and imposing a civil penalty of $150.00. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of June 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS 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 8th day of June 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Patrick McElroy, Esquire Suite 200 - Rutland Bank Building 1499 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondents currently hold a Series 2APS license, number 45-00254, for Eastside Grocery, which is located at 132 South Highway 33, Groveland, Florida. The current term of the license expires on September 30, 1988. On February 26, 1988, Victoria Solozabal entered Eastside Grocery at about 4:25 p.m. Claude Cruce, a law enforcement investigator employed by Petitioner, entered the store directly behind her. Ms. Solozabal was acting under the direction of Mr. Cruce and another of Petitioner's investigators, Carl Lloyd, in assisting them in the detection of sales of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. Ms. Solozabal was born on August 23, 1969. Upon entering the store, she carried with her only her driver's license and a small amount of cash for the purchase of a single can of beer. Ms. Solozabal went directly to an electric cooler in the back of the store, selected a chilled can of Budweiser beer, and took it to the checkout counter. With Mr. Cruce directly behind her and Mr. Lloyd only a few feet away watching, Ms. Solozabal placed the beer on the checkout counter and took out a $10 bill while Respondent Sandra Pettingill was ringing up the purchase. Ms. Pettingill demanded 75 cents, and Ms. Solozabal gave her the $10 bill. Ms. Pettingill placed the bill in the cash register and returned the change to Ms. Solozabal. At no time did Ms. Solozabal or any other employee of Eastside Grocery ask Ms. Solozabal her age or for proof of age. As Ms. Solozabal approached the door to leave the store, Mr. Cruce stopped her, demanded her identification, and seized the beer. He and Mr. Lloyd then informed Ms. Pettingill that she had sold an alcoholic beverage to an underaged person.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents guilty of selling an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of 21 years and imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $250. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 4th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1759 Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Finding of Facts Adopted. Adopted in substance. Adopted. Rejected as subordinate. 5-6. Adopted. Second 6. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. First sentence adopted. Remainder rejected as subordinate. Adopted. Rejected as subordinate. Treatment Accorded Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact 1-3. Adopted, except any resemblance between Ms. Solozabal and a regular customer of legal age is rejected as irrelevant. 4-5. Rejected as irrelevant. Ms. Pettingill testified that her normal procedure was to check proof of age before ringing up a sale. She also testified that Mr. Cruce asked about the couch drops only after she had taken the $10 bill from Ms. Solozabal. Mr. Cruce's request for cough drops thus had nothing to do with the sale, which had already been made. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 George Kelley, Esquire 368 East Main Street Post Office Box 1132 Apopka, Florida 32703 Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondents' alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined for the reasons stated in Petitioner's Notice to Show Cause dated September 14, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented, the following facts are determined: The Long Branch was operating under DABT License No. 74-878 in License Series 4-COP-SRX. This type of license requires food and nonalcoholic beverage sales to constitute at least 51 percent of all sales. Audit of the Long Branch's records, which were examined on a month-by- month breakdown of the sales for the period July 1 1981, to July 1, 1982, showed food and non- alcoholic beverage sales at 7.7 percent and alcoholic beverage sales at 92.3 percent of total sales. For the period July 1 through July 27, 1982, the ratio was 4.3 percent to 95.7 percent. At no time during the more than one year period audited did the food sales reach the required 51 percent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondents' License No. 74-878 be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 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 31st day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas M. and Sandra J. Spera Long Branch 600 South Yonge Street Ormond Beach, Florida Mr, Howard M. Rasmussen Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr Gary R. Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Aki-San held an alcoholic beverage license which expired October 1, 1977. Only on January 10, 1978, did Aki-San make application for "delinquent renewal" of its license. In the unlicensed interim, one of respondent's truckdrivers continued to deliver Kirin beer to Aki-San. At all pertinent times, respondent was licensed as a distributor of alcoholic beverages. Respondent employs numerous truckdrivers to distribute alcoholic beverages to some 2,000 licensees under the beverage law. Each driver has a route book containing the license number of each of the customers for which he is responsible. The truck drivers have standing instructions to insure, before delivering alcoholic beverages, that the licensees they serve have renewed their licenses for the year. Posted on a bulletin board on respondent's premises, in October of 1977, was a notice reminding the drivers to ascertain whether their customers' licenses had been renewed.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the notice to show cause issued in this case. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford Distributing Company 990 S.W. 21st Terrace Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Mary Jo M. Gallay Staff Attorney 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offense alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 14, 2012, and, if so, what penalties, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact PTL Associates, Inc., d/b/a 7 Eleven Store No. 32599A (PTL), is a convenience store located at 4401 Colonial Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33912. Lucia D'Costa is the sole shareholder of PTL. Since October 12, 2011, and at all times material to this case, the Respondent has been licensed by the Petitioner to sell alcoholic beverages under license number BEV 4604710, Series 2APS. According to a document titled "Record of Inspection-- Official Notice," on July 19, 2012, an employee of the Respondent sold an alcoholic beverage to an underage individual after checking the individual's identification. The document advised the Respondent that a follow-up compliance check would take place within the subsequent 12 weeks. The Petitioner took no disciplinary action against the Respondent based on the July 19, 2012, compliance check. The Respondent has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary proceeding related to the license referenced herein. On August 2, 2012, the Petitioner conducted an undercover compliance check as a follow-up to a compliance check done on July 19, 2012, to determine whether the Respondent was selling alcoholic beverages to underage individuals. The compliance check was performed by two of the Petitioner's agents, Jennifer Nash and David Foraker, with the assistance of a 16- year-old female identified as Investigative Aide FT0205 (IA). On August 2, the IA entered the store accompanied by Agent Nash, while Agent Foraker remained in the vehicle outside the store. Ms. D'Costa was present in the store, behind the counter and operating multiple store sales registers. Two employees were also present, occupied with various cleaning tasks. The IA walked to the beverage cooler and withdrew a 16 ounce Coors Light, carried it to the counter area, and stood in line to pay for the beer. Ms. D'Costa took the beer from the IA, scanned the beer into the sales register, and completed the transaction. Ms. D'Costa did not ask the IA to produce any form of identification to verify the IA's age. While the transaction occurred, Agent Nash observed the AI and Ms. D'Costa, initially from inside the store, and then from outside while looking through large windows on the storefront. Although while in the store Agent Nash spoke to Ms. D'Costa to ask for driving directions, Agent Nash did not interfere with the sale of beer to the IA. There is no evidence that Agent Nash prompted Ms. D'Costa to sell the beer to the IA, or that she interfered in the transaction in any way. Some, but not all, of the Respondent's cash registers have software to prompt a register operator to verify a customer's age during the sale of an alcoholic beverage. When Ms. D'Costa sold the beer to the IA, she used a register that did not prompt the sales clerk to verify the customer's age. Ms. D'Costa testified that she does not usually operate the sales registers and that the clerks are usually responsible for the counter operation. She testified that, at the time of the compliance check on August 2, 2012, the two employees present were cleaning the store in anticipation of a monthly inspection, and, therefore, Ms. D'Costa was working alone at the sales registers. The inspection referenced by Ms. D'Costa is a routine monthly inspection conducted by corporate representatives at a time unknown to the licensee until the representatives arrive. It is reasonable to presume, given the nature of the inspection, that store cleaning would be an ongoing obligation of a licensee. The testimony fails to suggest that a licensee is exempt from compliance with laws prohibiting underage alcohol sales when employees are busy. After completing the purchase, the IA left the store and delivered the beer to Agent Foraker. The Petitioner's agents then went into the store to notify Ms. D'Costa that the transaction had taken place and to deliver to her a "Record of Inspection--Official Notice" and a "Notice to Appear." Ms. D'Costa testified at the hearing that she believed the IA to be at least 30 years of age on