The Issue Whether the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco is estopped from denying petitioner's application for a transfer of a special restaurant license.
Findings Of Fact In December, 1981, Applicant applied for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 23-02433, 4-COP SRX, a special restaurant license held by Charlies the Lakes Restaurant, Inc. & Willman Co.. DABT denied the application, contending that the licensed premises did not meet minimum seating or square footage requirements. (P-1, letter of denial dated April 8, 1982). The licensed premises, known as the Lakeside Cafe, is located at 6125 Miami Lakes Drive, Miami Lake percent, Florida. It has less than 4,000 square feet of service area and is able to seat less than 200 patrons at tables. (P-1, R-1 Stipulation of counsel) Applicant contends that since DABT granted a special restaurant license (4 COP-SRX) to the present and previous licensees, it is now estopped to deny the application. Although DABT has continuously granted such a license, license applicants have twice filed affidavits indicating that the licensed premises meets square footage and seating requirements. In 1976 and 1980 two separate applicants filed sworn affidavits stating that the licensed premises occupied 4,000 or more square feet of floor space and could accommodate 200 or more patrons at tables. On November 17, 1981, Applicant signed an agreement to purchase the licensed premises from the present licensee for $210,000.00. Under that agreement, the present licensee was required to transfer its interest in the beverage license to applicant. (P-3)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Applicant's application to transfer license No. 23-02433, 4-COP SRX, be DENIED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1982.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 562.12(1), Florida Statutes, and that she be given a $100 fine to be paid within fifteen days after the entry of a final order in this cause. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, 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 28th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Irene B. Wright 1655 East 21st Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Milan Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At about half past ten o'clock on the night of December 14, 1977, Daniel James Cobb, than a beverage officer under the supervision of Lieutenant Robert E. Baxley, arrived at the Mezzanine Lounge at the corner of Intendencia and South Palafox Streets in Pensacola. He entered through the south door, went upstairs, and sat down at a table. An Asain woman who said her name was Charlene asked him if he wanted a drink and asked him to buy a drink for her, which he did. Subsequently, he bought a bottle of champagne for $18.00, at her request. Other customers at other tables also bought drinks for this woman, who went from table to table, occasionally stopping to chat with Officer Cobb. She asked him if he wanted a "chick," offered her own sexual services for $50.00, and said that he could have two girls for $100.00. Officer Cobb left the premises alone about midnight. At approximately quarter past eight on the night of January 5, 1978, Officer Cobb returned to the Mezzanine Lounge. Again he went upstairs and sat at a table. After he had ordered a drink for himself, he bought a drink for a dancer who sat down at his table. A second dancer, a blonde known professionally as Gigi, came over and offered to dance "for tips." Gigi, who is also known as Christine Haney Hampton, performed an impromptu dance after Officer Cobb gave her $5.00. At Gigi's insistence, he then bought a bottle of champagne for $30.00, which Gigi opened. When she did, the cork ricocheted off the ceiling and hit Lieutenant Baxley, who had taken a seat at a nearby table. Lieutenant Baxley had arrived 15 or 30 minutes after Officer Cobb, and was drinking bourbon, when he was hit by the cork. Maintaining the pretense that they were strangers, Officer Cob invited Lieutenant Baxley to join him for champagne. Lieutenant Baxley accepted, struck up a conversation with Gigi, then left with Gigi for another table. Shortly thereafter Officer Cobb left the premises alone. Gigi said to Lieutenant Baxley, "If you buy me a bottle of champagne, we'll have a party." She told him she would do anything for $100.00. Lieutenant Baxley purchased a bottle of champagne for $30.00, and he also bought three flowers for Gigi for $2.00, at her request. At one point on the night of January 5, 1978, respondent Julie Schofield came upstairs. When asked, she said Gigi could not leave early. Respondents purchased the Mezzanine Lounge from a Mr. Aliberti some three years ago. At the time it was a topless bar. For the first three months they owned it, respondents did not operate it as a topless bar, but they "reverted." The dancers were topless on the nights of December 14, 1977, and January 5, 1978. Respondent Julie Schofield spent five nights a week at the Mezzanine Lounge during that period. Respondent Frank Joseph Schofield visited the premises daily. After Gigi had worked for respondents as a dancer for two or three months, respondents entered into an agreement with her husband, Harry Hampton, who undertook the management of the upstairs portion of the licensed premises, called the "Hideaway Lounge area." Mr. Schofield described the agreement in these words: "[M]y mark up percentage is 600 percent or as close as possible to it. any additional income may be disbursed as he sees fit. At the even- ings close Mr. Hampton gives me a sheet showing total liquor and bar sales for the evening. The cash for the evening is also turned in minus whatever cash disburs[e]ments were made. Most of the excess profit is derived from cocktail sales at 1000 percent mark up and bonus money is handed out from that by Mr. Hampton as determined by the number of drinks they had. This is approximately 30 percent of the drink price." Petitioner's exhibit No. 2. The more drinks the girls sold, the more money they made. Respondents terminated this agreement after hearing that Mr. Hampton was inviting bar patrons elsewhere for "exotic treats" and "personalized service." Respondents made no investigation of Mr. Hampton before hiring him. On January 18, 1978, Officer Cob and Lieutenant Baxley arrested Christine Hampton and the Asian woman who had identified herself as Charlene, who is also known as Phung Kim Holland. Although both women were charged criminally, neither was convicted. Ms. Holland was acquitted after trial by jury; Ms. Hampton pleaded nolo contendere, but adjudication was withheld. After the arrests, respondents "fired a few people." In addition, respondents posted a sign on a wall urging patrons to report the solicitation of drinks to the management and placed "table tents" imprinted with the same message on various tables; and they also installed more lights on the licensed premises. At one point, Mr. Schofield asked some of the employees of the Mezzanine Lounge not to solicit for prostitution. Petitioner instituted the present proceedings by serving respondents with a notice to show cause on March 17, 1978. An