The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to derive at least 51 percent of its gross revenues from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages, in violation of Sections 561.20(2)(a)4 and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and failed to maintain its business records in English, in violation of Section 561.29(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61A-3.014(3), Florida Administrative Code. If so, an additional issue is what penalty the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco should impose.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has held license number 16-15136, series 4-COP SRX. Pursuant to this license, Respondent operated a Brazilian restaurant known as Flavor of Brazil at 4140 North Federal Highway in Fort Lauderdale. On July 20, 1999, a special agent of Petitioner inspected the restaurant to determine, among other things, the percentage of Respondent’s gross receipts derived from food and nonalcoholic beverages. In response to a request, the agent received large numbers of original customer tickets, which record the food and beverage items ordered by each customer. In response to a request to visit the agent at her office and provide a statement, the president of Respondent hand wrote a statement explaining: “Records were wiritten [sic] in Portuguese. Basically because most of our staff speak and write Portuguese (being that they are Brazilians). But this problem has already been corrected.” The customer tickets are written in a language other than English, presumably Portuguese. For a person unfamiliar with the language in which the customer tickets are written, it is impossible to determine from these customer tickets which items are alcoholic beverages and which items are food and nonalcoholic beverages. A 4COP-SRX Special Restaurant License form signed on January 26, 1999, by Respondent advises that the license requires that at least 51 percent of the gross revenues of the licensee must be derived from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. The form warns: “Since the burden is on the holder of the special restaurant license to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for the license, the records required to be kept shall be legible, clear and in the English language.”
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)3 and revoking Respondent’s license without prejudice to Respondent's reapplying for another CRX special license at any time after 90 days following the effective date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 4th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3227 Kenneth W. Gieseking Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Flavor of Brazil 4768 North Citation Drive, No. 106 Delray Beach, Florida 33445
The Issue The issues presented are those set forth in a notice to show cause filed by Petitioner against Respondents in Case No. AY-74-87-0201. In particular, it is alleged that on March 16, 1988, October 21, 1988 and February 24, 1989, that the Respondents or their agents, servants or employees sold alcoholic beverages to minors in violation of Sections 561.29, Florida Statutes and 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times which pertain to this Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint, Respondents were doing business at 238-240 Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida under the business name Speidi Shack and pursuant to a beverage license issued by Petitioner. That license number was and continues to be number 74-01802, Series 2-COP. On March 16, 1988, and again on October 21, 1988, Michael Vanorder, whose birthday is March 27, 1969, purchased a Light beer from employees of the Respondents in the licensed premises. On February 24, 1989, Tina May purchased a Light beer from an employee of the Respondents in the licensed premises. Her date of birth is August 4, 1968. The Light beers that were purchased by those two individuals are alcoholic beverages. In the incident of March 16, 1988, Vanorder entered the licensed premises as an underage operative of the Petitioner. The purpose of underage operatives is to assist the Petitioner in investigations to ascertain whether suspected alcoholic beverage license holders will sell alcoholic beverages to minors. Vanorder was provided money from the Petitioner to purchase the alcoholic beverage if the licensees, their agents or employees would sell. Betty Warner and Tanya Pandarakis, who are Alcoholic Beverage Agents for Petitioner were in the bar and watched as Vanorder was asked by the bartender what Vanorder wanted. Vanorder indicated that he wanted a Light beer. Mark Barker, the bartender, brought a Light beer to Vanorder and accepted payment for that beer. In this purchase, Vanorder was not asked to produce any identification nor was he asked how old he was. Vanorder was under instructions from Petitioner's agents to validly respond to any questions about his age and to provide accurate identification in support of his remarks. The beer that he was given had been opened by the bartender. These events occurred around 8:35 p.m. The beer that was purchased was then given from Vanorder to Warner. Barker was then arrested by Warner and another Alcoholic Beverage Agent, Fred Dunbar, for selling alcoholic beverages to a minor. The arrest occurred when Dunbar entered the licensed premises following the sale and identified himself as an Alcoholic Beverage Agent. Prior to leaving the premises on that occasion, Respondent John M. Macker was told of the arrest and why an investigation had been made in the first place about suspected sales to minors in the licensed premises. Macker came the next day to meet with Dunbar at the invitation of Dunbar. Macker was told that a complaint file would remain open and that underage operatives would continue to be sent into the licensed premises to see if Macker had corrected the problem of selling to underage patrons. Respondent Macker promised that he would have closer supervision and would give training to his employees about proper identification techniques for sales of alcoholic beverages in the licensed premises. An official notice was given to the Respondents, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 which was admitted into evidence. That notice is dated March 17, 1988 and is issued from Dunbar and is acknowledged as having been received by Respondent Macker. It identifies the facts of the sale to a minor and the arrest of Mark Barker and warns Respondents that if the violation occurs again, that Respondents could be charged with the violation of March 16, 1988 and any future violations. Throughout this warning phase associated with the sale of March 16, 1988 Respondent Macker was cooperative in his attitude. As forecast, Petitioner sent Vanorder back into the licensed premises on October 21, 1988 to see if Respondents, their agents, servants or employees would sell him alcoholic beverages. Beverage Agent John Szabo, Agent Dunbar, Lt. Powell and Vanorder went to the licensed premises on that evening. Their activities at the licensed premises commenced around 8:55 p.m. At this time, there were around 10-20 patrons in the bar. Szabo went in first and sat down at the bar and ordered a beer. Vanorder came in some 2-3 minutes later and sat down at the bar. A white female bartender who was identified later as Beth Ann Marsden approached Vanorder and asked him what she could get for him. He asked for a Bud Light. The bartender went to the cooler and came back with an open can of Bud Light and said that the cost of that beer would be $1.25. Vanorder paid her and she gave him back change. Vanorder then went outside the licensed premises and gave the beer to Dunbar. During the course of this purchase, Vanorder was not asked his age or asked for any form of identification which would demonstrate his age. As before, Vanorder was prepared to show a valid identification and give his correct age. After Dunbar was given the beer, he came into the licensed premises and he and Szabo confronted the bartender with the fact that she had sold beer to an underaged patron. They asked