August 2, 2012. The IA participated in seven undercover compliance checks on August 2, 2012. The Respondent was the only store that did not check the IA's identification during a compliance check. Ms. D'Costa also testified that the franchise agreement could be breached by a suspension of the alcoholic beverage license. The franchise agreement was not offered into evidence at the hearing. The Petitioner has a written policy of not utilizing children or other relatives of the Petitioner's employees as IAs. At the time the compliance check was conducted on August 2, 2012, the Petitioner was apparently unaware that the IA was related to an employee of the Petitioner. After the Petitioner learned of the relationship, the IA was not again utilized in making compliance checks. The evidence fails to establish that the relationship between the IA and an employee of the Petitioner prompted Ms. D'Costa to sell the beer to the IA without checking whether the IA was of legal age to purchase alcohol.
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 suspending the license referenced herein for a period of seven days and imposing a fine of $1,000 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 27th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew R. Fier, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 42 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Timothy Joseph Perry, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant and Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Allen Douglas, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020
The Issue Whether Petitioners' applications for the delinquent renewal of their special restaurant licenses pursuant to Section 561.27(2), Florida Statutes, should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notices of Intent to Deny.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: There are various types of DABT-issued licenses authorizing the retail sale of alcoholic beverages. Among them are quota licenses, SRX licenses, and SR licenses. All three of these licenses allow the licensee to sell liquor, as well as beer and wine. Quota licenses, as their name suggests, are limited in number. The number of quota licenses available in each county is based upon that county's population. SRX and SR licenses are "special" licenses authorizing the retail sale of beer, wine, and liquor by restaurants. There are no restrictions on the number of these "special" licenses that may be in effect (countywide or statewide) at any one time. SRX licenses are "special restaurant" licenses that were originally issued in or after 1958.3 SR licenses are "special restaurant" licenses that were originally issued prior to 1958. For restaurants originally licensed after April 18, 1972, at least 51 percent of the licensed restaurant's total gross revenues must be from the retail sale of food and non- alcoholic beverages.4 Restaurants for which an SR license has been obtained, on the other hand, do not have to derive any set percentage or amount of their total gross revenues from the retail sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. DABT-issued alcoholic beverage licenses are subject to annual renewal.5 License holders who have not timely renewed their licenses, but wish to remain licensed, may file an Application for Delinquent Renewal (on DABT Form 6015). Until recently, it was DABT's longstanding policy and practice to routinely grant applications for the delinquent renewal of SR and other alcoholic beverage licenses, regardless of the reason for the delinquency. DABT still routinely grants applications to delinquently renew alcoholic beverage licenses other than SR licenses, but it now has a "new policy" in place with respect to applications for the delinquent renewal of SR licenses. The "new policy" is to deny all such applications based upon these SR licenses' not having been in "continuous operation," action that, according to DABT, is dictated by operation of Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, a statutory provision DABT now claims it had previously misinterpreted when it was routinely granting these applications. Relying on Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, to blanketly deny all applications for the delinquent renewal of SR licenses was the idea of Eileen Klinger, the head of DABT's Bureau of Licensing. She directed her licensing staff to implement the "new policy" after being told by agency attorneys that this "was the appropriate thing [from a legal perspective] to do." Abkey and Amy Cat have SR licenses that were originally issued in 1956 "per general law and not pursuant to any special or local act." Maneros has an SR license that was originally issued in 1952 "per general law and not pursuant to any special or local act." As applicants applying to delinquently renew their SR licenses, Petitioners are substantially affected by DABT's "new policy" that SR licenses cannot be delinquently renewed because they have not been in "continuous operation," as that term is used in Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes. Their applications for the delinquent