Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues contained herein, Respondent, Lois E. Anderson Bailey, was a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida under license number 12519-1. During the period between July, 1982 and January, 1983, and for an unknown period both before and after that time, Dr. Allan R. Varraux was a pulmonary specialist who, as a part of his practice, performed bronchoscopies at ORMC. As a routine part of this practice, Dr. Varraux utilized a cocaine solution to spray the back of the throat of his patients as an anesthetic prior to inserting the bronchoscope. Cocaine is also used as an anesthetic after the bronchoscope is inserted because it lasts between one-half an hour to forty-five minutes as opposed to xylocaine which lasts only fifteen minutes or so. Dr. Varraux also prefers to use cocaine over xylocaine because the latter often causes spasms in the patient. During this period, Dr. Varraux knew the Respondent, who was nursing supervisor of the Endoscopy section at the time, and discussed with her the controls for the use of cocaine for this purpose because cocaine is a controlled substance. At no time did Dr. Varraux ever discuss with Respondent the potential for the substitution of xylocaine for cocaine in this procedure nor did he ever approve its substitution. On or about January 18, 1983, Dr. Varraux wrote a letter to Mr. Holton, Director of the hospital pharmacy, asking for a survey of cocaine use at ORMC. He did this because of a survey done at another hospital at which he also practiced with which he was familiar to be sure that the amount of cocaine he was using was reasonable. The audit revealed that at the time in issue here, no cocaine was dispensed by the pharmacy for the Endoscopy section. Dr. Varraux considered this odd because he was ordering cocaine solution for the bronchoscopies he was performing and as a result, some cocaine should have been issued. He subsequently found out that xylocaine was being substituted for cocaine. He had not authorized the substitution and was greatly concerned because of the potentially serious impact the substitution might have on a patient if the patient were allergic to xylocaine and the physician did not know that the substitution had been made. In his opinion, it is not good medical practice to substitute xylocaine for cocaine without the doctor's orders and without informing the physician of the change. In practice, the cocaine is injected with a syringe into the apparatus being utilized during the bronchoscopy. At that point, the order for the use of cocaine is a verbal order which is, thereafter recorded in the nurse's notes and in the doctor's dictated report concerning the procedure. Since there is no standard procedure for this operation, Dr. Varraux established, in discussions with the Respondent, his general procedures which in all cases included the use of cocaine as an anesthetic. Respondent actually assisted in very few of Dr. Varraux procedures. Eighty-five percent of his procedures were done with Ken Rosenau assisting and Mary Ann Hinds assisted in others. However, Respondent was the supervisor of the endoscopy section and if there was a problem, Dr. Varraux would go to her first. Lynn W. Capraun, an instructor of respiratory therapy at Valencia Community College, and an advisor in that area to ORMC, was asked by Mr. Rogers to audit the endoscopy section records for bronchoscopies performed from July, 1982 through January, 1983. His audit was limited to only those on a list of procedures given him by Mr. Rogers and he is not aware of what percentage of the total bronchoscopy load this list consisted of. However, as a part of this audit, he reviewed for each specific case the doctor's clinical resume' and the nurse's notes to see what the doctor called for and what was in fact done. Based on his audit, it appeared that during the period in question, more than 203 ml of cocaine had been ordered by physicians but there was no supporting documentation in the nurse's notes to indicate that the cocaine had been administered even though there was documentation for the use of other drugs. Here, it should be noted that Mr. Capraun is also the partner of Mr. Rogers in a private respiratory therapy business. The records of the pharmacy at ORMC revealed that the last issue of cocaine too the endoscopy section prior to the audit was made in July, 1982. Prior to that time, as far back as 1981, records indicated that the pharmacy had issued 60 ml of cocaine solution every three or four weeks. All issues are reflected as such issues are logged and the name of the individual to whom the drug is issued, who must be licensed, is retained. In addition, pharmacy records reflected no issue of any controlled drug, not only cocaine, to the endoscopy section between late October, 1982 and January 3, 1983. After Respondent was suspended on January 19, 1983, Mr. Holton examined the drug sheets kept in the endoscopy section and the drugs kept on the floor. He found three bottles of cocaine solution, one of which contained 60 ml and the other two contained 40 ml. Analysis of the contents of one bottle reflected the solution at 3.9 percent cocaine which is acceptable. The other two bottles, however, were at a lower strength - one at .5 percent and the other at 1.4 percent cocaine. Though there were three bottles of solution, only two records to support these bottles were found. One was dated May 21, 1982 and the other, June 23, 1982. Cocaine is issued by the pharmacy only upon the presentment of a proof of use sheet which reflects the fact that the previous issue has been used up and it is the practice of the pharmacy, according to Mr. Holton, not to issue new supplies of a controlled substance without a proof of use sheet to show the use of the previous issue. The records of the hospital reflect that the Endoscopy section is a small user of any controlled drug. From the above, an inference can be drawn that cocaine was improperly removed from the Endoscopy section. However, from review of the evidence as a whole, not only that already discussed but that to be discussed as well, it is impossible to determine for certain that there was a loss and if so, who was responsible for it. It certainly cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the Respondent either took it or knew who did. When Mr. Rogers received the letter from Dr. Varraux regarding the use of cocaine in the Endoscopy section of his department, he went to look for the Respondent to discuss the problem with her. He found that she had gone for the day and so he discussed the situation with Mrs. Williams, one of Respondent's assistants, who advised that Respondent had, at times, asked her to substitute xylocaine for cocaine. The following day, he looked into the situation further and after talking with his supervisor, called in Respondent and showed her Dr. Varraux's letter. He says Respondent first indicated she was aware of the situation - then changed her position. She again changed her position, indicating that she was aware of only one incident and that she had discussed with the employees of the section the illegality of the practice advising them not to do it. Mr. Rogers was told by his employers that he could suspend the Respondent if he felt it to be necessary. As a part of his inquiry, he discussed the matter with Mr. Holton and other employees of the department whom he asked to make statements regarding the alleged substitution. His requests were for specifics of the incidents - if they knew of the practice, who had asked them to do it, and things of that nature. When he got the employees' statements back, he reviewed them and took them to the personnel office for advice. Thereafter, he notified Respondent by mail of her termination. Mary Ann Hinds worked at the Endoscopy section as an LPN during the period July, 1982 through September, 1983 assisting physicians, including Dr. Varraux, in bronchoscopy procedures. She contends that at some time during October or November, 1982, Respondent called her into the office and advised that cocaine would no longer be used in bronchoscopy procedures and xylocaine would be substituted. She says she was told to chart the initial 4 percent xylocaine solution but not the 10 percent xylocaine solution she would give to the doctor without telling him of the substitution even though the doctor might ask for cocaine. She says that Ms. Bailey told her this would be done because during a prior procedure when the assistant used xylocaine instead of cocaine, Dr. Varraux did not know the difference and Bailey concluded that they would use the xylocaine instead of cocaine thereafter. Ms. Hinds did not question this because Respondent was the head of the department. Ms. Bailey was, in her opinion, difficult to talk to and as a result of these instructions, she followed this new procedure from the time of the instruction on through January, 1983. During this period, she saw Mr. Rosenau and Mr. Hooper also do the same thing. Although Ms. Hinds was quite definite in her testimony regarding the conversation with Ms. Bailey, she is significantly less sure of her testimony regarding control of drugs on the ward. For example, she cannot recall ever signing any proof of use forms. She contends that the LPNs and technicians did not sign off on the drug book. They would tell the Respondent what was used and she made the entries. When cocaine was to be used, she got it from a bottle in the Respondent's office. Helen Williams also worked under Respondent in the endoscopy