if the owner was on the premises and she said that he was not. The bartender was then charged with selling to a minor. She was given a Notice of Appearance for October 25, 1988 which constituted of a letter of final warning to the licensee. A third phase of the investigation occurred on February 24, 1989 when Tina May, an underaged operative for the Petitioner assisted in the investigation of sales to minors. Around 10:50 p.m., Officer Szabo, Beverage Officer Sullivan and Tina May went to the licensed premises. Szabo went in the bar first. One customer was in the bar. Szabo asked for a beer and was asked for his identification and showed his license and was served a beer. Before Tina May entered the license premises, she had been instructed to dress in normal attire and to carry her drivers license and to tell the truth about her age and to give the correct identification. Once inside the licensed premises, May sat where she could be seen by Officer Szabo. The other patron left the bar. Around 11:00 p.m., May was approached by Beth Ann Marsden who asked May what she wanted. May replied that she wanted a Bud Light. The bartender asked for identification and a driver's license was produced which showed May to be underage. Marsden was seen to count on her fingers when shown the identification. She opened up a Bud Light beer for May and gave it to her and said that the price of the beer was $1.25. May gave her $5.00 and received change. She then gave the beer to Szabo. Szabo then told the bartender that he was a Beverage Officer. Marsden recognized Szabo from the prior incident with Vanorder on October 21, 1988. Marsden told Szabo that May was 21 years old. Szabo got the driver's license from May and showed it to the bartender who admitted that she had made a mistake and that she didn't look at the month of the birth. She had only looked at the year, 1968. Out of this incident, an Official Notice was prepared, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. It sets out the violations of March 16, 1988, October 21, 1988 and February 24, 1989 and the intention of the Petitioner to file administrative charges against the Respondents for sales to minors. Since the Respondents were not there, the list was left with a Rosemarie Savini. That notice was served on November 2, 1989. Before the time of the final hearing in this case, the sole ownership of the licensed premises had been left with John M. Macker. Linda F. Williams no longer is involved with the license in question. Respondent Macker's principle business is that of a commercial fisherman. During the pendency of this investigation, he was gone a lot from his licensed premises because of his other work and relied on his employees to act appropriately concerning sales to minors. In the period 1985 until January, 1989, he had not experienced problems with this. He had posted notices around the bar about sales to minors and had instructed his employees about being careful not to sell to minors. He has calendars from beer distributors which assist in ascertaining the age of minors. March 16, 1988 was Barker's first day on the job, as was October 21, 1988 the first day on the job for Beth Ann Marsden. His instructions to his employees was to check identification if people did not look at least in their fifties or older than Respondent. Since these events, Respondent has taken more detailed steps and placed other signs to avoid sales to minors. He doesn't wish these problems to occur again and regrets that they happened on this occasion. On the other hand, he did not ask for help from the Petitioner after the October 21, 1988 incident as was offered. Following the third sale, he has moved into the licensed premises to maintain better control of the circumstance. No other incidents were reported to have occurred beyond that adjustment concerning sales to minors.
Recommendation Having considered the facts, and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which fines the Respondents in the amount of $500 for these violations. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 19th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2457 Those facts as suggested by the Petitioner are subordinate to facts found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John B. Fretwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John M. Macker 238-240 North Atlantic Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
The Issue The ultimate issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for a special (SRX) restaurant alcoholic beverage license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony of the witness at the hearing, and on the exhibits received in evidence at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Stipulated Facts The special restaurant license is sought for the Brass Elephant Restaurant within the corporate limits of the City of Sanibel, Florida. The restaurant is located on a 7.7-acre parcel of property adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. The restaurant is located within a resort complex known as the Sanibel Island Hilton. Seating within the restaurant itself is limited to 100 seats by court order and zoning regulations of the City of Sanibel. No bar is maintained within the restaurant itself. The Brass Elephant Restaurant derives more than 51 percent of its revenue from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. The Brass Elephant Restaurant has in excess of 2,500 square feet of service area. The Sanibel Island Hilton is being operated as a first-class destination resort. Hilton Corporation has stringent constraints on the operation of such a resort and has made special exceptions for this resort in light of the special zoning and building restrictions imposed by the City of Sanibel on the resort area; these special exceptions allow, inter alia, separate buildings and outside walkways. The restaurant in question is an accessory use to the Hilton Hotel, and is not an autonomous restaurant. There is no separate sign advertising the restaurant as an individual entity. Access can only be gained from the hotel grounds. By virtue of the development permit issued by the City of Sanibel, the Hilton is precluded from operating a saloon, lounge or restaurant separate and apart from its food service operation. Additional Facts Proved at Hearing The Petitioner also has a banquet facility on the premises known as the "Commodore Suite." It is located approximately 250 feet from the Brass Elephant. Meals for the Commodore Suite are prepared at the kitchen facility in the Brass Elephant. On many occasions patrons of the Commodore Suite have been served at tables simultaneously with those in the Brass Elephant, thereby making the total patrons served at one time at the two locations more than 150. The Petitioner has available on the resort premises all of the necessary equipment to serve more than 150 persons at one time in the Brass Elephant, though the City of Sanibel prohibits it from having more than 100 seats in the restaurant. In addition to the restaurant and the banquet room, there is also a pool bar on the Petitioner's resort premises. The restaurant, pool bar, and banquet room are physically separate from each other. The distance between the restaurant and the banquet room is approximately 250 feet and the distance between the restaurant and pool bar is about the same. There are no separate walkways from the various buildings to the restaurant. To walk from the restaurant to the banquet room, one has to walk across a street, part of a parking lot, and around or under one of the other buildings at the resort. To walk from the pool bar to the restaurant or the banquet room, one has to walk around or through another building. The foregoing paragraphs numbered 1 through 16 comprise all of the findings of fact in this case. Such findings include the substance of all of the findings proposed by the Petitioner and the substance of the vast majority of the facts proposed by the Respondent. To the extent I have not made certain proposed findings of fact, such proposed findings are irrelevant and immaterial to the issues to be decided in this case.
