The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the notice to show cause and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, respondent, Arturo G. Muniz, held alcoholic beverage license number 16-06467, series 2-COP, for the premises known as Chiche on the Beach, (the "premises") located at 2805 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale, Broward County, Florida. On January 11, 1991, Detective James Carney, of the Davie Police Department, operating undercover, and a confidential informant (CI) entered the licensed premises as part of an ongoing narcotics investigation to purchase marijuana. At the premises, the detective and the CI approached respondent, and the CI inquired of respondent if he "had something" or if he could "get something today," referring to marijuana. Respondent replied that "it was not here now," advised that he was expecting a delivery soon, that it would be more expensive ($60 instead of $55 for a quarter ounce), and advised the undercover officer and CI that they should place their order now. The CI then informed respondent that they wanted "2-quarters." While awaiting the arrival of the marijuana, the undercover officer and CI walked toward the beach to dispel suspicion and to communicate with backup police regarding the possible sale. Returning to the premises, the officer and CI sat on a wall outside the premises until the respondent whistled or beckoned the CI to the premises. Shortly thereafter, the CI purchased a baggie containing approximately one quarter ounce of cannabis, commonly known as marijuana, from respondent for $60.00. On March 5, 1991, the undercover officer, accompanied by Hallandale Police Officer Michael Antinick, returned to the licensed premises to arrest respondent. The respondent was standing behind the service counter, and there was no one else near the service counter and certainly no one, other than respondent, within arm's length of an ashtray that contained a smoldering "roach" (marijuana cigarette) or the white paper plate that contained a small amount of marijuana and some rolling papers. Such paper plate is commonly used, as it apparently was in this case, to separate the desirable marijuana leaf particles from the undesirable marijuana seeds by placing the marijuana on the plate and shaking it until the leaf particles and seeds are separated. The rolling papers found on the paper plate are commonly used to roll the marijuana leaf particles into a cigarette, such as the marijuana cigarette that was found smoldering in the adjacent ashtray. On March 13, 1991, petitioner, through its special agent Carol Owsiany, conducted an inspection of the licensed premises. At such time, respondent was not present, but an employee named "Sheedie" (phonetic) was on duty. Agent Owsiany requested the records and invoices for the business from "Sheedie." What "Sheedie" did produce was "not much" in the opinion of Agent Owsiany, but from the records that were available it was disclosed that on March 2, 1991, and again on March 8, 1991, a total of eight six-packs of Heineken beer had been purchased from Valros Warehouse, which was not a licensed distributor under the Florida Beverage Laws, for resale on the premises. According to "Sheedie," such beer was purchased to "tide them over" until their regular distributor made its delivery. No further proof was offered regarding any further efforts by petitioner to secure the records of the business regarding alcoholic beverage purchases or the licenses, if any, held by Valros Warehouse. In cases involving possession, use, delivery, or sale of controlled substances on the licensed premises, if the violation is committed by the licensee, it is the petitioner's established policy to revoke the license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered revoking alcoholic beverage license 16-06467, series 2-COP, held by respondent, Arturo G. Muniz. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of March 1992. 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 26th day of March 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Adopted in paragraph 1. Subordinate. 3-8. Addressed in paragraphs 2 and 3, otherwise subordinate. 9-11. Addressed in paragraph 4, otherwise subordinate. 12 & 13. Addressed in paragraph 5. 14. Addressed in paragraph 6. COPIES FURNISHED: Monica Adkins-White Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Norman D. Zimmerman, Esquire 737 East Atlantic Boulevard Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Richard W. Scully, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Donald D. Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent, Club Manhattan Bar and Grill, LLC, d/b/a Club Manhattan Bar and Grill (Respondent), committed the acts alleged in the administrative complaints dated September 13, 2010, and December 1, 2010, and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons holding alcoholic beverage licenses. § 561.02, Fla. Stat. Respondent is licensed under the Florida beverage law by the Department. Respondent holds a 4COP/SRX special restaurant license issued by the Department with Alcoholic Beverage License No. 68-04347. Ms. Stokes is the licensee of record for Respondent. Consequently, Respondent is subject to the Department's regulatory jurisdiction. Respondent's series 4COP/SRX is a special restaurant license that permits it to sell beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on the licensed premises. Additionally, the licensee must satisfy seating and record-keeping requirements and must comply with 51 percent of its gross sales being food and non- alcoholic beverages. See § 561.20(2)(a)4., Fla. Stat. Respondent's restaurant is located in Sarasota County, Florida, and, pursuant to the 4COP/SRX license, must have seating and capability to serve 150 customers at any one time. On August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn conducted an inspection of Respondent's business premises. He conducted the inspection based on complaints made to the Department that Respondent was operating as an after-hours bar, rather than a restaurant. At this initial inspection, which occurred at 2:30 p.m. on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn found the restaurant did not have any customers or menus. Further, he noticed that the premises had seating for only 92 people and a large dance floor. Further, he observed that the walls had signs advertising drink specials and late-night parties. Special Agent Flynn met Ms. Stokes, Respondent's manager and holder of the license, and informed her that the beverage license required that Respondent be able to serve 150 customers at one time. Also, Special Agent Flynn requested the required business records concerning the purchase of alcoholic beverage invoices from the distributors for a 60-day proceeding period. Ms. Stokes did not have the requested records on the premises. On August 19, 2010, Special Agent Flynn sent Ms. Stokes a written request, requesting alcoholic purchase invoices for a 60-day