section until January, 1983 assisting doctors with bronchoscopy procedures. When she first came to work in this section, she did not know that cocaine was being used. She recalls that in a conversation shortly after she came to work, Respondent told her they were using 4 percent xylocaine solution in place of a cocaine solution because they had done it one time with Dr. Varraux and he did not notice and as a result, they continued to follow this procedure. However, Ms. Williams, though she subsequently heard from Rosenau that substitutions were being made, never saw it done nor did she ever substitute. Though she says she advised Respondent she didn't think this substitution was a good idea, Respondent is supposed to have replied that this is the way it was done. Ms. Williams accepted Ms. Bailey's word when told that there was no cocaine on the unit and that cocaine was not being used even though the drug book at the time showed 27 cc of cocaine solution unused and on the unit. She discussed this with Ms. Bailey and concluded that if her supervisor knew about it, that was sufficient, and she did not report this to anyone else. She also did not report her knowledge of the substitutions being made to anyone else because she did not feel it was her place to do so since Respondent was the section head and knew about it. Ted Hooper, also an endoscopy technician, did bronchoscopies with Dr. Varraux for several years and toward the end, substituted xylocaine for cocaine in these procedures without telling the doctor what he was doing. He had seen Rosenau substitute xylocaine while he was watching procedures to learn how to do them before becoming a technician. When he asked Bailey about this, he says, she responded that it was done, for one reason, because it was cheaper for the patient. She also told him it was all right to do this as it had already been taken care of. She did not tell him, outright, to make the substitution but because she had said it was taken care of, he thought it was permissible. However, he also contends that he observed cocaine being used by Hinds and others in Dr. Varraux' cases after he became a technician in July, 1982. James E. Hardy, in October, 1982, employed as a transporter in the Endoscopy section of ORMC, also assisted in bronchoscopies, working at times with Dr. Varraux and he was aware of the practice of substituting xylocaine for cocaine in these procedures. When he first went to work in the section, he says, he was asked to substitute by Respondent who told him it was being done because it was cheaper for the patient but refused to do so. To his knowledge, however, he does not recall seeing the substitution actually performed. On one bronchoscopy he recalls, which he set up, cocaine was used which he got from Respondent. Mr. Rosenau testified at the March, 1985 hearing. He clearly indicated that xylocaine was substituted for cocaine in the procedures performed by Dr. Varraux and the cocaine they had on hand was rarely taken from the drug locker. He absolutely denies that during all the period of time he was working with Respondent, he ever discussed with her or admitted to her that he had substituted xylocaine for cocaine nor did Respondent ever tell him to do this. In fact, he cannot recall how this practice got started. Here it should be noted that Rosenau, Hardy, and Hooper were all friends of Mr. Rogers and at least Rosenau and Hardy owed their employment at the time to him. Respondent was recognized by Dr. Bone as partially responsible for the growth of the Endoscopy section at ORMC. He recalls her as being an exceptional nurse: reliable, dependable, and proficient - a perfectionist who did an excellent job. He had complete confidence in her ability and in her honesty and integrity. If he asked her to do something, she did it more reliably than others. Because of her perfectionist nature, however, she may have alienated people and turned them away, but he never had any doubts about her nor did he ever have any reports from other doctors that she did not do her job well. He worked with her until she left the hospital. She was a "take charge" person but never exceeded her authority or deviated from prescribed procedures or doctors' orders. This opinion of Respondent is shared by Christina Stephens who worked under Respondent for a period of time. She found the Respondent to be stern, regimented as to order of procedures, and very organized, but she never saw any irregularities by the Respondent in carrying out doctor's orders. As to Mr. Rosenau, however, of whom she also had some knowledge, she found him to be somewhat unprofessional in his patient care and actions and brought this to the attention of the supervisor by written report on several occasions. This was, however, several years prior to the time in issue here and she has not worked with him since 1976 nor does she have any knowledge of his performance since that time. Respondent began work at ORMC after she was a student in the respiratory therapy program there at the request of Mr. Rogers. She started as a pulmonary rehabilitation technician part time. At that time, there were only two employees in the section. When, after a few months, the supervisor left, Respondent took over. Over a period of time, new procedures were introduced including gastroenterology and Respondent was trained in them as she went. She began doing more of the latter than pulmonary rehabilitation even though she remained head of that section. She was then asked to help set up an Endoscopy section and started doing those procedures as well. Rosenau was working on the floor in the respiratory therapy section and was having trouble with his supervisor. As a result he wanted to come to work in the Endoscopy section and Respondent arranged a transfer for him even though he had little experience in endoscopy and none in gastroenterology. When she first started working with gastroenterology, the patient and his medication were brought into the section. When the procedure was finished, the unused medication was sent back with the patient. As the section got bigger however, and more procedures were accomplished, this practice began to hold things up. The physicians requested that medications be kept in the section for their use. Respondent resisted this because she did not feel there were sufficient safeguards available to maintain proper control. Nonetheless, the physicians pushed for it but the change did not happen until Dr. Varraux became insistent that the medications be kept there. He worked through Rogers and Holton to get a narcotics box installed on the section. When this was done Mr. Holton gave two sets of keys to the box to Mr. Rogers who immediately turned one set over to the Respondent and gave one set to Rosenau. When Dr. Varraux decided to use cocaine for anesthesia he discussed it with Rogers and Holton since Respondent did not have the authority to request it. As a result, the pharmacy began dispensing 60 ml bottles of cocaine solution for use in bronchoscopies with a control sheet accompanying it to be kept in the locked portion of the bronchoscopy cart. Again, Respondent and Rosenau both had access to this cart. In fact, Rosenau had access to every key that Respondent had except the one to her desk. According to the Respondent, she had difficulty with Rosenau regarding drugs on several occasions when he would draw narcotics into syringes, a procedure he was neither trained nor authorized to do. In the Spring of 1982, bronchoscopies were done by nurses who would give valium but cocaine was administered by Rosenau only. However, when cocaine was used, Respondent would sign off on the sheets along with others whose names appeared on the form as administers of the drug. In mid-1982 bronchoscopies were transferred to the respiratory therapy section, by then headed by Rosenau, but this did not seem to work out and after a short period, the procedure was returned back to the endoscopy section, with Rosenau still doing them under the overall supervision of Respondent. Respondent contends that she did not train people to do the bronchoscopy procedures. Rosenau had been doing this for months before all of this took place. Ms. Hinds came to work in late July, 1982, and Respondent had no control over bronchoscopies at that point as they were in Rosenau's section. As to Hardy, she characterized him as an errand boy who was never trained to do bronchoscopies and with whom she never discussed them. She did, however, have a discussion with Rosenau on one occasion about cocaine. She relates that on this particular instance, Rosenau advised her in confidence that he had substituted Xylocaine for cocaine by mistake on a bronchoscopy performed by Dr. Varraux and wanted to get it off his chest. He assured her that if she would give him another chance, he would never let it happen again. Here, even though Rosenau had a previous disciplinary record which she had discussed with Rogers, she decided to take no action because she felt it would be fruitless. Rogers had taken no corrective action against Rosenau in the past and she had no reason to believe he would do so now. Rosenau, as was seen above, denies this conversation but no doubt it did occur. Respondent does not know why she was terminated and was shocked by the action. Rogers had mentioned something about cocaine and had given her an opportunity to resign but she refused. She claims to know nothing about the dilution of the cocaine solution. She claims to know nothing of the substitutions of xylocaine for cocaine other than that reported to her by Rosenau. She categorically denies ever telling Hinds, Williams, or anyone else to substitute xylocaine for cocaine. Counsel for Respondent spent considerable time attempting to establish that the charges against her are the result of a plot by Rogers, Rosenau and others at the hospital to remove her from her position. At best, the evidence shows a lack of control within the respiratory therapy section. There does appear to be a decided relationship between Mr. Rogers and Mr. Rosenau but Respondent has failed to establish that this relationship manifested itself in a plan to bring about her unjustified separation. The evidence establishes that xylocaine was substituted for cocaine and there is some substantial evidence to indicate the Respondent had some knowledge or information indicating that this was being done. There is no credible evidence, however, to establish that Respondent herself substituted xylocaine for cocaine or instructed or directed anyone else to do so. At worst hers is a sin of omission rather than commission.