Recommendation For all of the reasons set forth above, I recommend that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a Final Order denying the application of Shell Harbor Group, Inc., for a special restaurant liquor license. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 1st day of May, 1985.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Respondent violated Section 562.12(1), Florida Statutes, by selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not authorized by law and/or maintaining a place where alcoholic beverages were sold unlawfully; (2) Whether Respondent violated Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, by failing to comply with the terms set forth in a prior Final Order of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; and (3) If so, what sanctions should be imposed against Respondent's alcoholic beverage licenses.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Easy Way of Lee County, Inc., d/b/a Hollywood Underground, holds a bottle club license number 46- 03606, issued by the Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Department/Division) and has held such license since June 1995. Under this license, Respondent operates a bottle club known as Hollywood Underground (the licensed premises/the premises or Hollywood Underground) located at 16440 South Tamiami Trail, Unit 1, Fort Myers, Florida. At all times relevant to this action, Mattheos Milonas was the director, president, secretary, and treasurer of Easy Way of Lee County, Inc., d/b/a Hollywood Underground, and the holder of the above-referenced alcoholic beverage license. On or about February 12, 1999, Peggy Duffala, a special agent with the Department, organized an undercover on-site investigation of Hollywood Underground, based on a complaint that Respondent was in violation of certain laws pertaining to the sale of alcoholic beverages without a proper license. On February 12, 1999, Agent Duffala, and two other special agents of the Department, Agent David Perez and Agent Patrick McEnroe, went to the licensed premises to further the investigation. When Agent Duffala arrived, she conducted surveillance in the parking lot of the licensed premises for approximately one and a half hours. During that time, Agent Duffala observed patrons entering and exiting the premises, but saw no patrons entering the premises carrying alcoholic beverages or containers of any kind in their hands. On February 12, 1999, at or near 2:30 a.m., acting in an undercover capacity, Agent Perez and Agent McEnroe entered the licensed premises. Upon entering the premises, Agent Perez paid a $5.00 cover charge and received a wristband. Perez brought no alcohol into the premises with him on that evening. Once inside the licensed premises, Agent Perez went to the bar where he was approached by bartender Norman Vanderbiest. After Vanderbiest asked him what he would like, Agent Perez ordered a Budweiser beer. Vanderbiest retrieved the beer from the cooler behind the bar and gave Agent Perez the beer. After Perez asked how much the Budweiser cost, Vanderbiest responded, "$3.00." Agent Perez then gave $3.00 to Vanderbiest, who subsequently rang up the sale and placed the money in the cash register. At no time during the transaction described in paragraph 6 did Vanderbiest ask Agent Perez if he had brought any alcoholic beverages with him to the licensed premises. In fact, Agent Perez had not brought any alcoholic beverages into the licensed premises on August 12, 1999. Furthermore, prior to February 12, 1999, Agent Perez had never visited the licensed premises, and thus, had never taken any alcoholic beverages there. After Agent Perez purchased the Budweiser beer, he moved from the main bar area to the west end of the bar where he remained for about ten minutes. While situated at the west end of the bar, Agent Perez observed several patrons approach the bar and speak with Vanderbiest. Agent Perez was unable to hear what was being said but he observed Vanderbiest serve each patron an alcoholic beverage. After receiving the alcoholic beverages, each patron would then give Vanderbiest money. At no time during these transactions did Agent Perez observe patrons present cards to Vanderbiest to punch. Furthermore, Agent Perez did not see Vanderbiest check a logbook before he served alcoholic beverages to those patrons. From the west end of the bar, Agent Perez saw 10 to 15 patrons entering the licensed premises. During that time, Agent Perez observed that none of the patrons entering the premises brought alcoholic beverages with them. Agent Patrick McEnroe entered the premises on February 12, 1999, at about 2:30 a.m. Upon entering the premises, Agent McEnroe paid a $5.00 cover charge. Agent McEnroe brought no alcoholic beverages into the licensed premises with him nor did he receive a ticket or card to be punched. Once inside the premises, Agent McEnroe went to the bar and ordered a Bud Light beer from bartender, Norman Vanderbiest. Vanderbiest informed Agent McEnroe that the cost was $3.00, then retrieved a Bud Light beer from the cooler and handed it to Agent McEnroe. Agent McEnroe gave the bartender $3.00 for the beer. Agent McEnroe purchased three bottles of beer that evening. In none of these transactions did Vanderbiest ask Agent McEnroe if he brought any beer with him nor did he ask Agent McEnroe for a card to be punched. Later that evening, after Agents Perez and McEnroe exited the premises, Division agents, assisted by the Lee County Sheriff's Office, entered and raided the premises. During the raid, agents seized 571 containers of alcoholic beverages, $315.00 in cash from the cash register, and two notebooks. One of the notebooks seized was a log book containing entries listing alleged patrons' names along with an