period before August 19, 2010. The request allowed Ms. Stokes 14 days to compile the records and to provide the records to the Department. The record here showed by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not produce records for the audit period. On September 8, 2010, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Special Agent Flynn returned to Respondent's premises. Again, he found that Respondent did not have the required seating number and ability to serve 150 customers at one time. Special Agent Flynn offered credible testimony that, during the September 8, 2010, inspection, he found Respondent had only 106 available seats. Further, consistent with his inspection on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed facts showing that Respondent was a late-night bar, as opposed to a restaurant. The evidence showed that on September 8, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed that Respondent did not have any customers, menus, and very little food in its small kitchen. Special Agent Flynn, however, did observe that Respondent continued to have its large dance floor, disc jockey booth, advertised drink specials, and posters advertising late-night parties. Clearly, Respondent was being operated as a bar, rather than a restaurant as required by its license. At the September 8, 2010, inspection, Special Agent Flynn again requested Respondent's business records that he had previously requested for the 60-day time period before August 19, 2010. Ms. Stokes provided a few invoices for purchases of food and non-alcoholic beverages. These invoices were dated after the August 19, 2010, date that Special Agent Flynn had requested and did not cover the requested 60 days prior to the August 19, 2010, request. These records included food and beverage purchases by Respondent from retailers, but did not contain any records concerning the points of sale at the restaurant. Ms. Nadeau, an auditor for the Department, offered credible testimony concerning the Department's request for business records from Respondent for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. On August 27, 2010, Ms. Nadeau set up an audit request for the period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, based on information provided by Special Agent Flynn. The Department provided Ms. Stokes with an audit engagement letter that requested business records. Ms. Nadeau testified that on September 10, 2010, she was contacted by Ms. Stokes. Ms. Stokes informed Ms. Nadeau that Ms. Stokes had become the owner of the restaurant in June 2010 and that she did not have the required records. Ms. Nadeau informed Ms. Stokes to provide all the records requested in the audit engagement letter that Ms. Stokes had and to try to obtain the prior records from the previous managing member of Respondent. On September 22, 2010, Ms. Stokes mailed to the Department records she claimed met the audit period. The records consisted of guest checks for July and August 2010, which only showed food purchases and no alcoholic beverage purchases. Further, Ms. Nadeau found that the records were not reliable, because the records contained numerous personal items not related to the restaurant, such as baby wipes, cotton swabs, and boxer shorts. Consequently, the record clearly and convincingly shows that Respondent failed to provide the required business records for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. Next, based on Respondent's failure to provide any reliable records, the Department was unable to conduct an audit of the business. Records provided by Respondent indicated that the only sales that occurred on the premises were for food. However, the testimony showed that Respondent's business included the sale of alcohol and marketed the sale of alcoholic beverages for late-night parties. Mr. Torres, the senior auditor for the Department, credibly testified that he conducted an independent review of Ms. Nadeau's initial audit findings. Mr. Torres, who has been employed with the Department for 27 years, reviewed the records provided by Respondent. He credibly testified that Respondent's guest checks were very questionable because they showed all food sales, but no alcohol, which was not consistent with Special Agent Flynn's observations. The evidence further showed that Ms. Stokes became the managing member of Respondent in June 2010. Ms. Stokes provided the Department with a change of corporate officers and named herself as registered agent, rather than apply for a new license. This distinction would later become important because, as explained by Ms. Nadeau, in the Department's eyes, there is a continuation of ownership. Under a continuation of ownership, Ms. Stokes was required to have business records for the time period before she became the managing member of Respondent. Ms. Stokes credibly testified that she did not have any records before June 20, 2010; thus, Respondent was unable to provide records for the audit period. Ms. Stokes candidly admitted that her restaurant had been struggling financially, which is why she had worked to catering special events to draw foot traffic.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license and finding that Respondent violated: 1. Section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by failing to provide the required service area, seating, and equipment to serve 150 persons full-course meals at tables at one time as required by its license; 2. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, by not providing the requested business records; and 3. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by not providing the requested business records. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find that the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 2011.
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for transfer of an alcoholic beverage license should be granted, or denied on the ground that the license has been revoked.
