The Issue Whether Respondent failed to maintain the qualification set forth in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, requiring a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida to have good moral character.
Findings Of Fact On October 8, 1968, the State of Florida, acting through Petitioner, certified Respondent as a law enforcement officer. Certificate number 02-13556 was duly issued to Respondent by Petitioner. Respondent was employed as a police officer by the South Miami Police Department in April, 1988. Respondent was directed by his employer to present himself on April 27, 1988, for an annual physical examination at Mount Sinai Medical Center. Under the policy of the South Miami Police Department, all officers are required to submit to an annual physical examination, which includes an analysis of a urine sample from the officer for the presence of controlled substances. The specific date on which an officer is required by the South Miami Police Department to report for his annual physical is randomly selected. On the morning of April 27, 1988, Respondent reported to Mount Sinai Medical Center to submit to the annual physical examination required by the South Miami Police Department. At approximately 9:45 a.m., he was given a small sterile sample bottle in which he produced a sample of his urine as instructed. Nurse Joyce Hampton, the Mount Sinai employee responsible for the collection of urine samples from police officers undergoing annual physicals, received the urine sample from Respondent and promptly poured the urine sample into another sterile bottle and sealed the bottle with its cap and then with evidence tape. The sealed bottle containing Respondent's urine sample was labeled so as to identify it as Respondent's urine sample and placed in a locked box. On the afternoon of April 27, 1988, the sealed bottle containing Respondent's urine sample was picked up by an employee of Toxicology Testing Service and transported to the facilities of Toxicology Testing Service in Dade County, Florida. Mount Sinai used adequate procedures to ensure that Respondent's urine sample was properly labeled, that the chain of custody was properly maintained, and that the urine sample could not be tampered with without detection. On May 3, 1988, the sealed bottle containing Respondent's urine sample was opened by a laboratory analyst employed by Toxicology Testing Service. Respondent's urine was thereafter analyzed by Toxicology Testing Service. Toxicology Testing Service used adequate procedures to ensure that Respondent's urine sample was properly identified, that the chain of custody was properly maintained, and that the urine sample had not been tampered with. The testing procedures followed by Toxicology Testing Service are widely accepted in the industry. The equipment used by Toxicology Testing Service was in proper working order. A small amount of Respondent's urine sample was introduced into the analyzer equipment used by Toxicology Testing Service to screen the sample for the possible presence of controlled substances. The sample screened positive for cocaine metabolite, a metabolized derivative of cocaine created by the natural processing of cocaine by the human body. A confirmatory analysis of the sample was then conducted utilizing the gas chromatography mass spectrometry method of testing urine samples. This method is over 99% accurate and is the accepted method among toxicologists for identifying drugs and their metabolites. The procedures followed in the taking of Respondent's urine sample and in the subsequent analysis of the urine sample were consistent with the procedures set forth in Rule 11B-27.00225, Florida Administrative Code, which is entitled Controlled Substance Testing Procedures. Respondent's urine contained a metabolite of cocaine, in a concentration of 100 nanograms per milliliter. This result was due to Respondent's use of cocaine. Respondent contends his positive testing for cocaine was caused by his passive exposure to cocaine from the several cups of a type of coca tea that he drank on a daily basis. This contention is inconsistent with the results of the urine analysis and is rejected. Respondent took early retirement with the South Miami Police Department on May 19, 1988, the date the Department's internal affairs investigators had asked Respondent to give a sworn statement as to his use of cocaine.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission, enter a final order which finds that Respondent failed to maintained good moral character and which further revokes the certification of Respondent as a law enforcement officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 18th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-0715 The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 5. 6.-13. Addressed in paragraphs 6 and 7. 14-19. Addressed in paragraphs 8, 9, and 11. The proposed finding of fact submitted by Respondent that the positive testing for cocaine was produced by a coca tea that he drank is addressed by paragraph 11. Respondent's letter filed July 14, 1989, contains no other proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Milton Franklin 11635 Southwest 136th Terrace Miami, Florida 33176 Jeffrey Long, Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent, who holds a Florida teaching certificate, on the basis of allegations regarding the Respondent's purchase of crack cocaine.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Wayne Thurston, holds Florida teaching certificate number 479646, covering the area of physical education, which is valid through June 30, 1995. During the period from April 1991 to July 1991, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at James H. Bright Elementary School, in the Dade County School District. On April 5, 1991, Detective Laurick Ingram was working as an undercover police officer with the Metro-Dade Police Department, assigned to a tactical narcotics team detail. As part of his assignment, Detective Ingram was posing as a seller of cocaine in what is termed a "reverse sting" operation. It was an operation in which several undercover police officers posed as sellers of crack cocaine at premises which were previously know by the police to be the location of frequent drug sales. The reverse sting operation in question took place in the front yard of a house located at 2520 N.W. 159th Street, Miami, Florida. At approximately 8:00p.m. on the evening of April 5, 1991, the Respondent approached Detective Ingram at the location described above and asked the Detective for $20.00 worth of cocaine. Detective Ingram gave the Respondent two rocks of crack cocaine and in exchange the Respondent gave Detective Ingram $20.00. Detective Ingram did not conduct any tests on the substance sold to the Respondent to verify that it was, in fact, cocaine. However, it is the regular and consistent practice of the Metro-Dade Police Department, in conjunction with reverse sting operations, to use genuine cocaine. Detective Ingram then gave a signal to one of the other police officers and one of the other police officers then arrested the Respondent. The Respondent was processed and was subsequently charged by information in the Circuit Court for Dade County with one count of purchasing cocaine and one count of possession of cocaine. On or about July 11, 1991, the Respondent was accepted into the Dade County Drug Treatment Pretrial Release Program. During the period from February 27, 1992, to May 7, 1992, the Respondent was subjected to urinalysis examinations on eighteen occasions and on each occasion the results were negative for use of drugs. Ms. Joanne Goberna Molina has been the principal of James H. Bright Elementary School since January 23, 1992. During the year that she has been the principal at that school, the Respondent's performance as a teacher has been acceptable. During that period the Respondent has not been tardy. The fact that the Respondent was arrested has received very little notoriety among the faculty, staff, students, or parents of the school where he works.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a penalty consisting of a three year period of probation, which probation shall include the requirements that the Respondent: Shall make arrangements for his immediate supervisor to provide the EPC with quarterly reports of his performance, including, but not limited to, compliance with school rules and school district regulations and any disciplinary actions imposed upon the Respondent; Shall make arrangements for his immediate supervisor to provide the EPC with a true and accurate copy of each written performance evaluation prepared by his supervisor, within ten days of its issuance; Shall satisfactorily perform his assigned duties in a competent professional manner; Shall violate no law and shall fully comply with all district and school board regulations, school rules, and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006; and Participate fully and to its completion in a substance abuse program and submit to random drug testing as directed by his employer or the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 1993, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-7063 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7: Accepted in whole or in substance. Paragraphs 8 and 9: Rejected as constituting primarily argument about conflicting testimony, rather than specific proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 10: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 11: First sentence rejected as unnecessary procedural details. Second sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 12: Rejected as based on speculation or conjecture, rather than on reliable evidence. Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraph 1: This paragraph is rejected because as stated it is nothing more than an unnecessary summary of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. (It should be noted, nevertheless, that findings have been made to the effect that the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint have been proved.) Paragraphs 2 and 3: These paragraphs are rejected as constituting summaries of testimony, rather than statements of specific proposed findings of fact. (It should be noted, nevertheless, that findings have been made consistent with the testimony summarized in these two paragraphs.) Paragraph 4: Rejected as constituting argument about the quality of the evidence, rather than a statement of a specific proposed finding of fact. Paragraph 5: Rejected as constituting a summary of testimony, rather than a statement of a specific proposed fact. Also rejected for the reason that the exculpatory explanation offered by the Respondent has not been credited. Paragraph 6: Rejected as constituting argument about the quality of the evidence, rather than a statement of a specific proposed finding of fact. Paragraph 7: The first line is rejected as not supported by persuasive, credible evidence. The remainder is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12: Accepted in whole or in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: William T. Jackson, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license no. 15-02311, 4COP, based on the violations of Sections 893.13, 561.29, and 823.13, Florida Statutes, as charged in the Second Amended Notice to Show Cause filed against Respondent in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT). Respondent is Manos, Inc., d/b/a Sea Port Restaurant and Lighthouse Lounge. Respondent holds Beverage License No. 15-02311, 4COP, and is located at 680 George King Boulevard, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920. Raymond J. Cascella is the president, vice-president and secretary of Respondent. Cascella indicated that his wife, Eileen Cascella, was the manager of Respondent's restaurant and lounge during the period of June through August 2001. A customer going by the name of "Red" had been at the establishment three or four times a week for a couple of years. Mahatha Brownlee is the individual who goes by the nickname "Red" and frequents Respondent's establishment. An individual going by the name of "Diamond" had been at the establishment frequently over a period of six months. Ronald Carlson, caretaker of the premises during the relevant time-period of June through August 2001, became aware that drug usage was occurring on the licensed premises when