alcoholic beverage type, a number assigned to the beverage, and a date. The last entry in the log book was made on February 6, 1999, six days prior to the raid. Neither Agent Perez nor Agent McEnroe was listed in the logbooks. During the raid, Division agents entered the premises and arrested the manager of the club. Subsequently, the manager pled guilty in the Lee County Circuit Court to the criminal charge of keeping or maintaining a place, the licensed premises, that sold alcoholic beverages without a proper license on February 12, 1999. The licensed premises had procedures that governed how employees of Hollywood Underground were to accept and distribute beer and liquor brought into the premises by patrons. When a patron brought beer into the licensed premises, an employee of the club was to write on a card the number and kind of beer that the patron brought to the premises. Once this information was recorded on the card, the employee would give the card to the patron. After the club employee accepted the beer from and issued the card to the patron, in order for the patron to retrieve one or more of the beers, the patron was to present the card to the bartender. The bartender was to then give the patron the requested number of beers and punch the card the corresponding number of times, thereby indicating to both the bartender and patron the number of beers the patron had been given and how many remained. To facilitate ease in the dispensing of the beer, like brands of beer were commingled and placed in a cooler with other containers of identical brands. No attempt was made to designate or label containers of beer by the patrons who brought them into the premises. With regard to liquor, the policy of Hollywood Underground was that bottles of liquor brought in by patrons were to be identified in a manner to ensure that patrons were served liquor only from the bottles that they brought to the premises. In accordance with this policy, when a patron brought a bottle of liquor into the licensed premises, an employee of the club was to put a label on each bottle and write a number on the label. Next, in a log book, the employee was to write the number designated on the club's label, the kind of liquor, and the name of the patron who brought in that bottle of liquor. On February 12, 1999, these policies were not implemented by employees of the licensed premises as evidenced by the transactions involving Agents Perez and McEnroe. In the fall of 1998, Tom Lloyd, a videographer for Channel 6 television, followed Division agents into the licensed premises for purposes of an undercover television news story regarding illegal sale of alcoholic beverages by Respondent. Lloyd did not bring any alcoholic beverages with him to the licensed premises. Nevertheless, while sitting at the bar, Lloyd was approached by a bartender who solicited an order from Lloyd for an alcoholic beverage. Lloyd requested a rum and coke and was sold a rum and coke for $4.00 by the bartender. Prior to the Administrative Action which is the subject of this proceeding, three other administrative actions have been filed against Hollywood Underground for violations of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. All of the three previously filed administrative actions resulted in disciplinary action against Respondent's license. Respondent was charged in two separate administrative actions (DBPR Case Nos. 46-95-0582 and 46-95-0089) with selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not permitted by license, in violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. These two cases were resolved by combined Consent Order (Final Order No. BPR-96-02540), wherein Respondent paid a $5,000 civil penalty and agreed that its "agents, servants, or employees would not sell or supply alcoholic beverages to any person other than the patron who brought such alcoholic beverages onto the premises." Respondent also agreed to diligently "ensure that no alcoholic beverage would be dispensed to any person that did not bring such alcoholic beverage onto the premises." In DBPR Case No. 46-97-0890, Respondent was charged for the third time with selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not permitted by license, a violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. This case was resolved by Consent Order (Final Order No. BPR-98-06888), wherein Respondent paid a $7,500 civil penalty and agreed to take corrective action regarding the unlawful sale of alcohol on the premises. Respondent agreed to prevent further occurrences of violations of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. In paragraph 6 of the Consent Order, Respondent agreed and acknowledged that revocation of its alcoholic beverage license would be the appropriate sanction for any subsequent administrative action against the Respondent's license alleging failure of the Respondent to comply with the beverage laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Action; that Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 39-01181 be revoked; and that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $1,000 per count for a total of $2,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Julius F. Parker, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkerson, Bell and Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent failed to maintain separate records of purchases and gross sales of all alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and food in violation of Section 561.20, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141, and if so, what penalty, if any, is appropriate. (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated. Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect of the date of this Recommended Order).