informal conference on March 24, 1978, was attended by Mr. Schofield and Lieutenant Baxley. Respondents were not represented by counsel at the informal conference. On May 23, 1978, respondents' counsel wrote Lieutenant Baxley suggesting that the notice to show cause be dismissed "[i]n light of the outcome of the criminal cases." Respondents' exhibit No. 1. On August 24, 1978, the petitioner referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing, even though respondents have never made demand for formal hearing. On August 28, 1978, notice of hearing issued setting the final hearing for September 29, 1978, but the hearing was continued on application of respondents' counsel, according to the file. The final hearing was next noticed for December 13, 1979. On December 13, 1979, according to the file, counsel for petitioner sought a continuance on grounds of Lieutenant Baxley's illness and represented that counsel for respondents had no objection to the continuance; and the final hearing was again continued. Also on December 13, 1978, respondents' counsel (who had previously corresponded with counsel for petitioner, respondents' exhibit No. 3) wrote a letter to Lieutenant Baxley "objecting to any kind of hearing . . . because so much time has transpired [sic] since the original offense." Respondents' exhibit No. 2. Respondents' counsel did not send copies of this letter either to petitioner's counsel or to the hearing officer.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner impose a civil penalty against respondents' license in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May 1980 in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert G. Kerrigan, Esquire 224 East Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32501
The Issue The issue for consideration at the hearing was whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license issued by the State of Florida should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the various charges listed in the Notice to Show Cause filed in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner held Florida 2- COP alcoholic beverage license number 26-2036, for his establishment, known as the Dynasty, located at 140 Soutel Drive, Jacksonville, Florida. This license was for the sale and consumption on premises of alcoholic beverages only. In addition, a license was issued by the City of Jacksonville to the Continental Club, c/o Grady Stroy, to operate a dance hall and night club at the same address. Respondent did not have a restaurant license or a license to operate any type of public food service establishment during the time in question. On February 25, 1983, Respondent entered into an agreement in writing with three other individuals, Grady Stroy, John Gibson, and Bobby Wade, whereby each of these latter three would invest with Respondent for an equal partnership in the Continental Club. Thereafter, in April 1983, Respondent officially changed the name of his club from Dynasty to Continental Club. In reality, all three outside partners, Stroy, Gibson, and Wade, each invested at lest $3,000.00. At no time prior to the incidents involved in this hearing, did Respondent disclose to DABT that those three individuals had an interest in his beverage license nor did he notify Petitioner that the name of the club where his license was being used had been changed from Dynasty to the Continental Club. Sometime after June 1983 and the incidents described herein, Respondent applied for a transfer of his license from himself along to himself and his above-named partners. For reasons not pertinent to this hearing, this application was denied. On June 26, 1983, Deborah Powell, in response to a citizen's complaint that alcoholic beverages were being improperly sold on Sunday, entered the Respondent's establishment in an undercover capacity. She observed a table at the door at which admission charges were being collected, and when she got inside, she saw many people who she thought were underage being served what, to her, appeared to be alcoholic beverages. There is no evidence, however, that anyone under the authorized drinking age was drinking alcoholic beverages. Those she looked for food being served and for some means of food preparation there, she found none in evidence. All she could find was a jar of sausages, a bun warmer, and some potato chips. Section 412.402 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Jacksonville, Florida, in effect on June 26, 1983, a Sunday, permits the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises only in motels or hotels having 100 or more guest rooms; properly licensed restaurants; airport lounges; fish camps; and private clubs. Respondent's establishment does not fall within any of the above permitted categories. At approximately 9:30 that same night, other officers of the Sheriff's vice squad accompanied by DABT agents entered Respondent's club. When Officer Hall entered the crowded bar, he had the lights turned up and he and other officers began checking the driver's licenses of the patrons to insure they were of age. To do this, they set up a station at the door and had the patrons come out one by one. A check of the driver's license of each patron revealed 20 who were underage. These individuals' names, addresses, and dates of birth were recorded by Officers Hall and another. The minors in the club at the time, who are listed in the charges pertinent to this hearing are: (1) Loraine Doles DOB-Sep 19, '65 age 17 (2) Frederick A. Hayes DOB-Nov 18, '65 age 17 (3) Terry L. Jones DOB-Mar 18, '65 age 17 (4) Jocelyn F. Prince DOB-Mar 15, '66 age 17 (5) Irene D. Reed DOB-Jul 10, '66 age 16 (6) Yolanda D. Williams DOB-Jul 24, '65 age 17 (7) Arabella Washington DOB-May 25, '67 age 16 (8) Sandra D. Hodges DOB-Nov 9, '65 age 17 (9) Ava M. Gardener DOB-Aug 11, '65 age 16 In sworn written statements made to agent Lachman on July 7 and 8, 1983, in Jacksonville, all admitted to being in Respondent's establishment on June 26, 1983, but all deny purchasing or consuming alcoholic beverages while there. None was asked for identification or proof of age before being admitted. Respondent was present at the club at the time all this took place. In a sworn voluntary written statement to agent Lachman on June 28, 1983, Respondent admitted that at the pertinent time in question he had a partnership with Stroy, Gibson, and Wade; that he had a dance hall license to operate his club issued by the city; that he did not have a restaurant license nor did he have the appropriate food preparation and serving equipment to permit him to lawfully sell alcoholic beverages on Sunday; and, that at the time in question, there were 16 to 20 persons under the age of 18 in the lounge. This statement was objected to at the hearing by Respondent's counsel who contended that because Respondent was not given a proper warning of his rights to counsel and against self incrimination prior to making it, it was not admissible at the hearing. The statement, on its fact, reflects its voluntary nature and Mr. Lachman testified that while he did not fully advise Mr. Cobb of his right to remain silent, he did advise him that he could voluntarily make a statement. Full advice of a nature sufficient to support admission of an inculpatory statement in a criminal trial is not required to render such a statement admissible in an administrative hearing such as this. As an admission against interest, it is an exception to the rule excluding hearsay evidence and is admissible. It is corroborated as to the presence in the club of underage individuals by the written statements of those individuals which though themselves hearsay evidence, are admissible to explain or corroborate other admissible evidence such as here. In any case, Respondent offered no evidence to contradict or rebut any of the evidence offered by the Petitioner.