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent failed to maintain the good moral character requisite to continued certification as a Correctional Probation Officer in violation of Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is James C. Norman, holder of Correctional Probation Certificate 152252. Respondent was employed in the capacity of correctional officer at the Union Correctional Institute. Bruce M. Fitzgerald, personnel manager at Union Correctional Institute, supervises drug screening of correctional officers at the Institute. Fitzgerald set up a drug screen to be administered to Respondent on October 16, 1995. Respondent came to Fitzgerald’s office on that date where Fitzgerald explained the process to Respondent, provided Respondent with a chain of custody form bearing specimen identification number 09A664423, and obtained Respondent’s signature on a Employee Drug Testing Notice. Respondent was instructed to go to Bradford Hospital in Starke, Florida for the collection of his urine sample and submission of that urine sample for the drug screening process. Pamela Langham, a licensed practical nurse for the past 20 years, was working on October 16, 1995, in the Acute Care Office at Bradford Hospital where obtaining specimens for drug screening was a part of her duties. On October 16, 1995, Langham received from Respondent the chain of custody form bearing specimen identification number 09A664423. Langham then followed standard protocol in obtaining Respondent’s urine sample by having Respondent empty his pockets, turn the pockets inside out, take off any loose fitting garments, wash his hands and clean his fingernails, and remove his footwear. Langham then had Respondent go into the restroom and obtain his urine specimen in a container. Respondent returned from the restroom with the container where Langham then gave Respondent the lid for the container. The specimen container was then sealed in Respondent’s presence. Langham had Respondent sign the specimen container. The container was then sealed in a plastic bag upon which Respondent placed his initials. Respondent’s specimen container was then refrigerated for later pick up by a courier and transportation to the laboratory in Tampa, Florida, for analysis. Langham completed a portion of the chain of custody form number 09A664423 which was sent along with the specimen to the laboratory. Michael Dean Miller, an expert in the field of forensic chemistry, is the toxicology manager and records custodian at the laboratory where Respondent’s specimen was received. The laboratory is certified by the State of Florida and nationally accredited by the College of American Pathologists. At the final hearing, Miller presented the documents prepared in the reception and testing of specimen number 09A664423. Respondent’s specimen was received in a sealed package by Enoris Moore at the laboratory on October 16, 1995. The specimen seal was intact and bore no indication that the specimen had been contaminated in any way. The specimen was analyzed and handled in accordance with the requirements of the laboratory and the State of Florida. Respondent’s specimen was tested in accordance with standard and accepted procedures in the industry. The specimen was examined by Mark Bartalini. The specimen tested positive for the presence of cocaine metabolite. Compared to a minimum cut off for testing for drug presence in urine of 150 nanograms, Respondent’s urine sample contained 11,649 nanograms which is considered a high level. This result indicated the actual presence of cocaine metabolite in Respondent’s system. Respondent denied usage of any other compound which may have affected the level of cocaine metabolite found to exist in his urine sample. His additional denial of cocaine consumption prior to the collection of his urine sample is not credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and revoking his certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 488-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul D. Johnston, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1489 James C. Norman Post Office Box 651 Raiford, FL 32083 Michael Ramage, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations and issues herein, Respondent was the holder of 2 COP alcoholic beverage license number 66-89, held since 1952, for his premises known as Eddie's Drive In, located at 1907 Avenue D., Ft. Pierce, Florida. Mr. Asbury has operated his establishment at that location under the above license since 1952 with only three former infractions of a very minor nature. In 1959, he was warned for a failure to have the fingerprints of an employee on file. In 1963 he was given a 15-day suspension when a minor was found in possession of whiskey as opposed to beer on his premises. In 1965 he was again given a 15-day suspension and, in addition, a $200.00 fine because gambling tickets were found in the premises. Until the instant case, these were the only derogatory incidents in Respondent's file. Respondent has been known to be very cooperative with the authorities and has always quickly corrected violations brought to his attention. In the latter part of 1982, based on a complaint from the Ft. Pierce police Department of numerous narcotics in the Avenue D area, Petitioner conducted an undercover investigation of several establishments in the area including that of the Respondent. Pursuant to that investigation, Beverage Officer Thompson, five year veteran with DABT, who has been given the normal police training in narcotics detection and identification as well as having attended various schools conducted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, and who, based on this education and his experience in the field, is quite familiar with marijuana and its various forms and methods of use, in the company of another beverage investigator, Hamilton, on September 17, 1982, entered Respondent's premises at approximately 9:30 P.M. and observed both Respondent and his bar maid, Lois, on the premises. He took a seat at the bar across from Respondent and several feet off to the side of Lois. He saw Lois pull a cigarette from beneath the bar and start to smoke it. From the way she handled the cigarette and from the way it looked and smelled, he felt it was marijuana. While Lois was smoking this cigarette, she made no effort to hide it and was in full view of the Respondent all the time. Thompson saw Respondent look over in her direction while she was doing it but made no issue of it or even acknowledged it. Though there were other patrons in the bar at the time, Thompson saw nothing else that looked like marijuana use to him that evening. The following evening, September 18, both agents again entered the establishment and sat at the bar. This time the bar maid was Laverne. Thompson also saw a black female identified as Devonza at the counter with whom both he and the other investigator had a brief conversation. Later, Thompson saw another black female identified as Dot (Dorothy Battle), seated across the bar from Laverne, pull out and start smoking a cigarette he thought was marijuana. He also saw Dot pull small manila colored packages from a small pouch she carried and sell them for $5.00. These bags were similar in appearance to what he knew from his experience to be "nickle bags" of marijuana. He also saw Laverne smoking that evening and from the way she held the cigarette and from its odor and the way it was rolled and burning, he concluded it was marijuana. At this particular time, she was on duty behind the bar, but Respondent was not on the premises. No samples of the substance in question were taken either night. Both investigators went back to the premises on September 22 at about 8:30 P.M. There were few patrons in the bar at the time. Thompson went to the bar and sat talking to Laverne who was on duty. When Dot came up and sat at the bar, he asked her if she had any $5.00 bags and she said she did. She pulled out a small manila bag like he had seen her sell on September 18 and made no effort to hide the transaction. She made the transfer to him above the level of the bar. Thompson does not know if Laverne saw the sale or not, but Respondent was not on the premises at the time. The substance he purchased that night was later properly identified as marijuana. When he went back at about 10:00 P.M. on September 23, Thompson saw 10 or more patrons in the bar. He sat down at the bar across from Respondent and asked him if he knew where he could buy some "snow." Respondent