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license number 69-02639, series 4COP SRX. An SRX license authorizes Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of Jon's Bar & Grill, located at 2485 N. Highway 17-92, Lake Monroe, Florida ("the licensed premises"). Persons issued "SRX" licenses must meet certain statutory requirements to ensure that they are operating bona fide restaurants. Among other requirements, Respondent must maintain separate records of all purchases and gross sales of all alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and food. Respondent's license application specifically informed Respondent that he must meet the specific requirements of this type of license. On March 17, 1997, Petitioner's Special Agent Richard Hurlburt met with Respondent for the purpose of conducting an SRX inspection to determine Respondent's compliance with SRX license requirements. An SRX inspection includes an audit of the licensee's records to determine the percentage of gross revenue derived from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. Respondent was unable to produce the records he is statutorily required to maintain. Agent Hurlburt issued a notice to produce records relating to the operation of the restaurant. On August 12, 1997, Petitioner issued a notice of administrative complaint against Respondent for failure to maintain separate records of all purchases and gross sales for non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages and food in violation of Section 561.20. Respondent has not produced the records he is statutorily required to maintain.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a $1,000 civil penalty against Respondent and revoking alcoholic beverage license no. 69-02639, series 4COP SRX, without prejudice to obtain any other type license, but with prejudice to obtain another SRX special license for 5 years from date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon county, Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 George Lewis, Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jon Gustafson, pro se 956 Lake Ashby Road New Smyrna, Florida 32069
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, alcoholic beverage license No. 26-01841, Series No. 2-APS, was issued to Respondents, Frank D. and Estella S. Ryers, for their establishment known as the Big B Restaurant, located at 5570 Avenue B, Jacksonville, Florida. A 2-APS license permits the package sale only of beer and wine. It does not permit the consumption on the premises of beer, wine, or liquor. On March 27, 1983, Investigator Wendell M. Reeves conducted an undercover operation directed against the Big B Restaurant predicated upon reports received by Petitioner that Respondents were conducting sales of alcoholic beverages not permitted by the license at the licensed premises. In furtherance of that operation, Reeves utilized another beverage agent, Van Young, in an undercover capacity to make a controlled buy of an improperly sold substance from the licensees. Prior to sending Young into the licensed premises, Reeves searched Young to ensure that he, Young, had no alcoholic beverage or money in his possession. Satisfying himself that that was the case, he gave Young $15 in U.S. currency and sent him into the licensed premises to make the buy. Young entered the Big B Restaurant at 1:00 p.m. and came out 17 minutes later. When he came out of the licensed premises, Young came over to where Reeves was waiting and turned over to him a sealed 200 ml bottle of Fleishman's Gin. Young told Reeves that he had purchased the gin in the licensed premises from a black male whose description matched that of Respondent Frank D. Byers which is contained on Respondent's application for license. Respondent Frank Byers denies making the sale. On balance, however, there is little doubt it was Respondent who made the sale, especially in light of the fact that this same licensee was issued a letter of warning by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in October 1981 for possession on the premises of an alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold under the license. Young also stated that he purchased a second bottle which he consumed on the premises with another black male. However, this evidence was in the form of Reeves' report of what was told him by Young. As such, it is clearly hearsay and can be used only to corroborate or explain other admissible evidence. Therefore, as to the allegation regarding the consumption of the gin on the premises, since it is the only evidence of that offense, it cannot be used to support a finding of fact on that allegation. It may, however, be used to explain how Young got the bottle with which he was seen by Reeves to come out of the licensed premises. Several days later, on March 30, 1983, Reeves again entered the licensed premises, where he told Respondent Estella Byers he was there to inspect the site. She opened the cooler for him and he inspected the beer inside and the cigarettes. While he was doing that, however, he noticed her take a cloth towel and drape it over something behind the bar. He went over to it, removed the towel, and found that it covered a bottle of Schenley's gin. Mrs. Byers immediately said she thought it was her husband's, Respondent Frank Byers, but another individual present at the time, Sharon Thomas, said she had taken it from her brother, who was drunk, and had put it there. Again, as to Ms. Thomas' comments, they, too, are hearsay and can only serve here to explain or corroborate other admissible evidence. In any case, after Ms. Thomas made her comment, she was immediately contradicted by Respondent Estella Byers, who again indicated she thought the bottle was her husband's. In any case, at the hearing, Respondent Estella Byers contended she did not know it was there. On balance, Mr. Reeves' testimony that she covered it with a towel while he was inspecting and the evidence of the prior warning for an identical offense tend to indicate she did know it was there and that it was unlawful for it to be there. There is, however, no evidence to establish sufficiently the reason for its being there.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether the Respondent, Kindred, Inc., d/b/a Raceway Café, should be disciplined for: in Case No. 98-5046 (DBPR Administrative Action Case No. CL-62- 980016), alleged failure to maintain a bona fide restaurant as required of special restaurant (SRX) licensees by Section 561.20(2)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141; and, in Case No. 98-5515 (DBPR Administrative Action Case No. CL-62-9800159), alleged failure to produce records as required of SRX licensees by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.014.