Recommendation In light of the fact that this series of incidents constitutes the first recorded or reported instance of disciplinary action, severe penalty is not indicated. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Mose Cobb, Jr., be fined $250.00 for each of the twelve violations established, for a total of $3,000.00, and that his 2- COP alcoholic beverage license, number 26-2036, be suspended for six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 13th day of November 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Courtney Johnson, Esquire 215 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The primary issues for determination are whether Brother J. Inc., d/b/a A.J.’s Sports (Respondent) violated Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and secondarily, if Respondent committed such a violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency vested with general regulatory authority over the alcoholic beverage industry within the state, including the administration of the laws and rules relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner, having been issued license number 47-02607, Series 4-COP by Petitioner. That license allows Respondent to make sales for consumption on premises of liquor, wine, and beer at his establishment located in Tallahassee, Florida. Events at issue in this proceeding revolve around a fraternity/sorority party held at Respondent’s establishment on the evening of March 30/April 1, 2005. Members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity and the Delta Nu Zeta sorority decided that they would host a “construction” theme party. To facilitate the party, the social chairman of Phi Kappa Psi contacted Respondent to make arrangements. Respondent’s establishment has several large areas on its ground floor and a single, 1,800 square foot room on the second floor. Respondent agreed to reserve its upstairs room for the Phi Kappa Psi/Delta Nu Zeta party, to waive its cover charge for party patrons, and to make “dollar wells, dollar beers” (i.e. discounted prices on certain alcoholic beverages) available to party participants for a fee of $300.00. On the night in question, most of the participants met at the Phi Kappa Psi house before going out for the evening. They gathered around 10:00 p.m. and socialized. Some people were getting their “construction” costumes together; others were “pre- partying” –-drinking before going out to minimize the size of the bar bill when they go out later. The majority of the people at the frat house at that time were drinking. At some point around 10:30 or 11:00 p.m., the party moved from the Phi Kappa Psi house to Respondent’s establishment, with party members leaving in groups of three or four to drive from the fraternity house to Respondent’s establishment. It was estimated that 15 or so sorority members and 15 to 30 fraternity brothers attended the party, and that somewhere between a third and a-half of those people were not of legal drinking age. When they arrived at Respondent’s establishment, the sorority and fraternity party makers used a side entrance set up for them by Respondent for use in getting to the party. A doorman was posted at the side entrance that checked the age of each of the patrons. He would place a “Tybex®” wristband on those persons who were over the age of 21 and would mark the hand of those under 21 with an indelible marker. Once inside, party members would go upstairs, where there was a bar with a bartender, a disk jockey, and a dance floor. The party continued on until around 2:00 a.m. on the morning of April 1, 2005, at which time the bar closed and the patrons left. During the course of the evening, 244 alcoholic beverages were served at the upstairs bar at Respondent’s facility. No evidence was presented that established with any degree of accuracy how many fraternity and sorority members actually were at the party and how many were of legal drinking age. The evidence of party attendance provided at hearing varied widely and was in each instance an estimate or a guess. Numerous persons who were not members of Phi Kappa Psi or Delta Nu Zeta were in attendance. There is no accurate estimate of how many legal drinkers were at the party or how many drinks each legal patron may have had. The Underage Drinkers Shane Donnor was observed drinking at the frat house that night. He did not, however, appear to be intoxicated when he left the frat house. He had a wristband indicating that he was over 21, which allowed him to drink at Respondent’s establishment, even though he was not of legal age. It is unknown how he obtained his wristband. Donnor was observed to have a glass in his hand while at Respondent’s establishment, but no one could confirm that he was drinking alcohol. While at Respondent’s establishment, various witnesses described him as appearing under the effects of alcohol and thought he appeared quite intoxicated. By 2:30 a.m. on April 1, Donnor had a blood alcohol level of 0.27. This corresponds to at least 10 drinks and probably more. It is an extremely high level of intoxication, which could result in a coma or even alcohol toxicity in some persons. He was quite drunk and had been so for some time. Stephanie Reed was carded upon entering Respondent’s establishment, as was her boyfriend and all the others in her party. She had one or two drinks, but she didn’t buy them herself. One of the fraternity brothers purchased her drinks for her. Reed testified at one point that she did not receive a wristband when she entered the establishment (signifying legal drinking age); later, she testified that she did due to the intervention of some unknown man who told the doorman to give her a bracelet. Reed’s testimony on this point is inconsistent and cannot be credited. Christopher Lowe was carded as he entered Respondent’s establishment. He received marks on the back of his hand indicating that he was underage. Although he was marked as being underage, Lowe was able to purchase two drinks from the bartender. He ordered the drinks; did nothing to conceal the underage marks on his hand; was served; and left money on the bar. Tania Vasquez was carded upon entering Respondent’s establishment and was marked as being underage. She did not buy any drinks while at the party, but was given an alcoholic beverage by a friend that she consumed while on the premises. Elizabeth McKean, and everyone who entered with her, were carded when they arrived at the party. McKean was marked as being underage. She did not