two bartenders of Respondent complained to him. Carlson also observed that whenever uniformed officers came into the establishment, many of the customers would get up and leave. Deputy Thomas D. Rodgers made two arrests on drug warrants inside the licensed premises during 2001, both of whom were employees of Respondent. On July 31, 2001, Special Agent Bethany Driggers, DABT, while in the licensed premises overheard a conversation whereby a customer asked a bartender about the availability of crack cocaine at the licensed premises. Stephanie Farrington, a bartender employed by Respondent, gave a statement to law enforcement under oath, which Special Agent Richard Waters, DABT, signed as a witness. The sworn statement of Stephanie Farrington was introduced as a business record exception. Respondent's qualified representative waived any objection to its introduction. Sometime in July 2002, Farrington confronted Cascella about the drug abuse in his business and the obvious drug dealing going on in the establishment. Cascella told her to go speak to the suspect known as "Red" to let "Red" handle it. Farrington had spoken with the manager, Eileen Cascella, as well, who indicated that she was aware that drug dealing was going on in the premises. Richard Hurlburt is a Special Agent with DABT. He is an 18-year veteran agent and has prior law enforcement experience. Agent Hurlburt was found, without objection, to be an expert in conducting undercover operations. Agent Hurlburt, based on his training and experience, believed that there was rampant drug dealing going on at the licensed premises, during the months of June through August 2001. Agent Hurlburt began his investigation during the daytime hours in June 2001, so that he could have more of a one- on-one contact with the employees. As a result of the violations he observed occurring during the day, Agent Hurlburt was able to conduct the investigation during the day and avoid the violence that frequently occurred at the premises in the later hours. Agent Hurlburt indicated that a suspect's exchange of a wad of money with an employee and receiving a large bill in return is consistent with the actions of drug dealers. In June 2001, Agent Hurlburt observed suspect "Red" exchange a wad of money with Cascella and receive a large bill in return. On June 27, 2001, Agent Hurlburt was served a beer by suspect "Red" while on the subject premises. On June 27, 2001, Agent Hurlburt purchased drugs twice from suspect "Big Mama," a person not further identified. Agent Hurlburt turned both samples of suspected crack cocaine over to Special Agent Roy Dotson, DABT. Agent Dotson is a ten-year law enforcement veteran with over 1,500 hours of specialized training. Agent Dotson has field-tested suspected crack cocaine over 500 times and has never had a field test result invalidated by later testing. Agent Dotson field-tested the suspected crack cocaine turned over to him by Agent Hurlburt on June 27, 2001, and the results were positive for the presence of cocaine. Special Agent Gregory Aliberti, DABT, secured the suspected crack cocaine purchased by Agent Hurlburt on July 11, 2001. Kim Poon, employed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) as a crime laboratory analyst, was recognized, without objection as an expert drug analyst. Poon used two separate instrument tests, the mass spectrometer, as well as a gas chromatograph. Poon indicated that when the instruments are used correctly and in conjunction, the instruments are foolproof, there is no room for error. None of the drugs in this case that were in Poon's possession were tampered with to his knowledge. The three exhibits were tested and came back positive for cocaine, using the aforementioned two tests. The drugs purchased by Agent Hurlburt on June 27, 2001, were tested and the results came back positive for cocaine. On June 29, 2001, Agent Hurlburt purchased $20 of crack cocaine from suspect "Big Mama" and turned these drugs over to Agent Aliberti. These drugs were subsequently tested positive for cocaine. On or about July 2001, Agent Hurlburt, DABT, while in the licensed premises overheard a conversation between a bartender, Elaine, and another bartender, Jason, in which they indicated that Farrington had come into the establishment and named the names of people who were dealing drugs. They went on to say that Farrington named specific individuals "Moo-Moo," "Red" and "Diamond" as drug dealers. Farrington stated that there is a black male known as "Red" who hangs-out in the bar five out of seven days a week and she believed he was selling crack cocaine. Suspect Ray Charles was observed exiting the kitchen on numerous occasions. Agent Hurlburt asked suspect Ray Charles if he was an employee and he indicated that he cleaned up or did whatever Ray wanted him to do on the premises. On July 10, 2001, the agent made three separate drug purchases from suspect Ray Charles. The suspected crack cocaine was turned over to Agent Dotson who subsequently conducted a field test. It rendered a positive result for the presence of cocaine. The three separate samples of suspected crack cocaine purchased from suspect Ray Charles by Agent Hurlburt were subsequently tested positive for cocaine. Agent Hurlburt established that after meeting with support personnel the packages in which the suspect crack cocaine was stored in were marked with the date of the purchase, Agent Hurlburt's initials, which purchase it was for that day, and the suspect's name. On July 11, 2001, Agent Hurlburt purchased a $100 piece of crack cocaine from suspect Ray Charles. Ray Charles is the same individual as Ray Charles Mitchell, who is a felon on probation for possession of cocaine at the time of the formal hearing in this matter. Agent Hurlburt made a second purchase from Ray Charles on July 11, 2001. The suspected crack cocaine purchased from suspect Ray Charles on July 11 by Agent Hurlburt was subsequently tested positive by Poon of the FDLE. Agent Hurlburt also purchased crack cocaine on July 11 from the suspect known as "Red." The suspected crack cocaine purchased from suspect "Red" by Agent Hurlburt subsequently tested positive after analysis by Poon. On July 13, 2001, Agent Hurlburt purchased a $20 piece of crack cocaine from suspect "Red." On July 13, 2001, Agent Hurlburt made a second purchase of suspected crack cocaine from "Red." The suspected crack cocaine subsequently tested positive for cocaine. On July 17, 2001, Agent Hurlburt made two purchases of suspected crack cocaine from suspect "Red" and both subsequently tested positive for presence of cocaine. On July 20, 2001, Agent Hurlburt returned to the premises and purchased suspected crack cocaine from suspect "Red." Poon tested the crack cocaine purchased from "Red" on July 20 and it tested positive for cocaine. On July 24, Agent Hurlburt purchased suspected crack cocaine from suspect "Red" on two occasions and turned over the drugs to support personnel. The drugs purchased by Agent Hurlburt on July 24, 2001, subsequently tested positive for the presence of cocaine. Agent Dotson field-tested the drugs purchased from suspect "Red" on July 24 with a positive result for cocaine. During some of the drug purchases from suspect "Red" on July 24, 2001, Cascella was in the bar area. On July 25, Agent Hurlburt purchased suspected crack cocaine from a suspect known only as Rudy and turned the substances over to Agent Dotson, who subsequently field-tested it with a positive result. The drugs purchased by Agent Hurlburt on July 25, 2001, were subsequently tested positive for the presence of cocaine. Cascella was in the bar area on July 25, 2001. On July 27, 2001, Agent Hurlburt purchased two pieces of suspected crack cocaine. The drugs purchased by Agent Hurlburt were subsequently tested by Poon with the FDLE and tested positive for cocaine. On July 31, 2001, Agent Hurlburt overheard a conversation between two suspected narcotic dealers talking about a sale of crack cocaine to an individual bartender named Jason. On July 31, 2001, Agent Hurlburt purchased suspected crack cocaine from an individual on the licensed premises. The drugs purchased subsequently tested positive for the presence of cocaine. Agent Scott Behringer of the Brevard County Sheriff's Office (BCSO), Special Investigation Unit, secured the suspected crack cocaine purchased by Agent Hurlburt on July 31, 2001. Agent Behringer has been employed by the BCSO for approximately 13 years. He has been involved in several hundred investigations and has specialized training in narcotic identification schools including DEA basic and DEA advanced. Agent Behringer observed drug transactions occurring at the licensed premises. Agent Behringer subsequently tested the narcotics purchased by Agent Hurlburt on July 31, 2002, and the field test results were positive. Agent Behringer never had an occasion where he had field-tested a substance and was later disproved by drug analysis. This is despite having conducted approximately 1,000 field tests. On August 2, 2001, Agent Hurlburt and Agent Driggers were sitting at the bar at the licensed premises when they observed suspect "Red" sitting in a booth in the premises as well. Visible from the bar, placed on the suspect's calf was a stack of crack cocaine. Agent Hurlburt proceeded to measure the distance from the bar to a spot parallel to the suspect in order to determine the distance. The distance was estimated to be 155 inches. On August 2, 2001, Agent Hurlburt purchased $100 worth of crack cocaine from suspect "Red." On August 3, Agent Hurlburt purchased $50 worth of crack cocaine from suspect Rudy. The contraband was turned over to support personnel. Agent Behringer secured evidence on August 2, 2001; he field-tested the substance and it was positive for cocaine. It had the appearance of crack cocaine as well. All the evidence that Agent Behringer maintained was kept in a security area until being forwarded to Agent Dotson. Agent Behringer never had drugs in his possession that had been tampered with in any way. Agent Behringer saw Cascella observing drug sales during the relevant time-period late July and early August 2001. Agent Driggers indicated that even though she didn't have a great deal of training, she was able to observe numerous individuals making hand drug transactions in the licensed premises. The crack cocaine purchased on August 2 by Agent Hurlburt from suspect "Red" was tested by Poon and the result was positive for the presence of cocaine. Agent Driggers purchased suspected crack cocaine from suspect "Red" on August 8. The suspected crack cocaine purchased by Agent Driggers on July 31 and August 8, 2001, from suspect "Red" subsequently tested positive for cocaine. On August 10, 2001, Agent Hurlburt entered the establishment, made a purchase and departed the premises. He then went to the staging area where they were subsequently transported and tested by Kimberly Hampton-Sheley of the FDLE crime lab with a positive result for cocaine. FDLE Analyst Kimberly Hampton-Sheley indicated that the two tests that she ran on the substance resulted in a positive reading for cocaine. Further, the accuracy of combined testing in terms of chemistry is 100 percent accurate. Agent Driggers purchased $20 worth of suspected crack cocaine from an employee of the licensed premises, Jason, August 10, 2001. The drugs subsequently tested positive for the presence of cocaine. Shortly thereafter, Agents from the combined task force from the DABT and BCSO reentered the licensed premises in order to arrest those engaging in illegal activity. Agent Dotson searched bartender, Jason Gilroy, on August 10, 2001, at the time of the raid on the licensed premises. Agent Dotson discovered a small napkin with some cocaine in one of his pants' pockets. The drugs discovered on employee Gilroy on August 10, 2001, subsequently tested positive for the presence of cocaine. Another Manos employee, a bartender named Mike, was apprehended with a crack pipe in his manual possession on the night of the raid. Evidence Agents Aliberti and Waters, DABT, secured in this investigation was stored in the trunk of their state vehicle or at the Florida Highway Patrol unit where they have an evidence storage locker until it is forwarded to the BCSO or whatever agency is going to be responsible for the evidence. Agent Waters indicated that at the location of the Florida Highway Patrol is a locker which has their own personal key and they are the only ones with that key. Both Waters and Aliberti indicated that they have never had any evidence that was in their possession tampered with in this case or any other to their knowledge. Agent Aliberti was involved in transporting drugs from the BCSO to the FDLE. Agent Dotson testified that he secured the evidence in an evidence bag. He would initial them and they would be put into an evidence locker in one of their precincts to be forwarded to the Evidence Unit. Agent Dotson has never had any drugs tampered with in any of his cases, including the case at hand. The evidence is clear and convincing that on numerous occasions between June and August 2001, on the licensed premises, agents and employees, while in the scope of their employment, sold or permitted to be sold controlled substances, to wit: cocaine, in violation of Florida law. The evidence is clear and convincing that on numerous occasions between June and August 2001, the licensee, Raymond J. Cascella, permitted others, while on the licensed premises, to violate the laws of this state and of this United States by selling controlled substances, to wit: cocaine. The evidence is clear and convincing that the licensed premises was used for the illegal keeping, selling and delivery of controlled substances and is a public nuisance. The evidence is clear and convincing that the licensee, Raymond J. Cascella, maintained the licensed premises for the illegal keeping, selling and delivery of controlled substances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered as follows: Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts 1-18 of the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, and imposing a penalty therefor of Revocation of Respondent's license number 15-02311, 4-COP, SRX. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Section 893.13(7)(a)5, Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 19 of the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty therefor of Revocation of Respondent's license number 15-02311, 4-COP, SRX. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Section 823.10, Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 20 of the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty therefor of an administrative fine in the amount of $250. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond Cascella Manos Inc., d/b/a Sea Port Restaurant 680 George J. King Boulevard Port Canaveral, Florida 32920 Richard J. Dempsey Qualified Representative 223 Columbia Drive, No. 221 Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 Michael Martinez, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Alton Beverages, Inc., trading as Mayflower Lounge, holds Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco License Number 23-2043, Series 4- COP. Respondent conducts its business pursuant to said license at 17IG Alton Road, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. At all times material hereto Sam Rosen was the sole corporate officer and shareholder of Alton Beverages, Inc. In addition, at all times material to this proceeding, Robert L. Pyle was the night manager for Respondent's licensed premises at the aforementioned address. During the time periods alleged in the Notice to Show Cause, that is, from February 21, 1981 through March 7, 1981, Dottie Turner, Laura Kimberly, Mona Castro, Sandra Timmsen and Deborah Sutcliff were dancers at the licensed premises, and were "agents" of Respondent. In the early morning hours of February 21, 1981, an undercover officer in Petitioner's employ was introduced by a confidential informant to Robert L. Pyle, the night manager on duty at Respondent's licensed premises. Shortly after that introduction, the undercover officer purchased a quantity of cocaine from Pyle for $50.00, the sale and delivery of which substance took place on the licensed premises, while Pyle and the officer were seated at a table in the lounge portion of the premises. During the evening hours of February 21, 1981, Petitioner's undercover officer returned to the licensed premises. While seated at a table with Dottie Turner, a topless dancer in the employ of Respondent, Turner mentioned to the undercover officer that she was going outside "to smoke a joint." Thereupon, the undercover officer asked if he could purchase a "joint" from her, and she advised that she would "roll one" for him for one dollar. Thereafter, Turner went outside the licensed premises, subsequently returned to the table, and gave one marijuana cigarette to the undercover officer in exchange for one dollar. Later on the evening of February 21, 1981, the undercover officer made a second purchase of cocaine for $50.00 from Pyle, Respondent's night manager. Again, the purchase ant exchange of this cocaine took place on the licensed promises while the officer and Pyle were seated at a table in the bar. While still in the licensed premises on February 21, 1981, the undercover officer asked for, and obtained, a second marijuana cigarette from dancer Dottie Turner at no cost. On February 23, 1981 the undercover officer again returned to the licensed premises where he spoke with Dottie Turner. On this occasion another purchase of a marijuana cigarette for one dollar from Dottie Turner was accomplished, with the negotiation for and delivery of the cigarette occurring on the licensed premises. After delivery of the marijuana cigarette, the undercover officer inquired of Turner concerning the purchase of a larger quantity of marijuana. The undercover officer was advised by Turner that if he would give her the money for an ounce of marijuana she could purchase it for him and bring it to the licensed premises for delivery. When the undercover officer refused to part with the money prior to delivery, Turner advised him that he would have to come to her apartment to make the purchase. Subsequently, on February 25, 1981, the undercover officer went to Turner's apartment, some distance from the licensed premises, and purchased one ounce of marijuana for $30.00. On February 25, 1981, the undercover officer returned to the licensed premises. On this date, he met with Robert L. Pyle, the night manager, and requested to purchase one quarter-ounce of cocaine. While the undercover officer and Pyle were seated in the Manager's office on the licensed premises, Pyle advised the undercover officer that he could arrange the purchase of that amount of cocaine for $500.00. Pyle further advised the undercover officer that he would have to go upstairs to get the cocaine and would return shortly. Thereupon both the undercover officer and Pyle left the Manager's office, and the undercover officer resumed a seat in the lounge portion of the licensed premises. Shortly thereafter, Pyle returned, and, while seated at a table with the undercover officer and Deborah Sutcliff, one of Respondent's topless dancers, exchanged with the undercover officer the one quarter-ounce of cocaine for $500.00 in currency. As previously indicated, the address of the licensed premises is 1716 Alton Road, Miami Beach. This address consists of the first floor of a two- story concrete block structure. The first floor is leased by Respondent from the building owner, Sam Berlin. The second floor of the structure was leased from the building owner by Robert L. Pyle, the night manager, and several of the dancers and other employees of Respondent for use as apartments. At all times material hereto, access to the apartments on the second floor could be had either by way of an exterior stairway in the rear of the building, or through a door in the interior of the licensed premises opening on an interior stairway. This interior door was used frequently by the dancers to access their apartments, and was used by Pyle on at least one of the occasions when the undercover officer purchased cocaine as hereinabove described. The sketch appearing on or attached to Respondent's license does not show the second floor of the two-story structure as being contained within the licensed premises and, indeed, does not show the interior door giving access to the second floor, although the record in this proceeding establishes that the door was present when Petitioner's agent made the sketch of the premises to attach to Respondent's license. There is no showing in this record that the interior door and stairway were ever used by anyone other than persons making their residence on the second floor. The upstairs portion of the building was never used for storage or for any other purpose connected with the operation of the licensed premises. Finally, there is no showing in this record that Respondent bad, or attempted to exercise, any dominion or control over the second floor of the building. On March 7, 1981, pursuant to a search warrant, law enforcement officers, including Petitioner's undercover officer, conducted a raid of the licensed premises. One of Respondent's dancers was found to be in possession of in excess of 10 grams of cocaine in her purse on the licensed premises. In addition, a quantity of marijuana was found near the bar and a yellow change purse containing a cocaine kit and spoon were found in the Manager's office. In the upstairs area where several of Respondent's employees lived, another of Respondent's dancers was found to be in possession of a controlled substance, Diazepam, and a bartender In Respondent's employ was found to be in possession of Diazepam as well as a small quantity of marijuana. Still another dancer was found to be in possession of a quantity of marijuana in her apartment, while Robert Pyle's bedroom in the upstairs area contained Diazepam and assorted narcotics paraphernalia including a cocaine user's kit, knives and scales. In addition, in the general living area of the upstairs, there was assorted narcotics paraphernalia including large heating elements; boxes and plastic jugs and bags containing different cocaine cutting agents such as procaine; an automatic plastic wrapping machine; a large-size scale; test tubes; and two bags containing cocaine. Respondent does not deny that the aforementioned activities occurred, but instead defends against the allegations or the Notice to Show Cause, as amended, by contending that the corporate licensee, through its sole officer and shareholder, Sam Hill Rosen, took every reasonable precaution to guard against such activity occurring on the premises. Respondent contends, Petitioner admits, and the record herein clearly establishes that Mr. Rosen was not "directly involved" nor did he have personal knowledge of the activities occurring on the licensed premises. Respondent asserts that in an attempt to prevent legal activity from occurring on the licensed premises, it posted signs in conspicuous places, such as the dancers' dressing room, and gave written instructions to employees announcing its policy of prohibiting drugs, other than prescription drugs, from being used or sold on the licensed premises. Violation of this employment policy, according to Respondent, resulted, on occasion, in immediate dismissal of employees. Additional Policies allegedly adopted by Respondent to guard against illegal activity included prohibiting dancers from leaving the licensed premises to go outside while they were working, and subjecting all employees to periodic "shakedown searches". There was also some indication in the record that Respondent reserved the right to subject its employees to polygraph tests. Finally, Respondent also asserts that, acting through its principal, Mr. Rosen, the premises was periodically checked while Mr. Pyle was on duty to assure that no violations of law were occurring. Accepting Respondent's representation that the aforementioned policies were established on the premises, the record in this proceeding clearly establishes that to the extent that these policies did exist they were more honored in the breach than in the observance. For example, of those employees of Respondent who were called to testify at the final hearing in this proceeding, none of them had been administered a polygraph examination, none had had their persons or belongings searched while working on the licensed premises, and they had observed Mr. Rosen on the premises during the evening hours at best "infrequently". Mr. Rosen's failure to adequately supervise the licensed premises is corroborated by the fact that on February 23, 1981, when Petitioner's undercover officer was on the licensed premises, Mr. Pyle, the night manager, was off duty, and Mr. Rosen, who managed the licensed premises during other portions of the day, was not present. In addition, on at least one occasion, one of Respondent's dancers observed Pyle on the licensed premises in possession of both cocaine and pep pills, the latter of which, according to Pyle, were used in case ". . . some of the girls came into work and weren't quite up to doing their performance." The record in this proceeding fails to establish that any agent, employee or patron of Respondent was ever observed using illegal drugs or narcotics inside the licensed premises. In addition, the record clearly establishes that Respondent has never previously been cited by and law enforcement agency, regulatory or governmental body for narcotics law violations of any nature. Both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer in this proceeding. To the extent that those findings of fact have not been incorporated in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as either being irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to maintain the qualification set forth in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, requiring a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida to have good moral character by unlawfully being in actual or constructive possession of cocaine on or about May 9, 1988, and by introducing cocaine into her body on or about that date.