Findings Of Fact On January 25, 1977, Armando Calo, through counsel, filed a Notice of Lien with DABT stating that he was a bona fide mortgagee on an alcoholic beverage license (4-COP, lic. no. 23-1901) held by the Intimo Lounge, Inc., 1601 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. Citing Section 561.65, Florida Statutes, he enclosed a copy of his chattel mortgage and a check payable to DABT in the amount of $5.00. (P-1) By return letter dated February 4, 1977, C. L. Ivey, Jr., DABT's Licensing Supervisor, acknowledged receipt of Mr. Calo's Notice of Lien and stated that it would be made part of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license file. At that time, administrative license revocation proceedings were pending against Intimo Lounge, Inc. So Mr. Ivey sent a copy of his February 4, 1977 acknowledgment letter to DABT's Miami Office, and included this notation: P.S. John: You need to immediately notify Attorney Solomon's [Calo's attorney's] office if and when an order to revoke is issued. He will then go to court to seek a judicial transfer. (P-2) On March 22, 1977, Charles A. Nuzum, DABT's Director, executed an order revoking Intimo Lounge, Inc.`s alcoholic beverage license. (R-1) Eight days later, on March 30, 1977, Armando Calo sued Intimo Lounge, Inc., seeking to foreclose his chattel mortgage on its alcoholic beverage license. By letter of the same date, counsel for Mr. Calo, citing Section 561.65, Florida Statutes, notified DABT of the filing of the foreclosure action; he also asserted that Mr. Calo had no knowledge of or participation in the causes for which the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license was revoked. Copies of subsequent pleadings filed in the action were sent to DABT's legal department. DABT thus knew the suit was filed and was aware of its continued progress. (Testimony of Barone; P-3, P-4, P-11) The Circuit Court of Dade County ultimately entered a final judgment of foreclosure in Mr. Calo's favor. On August 17, 1979, pursuant to such judgment, the Clerk of the Court sold the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license, at public sale, to intervenor Rene Valdes, 1710 N.W. 7th Street, Suite 7201, Miami, Florida for $25,000. Notice of the sale was published in the Miami Review, a newspaper circulated in Dade County. On August 28, 1979, the Clerk issued a Certificate of Title pursuant to Chapter 45, Florida Statutes. This Certificate certified that Intimo Lounge, Inc.`s alcoholic beverage license (4-COP, license no. 23-1901) had been sold to Rene Valdes on August 17, 1979, and that "no objections to the sale have been filed within the time allowed for filing objections." (Testimony of Valdes; P-5, P-6) Although DABT was aware of the protracted mortgage foreclosure litigation involving the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license --which it had earlier revoked -- it never protested or sought to block the foreclosure action. It was not a party to the action; neither did it attempt to become one. (Testimony of Barone, Valdes) In September, 1979, a month after the judicial foreclosure sale, Nathaniel Barone, counsel for Intimo Lounge, Inc., wrote R. B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary of the Department of Business Regulation, asking what steps were necessary to keep the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license viable. An internal memorandum suggests that DABT was, at first, unprepared to answer that question and preferred, instead, to delay answering until an application for the license was filed. But, on October 4, 1979, Harold F. X. Purnell, the Department's General Counsel replied on behalf of Secretary Burroughs: It is the Division's position that the . . . license has been and presently is revoked pursuant to the actions pre- viously taken by [DABT]. Further, that in the absence of an order of appropriate jurisdiction entered in a proceeding to which the Division is a party we are powerless to transfer such license. (Testimony of Barone; P-7, P-10) Meanwhile, Rene Valdes, notified DABT of his purchase of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. beverage license and asked that it be held in escrow while he found a suitable purchaser and location. When DABT refused, Mr. Valdes petitioned the court, which had rendered the foreclosure judgment, to require DABT to process and transfer the license. The court denied his petition, at least in part, because DABT was not a party to the proceeding. After the court hearing, Mr. Valdes, together with his attorney, Charles Kelly, and DABT's counsel, Mr. Purnell, met outside the chambers and discussed their next step. Mr. Kelly discussed seeking a mandamus ordering DABT to issue the license. Mr. Purnell suggested, instead, that Mr. Valdes find a location and purchaser for the license, then submit an application to DABT -- something which Mr. Valdes had not yet done. Although Mr. Purnell did not assure them that the application would be approved, both Mr. Valdes and Mr. Barone gained an impression that it would be. 2/ Mr. Valdes, following Mr. Purnell's suggestion, found a location and buyer, then applied for a transfer of the license. DABT's denial resulted in this proceeding. (Testimony of Barone, Valdes) Under Section 561.65(1), Florida Statutes (1977), a lender licensed by the state holding a lien on an alcoholic beverage license had the right to enforcement of his lien against the license within 12 days after any order of revocation, provided it was revoked for causes which the lienholder had no knowledge and did not participate. If the lienholder purchased the license at foreclosure sale, he could operate under it or transfer it to a qualified person. Until August 17, 1980, it was DABT's long-standing practice and policy to make no distinction between licensed and unlicensed lenders (lien-holders). It allowed both licensed and unlicensed lienholders to file notice of liens against beverage licenses and honored the subsequent transfer of the license if the lien was enforced within 12 days of revocation. This practice was abruptly changed on the basis of an agency legal opinion. On August 17, 1980, one month before Gui-Dom filed its application, DABT's General Counsel rendered a legal opinion limiting Section 561.65 relief to lenders licensed by the state. After that date, until 1981, when the legislature removed the "licensed lender" language of Section 561.65, DABT applied Section 561.65 literally and only accepted liens filed by licensed lenders. (Testimony of LaRosa; P-13) But in October, 1980, DABT did not deny Gui-Dom's application for transfer of the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license because Armando Calo, the lienholder, lacked a lender's license. Instead, the application was denied because the license had been earlier revoked. As later explained by Barry Schoenfeld, DABT's Chief of Licensing: 2 [DABT] felt at the time that . . . there really was no license, that the license had already been revoked, and that there was no license for the court to sell [to Valdes]. (P-13, p. 25). But Section 561.65 specifically permits liens, under specified conditions, to survive license revocation. When asked to explain DABT's position in light of Section 561.65, Mr. Schoenfeld replied, "I don't know that I can explain it." (P-13, p. 16) Neither could Mr. Schoenfeld adequately explain why, in cases similar to this, DABT has approved license transfers while, here, they have not. (P-13, p. 23) It was not until after the denial of Gui-Dom's application that DABT contended that Section 561.65, Florida Statutes (1977), provides no relief because Armando Calo was not a licensed lender. (P- 9, P-13). Rene Valdes, a beverage license broker, operates a business known as "Beverage License, Inc." He specializes in obtaining and transferring alcoholic beverage licenses for clients and has a working knowledge of the Beverage Law, including DABT rules and practice. When he purchased the Intimo Lounge, Inc. license at the judicial sale, he did not know that it had