Findings Of Fact On or about June 26, 1998, the Respondent, Kindred, Inc., applied for a series 4-COP (consumption on premises) special restaurant alcoholic beverage (SRX) license and obtained a temporary 4-COP SRX license (number 62-09319) for the Raceway Café, located at 12670 Starkey Road, Largo, Pinellas County, Florida. The Respondent opened for business on July 2, 1998. On July 13, 1998, at approximately 1:30 p.m., DABT Special Agent Paul Cohen entered licensed premises to inspect and verify compliance with SRX license requirements. It was Cohen's impression that the Raceway Café had adequate service area (over 2,500 square feet) but that there were not enough seating and table settings to serve 150 diners at one time and that the Raceway Café was not a bona fide restaurant. Cohen left and returned at approximately 4:00 p.m. with an intern and a camcorder to video the premises and inspect in detail--i.e., count tables, chairs, plates, and eating utensils. The Respondent's sole owner, Marouane Elhajoui, was present in the premises at the time of the detailed inspection. The evidence was clear that Elhajoui knew the purpose of Cohen's inspection and completely understood the SRX requirements. (He had another SRX license for other premises.) Cohen first videotaped the outside and inside of the licensed premises. Cohen and the intern then counted tables and chairs and found that the licensed premises contained seating for a maximum of 122 people. Of these seats, approximately 80% were bar stools, and there was not enough table space to serve full- course meals at all 122 seats. Several of the bar stools were at the bar counter, which was cluttered with video game machines, and several cocktail tables were too small to accommodate full- course meals for all four or five bar stools placed at those tables. Elhajoui told Cohen about a grand opening celebration that had taken place on the premises on July 11 and 12, 1998. Elhajoui explained that restaurant tables and chairs had been removed from the premises and stored in an adjacent, empty storefront to accommodate a live band and dance floor for the grand opening. Elhajoui told Cohen that, if Cohen would wait, Elhajoui could replace the tables and chairs and have adequate seating in a matter of minutes. Cohen did not dispute Elhajoui's claim or ask to see the stored tables and chairs. He declined the request to wait a few minutes and Elhajoui's offer to replace the tables and chairs. Cohen testified to having no recollection of any conversation with Elhajoui concerning a grand opening, the removal of tables and chairs, or their storage in an empty storefront next door. While raising a question as to Cohen's truthfulness on this point, it could be that Cohen did not recall the conversation because he did not attach great importance to the circumstances explaining why there was inadequate seating at the time of his inspection. After Elhajoui told Cohen that there were more than 150 place-settings in the restaurant, Cohen and the intern were able to count only approximately 75 forks, 96 spoons, and 75 plates. Elhajoui testified that Cohen and the intern did not count either baskets or wooden plates also used to serve meals and did not count eating utensils in boxes in a cabinet under a counter in the kitchen. But Cohen specifically asked Elhajoui to show him all of the plates and eating utensils in the restaurant so that his count would be accurate and fair to the Respondent, and Cohen and the intern counted everything Elhajoui showed them. When Cohen told Elhajoui that he did not have enough plates and utensils, Elhajoui pointed to the "line" and asked if Cohen had counted what was there; Cohen indicated that he had counted those items. Elhajoui never specified any utensils in boxes in the cabinet under the counter. If they were there at the time, it is inexplicable that Elhajoui would not have made sure they were counted. Instead, upon completion of the inspection, Elhajoui read and signed without explanation or excuse an inspection report indicating that there were inadequate plates and eating utensils. It is found that Cohen's count was accurate. It can be inferred based on the facts on July 13, 1998, that the Raceway Café did not have capacity to serve 150 meals at one time at any time between opening on July 2 and July 13, 1998. No such inference can be drawn from the evidence after July 13, 1998. Besides alleging inadequate seating and place settings, Cohen also alleged that the Respondent was not operating a bona fide restaurant. The question whether the Raceway Café is a bona fide restaurant cannot be answered simply by counting tables and chairs and place settings. This allegation raises the more nebulous question of when can a bar be a restaurant, and when does a restaurant become a bar? Cohen based his allegation of "bad faith" on several factors. Starting from the outside, there was a temporary sign advertising drink specials but no food. (Elhajoui explained that the sign was owned and controlled by the shopping center and was advertising for the grand opening; he stated that it usually displayed meal specials.) A sign on the building seemed to describe the Raceway Café as a "Sports Lounge," but being (or having) a "sports lounge" may not necessarily turn a restaurant into a bar. There were neon beer signs in the windows, but they also are not uncommon in bona fide restaurants. Inside the building, there is a rather large bar, and Cohen perceived it to be especially prominent on entering the premises; but there are two other entrances that are not so close to the bar. Cohen was not greeted by a host or hostess or, he thought, any instructions regarding restaurant seating, which he considered normal in a bona fide restaurant; but Cohen overlooked a theme-sign incorporated in a parking meter which stood near one of the other entrances and invited customers to seat themselves. Cohen also overlooked a "chalkboard" used to advertise daily specials common in restaurants. Cohen also noted that there were three dart boards in the bar area, juke boxes, and more theme decorations (a Harley Davidson motorcycle in a corner of the licensed premises, and plans to hang a race car--or at least the side panel of a race car body--from the ceiling), but none of those things in themselves are incompatible with a bona fide restaurant. Finally, Cohen only observed food consumption on one of his visits. But his only extended visit was at 4:00 p.m. on July 13, 1998, and none of the other visits were during normal meal times. Cohen made no mention of the full meal menu that has been used at Raceway Café since its opening. In truth, Cohen's allegation of "bad faith" probably was influenced by his finding of inadequate numbers of tables and chairs and place settings. Cohen returned to the licensed premises on July 14, 1998, to serve DBPR Administrative Action Case No. CL-62-980016. He made no observations on July 14, 1998, that he could recall. Elhajoui and his witness testified without contradiction that the Respondent had enough seating and place settings to serve at least 150 meals at one time on and after July 14, 1998. They also testified without contradiction that the signage advertised meal specials. Cohen returned to the licensed premises on September 2, 1998, to serve a notice to produce all records documenting gross sales of alcoholic beverages and food and non-alcoholic beverages (including source documents--i.e., guest checks) for July and August 1998. Production was required