Findings Of Fact On November 15, 1974, the State of Florida, acting through Petitioner, certified Respondent as a law enforcement officer. Certificate number 02-11734 was duly issued to Respondent by Petitioner. Respondent is a sworn police officer who has been employed as an investigator in the Special Investigations Unit of the Dade County School System for over 14 years. The Special Investigations Unit is a law enforcement agency consisting of approximately 56 sworn officers whose duties include follow-up investigations on internal issues and the investigation of crimes that are committed on School Board property. There is also a uniformed division which patrols certain of the schools in the Dade County system. The sworn officers of the Special Investigation Unit are required to be certified by Petitioner even though they are employed by the Dade County School Board as School Board employees. The sworn officers of the Special Investigation Unit are represented for collective bargaining purposes with the Dade County School Board by the Police Benevolent Association. The labor contract that was negotiated on behalf of Respondent and her fellow sworn officers of the Special Investigative Unit require that each sworn officer take an annual physical to include the giving of a urine sample from the officer to be analyzed for the presence of controlled substances. Respondent was directed by her employer to present herself on May 9, 1988, for an annual physical examination at Mount Sinai Medical Center. Respondent was aware that an annual physical, including a drug test would be required of her. She was given over two weeks advance notice of the exact date the physical examination would occur. On May 9, 1988, Respondent reported to Mount Sinai Medical Center to submit to the annual physical examination required by her employer. She was given a small sterile sample bottle in which she produced a sample of her urine as instructed. Nurse Cheryl Cain, the Mount Sinai employee responsible for the collection of the urine sample from Respondent, received the urine sample from Respondent and promptly divided the urine sample into two smaller sterile bottles and sealed each of the smaller bottles with its cap and with evidence tape. Nurse Cain followed Mount Sinai's procedures in collecting and sealing the urine sample. The sealed bottles containing Respondent's urine sample were labeled so that each bottle was identified as containing Respondent's urine sample. An identifying series of numbers, referred to as that bottle's bar code, was placed on each of the bottles. Bar code number 118856 was placed on one bottle and bar code number 110783 was placed on the other bottle. The two bottles were then placed in a locked box. On May 9, 1988, the sealed bottles containing Respondent's urine sample were picked up by an employee of Toxicology Testing Service and transported to the facilities of Toxicology Testing Service in Dade County, Florida. Mount Sinai used adequate procedures to ensure that Respondent's urine sample was properly labeled, that the chain of custody was properly maintained, and that the two specimen bottles could not be tampered with without detection. On May 19, 1988, sample bottle 118856 was opened by a laboratory analyst employed by Toxicology Testing Service. A small sample of Respondent's urine sample, referred to as an aliquot, was removed from sample bottle 118856 with a sterile disposable plastic pipette and placed in a sterile disposable cup for analysis. The aliquot of Respondent's urine sample was introduced into the analyzer equipment used by Toxicology Testing Service to screen the sample for the possible presence of controlled substances. The sample screened positive for a cocaine metabolite, which is a metabolized derivative of cocaine created by the natural processing of cocaine by the human body. This screening procedure, known as an emit test, produced a result of 71 on the first screening and a 69 when a separate aliquot from sample 118856 was tested. The emit test is conducted using an Hitachi 705 machine, a piece of equipment that is widely used in the industry. As calibrated, a score of 50 is considered a positive score for cocaine. The purpose of the emit test is to screen those samples that will be later analyzed by gas chromatography mass spectrometry method of testing urine samples. A confirmatory analysis of the sample was then conducted utilizing the gas chromatography mass spectrometry method of testing urine samples. This method is over 99.99% accurate and is the accepted method among toxicologists for identifying drugs and their metabolites. The confirmatory analysis confirmed that Respondent's urine sample was positive for the presence of a cocaine metabolite that can only be produced through the ingestion of cocaine. Subsequent testing on June 3, 1988, by Toxicology Testing Services of aliquots from sample bottle 110783, followed the same procedures as those followed for the analysis of aliquots from sample bottle 118856 and produced similar, positive results for the presence of the cocaine metabolite. Toxicology Testing Service used adequate procedures to ensure that Respondent's urine sample was properly identified, that the chain of custody was properly maintained, and that sample bottle 118856 and sample bottle 110783 had not been tampered with. The testing procedures followed by Toxicology Testing Service are widely accepted in the industry. The equipment used by Toxicology Testing Service was in proper working order. The procedures followed in the taking of Respondent's urine sample and in the subsequent analysis of the aliquots from Respondent's urine sample were consistent with the procedures set forth in Rule 11B-27.00225, Florida Administrative Code, which is entitled "Controlled Substance Testing Procedures". Respondent denies that she has ever used or has unlawfully possessed cocaine. Respondent handles cocaine from time to time in the execution of her official responsibilities, but she was unable to point to an incident that may have produced the positive test results through incidental contact with cocaine. Although samples of the currency in use in South Florida have tested positive for the presence of cocaine, Respondent would not have ingested sufficient quantities of cocaine from currency to produce the level of the cocaine metabolite reflected by the testing. On May 23, 1988, Respondent was advised by her supervisor that she had tested positive for cocaine. Respondent immediately gave another urine sample that tested negative for cocaine. Respondent had attended training sessions that taught that cocaine usually cleared the human body after 72 hours. This is a misconception. The speed with which the cocaine metabolite clears the human system depends on many variable factors, including the general physical condition of the person involved, the amounts of liquids consumed by the person, and the amount of exercise by the person. Cocaine metabolite can be detected in the human body more than 72 hours after its ingestion. Respondent failed to offer any plausible explanation for the positive results of cocaine being detected in her system that would permit any conclusion other than the conclusion that she had voluntarily ingested cocaine. Respondent has been an exemplary employee since her initial employment with the Special Investigative Unit. She has never been suspected of drug use by her superiors. None of her fellow officers ever reported that they suspected Respondent of drug use. Respondent has had several commendations during her term of service. Her performance evaluations have always been satisfactory or higher. Based on the charges involved in the pending proceeding, the Dade County School Board suspended Respondent's employment and instituted proceedings to discharge her from its employ. Following an administrative hearing, the hearing officer (who was not employed by or assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings) found that the drug tests that found the positive results for cocaine were not reliable and recommended that Respondent be reinstated to her employment. The finding by the previous hearing officer that the tests were not reliable is not binding here and is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission, enter a final order which finds that Respondent failed to maintained good moral character and which further revokes the certification of Respondent as a law enforcement officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUD B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 H. T. Smith, Esquire 1017 N.W. 9th Court Miami, Florida 33136 Jeffrey Long, Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether controlled substances were possessed, sold, or used at the Jolly Spot Lounge and, if so, whether the owner's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked or whether he should be otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and documentary evidence received at the hearing, in addition to the testimony found in the above-referenced depositions, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Department). The Respondent is Lawrence C. Whitehead, (Whitehead), d/b/a/ the Jolly Spot Lounge located at 508 East Nelson Avenue, DeFuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida. At all times pertinent to the instant matter, Whitehead operated the Jolly Spot Lounge where alcoholic beverages were sold under Alcoholic Beverage License No. 76-00016, Series 2-COP. During the spring and summer of 1996, Whitehead was the subject of an undercover investigation regarding allegations of narcotic sales at the Jolly Spot Lounge. During the course of the investigation, Investigator James Lorenz of the Walton County Sheriff’s Department and other law enforcement officers met with a confidential source for the purpose of investigating complaints of narcotic sales at the Jolly Spot Lounge. The confidential source was instructed by the law enforcement officers to attempt to purchase narcotics at the licensed premises. At all time pertinent to the investigation, the confidential source was searched before the investigation to confirm that she had no contraband on her person. After each of the narcotic sales, the confidential source would rejoin the law enforcement officers where she would surrender the purchased cocaine. On eight separate occasions (May 7, 1996; May 24, 1996; May 24, 1996; May 31, 1996; May 31, 1996; June 7, 1996; July 27, 1996; and July 28, 1996) undercover police officers, confidential informants under the direct supervision and direction of law enforcement officers, or investigators entered the licensed premises in an attempt to purchase cocaine from employees or patrons. On each occasion, the officers, the informants, or the investigators were able to consummate a drug deal and purchase some form of cocaine. On May 7, 1996, the confidential source entered the Jolly Spot Lounge and met with a person identified as Ernest Whitehead (E. Whitehead). E. Whitehead was tending bar, and he told the