renewal of their licenses would have been approved had the status quo been maintained and this "new policy" not been implemented. Abkey filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 2005) on February 21, 2007. On the application form, Abkey gave the following "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period": "Building was sold. Lost our lease." On April 2, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Abkey's application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 2005, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. Maneros filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 2005) on June 4, 2007. On the application form, Maneros gave no "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period"; however, the application was accompanied by a letter from a Maneros representative, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: I am today submitting a delinquent renewal application for the above-referenced alcoholic beverage license. The building has been demolished, and there is a vacant lot at the site at this time. Redevelopment is scheduled for this area, and I expect new construction to begin shortly. The license was first issued to this location 55 years ago. I have inquired with the City of Hallandale Beach, Florida, and there remains a question as to whether zoning approval for this type of alcoholic beverage license would be permitted under current uses once reconstruction is complete. The licensee of record wishes to reinstate and possibly use or transfer the license. . . . On June 8, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Maneros' application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 2005, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. SR licenses will not be allowed to be moved from the location where the license was originally issued. Amy Cat filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 1999) on December 6, 2006. On the application form, Amy Cat gave the following "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period": "Building was closed." On June 8, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Amy Cat's application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 1999, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. SR licenses will not be allowed to be moved from the location where the license was originally issued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order granting Petitioners' applications for the delinquent renewal of their SR licenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 30th day of April, 2008.
The Issue The primary issue in this disciplinary proceeding is whether Respondent, which operates a convenience store and sells alcoholic beverages on the premises under a license issued by Petitioner, permitted a sale of drug paraphernalia to occur in the store, in violation of the statutes governing holders of beverage licenses. If Petitioner proves the alleged violation, then it will be necessary to consider whether penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Respondent Moti's, Inc., d/b/a Continental Market ("Continental"), has held a license to sell alcoholic beverages at retail. Consequently, Continental is subject to the regulatory and disciplinary jurisdiction of Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the "Division"). On December 12, 2006, two undercover agents of the Division, together with a detective from the Broward County Sheriff's Office, conducted a "sting" operation at the convenience store that Continental owns. The sting was arranged in response to complaints that the Sheriff's Office had received regarding sales of drug paraphernalia (specifically "crack pipes" used for smoking crack cocaine), which were allegedly taking place at this store. The purpose of the sting was to purchase a "crack pipe" and arrest anyone involved in the sale. Pursuant to the plan, Special Agent Ralius Thompson entered the store in an undercover capacity. He was wearing a "wire" (concealed microphone) and a hidden camera. These devices, which were monitored by the other agent and the detective (both of whom remained outside the store), allowed the ensuing transaction to be recorded on a videotape. Once inside, Thompson headed first to the cooler, where he took a six-pack of beer from the shelf. He then proceeded to the counter, to purchase the beer. As the clerk, Aziar Baig, was ringing up the sale, Thompson whispered, "Got any pipes? Got any pipes?"i Baig reached down behind the counter and pulled up a "love rose." (A love rose is a trinket, a tiny fake flower encased in a thin glass tube, which latter is about 4 inches long. Though the tube containing a love rose can be used as a pipe, love roses are not necessarily drug paraphernalia; they can be legally sold, purchased, and possessed.) "You're talking about here?" Baig asked, displaying a love rose. "Yeah, smoke my crack in, man, smoke my crack in," replied Thompson. "A pipe——got a stem?" "Huh?" said Baig. "A stem," repeated Thompson. (According to the evidence, the term "stem" is street talk for filter. Filter material is inserted in one end