indicated he did not, but that there was some around. Respondent's recollection of this conversation differs from that of Thompson. He says he thought Thompson was asking for snow, which is the nickname of a known drug dealer named Coleman, and he said he did hot know where he was but that he was around. Under either interpretation of the conversation, the result is the same. Thompson asked a question and got no assistance from Respondent's answer. There is nothing incriminating either in knowing that "snow" is available in the area (from all reports, drug use is rampant in this area), or in knowing that a known drug dealer, Snow, is around. Thompson had also been in the bar earlier in the day, about 3:00 P.M., when he saw both Laverne and Dot inside. After sitting at the bar for a while, he walked over to the video area where he saw black males rolling and smoking what he took to be marijuana cigarettes in a remote area of the club. While talking with Laverne at the bar, he saw her pass an empty 1/2 of a cardboard beer box to three black males sitting at a table. He saw these males use this box to hold large amounts of what appeared to be raw marijuana from which they were making small manila packages of the substances which they subsequently put into a brown paper bag under the table. During this same time, he saw Laverne smoking what he suspected to be a marijuana cigarette. At about 9:15 P.M. on October 8, Thompson again went back to the club and saw Laverne when he sat at the bar. Another black female, identified as Wanda, came to the bar and offered to sell him marijuana. She pulled out a small package of purported marijuana and laid it on the bar, offering to sell it for $5.00. She also offered to sell him a somewhat larger bag for $6.00. At this point, Thompson gave Laverne a $20.00 bill and asked for change which she gave him. She was standing right there and made no effort at all to stop this sale of marijuana. In fact, Thompson had asked her if Wanda's stuff was any good and she replied it was. While at the club that evening, he also saw other black males and females smoking what to him appeared to be marijuana at a remote area of the bar counter. He formed the opinion it was marijuana because of how the cigarettes were rolled, smoked, and passed around and from the distinctive smell it has. On October 9, 1982, Thompson again went into the place, this time with Hamilton. On this occasion, Laverne was on duty and he sat at the bar and propositioned her to buy him some marijuana. She said she had none then because she had smoked it all, and so he was unable to make a buy that evening, but he saw, while in there, other patrons at the bar and in the area smoking what he is convinced was marijuana. Again, he formed that opinion because of the way the substance was being smoked and handled. Thompson did not get back to Respondent's place until October 15, 1982, when he again went in with Hamilton. On this evening, Respondent was there and he could smell the heavy distinctive odor of marijuana in the premises. Thompson sat at the bar across from Respondent and observed a group of black males at a nearby table. While he was watching, he saw one black male inhale a large quantity of smoke and blow it into the nostrils of the other people at the table. When he saw this, he mentioned it to the Respondent who looked over and acknowledged it but made no effort to stop it or get these patrons out of his place. On this same occasion, the bar maid, Brenda, was smoking what appeared to be marijuana after Respondent left and Thompson was able to purchase marijuana from Dot, at the bar and in front of Brenda, who also made no effort to stop the transfer. Brenda also made no effort to stop other patrons who were rolling and smoking what he believed to be marijuana cigarettes right at the bar. Also on this same evening, Thompson observed Hamilton purchase what was subsequently identified as marijuana from Dot near the video games. The next afternoon, on October 16, 1982, at about 2:30 P.M., Thompson again went into the Respondent's establishment with Hamilton and sat at the bar. At this time, he saw the rolling and smoking of suspected marijuana cigarettes at nearby tables and at the bar by unidentified black males. The smell and packaging of the substance is what convinced him it was marijuana. Neither agent was in Respondent's establishment again until December 18, 1982, when both went in about 8:30 P.M. They sat at the bar where, on this evening, Beverly was the bar maid. While sitting there, Thompson saw various individuals smoking marijuana at different places on the premises and observed that Beverly made no effort to stop it. In fact, from the odor, the method of burning, and the way she smoked, he was convinced she was smoking it herself. Dorothy Lee Battle (Dot) denies ever having met Thompson before this hearing and indicates he is lying when he says he bought marijuana from her at Respondent's establishment. She admits that she was arrested for the sale and delivery of marijuana outside Respondent's place but absolutely denies ever having sold or transferred inside. Even though she refused to cooperate with the authorities who wanted to prosecute Respondent, she was placed on three years probation after being confined for almost 3 1/2 months. She indicates she has known the Respondent since she was a kid and knows that he is definitely opposed to the use of drugs and will not permit it to be sold in his establishment. In fact, he has told her that she was not to bring any marijuana into his place and if she had any he would call the police. She knows that Respondent is quite concerned about losing his license because she believes this is the only business he has. Because of that, there are a lot of signs warning against the smoking or selling of marijuana in there but notwithstanding, she has seen people smoking marijuana inside the bar. However, his patrons respect him and any marijuana smoking is done only when Respondent is not there and never when he is. These signs have also been seen by Mr. Daniel Cribbs, the supplier of Respondent's vending machines, whose family has dealt with him for 30 years or so. Mr. Cribbs has been in Respondent's establishment every two weeks for a long while and has seen these signs prohibiting the use of selling of marijuana up and down for several months or so. He gave no indication as to whether they were there two years or so ago when the incidents in question were alleged to have taken place. In any case, he has spoken with Respondent about marijuana in the past and recalls that Respondent has stated that he doesn't want it in there. These signs were also seen from time to time by Gary Coleman who, by deposition, indicated that they are the normal signs placed in all establishments where beer is sold. Coleman indicates he has also heard Respondent telling people who were smoking pot to leave his place. Coleman denies every smoking marijuana in Respondent's place or, for that matter ever doing anything unlawful there. He has lived in Ft. Pierce for about eight years and in all that time has only been in there about a dozen times or so. He is, however, by his own admission, on probation for selling narcotics. Therefore, neither his testimony or that of Ms. Battle are particularly credible and both Thompson and Young, who conducted the close out investigation of Respondent's premises indicate that on the times they were in there, neither ever saw any signs warning against the sale or smoking of marijuana. It is, therefore, most likely, that if any signs were posted, they were put up long after the incidents in question and were not there prior to official interest being shown. Respondent denies that Thompson ever saw Lois smoke marijuana in his premises. He also indicates that he discharged Laverne by telling her she need not come to work any more when he found out she was doing drugs. He contends he never had any idea people were doing drugs in his establishment. He has, he says, always been against that sort of conduct and has repeatedly told his employees to call either the police or him if they saw people smoking marijuana on his property. He has, on at least one occasion prior to the incidents in question here, called the police on people smoking marijuana in his bar. There is, he contends, only so much one can do about the problem short of that. Even on the occasion he called the police and they came and took the offenders outside, they were not arrested and, as he understood it, even after requesting the police to make these people stay out of his place, the police did not even take their names. Mr. Asbury had a schedule for his routine at the time these alleged incidents took place which had him arriving at his place about 6:00 P.M. to check out the bartender on duty and check the money. This took about 30 minutes. He would then leave and come back between 9:00 and 9:30 P.M. to check for a while, after which he would again leave and come back at 11:00 P.M. and stay for the rest of the evening. This would be his routine just about every night of the week. He has no knowledge of the things that are alleged to have taken place when he was there. As to the shot gunning incident (the blowing of the marijuana smoke into the others' nostrils) that Thompson said he observed, Respondent denies it ever happened. Respondent tries to hire only people he knows and trusts. He pays them in cash and keeps no employment records. During the period in question, he states he had two employees. One was named Vernel (he does not knew anyone named Laverne) and the other was named Lois. Since the incidents in question, Respondent checks on his establishment much more than he did before. He has added a new afternoon visit to his schedule and has hired new girls to tend bar. While prior to this time, no one ever warned him of the problems he was apparently having, even now he still has problems with people smoking marijuana in the place. When he learns of it, he tells them to get out and he is quite satisfied that law enforcement officials have not seen much selling and smoking of marijuana in his place recently.