been revoked by DABT. He did, however, know that there was license revocation litigation between Intimo Lounge, Inc. and DABT. He also knew that DABT had issued an emergency order suspending Intimo Lounge, Inc.'s license; and he knew that there were circuit court foreclosure proceedings involving the license. Yet he failed to ascertain the status of the license -- either by checking the files of DABT or the circuit court. But even if he had discovered that the license had been revoked, under DABT's long-standing practice and interpretation of Section 561.65, it would have made no difference. The license would have "survived" revocation because Armando Calo had timely enforced his lien. And it could have been sold at a judicial sale and transferred to a new qualified purchaser. (Testimony of Valdes, Harris; P-13) DABT has provided no record foundation for its abrupt discontinuance of prior agency practice and policy in August, 1980, a policy which allowed both licensed and unlicensed lien holders to file and timely enforce liens against beverage licenses. This policy enabled a lien to survive license revocation; and the license, which had been revoked earlier could then be transferred by judicial sale. The only explanation given for the change in policy, a change which DABT now relies on as cause for denying Gui-Dom's application, is that the agency changed its legal interpretation of Section 561.65 (1977). (Testimony of LaRosa; P-13)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Gui-Dom's application for transfer of alcoholic beverage license no. 23-1901, series 4-COP, be granted. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1983.
The Issue Whether the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) should take disciplinary action against respondent or its DABT license for the reasons alleged in the notice to show cause?
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent 201 West, Inc. d/b/a Central City/Congo Craig's Safari, has held a quota license, No. 11-00259 4COP, authorizing it to sell alcoholic beverages at 201 West University Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. On August 23, 1991, Craig Cinque, respondent's sole shareholder and officer, executed on respondent's behalf a consent agreement which petitioner accepted and filed on September 6, 1991, resolving administrative proceedings then pending. The consent agreement provides: "The second and third floors now known as 'Congo Craig's' shall not admit customers under 21 years of age for a period of two years " Underaged Patrons Apprehended At eleven o'clock on a crowded Saturday night, September 7, 1991, five DABT officers entered Congo Craig's to check patrons' ages. DABT and other witnesses agreed that the bar had enough staff demanding proof from patrons of their ages as they entered, and that the lighting was adequate for this purpose. The DABT officers checked a number of already admitted patrons' "ID's" themselves, and found a false one that a 20-year-old woman, Amy L. Bruns, whom they saw drinking draft beer, had used to gain admission. The Maryland driver's license described a woman of its bearer's height and weight, but depicted a blonde, not the brunette the officers accosted. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The next time DABT officers, again a contingent of five, discovered an under age patron at Congo Craig's was on October 12, 1991, another Saturday night when DABT and other witnesses agreed that the bar had enough staff checking patrons' ages as they entered, and that the lighting was adequate. Kim M. Chiappara, then 20 years and eight months old, was sharing a pitcher of draft beer with her older sister and others when she was interrogated by the DABT officers that night. A search of her person turned up no false identification. She was not asked whether she had used any, or borrowed her sister's identification, to get by the bouncers. The next Friday night DABT officers apprehended Dari A. Layne, who was born on October 27, 1972, at Congo Craig's shortly before midnight, as she was consuming a mixed drink. The "very good" counterfeit Pennsylvania driver's license she produced when asked for identification has her photograph, but lacks a holographic state stamp on the obverse and has a photocopied reverse, albeit duly laminated. After midnight on the same foray, DABT officers discovered Kim C. Stampler, three months and a week shy of her 21st birthday, holding a clear plastic cup containing a purple liquid. She denied having false identification, but a DABT officer's search turned some up. Also in the early hours of October 19, 1991, DABT officers arrested Christopher Wisniewski, an apparently intoxicated 16-year-old, whose father, also apparently intoxicated, only reluctantly admitted their relationship. Christopher, who was not asked what or whose identification, if any, he had used to get in, had a valid Florida driver's license on his person. Bar Tender Arrested The personnel that respondent assigned to check patrons identification as they entered did not take their stations until five o'clock evenings, an hour after opening. Aware of this, the DABT dispatched Randy Gordon (a stout, older- looking 19-year-old, who has succeeded two out of three times in efforts of this kind at some ten other establishments) to Congo Craig's. He readily gained admission between four and half past on the afternoon of November 8, 1991, without being asked for identification. The first customer of the evening, Randy asked Eric Frauman (who had agreed at the last minute to fill in for another bartender, and who ordinarily worked evenings when the bouncers, not the bartenders, are responsible for checking customers' identification) for a hamburger and a beer. Although he had been told to "card" everybody, Mr. Frauman neglected to ask young Mr. Gordon for identification. The second customer that evening was Ernest Wilson, the special DABT agent responsible for paying five dollars an hour for Mr. Gordon's services. Mr. Wilson took the beer, and Mr. Gordon, who paid for both, got the hamburger, which he described as very good. Mr. Frauman, a graduate student hoping to work as an educational counselor, was arrested and eventually prosecuted criminally. Precautions Taken Respondent is qualified as a responsible vendor, and was so certified during the time DABT made such certifications. All of the 18 employees respondent relies on for "security," those checking patrons' ages at night as well as the daytime bartenders and servers, are current with regard to the courses, tests and update meetings the responsible vendor program requires. Respondent's managers are current on requirements for managers. At weekly meetings of the managers, underage drinking was a regular topic. A book depicting driver's licenses in various jurisdictions is kept on the premises, and respondent's employees who testified seemed knowledgeable on the subject. Employees responsible for checking patrons' ages are told to require, at least of anybody