of the pipe to prevent the user from inhaling the burning cocaine "rock.") "This one?" Baig inquired, holding up a Chore Boy® copper scrubber. (Chore Boy® scrubbers are clearly legal merchandise having an obvious, non-nefarious purpose. According to the evidence, however, the metal in these pot scrubbers can be used illicitly as a crack pipe filter.) "Yeah," said Thompson, who then paid $6.75 for the items. Shortly after making this sale, Baig was arrested on the charge of delivering drug paraphernalia, which is a third- degree felony under Section 893.147(2), Florida Statutes. The evidence presented in this case is sufficient, for present purposes, to support the inference——which the undersigned draws——that Baig either knew or reasonably should have known that his customer (Thompson) intended to use the love rose and copper scrubber to fashion a makeshift crack pipe.ii Thus, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Baig committed the crime of delivering drug paraphernalia. There is, on the other hand, no persuasive evidence (or any evidence of any quality, for that matter) establishing that the corporate licensee (as opposed to its employee Baig) committed any misconduct, e.g. negligent failure to train or supervise employees; failure to exercise due diligence in attempting to prevent unlawful sales; or fostering or condoning such sales, for which the Division could impose discipline against Continental pursuant to Section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes. It is determined, therefore, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Continental is not guilty of the pending charge, namely permitting the sale of drug paraphernalia on the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order finding Continental not guilty of the instant charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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.stae.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 2007.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent's medical license based on an alleged violation of section 458.331(1)(s), Florida Statutes, concerning his ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety by reason of illness, substance abuse, or mental or physical condition.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of medicine as delineated in Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. The Board of Medicine is organized within the Agency and charged with determining and issuing final orders in disciplinary cases involving physicians within its jurisdiction. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Dr. Murtha has been licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida, holding license no. 0037467. As a licensed physician in the State of Florida, Dr. Murtha is subject to the licensure and medical practice regulatory jurisdiction of the Board of Medicine of the Agency of Health Care Administration. Dr. Murtha, at the time of the Agency's investigation, was approximately 42 years of age. He received his medical degree in 1978 from the University of Florida and completed his residency at the University of Tennessee. In 1981, he became board certified in internal medicine. He has been on the staff of St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa, Florida for the ten years prior to the initiation of this action. In August 1995, the Agency filed a complaint against Dr. Murtha alleging that two episodes affected Dr. Murtha's ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of use of alcohol. The first episode related to a charge of driving under the influence. On May 2, 1994, Dr. Murtha was involved in a minor traffic accident and charged with driving under the influence (DUI). On August 24, 1994, Dr. Murtha pled no contest to the charge, and he received 12 months probation, six months revocation of his driver's license, a $250.00 fine, required attendance of DUI school, and court costs. 7/ The officer who investigated the May 2, 1994 accident and who also charged Dr. Murtha was not available for the hearing and did not testify. The second episode alleged by the Agency relates to the allegation that Dr. Murtha practiced medicine while intoxicated. Specifically, the Agency alleged that Dr. Murtha saw patients while intoxicated. Relating to the second factual allegation, Nurse Georgia Jacinta Paille testified that on January 30, 1995, she encountered Dr. Murtha visiting a patient at St. Joseph's Hospital. Ms. Paille is the day charge nurse at St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa, and she appeared as the first witness for the Agency. Nurse Paille testified that on January 30, 1995, she encountered Dr. Murtha and that he had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. She further testified that Dr. Murtha was acting angry and inappropriate and that he raised repetitive questions relating to care given to one of his patients. While Nurse Paille noticed the odor of alcohol, she did not notice if Dr. Murtha's speech or gait was affected by the alcohol. Furthermore, Nurse Paille could not testify that Dr. Murtha acted like someone who had been