buy any drinks for herself, but was given a shot of tequila by someone else. She drank the shot quickly to avoid detection by Respondent’s staff. David Moser had a roommate who manufactured fake i.d. cards. When he entered Respondent’s establishment, he was carded and presented a false drivers license that made it appear that he was over the age of 21. He was marked as though he was over the legal drinking age and was able to buy and consume drinks at the bar, which he did. Lee Habern had several sips of a friend’s drink that was “snuck” to him. Prevention Of Underage Drinking It is well recognized that underage persons will seek to obtain alcoholic beverages at bars. This action by underage youths results in a “cat and mouse” game whereby the bar will change its tactics in trying to prevent underage drinking and the underage drinkers will change their methods of trying to obtain drinks. Respondent tries to combat underage drinking by creating a culture of compliance. This starts with the initial hiring of employees by Respondent. Respondent’s policy is that no underage drinking will be tolerated. This policy is stated in the Employee’s Handbook. Every employee is given a copy of the handbook upon becoming employed and is required to sign an acknowledgement that he or she received it. The policy is reiterated in informal training at every staff meeting. Every new employee at Respondent’s establishment is required to go through formal training with regard to liquor laws, the effect of alcohol on the human body, dealing with customers who have had too much to drink, and related topics. These courses are known as “PAR”, “TIPS”, and “Safe Staff” and are offered by the Florida Restaurant Association and Anheiser-Busch. Respondent has also offered training provided by agents of Petitioner. These formal training programs are offered continuously to employees, and at least one of the programs is offered three times each year. The initial formal training is accomplished within 30 days of the employee being hired. Records are maintained by Respondent as to who receives what training, and when it is provided. Respondent has a policy that everyone who is served alcohol is to have his or her age checked. When the bar is not busy, this is accomplished by having the waitress check the patron’s I.D. When the bar is busier, a doorman is posted at the entrance to check the patron’s I.D. If the patron is over age 21, he or she is given a wristband; if under age 21, an indelible mark is placed on the back of the hand. Since Respondent has experienced persons copying their “over 21” designation, it is changed on a nightly basis. Fake identification cards, if detected, are confiscated. On busier nights, Respondent might confiscate 20 to 30 of such fake identifications. On the night in question, the doorman confiscated five altered cards. Respondent also has a floor manager on duty at all times that the bar is open. The floor manager will circulate throughout the establishment to make sure that all of the policies and procedures, including the prevention of underage drinking, are being carried out. On the night in question, the floor manager, Bo Crusoe, is documented to have worked and in the nominal course of events would have checked the upstairs area of the premises several times. On busy nights, Respondent will hire one or more off- duty City of Tallahassee police officers to serve as security at the bar. The officers work in their police uniforms. These officers serve first and foremost as high visibility deterrents to unlawful activity. Their mere presence serves to minimize underage drinking. Respondent regularly has off-duty law enforcement on the premises. Respondent also has a security consultant, Officer John Beemon, who is a Tallahassee Police officer. He evaluates the need for additional security and communicates those needs to the owners. When he becomes aware of a new wrinkle in underage persons obtaining alcohol, he works with Respondent to prevent the practice. He assists the doormen in identifying fraudulent I.D.s. Respondent has always implemented whatever recommendations Beemon makes to them. Generally, the security measures used by Respondent have proven effective. From time to time, Petitioner will try a “sting operation” at Respondent’s establishment by sending a minor into Respondent’s bar to see if they are able to purchase alcohol. On every such “sting operation” Petitioner’s decoy was identified and stopped at the front door and was not allowed to purchase alcoholic beverages. Carrie Bruce is Petitioner’s special agent for the Tallahassee area. She is familiar with most Tallahassee alcoholic establishments and her testimony establishes that Respondent’s establishment is not considered a “problem bar” by Petitioner and is considered to be better than other area bars in preventing underage drinking. To the best of the owner’s knowledge and Beemon’s knowledge, no one has ever knowingly served a drink to a minor at Respondent’s establishment. Further, Respondent has never previously been charged with serving alcohol to minors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is
The Issue Whether or not on or about October 31, 1975, the Respondents, Bossie Mae and Willie Mae Browdy, licensed under the beverage laws as a package store, and/or their agent, servant or employee, to wit: Bossie Mae Browdy did allow or permit the consumption of alcoholic beverages on their licensed premises, contrary to Rule 7A-3.05, Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on or about November 1, 1975, the Respondents, Bossie Mae and Willie Mae Browdy, licensed under the beverage laws as Browdy's Mini Market with a 2-APS license to wit: Bossie Mae Browdy did allow gambling (card) on the licensed premises, contrary to Section 849.08, Florida Statutes and in violation of Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At present, and on October 31, 1975 and November 1, 1975, the Respondents, Bossie Mae and Willie Mae Browdy are and were the holders of a beverage license with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage number 69-299, 2-APS. On October 31, 1975, Eugene Fogel, a Division of Beverage enforcement officer entered the premises licensed by the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, which was operated by the Respondents at Avenue B on Chuluota Road, Oviedo, Florida. While in the store he observed an unknown black female consuming a beverage which was marked Millers High-Life. This consumption was taking place in the presence of the Respondent, Bossie Mae Browdy, and in the course of the consumption a conversation was taking place between the unknown black female and Bossie Mae Browdy. The bottle which Officer Fogel observed was marked with identifying information which the officer based upon his experience, felt indicated that it contained an alcoholic beverage. On November 1, 1975, officer Fogel returned to the licensed premises of the Respondents and entered into a card game in a porch like area which is immediately at the front of the store and connected to the store. This card game was between Fogel and several black males who were participating in a card game when he approached. The game took place over 45 minutes and money was exchanged at 25 cents a game for the winner, for a total amount of approximately $2.00. During the course of the game, Bossie Mae Browdy came to the door and looked out at the card game being played.