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent held Florida Alcoholic Beverage License 2-COP No. 54-00184 at Stew's Bar located at Third Avenue, Maloney Subdivision, Stock Island, Monroe County, Florida. The parties stipulated that Robert Stanley Gardner, Respondent's husband, has a financial interest in the leased premises. Based on Respondent's testimony, it is clear that she did not understand the nature of her stipulation regarding Robert Stanley Gardner's interest in the licensed premises, and he in fact has no interest therein. Stew's Bar has had a reputation with the Monroe County Sheriff's Department as a trouble spot for a considerable period of time prior to the events which took place here. However, upon questioning, Major Somberg, who had a computer printout of all calls received by his office relating to this establishment, was unable to cite even one previous call relating to narcotics. Nonetheless, based on the records of law enforcement agencies in the area, an undercover operation was instituted against Respondent's establishment in late April and early May 1984. On April 25, 1984, at approximately 3:50 p.m., Gale Sampson, an investigator with the Miami office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, entered Respondent's bar in an undercover capacity. She spent a period of time observing patrons and employees and noticed a Latin male who had a towel rolled up under his arm. She observed this individual take a packet from the towel, wave it in the air, and say "Haircut." The bartender at the time, Geraldine Hook, laughed, as did several patrons, but made no effort to stop this individual. This packet, a plastic bag containing a white powdery substance, was consistent with the way cocaine is packaged. This package was not, however, confiscated, nor were the contents identified. The following day, at 5:45 p.m., Sampson again went into the bar. She saw Hook again working behind the bar and asked Hook if she knew where she, Sampson, could get some cocaine. Hook turned and asked a female by the name of Alvarez, who said "Yes." Alvarez and Sampson agreed upon a price of $45 for a half gram, and Sampson gave Alvarez $50. Somewhat later, Alvarez returned to the bar and gave Sampson a half gram package and $5 in change. The contents of this package were subsequently tested in the laboratory of the Monroe County Sheriff's Office and were determined to be cocaine. Hook categorically denies arranging this sale. She admits to knowing Alvarez, but denies knowing even if there was any deal between Alvarez and Sampson. She also contends that when Sampson approached her to buy cocaine, she refused to get Sampson any and told Sampson that if she wanted any, she would have to get it herself. This last admission serves to defeat the credibility of Hook's denial. Somewhat prior to this transaction between Sampson and Alvarez, Beverage Investigator Clark A. Raby, assigned to the Live Oak, Florida, office, but in Key West on the same undercover operation, entered Respondent's bar at 4:50 p.m. as a backup for Sampson. He sat at the bar and ordered a beer from Hook. During the course of the evening, he had a conversation with the bartender and various patrons. He saw one Latin and two white males light and pass around what appeared to him to be a marijuana cigarette right at the door. He later went into the men's room and found a Latin male and a white female in the men's room rolling a cigarette. When he excused himself, she said it was all right--she was in there all the time. Sampson went back into the bar at 11:35 a.m. on April 27 and went right to the bar. She was approached there by a Latin male subsequently identified as Vernesto Seguseo, who asked her to sit in a booth with him. She did, and during the conversation asked him if he was an employee of the establishment. He replied that he was a bouncer, but not on duty. She asked him if he could tell her where she could buy cocaine. He said he had it right there, and she asked him how much one-half gram would cost. He replied "$40," whereupon she paid him as requested. In response, he took a small plastic packet out of his pocket and gave it to her. The contents of this packet were subsequently chemically analyzed by the Monroe County Sheriff's Office and determined to be cocaine. Though this individual never specifically stated he was an employee of this establishment, and evidence indicates from Respondent's witnesses that he was employed as a bouncer at another bar in the area, he was nonetheless seen in this establishment previously in areas reserved for employees of the bar. The testimony of Ms. Otona, the bar manager, and at least one barmaid indicates that this individual was not employed by Respondent's establishment until May 15, 1984, and, at the time of this sale, was not a bar employee. Raby also entered the bar at 4:50 p.m. on April 27, 1984. He went to the bar, where he ordered a beer from Hook. Shortly afterward, a black male offered to sell him a "Columbian joint" for $1.50. Raby paid him $2 and got the cigarette. Hook was there all the time and did not try to stop the transaction. However, there is some doubt as to whether she saw it. Raby testified that when the transfer of the cigarette was made to him, the cigarette was passed at the level of, or even below the level of, the bar, and it is very possible that Hook did not see the transaction occur. Hook indicates that at that time she was wearing dark glasses to cover the effects of a beating she had received from her boyfriend and did not see anything like what Raby described. Consequently, it is most likely that she did not. This cigarette was subsequently analyzed by the laboratory of the Monroe County Sheriff's Office and determined to be marijuana. This same black male individual, subsequently identified by the initials "J. J.," told Raby at the time that there was good cocaine available for $40 from "Latin brothers." On that same afternoon, Raby overheard Geraldine Hook agree to smoke and saw her smoke what appeared to be and smelled like marijuana right outside the back door of the establishment. There is no evidence, however, whether or not the substance was in fact marijuana. On April 28, 1984, Raby went into the Respondent's bar at approximately 5:30 in the afternoon and ordered a beer from the bartender, Joyce. J. J. came up and asked how he liked the cigarette he had purchased the day before, then asked if he wanted to buy some cocaine for $40 a half gram. Raby indicated that he did, whereupon J. J. walked off for awhile and came back. When J. J. came back to the bar, Raby put two $20 bills out which J. J. took. He again went away and came back a moment later with a packet which he passed to Raby beside the bar. He did nothing to hide it, and Joyce was there and did nothing to stop it. Raby is not sure if Joyce saw this or not, however, as he was not looking at her at the time. The substance was subsequently identified by the laboratory as cocaine. Sampson was also at the bar early in the morning of April 28, sitting with Vernesto Seguseo. The barmaid, Joyce, said she was taking $15 from the register and someone would replace it later. Seguseo agreed. Beverage Investigator Beverly Jenkins, who had received word from a confidential informant that an employee of the bar, a maintenance man described as a short black male with a beer belly and no teeth, was selling cocaine. When she first went into the bar on May 14, she saw this man there behind the bar filling the orders and taking orders from Geraldine Hook, the barmaid. When Jenkins talked with him, he admitted he worked there all the time, but did not want to engage in any long discussions at the time. He asked Jenkins to come back without her partner. On May 15, at approximately 5:55 p.m., she went back alone. This individual previously mentioned, who was subsequently identified as "Peter," immediately approached her and offered to introduce her around and "do her right." Jenkins asked him for cocaine. Peter went to another employee, came back, and said he could not provide it. Later, however, he offered to use cocaine with Jenkins if she would go with him. She refused and said she was going to leave, at which point he asked her to wait for him to finish work. Jenkins agreed to this and later left the bar and went out to her car. Shortly thereafter, Peter came out and got in Jenkins' car, at which point he offered to sell her a half gram of cocaine for $40. He offered to reduce the price if she would buy more than one packet. Jenkins agreed to buy three one-half gram packets for $35 each. She paid Peter $105 and received from him a substance which was subsequently identified as cocaine after being analyzed by the Monroe County Sheriff's Office laboratory. At 6:20 p.m. on the following day, May 16, when Jenkins went back in the bar, Peter was not there, but Vernesto, a former employee, was. Within a few minutes, Peter came in and approached Jenkins, asking her