to be made by September 12, 1998, at DABT offices in Clearwater, Florida. Cohen made no observations on September 2, 1998, that he could recall. Elhajoui testified that he attempted to deliver the records on Monday, September 7, 1998, but that the DABT offices were closed for Labor Day. The next day, he telephoned DABT to advise that he had attempted to deliver the records and was told that DABT would be mailing him something he understood to be another administrative complaint. It is doubtful that such a conversation took place since there still were four days in which the Respondent could comply with the notice to produce. The Respondent never produced the requested documentation, and on September 30, 1998, returned to the licensed premises, to serve DBPR Administrative Action Case No. CL-62-9800159. Cohen made no observations on September 30, 1998, that he could recall. The Respondent produced documentation at final hearing establishing that 51.63% of its gross sales in July 1998 and 51.28% of its gross sales in August 1998 were food and non- alcoholic beverages. Based on all the evidence presented, it is found that DABT failed to prove that Raceway Café is not a bona fide restaurant except to the extent that its meal service capacity was inadequate from July 2 through July 13, 1998.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order imposing a $1,000 fine and revoking the Respondent's temporary SRX license without prejudice to obtain any other type license, but with prejudice to obtain the same type of special license for 5 years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam S. Wilkinson Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 2nd day of June, 1999. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph N. Perlman, Esquire Belcher Place 1101 Belcher Road, South Largo, Florida 33771 Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact In December, 1982, DABT issued an alcoholic beverage license (Lic. no. 15-1163, Series 4-COP SRX) under its SRX classification to respondent to operate a restaurant with liquor sales on the premises. The restaurant was known as "Thee Doll House Beach," at 199 East Cocoa Beach Causeway, in Cocoa Beach, Florida. A requirement of the license was that revenue from sales of alcoholic beverages equal or exceed 51 percent of gross sales. Respondent opened "Thee Doll House Beach" for business in January, 1983. The business operated as a buffet restaurant, with a fixed-price, "all- you-can-eat" menu. Meals consisted of a hot entree, chosen from baked ham, roast beef and turkey; a selection of four or five hot vegetables; a large salad bar; two soups; and a desert tray, with pies, pastries and cakes. The business also offered alcoholic beverages for sale in the restaurant and at a bar. A "Las Vegas-style" show was presented nightly at eight o'clock, although the restaurant opened at noon. The first month's (January 1983) sales of food only reached 40.6 percent of gross sales, and subsequent efforts of the respondent to reach 51 percent were never successful. The initial price of a buffet meal was $4.95 per person, which attracted a sizeable number of patrons, many of them senior citizens. However, the respondent found that due to the extensive food menu and the cost of preparation and service, it was losing money on each meal sold. So it increased its meal price to $5.95, which resulted in a drastic drop in business, apparently due to the inability of senior citizens to pay the higher price. It was in this particular group that the most noticeable decrease in attendance occurred. The respondent took various steps to increase its food sales. "Early- bird" specials were introduced at a lower price; extensive newspaper, radio and television advertising was utilized to promote the buffet. Nevertheless, at the end of 1983, the business had shown an overall food sales of only 31 percent. Monthly percentage figures are as follows: DATE FOOD/NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERCENTAGE ALCOHOLIC PERCENTAGE January 1983 40.5 59.5 February 1983 27.1 72.9 March 1983 37.3 62.7 April 1983 33.5 66.5 May 1983 31.9 68.1 June 1983 29.1 70.9 July 1983 27.5 72.5 August 1983 23.9 76.1 September 1983 24.1 75.9 October 1983 23.4 76.6 November 1983 23.6 76.4 December 1983 23.3 76.7 The respondent's problems were compounded by the fact that it was operating in a difficult, if not depressed market, where financial conditions had limited the discretionary income available to restaurant-going consumers. Other restaurants in the area were having to cut back operations or terminate business altogether. During the year in question, the respondent held itself out to be a restaurant, not a lounge, and its primary emphasis in advertising, in its internal business operation and in its physical layout, emphasized food sales as opposed to liquor sales. During the time period in question the price of a meal at Thee Doll House Beach was significantly below its fair market value. The respondent attempted to increase its food sales by lowering prices, which, in turn, decreased the percentage of gross food sales. According to the evidence, a reasonable price for the menu offered, based on a comparison with other restaurants in Central Florida, would have been $8-$10. Using those price figures, the percentage of food sales to gross revenues at Thee Doll House Beach would have exceeded 60 percent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's beverage license be revoked but that such action be vacated if respondent surrenders its license for cancellation within 10 days of entry of DABT's final order. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of August, 1984, 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 August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard L. Wilson, Esquire 1212 East Ridgewood Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is responsible for administering Florida laws respecting the sale of alcoholic beverages. Sales of alcoholic beverages are regulated in Florida through a licensing system. "Liquor" licenses authorize licensees to sell alcoholic beverages without regard to alcoholic content. Various categories of liquor licenses are issued by the Respondent. The two categories most pertinent to this proceeding are "quota" licenses and "restaurant" licenses. Quota licenses are available on the basis of one license per 2,500 in population for each county which permits such licenses (Some counties have different quotas established by Special Acts of the Legislature.). The term "quota" is derived from the fact that the issuing formula is based upon the decennial Federal census, and thus only a finite number of licenses are available. Section 561.20(1), Florida Statutes. Restaurant licenses are an exception to the quota scheme and are not limited in number. They are available to "any restaurant having 2,500 square feet of service area and equipped to serve 150 persons full-course meals at one time, and deriving at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages." Section 561.20(2)(a)3, Florida Statutes. There are approximately 3,000 outstanding quota licenses, and 2,000 outstanding restaurant licenses. Depending upon the specific terms of the license, quota license holders are authorized to sell liquor for off premises consumption. These are called "package" sales. Prior to the adoption of the amendment to Rule 7A-3.16, restaurant licenses issued after January 1, 1958, did not authorize package sales. Prior to the adoption of