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondents, Bossie Mae and Willie Mae Browdy, be fined in the amount of $100 for the offense as established through this administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of November, 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: Charles Curtis, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Carl Thompson, Esquire 25 South Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent's beverage license should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for maintaining a licensed premises where illegal drugs are sold and solicitations for prostitution take place. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses Carol Houston, Michael Collins, Chester L. Copeland, Vincent Rodriguez and John T. Allen. Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence six exhibits. Respondent offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit. Mr. Samuel Williams testified on behalf of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds and at all times material to this action held beverage license No. 39-684, Series 4-COP. The licensed premises under that license is located at 2801 Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Mr. Samuel Williams is president of the Respondent, Skylight Corporation, and owns 60 percent of the stock of that corporation. On the evening of July 27, 1983, Beverage Officer Carol Houston went to the licensed premises, The Blue Room Lounge, to conduct an undercover investigation. Upon entering the lounge Officer Houston took a seat at the bar and ordered a drink. After the shift change, Officer Houston talked to Brenda Brock, the bartender on duty. Officer Houston told Ms. Brock she liked to get high and asked if there was anyone in the bar from whom she could buy "reefer". Reefer is a street or slang term for marijuana or cannabis. Brenda Brock told Officer Houston that the person who usually sells reefer wasn't in the lounge at that time. Ms. Brock also related that she was high herself and had smoked a joint before coming on duty. When Officer Houston had entered the bar, Officer Michael Collins of the Tampa Police Department was already present in the lounge. Officer Collins, also working undercover, asked Brenda Brock where he would purchase some marijuana. When he asked Ms. Brock this question, she pointed out a black male named Chunky and said that he sold marijuana. Officer Collins then asked Brenda Brock to get Chunky for him and she did. The young male named Chunky approached Officer Collins and said he didn't have any marijuana but would have some later. At some time later in the evening, a young black male named Ace entered the lounge and Brenda Brock pointed to him and said to Officer Collins "that's him." Ace walked over to Officer Collins and asked if he was the guy looking for some marijuana. Officer Collins told him that he was but that he had promised to buy from someone else. Ace then asked Brenda Brock to verify to Officer Collins that he had been sent by Chunky and Brenda Brock said that he had in fact been sent by Chunky. As Ace had walked up to Officer Collins, he had three plastic bags of marijuana (cannabis) in his hands. He sold one of these bags to Officer Collins. Ace then sold a second bag of marijuana to a woman named Celeste who was sitting next to Officer Collins. Celeste was the bartender who had been relieved by Brenda Brock. Celeste purchased a $5 bag of marijuana from Ace and the exchange took place in the open and was observed by Officer Collins. After making the sales to Officer Collins and to Celeste, Ace approached Beverage Officer Houston who was still seated at the bar in a different area than Officer Collins and Celeste. He asked Officer Houston if she wanted to purchase some marijuana. She said yes and further stated that she wanted a $5 bag. He handed her a plastic bag containing marijuana and Officer Houston laid it on the bar in the open. Brenda Brock walked over and told her to put the bag up. Officer Houston then placed the bag of marijuana in her purse. Officer Houston then asked Brenda Brock if she had any papers she could use to roll a "joint". A joint is a slang term or street term referring to a marijuana cigarette. Brenda Brock said she did not have any papers. The purchase by Officer Houston of the marijuana took place in the open and was observed by Officer Collins from a different area of the bar. Later in the evening of July 27, 1983 two white females came into the lounge. Brenda Brock pointed to them and said those two ugly bitches called themselves prostitutes. At the time that the purchases of marijuana were made by Officer Collins, Celeste and Officer Houston, Brenda Brock was on duty as bartender and made no effort to stop the transactions. Mr. Samuel Williams had been in the lounge earlier in the evening, but was not present in the lounge when the marijuana transactions took place. On July 28, 1983, Officer Houston returned to the licensed premises approximately 7:00 p.m. When she arrived Samuel Williams was present in the lounge. Mr. Williams was talking with two men seated at the bar and was overheard by Officer Houston to say that before he would have those two prostitutes on the phone all night, he would have it taken out. Brenda Brock was the bartender on duty that evening and Officer Houston asked her if Ace was around. Ms. Brock replied that no one was around who had any reefer. Officer Houston left the lounge approximately 8:30 p.m. and returned at approximately 11:30 p.m. Upon entering, she ordered a drink from Brenda Brock and asked Ms. Brock if Ace had been back in because she wanted to get some reefer now. Ms. Brock replied that he was in the lounge and that she would get him for her. Shortly thereafter, Ace came over and asked Officer Houston what she wanted. She told him she wanted some reefer. Ace then walked away and shortly returned with a plastic bag containing marijuana. Officer Houston handed Ace a $20 bill and because Ace indicated he had no change, Officer Houston handed the $20 bill to Brenda Brock who gave her two $5 bills and one $10 bill as change. Officer Houston then handed a $5 bill to Ace as payment for the bag of marijuana. Also on the evening of July 28, 1983, while Officer Houston was seated at the bar, Brenda Brock told her a gentleman wanted to speak to her. The gentleman was Officer Collins, also working undercover. Officer Houston walked over and spoke to him briefly and the two of them returned to where Officer Houston had been seated in front of the cash register. There they discussed the price of a "date". A date is a common palance or street term for a sexual encounter for money or prostitution. A "date" is also referred to as a "trick". After agreeing upon a price, Officer Houston handed her purse and drink to Brenda Brock and asked Ms. Brock to hold them while she went outside to do a trick. Brenda accepted the purse and drink and Officer