drinking. Nurse Paille reported her observations of Dr. Murtha to her manager, Margie Butler, who in turn made a report to Dr. Gilbert J. Pitisci, the Hospital Administrator. Gilbert J. Pitisci is a medical physician and the Senior Vice President for Medical Affairs at St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa, Florida. In addition to various administrative duties, Dr. Pitisci is authorized to summarily suspend a physician's privileges at a hospital. On January 30, 1995, the same day that Nurse Paille observed Dr. Murtha, Dr. Pitisci encountered Dr. Murtha. Dr. Pitisci also noticed the odor of alcohol on Dr. Murtha's breath, and he noticed that Dr. Murtha had a slight slurring of his speech and that there was a slight tremor in his hands. Dr. Murtha declined Dr. Pitisci's invitation to discuss his condition in private. Rather, Dr. Murtha insisted that the discussion be held publicly at the nurses' station. Based on Dr. Murtha's physical appearance and based on the odor of alcohol on his breath, Dr. Pitisci summarily suspended Dr. Murtha as a potentially impaired physician and directed him to leave the hospital. Subsequently, Dr. Pitisci notified the state that it had a physician with a potential impairment with alcohol abuse. Other than detecting the odor of alcohol on Dr. Murtha's breath, Dr. Pitisci had no information as to the amount of alcohol consumed by Dr. Murtha. On or about March 24, 1995, the Agency received notification of Dr. Murtha's suspension from St. Joseph's Hospital. In response, the Agency opened an investigation that led to the filing of an order compelling physical and mental examination. Subsequently, Dr. Murtha received an order from the Agency compelling him to submit to both a physical and mental examination. The Agency chose the physician and directed Dr. Murtha when to appear for his appointment. On June 6, 1995, Dr. Murtha complied with the Agency order compelling his mental examination, and he was evaluated by Daniel J. Sprehe, M.D. Daniel J. Sprehe, M.D. is a psychiatrist licensed in the State of Florida. He has been qualified by various Florida courts as an expert in clinical and forensic psychiatry and was accepted as an expert in the area of psychiatry on behalf of the Agency. Dr. Sprehe's examination and testing of Dr. Murtha lasted approximately three hours. Dr. Sprehe obtained and prepared a detailed social and medical history of Dr. Murtha, administrated the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Psychological Test (MMPI) and MMPI II, administered the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST), and administered a Beck Depression Inventory. He also questioned Dr. Murtha and performed a mental status examination. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine Dr. Murtha's medical condition and to make any recommendations for treatment concerning his fitness to practice medicine. Dr. Sprehe completed a written evaluation, including a written opinion based on the evaluation. In addition to the aforementioned tests, Dr. Murtha was given a blood test that revealed no alcohol or drugs in his system. Dr. Sprehe's report indicated that Dr. Murtha scored rather low, a score of 7 (out of a possible 30), on the MAST test. He stated that the MAST is a self-reporting test and that a score of five or more places the subject in the range to be considered an alcoholic. Later, Dr. Sprehe indicated that based on the facts presented in other reports relating to Dr. Murtha, he would have modified Dr. Murtha's score to 9. Still later at the hearing, Dr. Sprehe again revised his scoring of Dr. Murtha's MAST test and concluded that he scored a 20. Dr. Sprehe surmised that Dr. Murtha did not answer the test questions candidly and that his score should have been higher. Dr. Sprehe also found that Dr. Murtha minimalized his abuse of alcohol. Based on the MAST test, Dr. Sprehe found that Dr. Murtha fell into the alcoholic range. For reasons fully stated in paragraphs 26, 27, and 41, the undersigned declines to adopt, as a finding of fact, any diagnosis of Dr. Murtha based on the MAST test. Dr. Sprehe explained the differences between the definitions of abuse and dependence. Subsequently, Dr. Sprehe opined, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the Respondent was an alcohol abuser. Based on his opinion, Dr. Sprehe recommended that Dr. Murtha consider a diversionary program such as the Physicians Recovery Network. Dr. Sprehe also opined that Dr. Murtha suffered from narcissistic personality disorder, which can complicate the diagnosis of alcoholism. A person with narcissistic personality disorder tends to deny defects in themselves. Dr. Sprehe's diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder was made after a one-hour examination of Dr. Murtha. Dr. Sprehe could not state with certainty that Dr. Murtha could not practice with reasonable skill and safety. Dr. Sprehe did opine, however, that "there is at least a question in my mind as to [Dr. Murtha's] ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety." Dr. Sprehe opined that the results of the MAST test and the mental examination, coupled with