confidential source that he was the manager. E. Whitehead and the confidential source discussed the purchase of crack cocaine and subsequently, E. Whitehead sold the confidential source crack cocaine in exchange for twenty dollars. Both the conversation and the narcotics transaction occurred in an open manner without any attempt to conceal the subject matter of the conversation or the transaction. The substance purchased from E. Whitehead was later analyzed at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) laboratory and determined to be cocaine. On May 24, 1996, a confidential source drove to the Jolly Spot Lounge, and while in the parking lot she was approached by a person identified as Darrell Guice. The confidential source and Guice engaged in a conversation regarding the purchase of narcotics. Subsequently, Guice entered the Jolly Spot Lounge and immediately returned with crack cocaine. The cocaine was sold to the confidential informant in exchange for twenty dollars. The conversation and the narcotics transaction occurred in an open manner without any attempt to conceal the subject matter of the conversation or the transaction. The substance purchased on this occasion was later analyzed by the FDLE laboratory and determined to be cocaine. Later on May 24, 1996, the confidential source, returned to the Jolly Spot Lounge. While in the parking lot, E. Whitehead exited the Jolly Spot Lounge and approached the confidential source's vehicle. The confidential source and E. Whitehead engaged in a conversation regarding the purchase of one hundred dollars' worth of cocaine. E. Whitehead then sold the confidential source five pieces of crack cocaine in exchange for the bargained price. The conversations and the narcotics transaction occurred in an open manner without any attempt to conceal the subject matter of the conversation or the transaction. The substance purchased on this occasion was later analyzed by the FDLE laboratory and determined to be cocaine. On May 31, 1996, the confidential source returned to the Jolly Spot Lounge, and similar to past episodes, E. Whitehead exited the Jolly Spot Lounge and approached the confidential source’s vehicle. The confidential source and E. Whitehead engaged in a conversation regarding the purchase of fifty dollars worth of cocaine. Soon thereafter, E. Whitehead sold the confidential source three pieces of crack cocaine. The conversation and the narcotics transaction occurred in an open manner without any attempt to conceal the subject matter of the conversation or the transaction. The substance purchased on this occasion was later analyzed by the FDLE laboratory and determined to be cocaine. Later on May 31, 1996, the confidential source returned in a vehicle and parked in a parking lot immediately across the street from the Jolly Spot Lounge. E. Whitehead exited the Jolly Spot Lounge and spoke with the confidential informant regarding the purchase of cocaine. E. Whitehead reentered the Jolly Spot Lounge and shortly thereafter, Donald Whitehead exited the Jolly Spot Lounge and delivered seven pieces of cocaine to the confidential source. After the transaction was completed, Donald Whitehead returned to the Jolly Spot Lounge. The conversation and the narcotics transaction occurred in an open manner without any attempt to conceal the subject matter of the conversation or the transaction. The substance purchased on this occasion was later analyzed by the FDLE laboratory and determined to be cocaine. On June 7, 1996, the confidential source returned to the Jolly Spot Lounge and met with E. Whitehead for the purpose of discussing the purchase of a “cookie.” A cookie is a slang word for an ounce of cocaine. After brief negotiations, E. Whitehead informed the confidential source that the “cookie” would cost $1,100.00. Later on the same day, the confidential source returned in her vehicle, parked in the Jolly Spot Lounge parking lot, and met with E. Whitehead. After a brief meeting, E. Whitehead went into the Jolly Spot Lounge and immediately returned with a plastic bag containing the “cookie” of cocaine. The cocaine was given to the confidential source in return for $1,100.00. The conversation and the narcotics transaction occurred in an open manner without any attempt to conceal the subject matter of the conversation or the transaction. The substance purchased on this occasion was field tested with positive results for the presence of cocaine and confirmed by the U.S. Department of Law Enforcement, Drug Enforcement Administration Laboratory. On or about July 27, 1996, Investigative Aide T. Kent, a sworn correctional officer, entered the Jolly Spot Lounge in furtherance of the above referenced investigation. Kent met with persons identified as Charles Whitehead and “Sugar Man,” and engaged them in conversation regarding the purchase of crack cocaine. Charles Whitehead was tending the bar. During this conversation, a person identified as “Jody” approached, and “Sugar Man” advised Kent that “Jody” could sell her some crack cocaine. Kent ordered and “Jody” delivered two rocks of crack cocaine in exchange for $40.00. At or near the time of the transaction, “Jody” gave “Sugar Man” a piece of crack cocaine who in turn immediately began smoking it in the Jolly Spot Lounge. The conversation and the narcotics transaction occurred in an open manner without attempt to conceal the subject matter of the conversation or the transaction. The substance purchased on this occasion was later analyzed by the FDLE laboratory and determined to be cocaine. On July 28, 1996, Kent and Division Special Agent Beverly Causey entered the Jolly Spot Lounge. There were approximately 40 patrons inside the premises. Kent noted that there was the distinctive odor of crack cocaine inside the premises. “Sugar Man” met Kent and Causey at the bar. Kent told “Sugar Man” that they wanted some more crack cocaine and they were directed to “Jody.” Kent and Causey each purchased from “Jody” what he represented to be crack cocaine. The conversation and the transaction occurred in an open manner without attempt to conceal the subject matter of the conversation or the transaction. The substance purchased on this occasion was later analyzed by the FDLE laboratory and determined not to be cocaine. Administrative charges were brought against Whitehead based upon alleged violations of the controlled substance statute within the beverage statute.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 76-00016, Series 2-COP, issued to Lawrence C. Whitehead, d/b/a the Jolly Spot Lounge, for premises located at 508 East Nelson Avenue, DeFuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of December, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM A. BUZZETT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1996.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified as a correctional officer by the Petitioner on February 11, 1983, and was issued certificate number 19-82-502-08. On August 8, 1990, Respondent reported to Mount Sinai Medical Center Industrial Medicine Department in Miami Beach, Florida, for her biannual physical required by her employer, the Metro-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Respondent was provided with a sealed, sterile container into which Respondent urinated. Respondent then gave the urine sample container to a Mount Sinai employee who "split" the specimen by unsealing two sterile containers and dividing the urine specimen between those two containers. The Mount Sinai employee then capped and sealed the two specimen containers and labelled them in a manner making them uniquely identifiable as the Respondent's urine samples. An identifying bar code number was also placed on the two sealed containers, and the containers were then placed in a locked metal box. Later that afternoon, the locked metal box containing Respondent's "split" sample was transported from Mount Sinai Medical Center to Toxicology Testing Service's (hereinafter "TTS") laboratory in Miami by an employee of TTS. At TTS another employee removed the containers from the metal box, logged in both containers assigning a TTS control number to them, and inspected the containers for any evidence of leakage or tampering. The two containers of Respondent's urine were properly labelled, sealed, and intact. One of Respondent's samples was opened, and a portion of that sample was dispensed into a sterile cup for testing. The other container of Respondent's urine remained sealed. An initial chemical screen for the purpose of determining if there was evidence of controlled substances or their metabolites in the Respondent's urine sample was performed on the dispensed portion of Respondent's urine. That drug screen showed that Respondent's urine was positive for cocaine. Due to the positive reading, the technologist dispensed another portion of Respondent's urine from the container which had been unsealed and re-tested Respondent's urine. The re-test again showed that Respondent's urine was positive for cocaine. On the following day, August 9, a different TTS employee dispensed another portion of Respondent's urine from the container that had been previously unsealed and analyzed it using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, the most reliable and accurate method for confirmatory testing. Respondent's sample was confirmed positive for the presence of the cocaine metabolite benzoylecgonine in a concentration of 202 nanograms per milliliter. Respondent and her then-employer were advised of the results of the initial screening, the re-testing and the confirmatory testing. On August 20, 1990, Respondent and a representative of her then-employer went to TTS. In their presence, the second container of Respondent's "split" sample, which had been kept in a freezer at TTS since its arrival there, was inspected by the laboratory director and the others present at that meeting. That second container had never been unsealed and still bore all identifying markings, including Respondent's initials. In Respondent's presence, that second container was unsealed for the first time, and two portions of the contents of that container were dispensed so that the second container was divided into three parts. The original container with the undispensed portion was resealed, marked, and returned to the freezer for storage. One of the dispensed portions was sent to an independent laboratory for confirmatory testing. The second dispensed portion was then tested by TTS on August 24, 1990. That testing revealed that that portion of Respondent's urine was also positive for the cocaine metabolite. The confirmatory test results showed 174 nanograms per milliliter of that cocaine metabolite. The screening and confirmatory test results are consistent with, and indicative of, use of cocaine by Respondent. No other substance produces the cocaine metabolite benzoylecgonine. Respondent was terminated from her employment with the Metro-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation due to the presence of cocaine in her urine on August 8, 1990. Prior to her termination, Respondent had consistently received evaluations reflecting that she was an excellent employee, had been commended for her reliability and responsibility as a correctional officer, and had been named as officer of the month.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered Finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause; Suspending Respondent's certification as a correctional officer for a period not to exceed two years; and Placing Respondent on probation for a period not to exceed two years during which time she should be required to submit to random urine drug testing and substance abuse counselling. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-13 are adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's nine pages of excerpts entitled Proposed Findings of Fact have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony together with argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ms. Linda Bass 18101 Northwest 32nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33055 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer should be revoked, or otherwise disciplined, for failure to maintain qualifications.