Houston left the bar with Officer Collins. Approximately 20 minutes later, Officer Houston returned and Brenda Brock gave her back her purse and her drink. At no time did Brenda Brock object to or inquire about Officer Houston's activities. On July 30, 1983, Beverage Officer Houston returned to The Blue Room Lounge at approximately 5:30 p.m. She entered the lounge and took a seat at the bar and ordered a drink from Brenda Brock who was on duty as bartender. While she was seated at the bar a young black female came up and asked her if she wanted to buy some reefer. Officer Houston had seen this young woman in the bar previously. She told her she did not want to buy any marijuana and after the young woman left she asked Brenda Brock who the young woman was. Brenda Brock said she was Ace's sister and in response to Officer Houston's questions, indicated that it was alright to buy reefer from her. Later that evening Ace came in and asked Officer Houston if she wanted to buy some marijuana. She told him that she had met his sister and Ace then called the young black female over and introduced her to Officer Houston as his sister. Officer Houston told Ace that she wanted to buy a $5 bag of marijuana. Ace then went over to his sister and brought back a clear plastic bag of marijuana. Officer Houston handed him a $20 bill and he indicated he did not have change. She then obtained change for the $20 bill from Brenda Brock and handed $5 of the change to Ace. Brenda Brock was standing right in front of her at the bar when she handed Ace the $5. In the early morning hours of July 30, 1983, just after midnight, Beverage Officer Hamilton entered the The Blue Room Lounge. He came over and talked with Officer Houston about a "date". While they haggled over a price Brenda Brock was seated directly across the bar from Beverage Officer Houston. After agreeing upon a price for the date, Officer Houston handed her purse to Brenda Brock and asked her to hold it while she did this trick. Brenda Brock took the purse and agreed to hold it. Beverage Officer Houston then left the lounge with Officer Hamilton. A few minutes later Beverage Officer Houston returned to the bar and Brenda Brock gave her her purse and put the drink which she had been drinking back on the bar. On August 1, 1983, Officer Houston returned to the licensed premises at approximately 9:30 p.m. She took the same seat near the cash register where she had sat on the previous evenings. Ace was present in the lounge. Officer Houston asked Brenda Brock to ask Ace to bring her a dime bag of marijuana. (A dime bag is a $10 bag. Brenda Brock went over to Ace and Ace then approached Officer Houston and asked her how much she wanted. At that time Officer Houston asked him if he could sell her some cocaine. He said he didn't have any but would have some later. Officer Houston then purchased two bags of marijuana from Ace for which she paid him $10. She handed him a $20 bill and he gave her $10 in change and when this exchange took place, Brenda Brock was in the area nearby on the other side of the bar. Officer Collins also went to the licensed premises on August 1, 1983 at approximately 10:55 p.m. After entering the lounge he told the barmaid, Brenda Brock, that he wanted to buy some good marijuana. She signaled to Ace and Ace came over to her. She whispered to Ace. Ace had walked up with a bag of marijuana already in his hand and after speaking with Brenda Brock he walked over and sold the bag of marijuana to Officer Collins for $5. Brenda Brock never objected to discussions regarding drugs or refused to get involved. There were no signs in the bar saying "No Drugs, No Loitering, No Prostitution", or signs with rules of management. On the evening of August 1, 1983, Officer Chester L. Copeland of the Tampa Police Department was also in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. While standing at the bar Officer Copeland talked with Brenda Brock and asked her if Carol Houston was "dating". Brenda Brock said she didn't know. Ms. Brock then walked over and whispered something to Carol Houston and then returned to where Officer Copeland was standing and informed him that Carol was "dating". Officer Copeland then went over to Officer Houston and conversed with her about the price of a date. Brenda Brock was standing nearby during this conversation and made no objection to the discussion. After agreeing on a price Officer Houston handed her purse to Brenda Brock and left the lounge with Officer Copeland. Officer Collins also present in the lounge, observed Officer Houston and Officer Copeland leave the lounge together. Prior to this occasion Officer Collins had asked Brenda Brock if Officer Houston dated. Ms. Brock had indicated she didn't know and he had told her to go ask. She did go ask Officer Houston and came back and informed Officer Collins that she did date. Officer Collins then asked Ms. Brock the price of a date and she said she didn't know. Officer Collins asked her to go ask. Ms. Brock walked over and spoke with Officer Houston and came back and said the price was $50. On this particular evening of August 1, 1983, after he observed Officer Houston and Officer Copeland leave the bar, Officer Collins asked Brenda Brock if Officer Houston was coming back. Ms. Brock said she didn't know. Officer Collins then asked her if Carol (Officer Houston) was out on a date and Brenda Brock replied that she thought so. On each of the occasions that Officer Collins discussed prostitution with Brenda Brock he instituted the conversation, but Ms. Brock freely discussed it and made no objection to the discussions. Shortly after she had left with Officer Copeland, Carol Houston returned to the licensed premises. Officer Collins then approached her and talked about a "date". After a short discussion he and Officer Houston left the bar together. On August 3, 1983, Officer Houston again returned to the licensed premises at approximately 10:30 p.m. She took a seat at the bar directly in front of where Brenda Brock was working as bartender. Seated near her at the bar was a latin male who kept asking her to come over. After she had been there a short time, Brenda Brock came over to Officer Houston and said that the latin male wanted to know how much she charged for a date. Officer Houston did not respond and Brenda Brock shouted to the latin male $100. A short time later Brenda Brock came back over to Officer Houston and said that the latin male said he had some cocaine. Officer Houston then told the latin male in a loud voice that he better also have lots of money. That same evening Brenda Brock also told Officer Houston that another male, Officer Collins, wanted a date and had some cocaine. On the evening of August 3, 1983, Officer Copeland also entered the licensed premises. While seated at the bar, Officer Copeland met the young man named Ace. Ace came over and asked if he wanted to buy a $5 bag of reefer. He indicated that he did and gave Ace $5, and Ace handed him a plastic baggie of marijuana. On August 9, 1983, Officer Houston entered the licensed premises approximately 10:30 p.m. She took a seat at the bar, ordered a drink, and asked Brenda Brock, the bartender on duty, if