who looks younger than 45, a driver's license, military identification or a passport. Several repeat customers testified that they had invariably been "carded." Although Congo Craig's can lawfully accommodate no more than 925 persons at any one time, the crowd "turns over" as the night wears on. From 35,000 to 45,000 patrons were on the premises between September 7, 1991, and November 18, 1991. During this period, DABT officers made several visits on which they failed to find a single patron under the age of 21. According to Kim Ehrich, who once worked at Congo Craig's, but now works elsewhere, Congo Craig's is probably the "strictest" bar in Gainesville, and does a more thorough job checking identification than the three other bars where she has worked in Gainesville. Willful Breach A week or so before the party at Congo Craig's on October 3, 1991, Charlotte Olsen, then social chairperson for the Phi Sigma Sigma sorority, told somebody at Congo Craig's that some of the party-goers would be under 21 years of age. She offered the sorority's wrist bands to demarcate those old enough to drink legally, but Congo Craig's used its own instead. Mr. Cinque was aware that underaged persons were expected to attend the party scheduled for the second and third floors, and decided to allow it, despite the consent agreement, in order to preserve "good will." About half of the 50 to 60 people at the party were under 21 years of age. He added staff, he testified, in an effort to stymie drinking by underaged attendees. This effort proved dramatically unsuccessful. Past Problems DABT established (in aggravation of penalty only) that respondent has a long history of problems of the kind proven in this case, dating to when respondent's father owned the establishment. When Mr. Cinque worked as a manager, before he became the owner, DABT issued some ten orders to show cause alleging beverage law violations, most of which respondent admitted. Since the younger Mr. Cinque assumed ownership, DABT has filed eight additional orders to show cause, the first seven of which were consolidated and disposed of by the consent agreement accepted by DABT on September 6, 1991.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco suspend respondent's license for ten (10) days. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of December, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 11th day of December 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 34- 46, 50, 53-56 and 58 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 22 and 23, it is not that easy to make out the eye color of the woman depicted on the license. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 26, Ms. Chiappara did not testify at hearing; it is not clear what sworn statement is meant. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 27, the evidence suggested that she used the counterfeit license to gain entry. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 30 and 33, the method of entry was not proven, but there was speculation. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 32, she was drinking a purple beverage. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 47, she so testified. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 48, 49 and 59 are properly proposed conclusions of law. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact No. 51 and 52 have been rejected as not established by the weight of the evidence. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 57, the number of allegations is immaterial. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-10 and 14-17 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11, Mr. Frauman did not usually work the day shift. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, time constraints do not account for the failure to honor the consent order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 13 is properly a proposed conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Sy Chadroff, Esquire 2700 S. W. 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133-2728 Donald D. Conn General Counsel The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Richard W. Scully Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent is 201 West, Inc., d/b/a Central City, who is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 11-00259, Series 4-COP, a "quota license." Respondent's licensed premises is located at 201 West University Avenue, Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. Craig Cinque is Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Joseph Cinque, Craig Cinque's father, was formerly Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Prior to becoming the owner of Central City, Craig Cinque managed the licensed premises on behalf of his father. During this period of time, the Division filed ten separate Notices to Show Cause against Respondent, alleging multiple sales to and consumption of alcoholic beverages by underaged persons. On August 29, 1989, the licensed premises was closed by an Emergency Order of Suspension. The administrative charges arising therefrom were resolved by a Stipulation and Consent Agreement, wherein the Respondent in that case admitted substantially to all of the violations. Craig Cinque individually executed the agreement, admitted responsibility for previous violations, and acknowledged that future violations of a similar nature could result in suspension or revocation of the alcoholic beverage license. The agency has issued numerous Notices to Show Cause against Respondent since the entry of the consent order. However, unproven Notices to Show Cause and unproven counts within any Notices to Show Cause are only unproven accusations, and as such are not probative herein even for purposes of showing "aggravation." Beverage Law Institute is an "approved trainer" under the Responsible Vendors Act, having been approved by the Petitioner as such. Petitioner certified Respondent Central City as a certified Responsible Vendor under the Act, on April 13, 1990. See, Subsections 561.701-561.706 F.S. Of the 483 nondistributor alcoholic beverage licensees in Alachua County, only 94 have been certified by Petitioner as Responsible Vendors. Of those 94, only 13 hold "4-COP" licenses, the category of license held by Respondent, which permits liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on premises or in a sealed container. Prior to the events of the instant Notices to Show Cause, and continuing through the 14-month period of the Notices to Show Cause and beyond, Respondent was engaged in a voluntary program designed to teach employees not to serve alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. Many of the materials therefor were provided by Beverage Law Institute. The training program and procedures involved multiple ID checkers at the front door. Also at the front door, wristbands to signify and quickly identify patrons of legal drinking age were issued. Once snapped on a customer's wrist, the band itself was stamped at