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by the Dade County public schools and worked as a guard in the school system's administration building for several years. As a public school employee, he was subjected to random drug testing. None of those tests indicated the presence of drugs in Respondent's system. Over time, persons employed as police officers by the school system's Special Investigative Unit became impressed with Respondent's character and job performance and approached him regarding becoming certified as a police officer and working with the Special Investigative Unit of the Dade County public schools. Since Respondent had always wanted to be a police officer, he attended the police academy under the sponsorship of the Dade County school system. After graduation from the police academy, Respondent was certified by Petitioner on January 4, 1988, and was issued Certificate Number 03-87-002-04. Thereafter, he was employed as a police officer with the Dade County public schools' Special Investigative Unit. In mid-April, 1988, Respondent and his then-fiancee went down to the Florida Keys with, and at the invitation of, another couple to spend the weekend in a time-share condominium, from Friday through Sunday. After lunch on Saturday, Respondent and the other couple began drinking beer. They drank beer until the time that the four vacationers went to dinner. At dinner Respondent consumed several mixed drinks. After dinner they returned to the condominium where Respondent consumed more beer. By this time Respondent was drunk. He fell asleep on the couch while his fiancee and the other couple continued talking and listening to music. At some point Respondent began waking up. Respondent's male "friend" reached into his own wallet, took out what appeared to be a cigarette, lit it, and placed it in Respondent's hand. When Respondent, who smokes cigarettes, began smoking the item placed in his hand, he began choking. When Respondent's fiancee demanded to know what was occurring, the "friend" replied that he was only playing a joke on Respondent and took the "cigarette" back from the Respondent. Respondent lay back down on the couch and again fell asleep. Due to the amount of alcohol he had consumed on Saturday, Respondent remembers going back to the time-share condominium after dinner but has no recollection of anything that happened thereafter. On the following day, the vacationers returned to Miami. No one told Respondent about the joke his "friend" had played on him. On Monday Respondent was advised that his annual employment physical, including drug screening, would take place on Tuesday. Respondent made no attempt to avoid that physical examination, but rather appeared for his physical as scheduled. On Tuesday, April 19, 1988, Respondent underwent his annual employment physical at Mt. Sinai Hospital. He was administered a drug test as part of that routine annual physical mandated by his employer. The employer had no reasonable suspension to drug test the Respondent. The subsequent gas chromatography, mass spectrometry analysis performed on Respondent's urine sample produced a reading of 27 nanograms of THC metabolites, i.e., his urine test was positive for the metabolite associated with the drug marijuana or cannabinoids. When Respondent was advised by his supervisor that his test was positive for marijuana, Respondent was shocked. He denied ever having smoked marijuana and also denied being around anyone who was smoking marijuana. Respondent took the position that his sample must have been contaminated. When advised by his supervisors that he could have the sample re- tested, Respondent declined believing that if the sample was contaminated, the results of any re-testing would be the same. Respondent's supervisors were also shocked that Respondent's test proved positive. They held him in the highest regard and testified at the final hearing that Respondent is an excellent police officer, that he is conscientious and reliable, and that he possesses honesty and integrity. One of his supervisors testified that he would let Respondent "watch my back" without hesitation in any situation -- the highest tribute a police officer can give to another police officer. In spite of his supervisors' high opinion of Respondent, Respondent was fired from his employment with the school system's police unit as a result of the positive urine test results because that was that department's policy. Respondent consistently maintained that he had never used marijuana. Believing his urine sample to have been contaminated, he hired an attorney to represent him in proving that the test results were erroneous. Respondent consistently maintained that he did not use drugs. He maintained that he could not understand why his test was positive. At some point in an informal discussion with one of his supervisors, Respondent maintained that he did not use drugs and told that supervisor the only thing unusual that had happened prior to the drug test was that he had spent the weekend in the Keys and perhaps he had been some how exposed to marijuana there. Some time after Respondent's termination from the school system, Petitioner filed formal charges to revoke his certification as a police officer. Some where around that time, his then-fiancee finally told Respondent what had happened in the Keys the night that Respondent was drunk. She told him she had been afraid to tell him about it since she had not told him earlier. She thought that if she had told him before he was fired, then he might have been able to avoid being fired. Since she had not told him then, she had not told him subsequently since she thought he would consider it her fault that he had been fired and would refuse to marry her. She finally told him because of the pain he was suffering not knowing and because of the need for honesty in their relationship. Although Respondent had no recollection of the incident described to him by her, he believed her when she told him that it had happened. Respondent then accepted responsibility for having smoked marijuana on that one occasion when he was drunk. Respondent did not knowingly and voluntarily possess marijuana and did not knowingly and voluntarily introduce that substance into his body during that weekend in the Keys. Respondent's consumption of marijuana in the Keys on that weekend was an isolated incident, and Respondent has not possessed or consumed marijuana prior to or subsequent to that incident. Although Respondent exhibited poor judgment in becoming so intoxicated that evening in the Keys, Respondent does possess good moral character.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 18th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-6484 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-6, 8-10, and 12 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 11, and 15 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 13 and 14 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. The first through fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth, and fourteenth unnumbered paragraphs in the findings of fact section of Respondent's proposed recommended order have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The sixth, seventh, and tenth through thirteenth unnumbered paragraphs in the findings of fact section of Respondent's proposed recommended order have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Copies furnished: Mark Richard, Esquire 304 Palermo Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 60-05660, series 2COP, should be disciplined based on the alleged violations of the alcoholic beverage laws set forth in the Notice to Show Cause dated August 14, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Jimmy Karl Boyd is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 60-05660, series 2COP, for a licensed premises known as Get A Way Bar & Lounge, located at 2517 North Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Ellie Reardon was the girlfriend of the Respondent and the manager of the premises. Shannon Dowding, who is Ms. Reardon's daughter, and Kathy Harris were also bartenders at the establishment. Petitioner initiated an investigation of the licensed premises based on a complaint from Jim Falsia, a deputy with the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office, that persons were dealing in stolen property and drugs on the premises.2 Kent Stanton and Jennifer DeGidio, special agents employed by Petitioner, conducted the undercover investigation of Respondent's business in cooperation with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. Before they entered the subject premises for the first time, Agents Stanton and DeGidio were given certain information, including identifying information pertaining to two suspected drug dealers named William Howell and Scott Lyons. As part of their investigation, Agents Stanton and DeGidio entered the subject premises during late afternoon or early evening on the following dates: June 18, 19, 23, and 26; July 1, 15, 21, 23, 29, and 31; and August 4, 6, and 12, 1998. After each of these visits, the undercover agents returned to their office where they recorded their recollection of what had transpired. At all times, the two agents entered the premises together. One or the other agent always wore a listening device that was monitored by backup law enforcement officers. Agents Stanton and DeGidio purchased quantities of cocaine inside the subject premises on the following dates: June 19; July 1, 15, 21, 23, 29, and 31; and August 6 and 12, 1998. THE PREMISES The premises are located in a commercial area that backs up to an area of low income housing. The premises consist of a parking area and a rectangular shaped building with approximately 2,000 square feet. The building has three doors. There is no lighting other than that provided by the open doors. The evidence established that there was adequate light in the premises to observe the events pertinent to this proceeding. There is a long bar with a mirror on the wall that the patrons face. The bartender on duty is usually stationed behind the bar in the vicinity of the cash register, which is behind the bar toward the eastern end of the bar. There is a telephone at the eastern end of the bar that patrons are free to use. The door at the westerly end of the premises is off a hallway in the vicinity of the men's room. This hallway is not visible from where the bartender is usually stationed and is not otherwise monitored. There are four televisions that could be set on different stations. One or more television was usually on. There is a juke box. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, the bar was cooled by two four-foot fans and an 18-inch fan because the central air conditioning system was broken. There were coolers behind the bar. Although the premises was noisy, the evidence established that the noise did not prevent ordinary conversation. JUNE 18, 1998 The first time the undercover agents entered the subject premises was Thursday, June 18, 1998. They observed Respondent, Ellie Reardon, and two patrons drinking beer and engaging in conversation. The agents only engaged in small talk on that occasion. No drugs were purchased by the undercover agents on this date. JUNE 19, 1998 On Friday, June 19, 1998, the two undercover agents entered the premises and made contact with Respondent, Ms. Reardon, and two patrons known to the agents only as "Rick" and "Gabe." Agent DeGidio asked Rick if he knew where she could "get something to party with." Rick replied, grass (slang for marijuana) or powder (slang for cocaine). When Agent DeGidio responded powder, Rick introduced her to another patron, William Howell, and requested Howell to provide cocaine to Agent DeGidio. Howell asked Agent DeGidio what she wanted, and Agent DeGidio replied an "eight bail," which is slang for 3.5 grams of cocaine. No employee of the Respondent was in a position to hear those conversations. After Howell related the price, Agent DeGidio returned to the bar area to Agent Stanton and asked him for money. Agent Stanton openly handed Agent DeGidio approximately $160.00. Ms. Reardon was in a position to observe this transfer of money. Agent DeGidio returned to Howell and gave him $150.00. Agent DeGidio and Howell returned to the bar area and Howell picked up the phone from Ms. Reardon. Howell placed a brief telephone call, and within a short time, Ms. Reardon picked up the ringing telephone, and gave it to Howell. Howell then departed the premises and returned shortly thereafter, whereupon he handed Agent DeGidio a small plastic bag containing suspected cocaine. Howell did not attempt to conceal the nature of the transaction from Ms. Reardon, who was in position to observe the transfer. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JUNE 23, 1998 On June 23, 1998, the undercover agents returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio approached employee Ms. Reardon and openly asked her if Howell was around and whether he could "get us some stuff." Ms. Reardon began looking for Howell, but did not take any other action regarding Agent DeGidio's obvious drug request. When Howell arrived at the premises shortly thereafter, he approached Agents DeGidio and Stanton. Howell told Agent DeGidio that Ellie (Ms. Reardon) had told him that she (DeGidio) wanted some, meaning drugs. When Agent DeGidio told Howell that she was looking for a gram of cocaine, Howell said he would try, made a phone call, and thereafter departed the premises. When Howell returned, he told the agents that his cocaine supplier had not come yet. No drugs were purchased by the undercover agents on this date. JUNE 26, 1998 On June 26, 1998, the undercover agents returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio made contact with Howell regarding the purchase of cocaine. Howell placed a phone call at the bar phone, and received a return call a few minutes later. Howell informed Agent DeGidio that he could sell her cocaine as soon as his supplier arrived. When Howell returned and advised that his cocaine supplier had not arrived, the agents departed. The evidence failed to establish that anyone employed by Respondent heard this conversation. No drugs were purchased by the undercover agents on this date. JULY 1, 1998 On July 1, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio made contact with Howell regarding the purchase of cocaine. Their conversation occurred at the bar less than two feet from Shannon Dowding, who was tending the bar and in a position to hear the conversation. Ms. Dowding took no action in response to this conversation. Howell placed a call using the telephone at the bar and received a return call seconds later. Agent DeGidio approached Agent Stanton, who openly handed her $60.00. Agent DeGidio then handed the money to Howell. This exchange occurred in the middle of the bar in plain view of Ms. Dowding, but no reasonable inquiry or action was taken. Howell later approached an unidentified patron and called Agent DeGidio to where he was standing in the hallway in the vicinity of the men's room. This area was not monitored or supervised by the Respondent or his employees and was not visible from the bar counter where the Respondent's bartender was stationed. When Agent DeGidio arrived, Howell handed her a small plastic bag containing cocaine. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JULY 15, 1998 On July 15, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, the agents met with Kathy Harris, who was working as the bartender at the premises. Ms. Harris answered the telephone at the bar and the caller asked for Howell, but Howell was not on the premises. Agent Stanton asked Ms. Harris if she knew whether Howell was coming to the premises that day. When Ms. Harris replied that she did not know, Agent DeGidio asked Ms. Harris if she knew someone who could get the agents "something to party with." Ms. Harris told the agents that Howell's "partner" was present. Ms. Harris then brought the partner into the premises and introduced him to the agents as "Scott," later identified as Scott Lyons. Agent DeGidio then loudly asked Lyons, in the presence of Ms. Harris, whether he could provide the agents "something to party with." Agent DeGidio and Lyons then discussed availability and price of the cocaine in the presence of Ms. Harris. When Agent Stanton expressed concern over giving Lyons money before receiving cocaine, Ms. Harris stated that Lyons could be trusted. Agent Stanton then handed Lyons $60.00 and Lyons departed the premises. Soon thereafter, Lyons returned to the premises and approached Agent Stanton, who was sitting at the bar two feet from Ms. Harris. Lyons handed Agent Stanton, at bar level, a small plastic bag with a white powdery substance. At no time during this transaction did Ms. Harris, or any other employee, take any action to stop the drug transaction or even inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JULY 21, 1998 On July 21, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, the agents sat at the bar, which was tended by Ms. Dowding. Agent DeGidio made contact with Lyons, who was standing at the bar in front of Ms. Dowding, and asked if he could "get some stuff." Lyons said that he could, made another call using the bar phone, and departed the premises. Lyons and Howell later entered the premises together. Lyons approached Agent Stanton, and they discussed a cocaine transaction. Agent Stanton openly handed Lyons $60.00. These conversations were at normal speaking volumes and could have been heard by anybody at the bar including Ms. Dowding. After departing and then returning to the premises, Lyons approached Agent Stanton, who was sitting at the bar three feet from Ms. Dowding and four feet from Ms. Reardon, who had entered the premises. Lyons handed Agent Stanton, at bar level, two small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. Agent Stanton placed the small clear bags in the palm of his hand, and then placed his hand at chest level and looked at the bags of cocaine for a few seconds. Anybody at the bar was in a position to see the bags in Agent Stanton's hand including Ms. Dowding and Ms. Reardon. At no time did Ms. Dowding or Ms. Reardon take any action to stop the drug transaction or inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JULY 23, 1998 On July 23, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. Agent Stanton went to the hallway by the men's room and met with Lyons regarding the purchase of cocaine. Agent Stanton handed Lyons $60.00. Approximately five minutes later, Lyons approached Agent Stanton at the bar and handed him at bar level two small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. Agent Stanton held the cocaine in his palm and looked at it before placing it into his pocket. The cocaine transfer could have been viewed by anyone sitting at the bar, including a ten-year old boy, who was sitting next to Agent Stanton, and Ms. Reardon. At no time did Ms. Reardon or any other employee take any action to stop the drug transaction or inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JULY 29, 1998 On July 29, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio met with Howell regarding the purchase of cocaine and asked him, in the presence of Ms.Dowding, for a gram. Howell walked to the end of the bar where Ms. Dowding handed him the telephone. Howell placed a call. When the phone rang moments later, Ms. Dowding answered and handed the telephone to Howell. After a short conversation, Howell told Agent DeGidio that she would have to wait. Ms. Dowding was sitting right next to Howell during this exchange. Shortly thereafter Ms. Dowding departed the premises and was replaced by Ms. Reardon, who had arrived with a child approximately ten years old. Agent DeGidio looked out the back door and saw Howell and an unidentified male in an automobile engaged in what appeared to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction. Howell then reentered the bar and approached Agent DeGidio. Agent DeGidio told Agent Stanton that Howell needed the money, and Agent Stanton gave Howell $60.00 in the presence of Ms. Reardon. Howell briefly walked out the back door, reentered and handed Agent DeGidio two small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. The transfer occurred at the back of the bar. At no time did Ms. Dowding or Ms. Reardon take any action to stop the drug transaction or to inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JULY 31, 1998 On July 31, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent Stanton met with Lyons regarding the purchase of cocaine. Later, Lyons signaled Agent Stanton to walk to the hall by the men's room. Lyons stated that he needed the money, and Agent Stanton gave Lyons $60.00. Approximately ten minutes later, Lyons again signaled Agent Stanton to go to the back of the bar. There Lyons handed Agent Stanton two small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. The evidence failed to establish that any employee of the Respondent was in a position to see these events or hear these conversations. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to contain cocaine. AUGUST 4, 1998 On August 4, 1998, the undercover agents returned to the premises, but they did not purchase any drugs. AUGUST 6, 1998 On August 6, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio met with Howell regarding the purchase of cocaine. Agent DeGidio obtained $60.00 from Agent Stanton and handed it to Howell. Approximately ten minutes later, Howell signaled Agent DeGidio to go to the back of the bar in front of the men's restroom. Once there Howell handed Agent DeGidio two small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. Ms. Reardon was in a position to observe Agent Stanton give Agent DeGidio the money that she subsequently gave to Howell. Ms. Reardon was not in a position to see or hear the remaining events. At no time did any employee take any action to stop the drug transaction or to inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to be cocaine. AUGUST 12, 1998 On August 12, 1998, Agents Stanton and Agent DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio again met with Howell regarding the purchase of cocaine. Howell was standing in the back of the bar with employee Ms. Reardon, Respondent, and an unknown patron. In the presence of these people, Agent DeGidio asked Howell if he could "hook her up." This question should have been construed by all who heard it as an inquiry pertaining to drugs. Howell replied that he would attempt to locate some cocaine for Agent DeGidio. Shortly thereafter, Howell met with Agent DeGidio and told Agent DeGidio that his usual source wasn't home, but he would see if he could get it from someone else. After discussing price with Howell, Agent DeGidio approached Agent Stanton and obtained $60.00 from him. Agent Stanton counted out the money in front of Ms. Reardon and Ms. Dowding and handed the money to Agent DeGidio. Agent DeGidio then gave the $60.00 to Howell. Shortly thereafter, Howell motioned for Agent DeGidio to come to the area of the men's room, where he handed Agent DeGidio $10.003 and two paper packets containing a white powdery substance. At no time did any of the employees attempt to stop the transaction or to inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to be cocaine. Although the consummation of the foregoing transactions was frequently in the area of the men's room, any reasonable employee knew or should have known that the undercover agents were purchasing drugs from Howell and Lyons. With the exception of the transaction on July 31, 1998, at least a part of each transaction was conducted in an open manner near the bar, where the transaction could easily be viewed by the bartender on duty. Ellie Reardon, Shannon Dowding, and Kathy Harris were aware of, or should have been aware of, the drug activity. Respondent's employees openly condoned it, to the point of actually directing the agents to the sellers and vouching for the reliability of Lyons. The testimony of the Respondent and his employees that they had no idea drugs were being bought and sold in the establishment is rejected because that testimony is contrary to the clear and convincing evidence of the two special agents and to the multiple bags of cocaine that were produced as evidence. NO RESPONSIBLE VENDOR TRAINING Respondent took no action to prevent drug activity on the premises. Respondent provided no Responsible Vendor Training pursuant to Section 561.701, Florida Statutes.4 The Respondent never informed his employees that drug use and sales were not to be tolerated on the licensed premises, nor did he instruct them what they should do if they observed drugs being trafficked on the premises. Ms. Reardon, Ms. Dowding, and Ms. Harris testified that they had been given appropriate vendor training by the Respondent. This testimony is rejected as being contrary to the Respondent's testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 60-05660, series 2COP, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 24th day of September, 1998.