Ace was around. Brenda Brock indicated that he was over at the Pac-Man machine but he had left the lounge. Later Ace came in and Brenda Brock said "there he is" to Officer Houston. Ace came over to Officer Houston and said he had some cocaine and asked if she still wanted to buy some. She asked now how much it would cost. Ace indicated he had "nickel" ($5) pieces. Ace stated that it was back at his room and he left and then returned with a small foil pack. Officer Houston gave Ace $5 and he handed her the small foil pack. The small foil pack contained cocaine, a controlled substance under Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. That same evening Officer Houston observed two black males rolling some type of cigarette. She observed a plastic bag containing material similar to marijuana. She observed Brenda Brock obtain some rolling papers from behind the bar and hand them to the two males. On August 10, 1983, Officer Houston entered the licensed premises approximately 10:00 p.m. Ace was not in the lounge when she arrived, but approximately 10:15 p.m. Ace entered the lounge and came over and asked if she wanted to buy some "coke". "Coke" is a slang or street term for cocaine. She said she would like to buy some and he said he would have it later. At approximately 11:30 p.m., Ace came over to Officer Houston and stated that he had coke. Officer Houston told him that she wanted two hits and she then bought two foil packs from Ace. Officer Houston gave Ace a $20 bill but he had no change. She then handed the $20 bill to Brenda Brock who gave her change. She paid $10 for the two foil packs which contained cocaine. That same evening a black male was seated at the bar smoking a marijuana cigarette. Brenda Brock who was the bartender on duty stated "Do I smell dope?" She then looked at the male smoking the marijuana cigarette, but made no effort to stop him. On August 11, 1983, Officer Houston was again on the licensed premises. While seated at the bar, Officer Houston observed a white female smoking what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette Brenda Brock came over to Officer Houston and said that the white female had just gotten some reefer and wanted to know if she wanted some. Officer Houston told her that she did not. Mr. Samuel Williams the president of the Respondent corporation was the manager and owner of the licensed premises. During the time of the charges in this case, Mr. Williams would open the bar in the mornings and remain at the bar all day until the shift change at approximately 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. He was not present in the bar when the various transactions took place and was generally not present in the bar in the evening. A Mr. Raifield had been hired by him to manage the bar at night. However, Mr. Raifield had been terminated shortly before the transactions which are the subject of this case. Brenda Brock had become a full-time bartender on July 26, 1983. Prior to that time she had worked part-time and Mr. Williams had no indication that she used drugs or allowed other people to use drugs or solicit for prostitution on the licensed premises. At no time was Mr. Williams aware that Brenda Brock was permitting drug transactions and solicitations for prostitution to take place in the licensed premises. There is a substantial prostitution problem in the Nebraska Avenue area where the licensed premises is located. Mr. Williams has been active in civic attempts to eliminate the prostitution from this area. Within a year of the charges which are the subject of this case, Mr. Williams' life was threatened by a pimp operating along Nebraska Avenue and the tires and convertible top of his car were slashed. One of the reasons that Mr. Williams was not in the lounge in the evening was because he had been advised by the police that it would be safer for him to not be in the lounge in the evenings. This occurred following the threat on his life. Mr. Williams had no policy of random visits or inspections to the lounge in the evenings. There have been no prior complaints or charges brought against the Respondent's license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, and imposing a civil penalty of 1,000 and suspending Respondent's beverage license for a period of sixty (60) days. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Samuel Williams 3513 Rivergrove Drive Tampa, Florida Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, N.K., Inc., d/b/a Tobacco Road, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-733:4-COP authorizing it to sell alcoholic beverages at 628 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. The establishment in question is located in the downtown area of Miami, Florida. It provides both a food and beverage service to its patrons. The bar's hours of service are from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 a.m. daily. The kitchen is generally open from late in the morning until 3:00 p.m. and from between 5:00 and 8:00 p.m. until 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. each day. The lounge has two floors. The first floor has a bar, restaurant and outdoor patio. Entertainment is provided primarily by a disc jockey. The second floor is accessed by an interior stairway from the first floor and contains a bar and stage. The upstairs is patterned after a speakeasy from prohibition days, and features live theater performances and entertainment provided by a live jazz band. The clientele of Tobacco Road may be characterized as "mixed". During the daytime hours, it is frequented by many business and professional persons from the downtown area who partake of both meals and drinks. At night the crowd tends to be more younger and middle class although it is still an admixture of all ages, occupations and classes. The bar is located four blocks from the "tent city" where the City of Miami housed large numbers of Cuban refugees in 1980. Some refugees have frequented the Tobacco Road on occasion. The Petitioner received unidentified complaints regarding the possible sale or use of drugs in a number of Miami area lounges, including Tobacco Road. This prompted visits by undercover beverage agents to the licensed premises in January, 1981, to ascertain whether such complaints were true. On or about January 13, 1981, at approximately 10:20 p.m., Officers Mignolet and Gonzalez, two female beverage agents, visited the Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity to investigate whether narcotics were being sold on the premises. In the parking lot, they met two white male patrons named Carlos and Mark who were just leaving in their automobile and engaged them in a brief casual conversation. The officers then entered the lounge and seated themselves at the bar on the first floor. Carlos and Mark returned to the bar shortly thereafter and sat next to Mignolet and Gonzalez. The conversation turned to narcotics and after a period of time, Mark reached into his pocket and pulled out two tablets which he handed to Gonzalez. A laboratory analysis later established these tablets to be methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). When the delivery occurred, Chris (Christopher