the amendment, the rule Provided: No licensee holding a special restaurant license issued after January 1, 1958, may sell alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption other than as may be Provided by special act. The prefix "SRX" shall be made a part of the license numbers of all special restaurant licenses issued after January 1, 1958, distinguishing them in identity from other licenses. The amendment which is the subject of this proceeding deleted the underlined portion of the rule. The effect of the amendment is to permit holders of restaurant licenses to make package sales so long as other criteria pertaining to the licenses are met. The Petitioner is a publicly owned Florida corporation which does business in Florida and five other states. Petitioner is engaged in the business of selling alcoholic beverages for on and off premises consumption. The majority of its business activities are in Florida, and Florida package sales represent more than half of the Petitioner's total business volume nationwide. The Petitioner holds forty-tow quota licenses issued by the Respondent. Quota licenses are transferable; and since they are limited in number, their market value frequently far exceeds the fees imposed by the Respondent. The market value of quota licenses held by the Petitioner in Dade and Broward Counties, Florida, is nearly two million dollars. The Petitioner's business is a very competitive one. When the petitioner is considering whether to invest in a new location, numerous factors are considered. These include demographics, traffic patterns, population, zoning, and the number and location of competitors. The number and location of competitors is the single most important factor. Since package sales constitute a majority of the Petitioner's business volume, the proximity of competitors who offer package sales is paramount. Because under the Respondent's rules restaurant licensees have been prohibited from making package sales, the location of restaurant licensees has not been of concern to the petitioner in determining where to locate. The Petitioner may have made different judgments about numerous of its locations if nearby restaurants were able to make package sales in competition with the Petitioner. No specific evidence was introduced from which it could be determined which if any of the Petitioner's locations would not have been opened, or which will suffer a competitive disadvantage as a result of the amendment to Rule 7A-3.16. Indeed, implementation of the amendment to the rule has been stayed by the courts, and no determination can be made as to which restaurant licensees might avail themselves of the opportunity of making package sales, and to what extent. The market value of the Petitioner's quota licenses and competition for the Petitioner's business outlets are affected by licensing considerations apart from whether restaurant licensees will be permitted to make package sales. As a result of the 1980 Federal census, numerous new quota licenses will be available in Dade and Broward Counties. These additional licenses, when issued, could have a substantial impact upon the value of the Petitioner's licenses, and the competitive advantages of the Petitioner's business locations. The Intervenor is the holder of a restaurant license issued by the Respondent. The amendment to Rule 7A-3.16 would permit the Intervenor to make package sales of alcoholic beverages. The economic impact statement adopted by the Respondent in support of its amendment to Rule 7A-3.16 provides in pertinent part as fellows: This rule will likely stimulate competition in the market place by permitting more outlets for off premises sale of alcoholic beverages. There would be no appreciable impact upon the state's revenue, but should there be any impact it is estimated that more liquor would be sold rather than less. Competition upon existing package stores would be in proportion to the proximity and competitive power of special restaurants permitted to sell by the package. In developing this statement, various officials within the Respondent met on several occasions to discuss the potential economic impact of the amendment to the rule, and representatives of the regulated industry were consulted. Hearings were conducted by the Respondent before the amendment was adopted. Representatives of the industry, including a representative of the Petitioner, appeared at hearings and stated their positions with respect to the amendment. The economic impact statement accurately portrays the potential economic impact of the amendment. It does not appear that the effect of competition upon existing package stores can be estimated with any precision. Indeed, the Petitioner did not present evidence and could not present evidence with respect to the precise impact that the amendment would have upon any of its locations.
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 14th of March, 1976, Pearlie Mae Smith, a licensed vendor, did have in her possession, permit or allow someone else, to wit: Junior Lee Smith, to have in their possession on the licensed premises, alcoholic beverages, to wit: 5 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to s. 562.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact On March 14, 1976, and up to and including the date of the hearing, the Respondent, Pearlie Mae Smith, held license no. 72-65, series 2-COP with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. The licensed premises is located at 1013 West Malloy Avenue, Perry, Florida. On the morning of March 14, 1976, Officer B.C. Maxwell with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage acting on an informant's information, searched the informant to determine if the informant had monies other than the money that the officer had given him or any alcoholic beverages on his person. Once the informant had been searched and it was determined that the informant was carrying with him only the money that the officer had given him to purchase alcoholic beverages, the informant was sent into the subject licensed premises. The informant returned with a half-pint bottle of alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold on the licensed premise and indicated that this purchase was made from one Junior Lee Smith. Later in the morning, around 11:30, officers of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage entered the licensed premises and an inspection of those premises revealed a bag containing 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka in the kitchen area of the licensed premises. This bag and contents were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit #2. The 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka are alcoholic beverages which are not allowed to be sold under the series 2-COP license on the subject premises. When the officers entered, the same Junior Lee Smith was in the licensed premises and indicated that he was in charge of the licensed premises and had been selling alcoholic beverages for "quite some time" together with his wife, Pearlie Mae Smith, the licensee. The bag he indicated, had been whiskey that had been left over from the night before.
Recommendation It is recommended that based upon the violation as established in the hearing that the licensee, Pearlie Mae Smith, have her beverage license suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Winson, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mrs. Pearlie Mae Smith 1013 West Malloy Avenue Perry, Florida