The Issue The central issue in these cases is whether the Respondents are guilty of the violations alleged; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact This matter deals with three licensed premises all owned or controlled by the Respondent, Myriam Grau. Ms. Grau is either the sole proprietor or the sole corporate officer and shareholder for each of the named businesses. Feelings Restaurant located on Palm Avenue in Hialeah, Florida, holds series 2 COP license no. 23-15849. Hialeah Dolphin also located on Palm Avenue in Hialeah, holds series 2 COP license no. 23-02256. Feelings Restaurant II which is located on East 4th Avenue holds series 2 COP license no. 23-15990. It is undisputed that Ms. Grau, her husband, and her mother-in-law are responsible for the day-to-day operations of the three licensed premises. The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating licensed premises which sell or dispense alcoholic beverages. Special Agent Addy Mesa, formerly employed by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, conducted an undercover investigation at the Feelings located on Palm Avenue. On or about January 13, 1995, while engaged in such investigation, Special Agent Mesa went to the Hialeah Dolphin along with Detective Barbara Rivera and spoke with the Respondent, Ms. Grau. At that time and in that place, Special Agent Mesa asked for cocaine but Ms. Grau advised her that she did not have any. Ms. Grau requested that she wait as she was expecting a delivery. Special Agent Mesa waited approximately ten minutes but was unable to purchase the cocaine. After confronting Respondent regarding the delay, Ms. Grau directed Special Agent Mesa to Feelings (also on Palm Avenue) and told her to ask for Carlos or Carmen. When Special Agent Mesa arrived at Feelings and found Carlos, he advised the women to wait as he, too, was waiting on someone to come. Eventually, Special Agent Mesa observed a Latin male enter the licensed premises and confer with Carlos. At that time Carlos was standing behind the bar but took the Latin man behind a door to an area presumed to be a back room. When Carlos returned to the bar area, Special Agent Mesa purchased illegal narcotics from him. During the sales transaction, Carlos was at the bar and, in exchange for $40.00, passed two clear plastic bags to Special Agent Mesa containing a white powder substance which was later tested and proved to be cocaine. This transaction took place in the licensed premises and could have been observed by the six or seven patrons then at the bar. On another occasion, Special Agent Mesa went to the Hialeah Dolphin Restaurant with Heidi Puig. Again, as indicated above, Special Agent Mesa was working undercover. On this occasion Special Agent Mesa met a man who introduced himself as "Ricardo" and who told her he was the manager for the business. Ricardo had access to a back room in which he apparently resided and gave Special Agent Mesa a business card, a copy of which has been admitted into evidence in this cause as DABT exhibit 2. Such card contains the handwritten words "Ricardo" above the printed line denoting manager and "ask for Miriam" along the bottom of the card. The remainder of the card contains the printed information for the business. After talking with Ricardo for a short time, Special Agent Mesa purchased two packets of cocaine for $40.00. Special Agent Mesa returned to the Dolphin on still another occasion with Detective Rivera. On this visit there were approximately six or seven patrons in the bar and Ricardo approached them when they entered. After engaging in conversation for a few moments, Special Agent Mesa asked to purchase cocaine and Ricardo accommodated the undercover agent. While Special Agent Mesa waited at the bar, Ricardo went to his back room and returned with two baggies of cocaine wrapped inside a napkin. In return for the twenty dollar bills from Special Agent Mesa and Detective Rivera, the two packets containing cocaine were delivered inside the bar. Thereafter, Special Agent Mesa did not return to the premises until the search warrant was executed on February 10, 1995. All of the foregoing transactions took place while Special Agent Mesa was working in an undercover capacity and utilizing language that is common to transactions of this nature. Given the successfulness of her efforts to purchase illegal narcotics it is found that Special Agent Mesa communicated her intent to Respondent Grau, Carlos, and Ricardo in such a manner that they knew she was attempting to purchase cocaine. Carlos and Ricardo conducted themselves in a manner which gave the appearance of being employees of the licensed premises. Both men had access to the area behind the bar. Both utilized areas presumed to be private from the public. On at least one of the occasions Ricardo advised Special Agent Mesa of jobs available. The conduct of the transactions was inside the licensed premises, repeated on several occasions, and open to the view of bar patrons. Elio Olivia is a detective with the Hialeah Police Department. During January, 1995, while working in an undercover capacity, Detective Olivia was investigating illegal narcotic activities at the Feelings located on Palm Avenue in Hialeah. On or about January 12, 1995, Detective Olivia entered the licensed premises and spoke with Carlos who was behind the counter. For twenty dollars Detective Olivia purchased, and the individual Carlos sold, one packet of a white powdered substance which was tested and proved to be cocaine. Later, on January 18, 1995, Detective Olivia returned to the Palm Avenue Feelings and, again, purchased cocaine from Carlos. On this occasion Carlos went from behind the bar to an office, returned to the bar, and delivered the packet. Detective Olivia went to Feelings on a third date and repeated the process. Again, Carlos was observed behind the counter at the time of the transaction and Detective Olivia presumed him to be an employee of the premises based upon the manner in which he conducted himself. On at least one of the occasions, Detective Olivia observed another patron at the bar purchase a packet from Carlos. While the contents of the observed packet are unknown, the manner of the transaction was consistent with Detective Olivia's experience with purchasing cocaine from Carlos. Detective Olivia did not observe Respondent Grau on the licensed premises during any of the times he was there. The transactions involving the purchase of illegal narcotics took place in the licensed premises and could have been viewed by the patrons of the facility. Given the fact that Detective Olivia observed at least one such transaction himself, it is found that the actions of Carlos were open and notorious to the public. Michael Barsky is a detective employed by the Hialeah Police Department. At all times material to this matter, Detective Barsky was working undercover investigating illegal narcotics. On or about June 15, 1994, Detective Barsky went to the Feelings located on 4th Avenue. While there, he conversed with a male later known to him as Ricardo. Detective Barsky presumed Ricardo to be an employee at the business as it appeared he had the "run of the place." That is to say, Ricardo went behind the bar, went throughout the premises, and paid winnings to patrons who prevailed on a gambling machine that was located within the business. Detective Barsky went to the 4th Avenue Feelings again on October 14, 1994. On this date he met Ricardo and in exchange for twenty dollars purchased a small packet of a white powder substance which was later tested and proved to be cocaine. Although the transaction was discussed in the bar area in front of approximately five patrons, Ricardo took Detective Barsky to the mens room to make the exchange. From October 14, 1994 through December 7, 1994, Detective Barsky returned to Feelings on six occasions. For each visit he purchased cocaine from Ricardo as described above except on the later occasions the exchange took place at the bar instead of in the mens room. From the time of his first visit through December 7, 1994, Detective Barsky observed Respondent Grau on the licensed premises only once or twice. While the date of the arrest is not certain, Ricardo was arrested for illegal drug possession sometime during Detective Barsky's investigation at Feelings (4th Avenue). There came a time after Ricardo was arrested when Detective Barsky no longer observed him at the Feelings on 4th. In fact, when Detective Barsky returned to the licensed premises on January 12, 1995 (he had had a tip sales were still being made at the location), he met with an individual known as Orlando who claimed to be the new manager who could help him. As with Ricardo, Detective Barsky observed that Orlando appeared to have the run of the place. He was behind the counter, went into the DJ's booth, and was never reproached by the servers who were assisting bar patrons. Additionally, Detective Barsky observed and heard Orlando giving directions to the females who "did everything" in the kitchen area. In doing so, Orlando entered areas of the premises not available to the general public. As had occurred with Ricardo on the first buy, Orlando took Detective Barsky into the mens room and in exchange for twenty dollars the cocaine was purchased. On the next visit, on or about January 18, 1995, Detective Barsky purchased cocaine from Orlando at the bar. Orlando took a packet from his pocket and slipped it to Detective Barsky in a secretive manner. Detective Barsky returned to Feelings on several occasions thereafter. On each visit he successfully purchased cocaine from Orlando. On one occasion Orlando went to the back room before he delivered the packet to Detective Barsky. On one of the later visits, on or about January 27, 1995, Detective Barsky observed the Respondent Grau with an unknown male enter the premises and exchange money for what appeared to be drugs packaged in small zip baggies. This transaction took place in the licensed premises in view of the detective. Detective Barsky purchased cocaine at the Feelings on 4th Avenue at least twelve times for the period October 14, 1994 through February 3, 1995. On January 18, 1995, Detective Barsky went to the Dolphin and observed the male he knew as Ricardo at that licensed premises. Ricardo was fixing lights at a pool table when the detective confronted him and sought to purchase cocaine. On this occasion as in the past, Detective Barsky purchased a twenty dollar amount of a substance which was later tested and proved to be cocaine. Subsequently, Detective Barsky returned to the Dolphin and purchased cocaine from Ricardo on four additional visits. On one such visit, February 2, 1995, Detective Barsky observed Ricardo and a bar patron "do" cocaine at the bar counter. This was in plain view of bar patrons and was open and notorious. Respondent Grau knew that Ricardo had been arrested for illegal drugs prior to allowing him to reside at the Dolphin premises. Respondent Grau did not ask Ricardo to vacate the premises or to stay away from the licensed premises. At least six of the cocaine purchases occurred after Respondent Grau knew Ricardo had been arrested for drugs. Cocaine is a controlled substance the sale of which is prohibited by law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking the licenses nos. 23-15849, 23-02256, and 23-15990. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO DOAH CASE NOS. 95-0703, 95-0704, and 95-0705 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 19 are accepted. Paragraph 20 is clarified in the findings above as to the manner of the delivery of the cocaine (which in some instances did include a secretive manner), therefore, as drafted the paragraph is inconsistent with the total evidence presented in the case. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1 through 6 are rejected as comments or argument regarding Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 7 is rejected as not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Miquel Oxamendi Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Louis J. Terminello TERMINELLO & TERMINELLO, P.A. 2700 S.W. 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133-2728 Howard Sohn 2534 Southwest Sixth Street Miami, Florida 33135-2926 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John J. Harris, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