Najdul), a bartender, was in the bar well directly in front of the beverage officers. Seated nearby were "a few other" patrons. The lighting in the area was described as "dim". After being handed the tablets, Gonzalez showed Chris the tablets in her hand. However, Chris did not say anything to acknowledge that he had seen the transaction. This was the fourth visit to the licensed premises by the two agents but represented the first time they were successful in obtaining a controlled substance despite repeated efforts to do so. On or about January 23, 1981, at approximately 12:40 a.m., Officers Brock and Thompson, two female beverage agents, visited the premises of Respondent in an undercover capacity to ascertain whether narcotics were being sold. After seating themselves at the center of the bar on the first floor, they engaged in a conversation with a white male patron named Armando Garcia. The agents asked it they could obtain some "ludes" (methaqualones). Garcia said he could obtain some "grass" (marijuana) from upstairs and temporarily left the bar. He later returned without any drugs. He then went outside the premises to his car, obtained two tablets, returned to the bar, seated himself between Brock and Thompson, and passed one each into their hands. The officers briefly examined the tablets and then placed them into their pocketbooks. Subsequent laboratory tests revealed the tablets were methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). On or about January 24, 1981, Officers Brock and Thompson again visited the licensed premises of Tobacco Read at about 1:00 a.m. After seating themselves at the bar they were immediately approached by Armando Garcia, the same patron who had given them two methaqualones the previous evening. After approximately 15 minutes, Brock and Garcia moved to a booth away from the bar where Garcia gave her a tablet. Thompson then joined them at the booth, and Garcia set a tablet on the table for Thompson. The transaction was not observed by any employee or patron. Shortly afterwards, the agents returned to the bar where Garcia joined them. At approximately 2:10 a.m., Garcia passed a tablet hand to hand to Thompson, and swallowed another himself. When the latter delivery occurred, the bartender, Peter Aitken, was working behind the bar well but did not verbally acknowledge seeing the transaction. A laboratory analysis subsequently revealed the three tablets were methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). On January 25, 1981, at approximately 12:15 a.m. Officers Roberts and Jones, two male beverage agents, visited the Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity to ascertain whether controlled substances could be obtained. After seating themselves at the bar, they began a casual conversation with a male patron at the bar named Lance concerning the possible purchase of drugs. They left the bar and went to the stairway between the first and second floors were Roberts asked Lance if there were any "ludes" around. Lance replied he had one for $3.00. Roberts handed Lance $3.00 and received a tablet. Laboratory tests subsequently revealed the tablet given to Officer Roberts was a methaqualone (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). When the transaction occurred, several other patrons were ahead of Roberts on the stairway. Prior to this delivery, Roberts and Jones had visited the premises on at least two other occasions but were unsuccessful in obtaining a controlled substance. On or about April 25, 1981, at approximately 12:30 a.m., while on the licensed premises, Officer Marrero, a male beverage agent, met a Latin male patron who offered to sell some marijuana. Officer Jones accompanied Marrero and the patron to the men's restroom where, in a bathroom stall, Marrero bought five suspected marijuana cigarettes from the patron for $5.00. No other patrons or employees were present when the sale occurred. Subsequent tests performed by the laboratory confirmed the cigarettes were in fact marijuana (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). On or about January 28, 1981, Officers Brock and Thompson visited the licensed premises of Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity and seated themselves next to Peter Aitken, who was off-duty that evening, and who appeared to be in an intoxicated state. Peter left the premises with Thompson to go to his automobile to smoke a marijuana joint. The automobile was parked on a public street in front of the lounge. Although Thompson was ultimately able to purchase a bag of marijuana from Peter for $35, the transaction occurred off the licensed premises and was beyond the dominion and control of the licensee. The corporate owner of Tobacco Road is Neil Katzman, a former police officer with the City of Miami. Prior to purchasing Tobacco Road, he owned and operated a licensed lounge and package store. Katzman takes an active role in the management of the lounge, including such diverse activities as maintenance work, greeting customers, occasionally tending bar and taking inventory. However, because of the long hours of operation (9:00 a.m. - 5:00 a.m. daily) it is impossible for him to be on the premises at all times. For this reason, he has hired a manager to whom he recently delegated authority to hire and fire employees. Katzman has a strict policy of employees not using or distributing illegal drugs. Violation of this rule results in immediate dismissal of the errant employee. Prospective employees are personally counseled on the no-drug policy of the management before they are hired and are reminded of this policy periodically. Polygraph tests have been given since 1978 to employees, including the manager, to determine whether they use or sell drugs, have stolen money, given away free drinks or engaged in any other prohibited activities. They are specifically asked if they have sold or delivered drugs on the premises, and whether they have seen other employees do so. "Numerous" employees have been fired as a result of taking such tests. Indeed, Chris Najdul, a bartender, was fired a week before the undercover operations were made known to Katzman for admitting to the use of narcotics on the premises. The no-drug policy of management has been effective. This is evidenced by the fact that no drugs were obtained from employees during the period in question despite numerous efforts by undercover agents to purchase narcotics from them. It is also a strict policy of the Respondent that if patrons are seen with narcotics on the premises, they are asked to leave. Katzman himself periodically checks the restrooms and patio to see if patrons are using illegal drugs. Other than the deliveries and sales described above, the undercover agents did not witness any employee or patron using, selling or in possession of any suspected narcotic on the licensed premises. Respondent has never been cited or warned about any beverage law violation in this or any previous establishment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Counts I and II of the Notice to Show Cause be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 1981.
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.