if she wanted more cocaine. When she said she did, he asked her to come outside. She resisted at this time because she was playing pool. When she finished the game, Jenkins went over to Peter, who took her outside and sold her a half-gram of a white powdery substance for $30 on the condition that she always buy from him and not from someone else. The substance Jenkins purchased on this evening was subsequently analyzed and determined to be cocaine. While Jenkins was in the bar this evening, she noticed there was a lot of traffic going to and from the rest rooms. She saw Peter go into the rest room with a patron, and she noticed that as he entered the rest room he was taking from his pocket a plastic bag similar to those which he had sold her previously. Jenkins did not see this transaction go down, however, but later saw the patron leave the rest room. The following day, Jenkins noticed that Gerry (Geraldine Hook) was back behind the bar and looked tired. Jenkins noticed that a female patron followed Gerry and her boyfriend into the back, where she saw Gerry breathe in through her nose a white powder. Jenkins asked to join the party at the time, but was refused. The female patron was identified as Donna, a clinic employee, who said at the time they were all a friendly group. This same patron, Donna, went into the restroom later with a Latin male and shortly after came out, rubbing her nose in a fashion consistent with cocaine use. Geraldine Hook, on the other hand, denies under oath that she was ingesting cocaine. Hook contends that she was explaining to her boyfriend why she could not get off work early and that the other lady was translating her comments to her boyfriend, who does not speak English. Hook contends that she does not ever snort or ingest cocaine because she is allergic to all drugs that are in the cocaine family and in support of that statement submitted a medical record from the Florida Keys Memorial Hospital emergency room showing that on April 23, 1984, when who was treated in the hospital because of being beaten by her boyfriend, she listed as allergies novacaine and tetracycline, tetramycin, morphine, and drugs of a similar nature. Hook also contends that she has asthma and could not use cocaine without it closing off her breathing passages. Emergency room records reflect that she has been previously diagnosed as an asthma sufferer. Later on May 17, Jenkins went back into the bar and went to the ladies' room with Peter. Peter offered to sell her two bags of cocaine for $60. After they entered the rest room, Peter closed the door halfway prior to making the transaction; however, the substance which he passed to Jenkins on that occasion and for which he charged $60 was subsequently identified as cocaine. Later that evening, Jenkins again went into the bar and saw Peter working. They played pool for a while, and she asked him for more cocaine. They went to the ladies' room again, where she paid him $60 for one gram of a substance which was subsequently identified as cocaine. During this entire transaction, the door was not closed. That same evening, Jenkins also saw Peter go into the men's room with three Latin males who, shortly after entering with him, came out rubbing and wiping their noses. This practice of patrons going into the restrooms and coming out rubbing their noses was also observed by Beverage Agent Jose Iturralde, who entered the bar undercover on both the 14th and the 15th of May, but who was unable to make a buy from Peter or anyone else because, he believes, he and the other agents had already been identified as agents. A raid in conjunction with the Monroe County Sheriff's Office and other law enforcement agencies was conducted on the premises on May 18, 1984, pursuant to a search warrant properly issued. Arrested at that time were Seguseo, Geraldine Hook, and several other Latin named patrons. Pursuant to the search carried out, the following items were found: one and one-half grams of cocaine behind the jukebox; 26 clear baggies, each containing a half-grain of cocaine, behind the bar counter on the floor; a partially smoked marijuana cigarette on top of the cash register; 14 baggies, each containing cocaine, on the bar counter; a partially smoked cigarette below and behind the bar on the southeast corner of the bar on the floor; 22 baggies of cocaine on the floor behind the bar near the entrance (these 22 baggies were contained in a white envelope) 9 syringes in a small storage room off the main bar; and a Marlborough cigarette pack containing a clear plastic bag of cocaine on one of the booth seats. Geraldine Hook does not recall seeing any patron waving a plastic bag on April 25, as testified to by Agent Sampson; however, she contends that, because of the fact that the police frequently come into the bar looking for narcotics, it is a habit of some of the patrons, as a joke, to wave around clear plastic bags which do not contain cocaine. These instances generally result in the type of laughter described by Sampson. When Hook was hired by the manager, Ms. Otona, she was told, and she recalls that other girls who had been hired there are told, that they, as employees, cannot have or use drugs on the premises or allow anyone in who uses drugs; that if they see anyone they think is using drugs, they are to put that person out. Any violation of these rules results in discharge of the employee. Hook admits having seen mixed couples going into the rest rooms from time to time, but considers this to be acceptable behavior, since there are no locks on the doors. The rules for employees, which are made known to the employee when hired, were confirmed by another barmaid, Brenda L. Gillespie. She added to the no-drug policy such things as no drinking to excess and no kissing during work, and she herself recalled having barred numerous people and having seen others barred over the past few months because of the new management (that of Mrs. Gardner, Respondent, and Ms. Otona, manager) and their attempts to do away with the previously bad reputation the bar had for drugs. Because of this, the waitresses have taken substantial abuse. Ms. Gillespie confirmed Ms. Hook's comments regarding the joke made of the waving of plastic bags, contending that the patrons are trying to test the barmaids to see how far they can go. Gillespie also contends that she is the one who pried the locks off the restrooms to prevent patrons from locking themselves in the rooms to use drugs and has many times told patrons to keep the drugs out, going so far as to call the police. Notwithstanding the testimony of all of the beverage agents that they had never seen the Respondent or the manager on the premises, Gillespie opined that either one or both are there all the time or are immediately on call, since they live in the immediate vicinity of the bar. Further, she contends that the agents were there on irregular hours or were so busy pretending to be drunk that it was impossible for them to see anyone. She recognized the undercover agents as agents, but she did not let on because she wanted their help. Louise Otona, currently the manager of Stew's Bar for Katherine Gardner, the owner, indicated that she and Respondent realized about one and a half or two months ago that there was a problem at the bar because of Respondent's husband, Stanley Gardner. Mr. Gardner is a cocaine addict, but has no interest in the premises or in the license. Because of his problem, however, Ms. Otona keeps all the money from the sales, and none is left at the bar. Respondent and Ms. Otona have barred anyone they knew who had any connection with Mr. Gardner and his drug habit. Ms. Otona has also fired anyone she knows who has anything to do with drugs and has taken over from the barmaids throwing people out. Ms. Otona admits that drugs may have been sold in the bar, but not with her knowledge or with the knowledge of her employees, because both she and Respondent have tried to do their utmost to keep drugs out. The waitresses in Stew's Bar are hardworking girls who would not knowingly jeopardize their livelihood by selling or permitting drugs to be sold in the bar. Ms. Otona and Respondent have worked hard to make Stew's Bar clean again and have made progress. Ms. Otona has received many compliments from the police on these efforts. With regard to Peter, the Latin male who sold to Jenkins on several occasions, Ms. Otona contends that Peter was fired by her personally on May 15, 1984, and could not then have been an employee of the bar at the time the sales were made. However, many of the barmaids' boyfriends help behind the bar, as do some patrons. Consequently, it may appear that individuals are employees who are working behind the bar when, in fact, they are not. Respondent testified similarly to Ms. Otona. Respondent does not use drugs herself, nor does she drink. Her husband, Stanley, is a drug addict, and she has started work to have him committed because of his addiction. He has nothing to do with the bar, however, and he is not the landlord. As far as J. J.'s coming into the bar is concerned, J. J. was barred from this establishment prior to the incidents in question, but keeps coming back. Respondent has called the police to have him thrown out, but nothing seems to help.
The Issue The issue is whether the application for Alcoholic Beverage License No. 23-6847 received by the Department on June 21, 1985, should be disapproved: because the application discloses a person with a direct interest in the premises to be licensed (Mr. Farquharson) is ineligible for licensure pursuant to Section 561.15(2) and 561.17(1), Florida Statutes (1985), due to conviction for the sale of marijuana within the last five years, and for violation of Section 559.791, Florida Statutes (1985) for a material misstatement on the application by not disclosing these convictions?