Dr. Murtha's history, placed Dr. Murtha in the high risk category. No where in the written report to the Agency did Dr. Sprehe advise the Agency that Dr. Murtha was not able to practice medicine with skill and safety. Dr. Sprehe also opined, based on a hypothetical question, that Dr. Murtha "is not in a position to practice medicine safely to patients." The hypothetical question, however, was based on the testimony of Dr. Murtha's ex- wife which has been found to lack consistency. (See paragraphs 28-30). Therefore, for the reasons stated in paragraphs 28-30, the undersigned declines to adopt, as a finding of fact, Dr. Sprehe's opinion which was based on a factually deficient hypothetical question. On August 9, 1995, sixty-five days after Dr. Sprehe's examination and report, the Agency issued an Emergency Suspension Order against Dr. Murtha's license to practice medicine. Dr. Murtha called Mark Stuart Goldman, Ph.D. as his sole witness. Dr. Goldman is a clinical psychologist and distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of South Florida. Dr. Goldman specializes in the area alcohol research and is currently the director of the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Institute at the University of South Florida. Dr. Goldman was accepted as an expert witness in the field of alcohol and alcoholism, and he testified on behalf of Dr. Murtha. Dr. Goldman testified to the issue of alcoholism and discussed in detail the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST). As discussed earlier, Dr. Sprehe relied on the MAST to help make his diagnosis that Dr. Murtha is dependent on alcohol. Dr. Goldman testified that the MAST can be skewed and that the very accusation of alcohol abuse can result in the subject having points scored against him. Dr. Goldman stated that tests such as MAST are crude devices used for screening alcohol problems but are not designed for the purpose of making diagnosis. To make this point, Dr. Goldman cited the Handbook of Alcoholism Treatment Approaches, by Hester and Miller, for the purpose that screening tests such as MAST should not be used for the purpose of making a diagnosis and that to do so represents a violation of professional and ethical standards. The undersigned is persuaded by Dr. Goldman's position that tests such as MAST should be used as screening not diagnostic tools. As such, any opinions based on results from the MAST test are rejected as not supported by credible evidence. Dr. Goldman examined Dr. Murtha on two separate occasions. Dr. Goldman obtained and reviewed Dr. Sprehe's report, and he reviewed the results of the MMPI and the MAST. Based on his review of the materials generated by Dr. Sprehe and on his own examination of Dr. Murtha, Dr. Goldman could not offer an opinion as to whether Dr. Murtha is safe to practice medicine. In addition, Dr. Goldman felt the record was incomplete to offer an opinion as to whether the Respondent was dependent on alcohol. In summary, Dr. Goldman found that a conclusive diagnosis would take considerably more time and would involve additional examination techniques. The undersigned adopts Dr. Goldman's position that inadequate information was available to render an opinion regarding Dr. Murtha's ability to safely practice medicine. In addition to the expert testimony received at the hearing, the Agency also offered the testimony of Dr. Murtha's ex-wife, Donna Gail Murtha. Mrs. Murtha is a registered nurse employed at James A. Haley Veterans Administration Hospital, and she was married to Dr. Murtha for 23 years until their divorce in December of 1994. Mrs. Murtha was offered for the purpose of establishing that Dr. Murtha was an abuser of alcohol and that he regularly consumed alcohol while engaging in the practice of medicine. Mrs. Murtha offered conflicting testimony relating to the quantity of alcohol Dr. Murtha consumed during their marriage. At the hearing she stated that he consumed "at least a pint [of liquor] a day. During the discovery deposition, however, she stated that "she couldn't state an amount [of alcohol consumed]." She also denied ever stating that he [Dr. Murtha] drank a fifth a day. Mrs. Murtha offered additional conflicting testimony as it related to Dr. Murtha's use of alcohol while on call at the hospital. At the hearing she testified that Dr. Murtha consumed alcohol while on call. During the discovery deposition, however, she testified that she knew of no specific incident when Dr. Murtha used alcohol on call. She also stated that she could not recall any instance when Dr. Murtha went to the office after having consumed alcohol. Mrs. Murtha's testimony is rejected because it is inconsistent and it lacks reliability 8/ At no time during or prior to the Agency's investigation had any complaints been received against Dr. Murtha.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED: That a final ordered be entered dismissing with prejudice the complaint filed against the Respondent in DOAH Case No. 96-0567. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM A. BUZZETT, 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 20th day of June, 1996.