a right angle across the customer's wrist to prevent or at least inhibit the wristband's transfer to an underage patron and to prevent a patron bringing in a counterfeit or "ringer" wristband. All patrons, regardless of age, received a stamp directly on the wrist to identify that they had paid their admission fee. Security personnel circulated inside the licensed premises checking drinks and wristbands, and waitresses were also instructed to check on drinks already purchased by customers. The training programs and procedures also involved Respondent's policy manual regarding IDs, extensive training and testing of employees, frequent oral reminders to employees concerning the law and concerning licensee policy, sporadic staff meetings regarding policy, videotaped instruction programs, provision of and instructions to employees to use an "ID Checking Guide" at the front door and at every internal bar within the licensed premises, confiscation of fake or questionable IDs at the door, 1/ and use of warning handbills given out to customers. Upon receipt, the handbills proclaiming the licensee's "of age only" policy were usually immediately discarded by customers. Some employees looked upon their training with more enthusiasm than others. Some employees considered the policy and training all for show. Most employees complied regularly with the requirements for training, review, and instructions. A few were lax in their compliance and had to be urged to attend staff meetings or to retest. In addition to all this, from the time the Responsible Vendor tests were available, all employees except two cashiers were tested according to the requirements of the Responsible Vendor Act and within the time frames provided therein. Every underage operative who testified admitted she or he had been "carded" at the door and that none had been issued wristbands. The parties stipulated that all of the individuals named in the four Notices to Show Cause (except for those alleged to have sold or given alcoholic beverages) were under the legal drinking age on the dates indicated by the respective Notices to Show Cause and that although each of these individuals "was actually in possession of alcoholic beverages as plead (sic), there was no evidence that any of the alcoholic beverages were obtained from Respondent's employees, agents, or servants." The stipulation listed the underage persons of the Notices to Show Cause but did not employ the term "consumption" which was specifically used only in the second Notice to Show Cause (GA11890496). Petitioner put on no witnesses as to "consumption." Likewise, Petitioner did not have admitted in evidence any confiscated alcoholic beverages alleged to have been sold by Respondent's agents/employees, nor did Petitioner present any laboratory reports to establish that any substance sold was alcohol. The only evidence of alcohol content is discussed infra. With regard to Craig Cinque's attitude and Central City's compliance with the Responsible Vendors Act, the testimony of Eileen Tenly and of William Cooter has been weighed and considered. Ms. Tenly is a totally noncredible witness whose testimony demonstrates an "axe to grind," and whose candor and demeanor is unpersuasive of anything except her animosity for Mr. Cinque. Petitioner's Investigator William Cooter, however, testified credibly that after having numerous conversations with Mr. Cinque on the subject of underage sales, Mr. Cinque stated that he was not worried about losing his alcoholic beverage license because he could get another one in his mother's name. On the other hand, Mr. Cooter, by his own testimony, has been invited by Mr. Cinque to instruct and has, in fact, instructed Mr. Cinque's employees on how to prevent underage drinking. The evidence as a whole, but most particularly that of Prince Miles, Respondent's janitor, who is a credible witness, is persuasive that patrons sometimes smuggle alcoholic beverages onto the licensed premises and that each time the establishment closes, commercial alcoholic beverage containers which are not part of the inventory sold by Respondent must be swept out. Since this smuggling activity must substantially reduce Respondent's profits, it is a logical inference that such smuggling is contrary to Respondent's policy and that Respondent does not encourage or condone it, whether done by adults or minors. I. Notice to Show Cause GA11890374; September 16, 1989 through February 9, 1990; sale to Toombs, Kittles, Goldtrap, and Ormsbee by Green, Halladay, Howell, and Grimes and possession by Peters, Conf, Kelly, Garcia, Fernandez, Shiskin, Brejhanan, Benz, Yawn, and Plettner All of the violations charged in Notice to Show Cause GA11890374 arose prior to Respondent's becoming a certified Responsible Vendor on April 13, 1990. On September 16, 1989, Ryan Conf and Alejandra Peters were each under the age of 21 and in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises as pled. On September 19, 1989, Central City bartender David Green sold the Division's underaged operative, Bridgette Toombs, a liquid beverage in a long- neck, factory-produced 12-ounce bottle labelled "Michelob Dry." At that time, the licensed premises was not busy and Mr. Green noted that Ms. Toombs had no wristband. He therefore checked Ms. Toombs' underage ID and instructed her that since she was old enough to drink, she should go get a wristband. This transaction was observed by Petitioner's agent, Ms. Pendarakis, but Ms. Pendarakis did not overhear the conversation. After delivering a sample of the liquid beverage to Ms. Pendarakis in the ladies' room, Ms. Toombs crossed in front of Mr. Green's bar on her way to exit the licensed premises. Mr. Green sent word to Ms. Toombs by another Central City employee that he wanted to see her. Ms. Toombs complied with Mr. Green's request and showed him her underage ID once more. At that point, Mr. Green recognized his error in thinking that Ms. Toombs was 21 or over and called over several other Central City employees, all of whom viewed the ID showing Ms. Toombs was actually two months short of 19 years old. Mr. Green was not arrested until after the ID was passed around, so it may be inferred that his recognizing his mistake was not the result of any confrontation with Petitioner's agents or law enforcement officers or due to his perception that he had been "caught." Indeed, Petitioner's witness, Ms. Toombs, attributed Mr. Green's illegal sale to her as a mistake in subtraction. Mr. Green had previously successfully passed all tests required under the licensee's policy in existence before the Responsible Vendor tests were available. On October 20, 1989, Charlotte Kelly and Alezandro Garcia, who were under the age of 21, were each in the actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1989, Cesar Fernandez, who was under the age of 21, was in possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On the same date, underage operative Megan Kittles was inside the licensed premises. She was not wearing