Findings Of Fact An application for an alcoholic beverage license to permit consumption of beer and wine on a restaurant premises was filed by Pauline B. Farquharson which was received by the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco on June 21, 1985. "Exhibit 1). The application discloses that Barranett Farquharson born 7/1/52, has a direct interest in the premises to be licensed [Exhibit 1, page 18, Section I(6)(C)]. A personal questionnaire, Department of Business Regulation form DBR 71 OL for Barranett Farquharson was included in the application, which contained the following question and answer: "Have you ever been in this state, any other state, by the United States or by any foreign country: Arrested, charged or convicted of any violation of the law excluding minor traffic violations? Answer: Yes. On or about (1980-81). Arrested, possession of a weapon. Found not guilty." (Exhibit 2) The application also disclosed that the funds for the operation of the business, $60,000, had been obtained from personal funds in the amount of $4,934.09, and $56,065.91 from loans and mortgages. (Exhibit 1, page 11). A mortgage in the amount of $23,446.91 had been received from Standard Federal Loan Association of Gaithersburg, Maryland. A settlement statement included with the application, showed the borrowers as Barranett Farquharson and Pauline Farquharson. (Exhibit 1, pages 12-13). As part of the application, Mr. Barranett Farquharson was fingerprinted and the fingerprints were sent for examination to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation responded with a report showing that the police department of New York City, New York had recorded the following arrest history, charges and charge disposition for Barranett Farquharson: 11/3/80 - Charged with possession of marijuana. Disposition: conditional discharge. 8/14/81 - Charged with sale of marijuana, possession of marijuana. Disposition: time served on criminal possession of marijuana. l0/14/82 - Charged with criminal possession of marijuana 4th, Criminal sale of marijuana 4th. Disposition: conditional discharge on criminal sale marijuana 4th. 11/3/82 - Charged with criminal sale marijuana 4th, unlawful possession marijuana. Disposition: sentenced to $50/30 days, fine paid on criminal sale of marijuana 4th. (Exhibit 4) A certified copy of the records of the Criminal Court of the City of New York was also entered into evidence as Exhibit 3. It disclosed that Barranett Farquharson, born 7/1/52, had been arrested and arraigned on charges of violating Section 221.15 of the penal law of the State of New York for the unlawful possession of marijuana and was adjudicated guilty of that charge on February 19, 1982. Mr. Farquharson was again arraigned on December 17, 1982 for violation of Section 221.40 of the penal law of the State of New York, criminal sale of marijuana in the 4th degree, and he received a conditional discharge. He was again arrested on November 3, 1982, arraigned on charges of violation of Sections 221.05 and 221.40 of the penal law of the State of New York on November 4, 1982, and he was found guilty of criminal sale of marijuana in the 4th degree and sentenced to pay a $250.00 fine. Section 221.05 of the penal law of the State of New York reads as follows: "Unlawful possession of marihuana. (VIOLATION)I A person is guilty of unlawful possession of marihuana when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses marihuana. Unlawful possession of marihuana is a violation punishable only by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars. However, where the defendant has previously been convicted of an offense defined in this article or article 220 of this chapter committed within the three years immediately preceeding such violation, it shall be punishable (a) only by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, if the defendant was previously convicted of one such offense committed during such period, and (b) by a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars or a term of imprisonment not in excess of fifteen days or both, if the defendant was previously convicted of two such offenses committed during such period." (Exhibit 6) Section 221.15 of the penal law of the State of New York provides: "Criminal possession of marihuana in the fourth degree. A person is guilty of criminal possession of marihuana in the fourth degree when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances of an aggregate weight of more than two ounces containing marihuana." Section 221.40 of the penal law of the State of New York provides: "Criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree. A/MISD.) A person is guilty of criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree when he knowingly and unlawfully sells marihuana except as provided on Section 221.35 of this article." (Exhibit 6)
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the application for an Alcoholic Beverage License submitted by Mrs. Pauline Farquharson d/b/a Pauline's West Indian Restaurant be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Mrs. Pauline B. Farquharson 104 N. E. 205th Terrace Miami, Florida 33179 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927
Findings Of Fact During the month of August 1990, petitioner, Gerald J. Vanacker, conspired with one Perry Anthony Laspina (Laspina) to purchase 40 pounds of marijuana (cannabis) in Broward County, Florida, for $34,000.00. Unbeknownst to the conspirators, the person from whom they arranged to purchase the marijuana was a detective with the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department. The negotiations for the sale were made by telephone, and were primarily between Laspina and the detective; however, the petitioner was present with Laspina when the terms of the agreement were finalized. The basic terms of the agreement were that the detective would deliver 40 pounds of marijuana to Laspina in exchange for $34,000.00. At the actual time of sale, the agreement had been modified, due to a shortage of cash funds, to call for the exchange of $25,000 and the delivery of certain personal property as collateral for the payment of the balance of the agreed upon price. On August 15, 1990, petitioner and Laspina met with two undercover detectives, one of whom was the detective with whom Laspina had negotiated the deal, to purchase the subject marijuana. At that time, one of the detectives took possession of Laspina's car, left the area, loaded it with a 40-pound bale of marijuana, and returned the car and its cargo of marijuana to the site. Thereafter, the trunk was opened, and petitioner and Laspina examined and approved the marijuana. At that point, Laspina entered the detective's car so the money he had brought could be counted and exchanged, and petitioner and the other detective waited in Laspina's car. Shortly thereafter, other detectives arrived on the scene and petitioner and Laspina were arrested and charged with possession of marijuana, a felony, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. On August 27, 1990, the respondent, Department of Revenue (Department) issued a Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Findings which assessed tax and penalties in the amount of $25,500.00, together with interest thereon at the rate of $8.38 per day after September 21, 1990, against the petitioner, pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes. The factual basis for the assessment was the petitioner's involvement in the marijuana transaction described in the foregoing findings of fact. Following unsuccessful efforts to resolve the matter, petitioner ultimately filed a timely petition seeking a formal hearing to contest the Department's assessment. At hearing, petitioner contended that he was not involved in any sale, use, or distribution of the subject marijuana, but had merely loaned Laspina $9,000.00 so he, Laspina, could purchase the marijuana. In exchange, petitioner expected a "quick turnaround" on his investment in that he expected to be repaid his $9,000.00, together with an additional $2,100.00, the same day that the marijuana was acquired. According to petitioner, he was merely present at the scene to make sure Laspina did not abscond with his money. Petitioner's contention regarding the limited nature of his involvement is contrary to the credible proof which supported the findings of fact hereto made. Moreover, even were petitioner's contentions to be credited, his involvement in the subject sale was likewise so extensive as to make him a conspirator in such unlawful transaction. In sum, the proof supports the conclusion that petitioner did engage in the unlawful use or distribution of cannabis as set forth in the Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Findings, and that the Department's assessment of the tax, surcharge, and interest was reasonable and appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department issue a final order concluding that petitioner, Gerald J. Vanacker, is liable for taxes, penalties, and interest pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes, and assessing the amount of such liability at $25,500.00, plus interest at the rate of $8.38 per day since September 21, 1990. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of November 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 15th day of November 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2712 The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Rejected as not a finding of fact. 2 & 3. Addressed in paragraph 3. 4-23. Addressed in paragraphs 1-3, 5 and 6. 24-29. Addressed in paragraphs 4 and 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald J. Van Acker, pro se 1074 S.W. Jennifer Terrace Port St. Lucie, Florida 34953 Ralph R. Jaeger, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Vicki Weber, Esquire J. Thomas Herndon General Counsel Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building 204 Carolton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Tallahassee, Forida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In September of 1979, John Williamson, an undercover police agent with the Department of Law Enforcement, was involved in narcotic investigations in the Pensacola area. Mike Abbott, who is the brother of respondent Thomas Abbott, and Williamson negotiated for the purchase of one kilo of cocaine in October of 1979. The transaction was to occur in West Palm Beach. On or about October 15 or 16, 1979, Mike Abbott and Robert Covington came from Pensacola to West Palm Beach and stayed at the home of respondent Thomas Abbott. Mike Abbott came to West Palm Beach for the purpose of introducing "one person to another person for the sale" of the cocaine. Apparently, the two people who were to be introduced were Robert Covington and Duane Hutchins. For this degree of involvement in the transaction, Mike Abbott was to receive $7,000.00. On October 16, 1979, Duane Hutchins came to the respondent's West Palm Beach residence for the purpose of meeting Mike Abbott and Robert Covington. The meeting lasted approximately thirty to forty minutes, during most of which time respondent Thomas Abbott was sleeping on the living room floor. Respondent did awaken several minutes before Hutchins left and was introduced to him. At some point after this meeting at respondent's home, Mike Abbott returned to Pensacola with the understanding that his $7,000.00 fee would be delivered to him after the sale of cocaine was consummated. Covington remained at respondent's home, and he and respondent went out for drinks that evening. According to Hutchins, Mike Abbott told him that he had to return to Pensacola and that respondent Thomas Abbott, Mike's brother, would be the person to contact in absence. It was arranged that Hutchins would call respondent's house the following day and speak to either respondent or Mr. Covington to determine the details of the meeting with the purchasers. Undercover agent John Williamson arrived in West Palm Beach on October 17, 1979, and met with Jack Maxwell, a vice officer with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department. Williamson placed a telephone call to the respondent's residence, but he did not know to whom he spoke. Arrangements were made to meet at Victoria Station, a local restaurant and lounge in West Palm Beach, at approximately 4:30 that afternoon. When respondent returned to his residence after school at about 3:00 p.m. on October 17, 1979, Covington and Hutchins were there. They invited respondent to go to Victoria Station with them. Respondent drove back to school to ask a student to fill in for him on a part-time job that evening, and Covington and Hutchins followed respondent in another car. Respondent then left his car at school and rode to Victoria Station with Covington and Hutchins. Covington, Hutchins and respondent arrived at Victoria Station at about 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. on October 17, 1979. Shortly thereafter, agents John Williamson and Jack Maxwell arrived. The five men sat at one table, conversed and ordered several rounds of alcoholic beverages which were made of double strength. It was Hutchins plan to view the money to be used for the cocaine purchase and then place a telephone call to a Mr. Cunningham who was to join them for the purpose of finalizing the location of the transaction. After spending approximately forty-five minutes at the table, agents Maxwell and Williamson took Hutchins across the street to their Sheraton Motel room in order to show him the cash money. Hutchins was shown a briefcase containing some $100,000.00 in cash. He then returned to Victoria Station and placed a phone call to Cunningham. Hutchins left to pick up Cunningham in his car and then returned to Victoria Station with Cunningham. The six men then had discussions as to the location of the transaction. During these conversations, respondent Thomas Abbott offered the use of his house as the location for the exchange of the money for the cocaine. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Hutchins left Victoria Station for another engagement. Agents Maxwell and Williamson returned to their motel room for the purpose of waiting for information as to the location of the final transaction. Respondent Abbott and Covington left Victoria Station with Cunningham and went to Cunningham's apartment. While there, Cunningham made several phone calls. Thereafter, Cunningham drove Covington and respondent to respondent's house and dropped them off. Cunningham then went over to the Sheraton Motel room where final plans were made with agents Maxwell and Williamson for the purchase to occur in Miami. Thereafter several persons, not including the respondent, drove to Miami and completed the purchase and sale of cocaine. Those participants were arrested, and nearly one kilo of 43 percent to 52 percent pure cocaine was confiscated. Agent Williamson returned to the Palm Beach Sheriff's Department during the early morning hours of October 18, 1979. At approximately 4:30 a.m. he placed a telephone call to Mike Abbott in Pensacola for the purpose of obtaining instructions as to how he was to be paid for his part of the transaction. The telephone conversation was recorded on tape. After determining that Mike Abbott expected $7,000.00 for his part of the transaction, Williamson asked Mike Abbott "Do you want me to bring the $7,000.00 to you or do you want me to give it to your brother." "Give it to my brother," was Mike Abbott's response. Later in the same conversation, Williamson told Mike that what he was going to do was "see your brother now, and then I'll lay the seven on him." Mike responded, "Okay, that'll be excellent." After that taped telephone conversation between Williamson and Mike Abbott, law enforcement officers went to the respondent's residence and arrested respondent Thomas Abbott and Robert Covington. Mike Abbott testified that his brother knew nothing about the purchase and sale of cocaine until he was arrested on October 18, 1979. Respondent testified that he knew nothing about the drug deal and that he was too intoxicated to realize what the conversation concerned while in Victoria Station. Agent Maxwell testified that while they all were drinking alcoholic beverages at Victoria Station, respondent appeared to be cognizant of occurring events and conversation. Some three to four weeks after respondent was arrested, he went to the residence of Deputy Sheriff Robert C. Anderson whom he had known since 1969. When Anderson asked him why he had gotten involved in drugs, respondent replied that he thought it was exciting, very professional and that he wanted to be in big money. Respondent went on to describe the excitement of talking of $50,000.00, throwing money around and everybody buying drinks for each other. Anderson and respondent discussed the morality of dealing with drugs and respondent stated that he did not feel it was morally wrong since drugs had been accepted by society. During the same conversation, respondent later told Anderson that the reason be became involved was for his brother. Two administrative officials of the Palm Beach County School Board testified that, in their opinion, respondent's effectiveness as a teacher would be diminished if the charges of conspiracy to sell or traffic cocaine were sustained.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that: That portion of the "Petition for the Revocation of the Teacher's Certificate" charging that respondent conspired to traffic cocaine in his home on or about October 16, 1979, be DISMISSED; Respondent be found guilty of conspiracy to sell cocaine while drinking in the Victoria Station in West Palm Beach on or about October 17, 1979; The conduct described in paragraph (2) above constitutes gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude and seriously reduces respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school board; and Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked for a period of three (3) years. Respectfully submitted and entered this 6th day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 6th day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson Ruffolo and Wilson 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Thomas Abbott, Jr. and Thomas Abbott, Sr. Route 9, Box 514D Jasper, Alabama 33501 Robert C. Apgar Peeples, Earl, Smith, Moore and Blank 300 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Juhan Mixon Professional Practices Commission 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Educational Practices Commission 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION RALPH D. TURLINGTON COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-002-RT DOAH CASE NO. 80-1515 THOMAS H. ABBOTT, Respondent. /
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