a wristband, and her hand was stamped indicating that she was under 21. She first approached a white male bartender who checked her and refused to serve her. She then ordered a rum and coke from Respondent's bartender, Craig Halladay. Mr. Halladay did not check Ms. Kittles' ID and served her a liquid beverage which Mr. Szabo of the Division testified that he had identified by smell as containing alcohol. No one saw the drink mixed, and Mr. Szabo admitted that he did not know what kind of alcohol the drink contained. He stated that he "would not swear it was rum." Mr. Szabo also was not aware until formal hearing that Respondent sold any nonalcoholic mixed drinks. Although the evidence is weak, it is persuasive that Ms. Kittles was served alcohol. Mr. Halladay successfully passed the licensee's policy test before this incident and the Responsible Vendor test afterwards. Also on October 21, 1989, Matthew Goldtrap, another underage operative, ordered a "Budweiser" and obtained a 12-ounce bottle labelled "beer" from a floor waitress named Shannon Howell. Mr. Goldtrap had no wristband but did have a stamp on his wrist. He gave the container to Investigator Smith. Mr. Szabo then took both of Respondent's employees into custody. Mr. Goldtrap does not drink alcohol. Investigator Smith did not testify, but it is inferred from the description of the beer bottle and the circumstances of the transaction as a whole that Mr. Goldtrap was served an alcoholic beverage. Ms. Howell successfully passed the licensee's test prior to this incident. On January 19, 1990, Scott Shiskin, Michael Brejhanan, and Carolyn Benz, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On February 9, 1990, Central City bartender Steve Grimes sold Petitioner's 19-year old operative Octavia Ormsbee a liquid beverage. Ms. Ormsbee, who had no wristband on, was first denied a sale of alcoholic beverage at the downstairs back bar after Respondent's bartender there checked her underage ID. Ms. Ormsbee then went to an upstairs bar and ordered a "Bud Light." She was told by Mr. Grimes, a bartender at that bar, that they were out of "Bud Light," and by agreement, a beer bottle labelled "Budweiser" was substituted. Ms. Ormsbee does not drink alcohol and did not testify that what she received from Mr. Grimes was alcohol. The bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee was turned over to Officer Byrd of the Gainesville Police Department. Officer Byrd, who is familiar with alcoholic beverages through his own education, training, practice, and experience, identified the contents of the bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee as being "beer." Officer Byrd turned the bottle over to Petitioner's agent Cooter. Also on this occasion, Preston Yawn and Eric Plettner, who were under the age of 21, were each actually in possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Mr. Grimes had successfully passed the licensee's policy test prior to this incident. All of the underaged operatives who testified concerning this Notice to Show Cause testified that Petitioner's adult operatives forbade them to drink (consume) what they were sold and that they did not consume any. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constituted their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, mere possession does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 2/ Therefore, Petitioner has only established that on September 19, 1989 Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to Petitioner's underage operative Bridgette Toombs; that on October 21, 1989, Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Megan Kittles; that also on October 21, 1989, Respondent's floor waitress sold Petitioner's underage operative Matthew Goldtrap an alcoholic beverage; and that on February 9, 1990, Respondent's bartender sold the Division's underage operative Octavia Ormsbee an alcoholic beverage. One of these sales was clearly a mistake and two other operatives had to go to two bartenders each before an illegal sale was made. II. Notice to Show Cause GA11890496; June 8, 1990 through June 16, 1990; sale to Wearner by Edge and to Seligman by Lemberger and Bergine and possession by Tetstone, Lockey, Klug, Skipper, and Bissell On June 8, 1990, Jennifer Tetstone and Amy Lockey, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. On June 16, 1990, Ann Klug, Shana Skipper, and Michael Bissell were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Also on June 16, 1990, Central City bartenders Michael Edge, Michael Bergine, and Robert Lemberger, respectively, sold each of the Division's underage operatives Kathy Wearner (who did not testify but who was stipulated to be underage) and Charles Seligman an alcoholic beverage. Neither underaged operative wore a wristband or was requested to produce an ID for purposes of the respective sales. As of date of formal hearing, the Respondent continued to employ these same bartenders. All of these bartenders had successfully completed the Responsible Vendor test before these incidents. Mr. Edge also had passed the licensee's earlier policy test. The underaged operative, Kathy Wearner, asked Michael Edge for "a Budweiser" and was sold liquid in a "Budweiser" beer bottle inverted in a drinking glass. Officer Rockey of the Gainesville Police Department convincingly described the liquid that came out of the bottle as beer, an alcoholic beverage. He turned the materials confiscated over to an unnamed agent of Respondent and has not seen them since. On the same date, Central City bartender Robert Lemberger sold a 12-ounce bottle labelled "Budweiser" to 18- year-old operative Charles Seligman. Mr. Seligman was at all times without a wristband and bearing a stamp on his hand. Mr. Seligman delivered the bottle he received from Mr. Lemberger to Officer Posey of the Gainesville Police Department who had watched the entire transaction. Mr. Seligman later purchased a 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to Officer Posey. Mr. Seligman purchased a third 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to one of Petitioner's agents, Ernest Wilson. Mr. Seligman does not drink alcohol. Agent Wilson does drink alcohol and testified that the bottle Charles Seligman handed him was, in fact, beer. Although Agent Wilson also testified that Mr. Seligman's first name was "Tom" and that Mr. Seligman had purchased a rum drink, nonetheless, Mr. Wilson was convincing that the bottle handed him by Mr. Seligman did, in fact, contain beer, an alcoholic beverage. Officer Posey convincingly described the first bottle he received from Mr. Seligman as containing beer, an alcoholic beverage, and upon all the circumstances, the undersigned infers that the second bottle given Officer Posey also contained beer. All the underaged operatives who testified on this Notice to Show Cause testified that they were forbidden to drink (consume) what they were sold and did not do so. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the other minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constitutes their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 3/ Therefore, Petitioner has established only that on June 16, 1990 Respondent's personnel sold one alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Wearner and three alcoholic beverages to the Petitioner's underage operative Seligman. III. Notice to Show Cause GA11900209; September 22, 1990 through September 29, 1990; service to, or consumption by Stanton, Coody, Willis, and, Torres On September 22, 1990, Amy Stanton and Janet Coody, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. On September 29, 1990, Betty Willis and Jose Torres, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 4/ IV. Notice to Show Cause GA11900254 October 19, 1990 through November 16, 1990; 9 counts possession by Harriett, Ortega, McKinney, Nelson, Smith, Winter, Joyner, Cooke, Sammon; "giving" by Blackwell and Strawser On October 19, 1990, Steven Harriett, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1990, Jamie Ortega, who was under the age of 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 20, 1990, Brian McKinney, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 15, 1990, Karen Nelson, Hollie Smith, Michael Winter, and Julia Joyner, all underage, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 16, 1990, Denise Cooke and Teresa Sammon, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 5/ No evidence was introduced to establish the allegations of Counts 4 and 6 of Notice to Show Cause GA11900254, alleging "giving."
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic and Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order dismissing Notices to Show Cause GA11900209 and GA11900254; finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890374, imposing a total of $1750 in civil fines therefor; and finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890496, imposing a total of $2000 in civil fines therefor. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 28th day of June, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined due to the felony conviction of an officer of the corporation.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages in the state. In accordance with this duty, the Department issued alcoholic beverage license No. 27-00455. The license permitted the sale of wine, beer, and liquor for consumption on the premises, pursuant to a special act of the Florida Legislature. The license is currently being held in escrow by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco of the Department. Mr. Christian's, Inc., was incorporated in Florida on May 11, 1977. The corporate officers were listed as Frank Masiarczyk, Sr., and Linda M. Masiarczyk. The Florida Department of State's spelling of the name is "Mr. Christian's, Inc." In the pleadings and evidence in the case the corporation is also referred to as "Mr. Christian's, Inc." and "Mr. Christians, Inc." All of these spellings refer to the corporation which holds alcoholic beverage license No. 27-00455. An application for a change of officers or stockholders of the corporate licensee, filed October 4, 1996, indicated that Frank Masiarczyk, Sr., was president and vice-president of the corporation and owned one hundred percent of the stock. It also reflected that Linda M. Masiarczyk was the secretary and treasurer of the corporation. The license had been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding prior to July 2, 1996. This proceeding culminated in a consent order signed by Linda Masiarczyk on July 2, 1996. A Florida Department of State document filed February 3, 1997, reflects that on that date, Linda M. Masiarczyk was a corporate officer of "Mr. Christian's." This document was signed by Ms. Masiarczyk. A Florida Department of State document filed on November 17, 1997, reflects that on that date, Linda M. Masiarczyk was a corporate officer of "Mr. Christian's." This document was signed by Ms. Masiarczyk. A Florida Department of State document filed on May 21, 1998, reflects that on that date, Linda M. Masiarczyk was a corporate officer of "Mr. Christian's." This document was signed by Ms. Masiarczyk. A Florida Department of State document filed on March 22, 1999, reflects that on that date, Linda M. Masiarczyk was a corporate officer of "Mr. Christian's." This document was signed by Ms. Masiarczyk. A Florida Department of State document filed on May 16, 2000, reflects that on that date, Linda M. Masiarczyk was a corporate officer of "Mr. Christian's." This document was signed by Ms. Masiarczyk. Linda M. Masiarczyk was convicted in the United States District Court, Northern District of West Virginia, on July 8, 1999, of a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 371, conspiracy to impede the lawful functions of the U. S. Internal Revenue Service, and Title 31 U.S.C. Section 5324, structuring transactions to avoid reporting requirements. These offenses are felonies. On July 19, 1999, Ms. Masiarczyk filed a notice of appeal in the aforementioned case. On December 10, 1999, Ms. Masiarczyk filed an appellate brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court has not rendered a decision on this appeal.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department revoke alcoholic beverage license No. 27-00455. It is further recommended that the Department suspend the revocation until such time as Ms. Masiarczk's appeal is decided. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralf Michels, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Michael J. Stebbins, Esquire Michael J. Stebbins, P.L. 504 North Baylen Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held alcoholic beverage license No. 26-1715. The licensed premises is located at 621 Davis Street, Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner's undercover investigator and confidential informant (CI) entered the licensed premises on March 9, 1982. Thereafter, the CI purchased cannabis from a patron of the licensed facility (Count 3) Petitioner's investigator returned to the licensed premises with the CI on March 10, 1982, on which date both the CI and the investigator purchased cannabis from a patron. On this occasion the patron was identified as a seller by the bartender when she was asked who would sell cannabis. These transactions were carried out openly (Count 4) Petitioner's investigator was again in the licensed premises on March 11, 1982, and observed the open sale and use of cannabis. He identified the substance sold and smoked by its appearance and smell (Count 5) . In those instances where Petitioner's investigator and CI made purchases, the substances were tested by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Crime Lab, and confirmed to be cannabis. See Petitioner's Exhibit One. On March 24, 1982, Petitioner's investigator visited the licensed premises where he again observed the open sale and use of cannabis by patrons as well as by an employee (barmaid) of Respondent. The investigator also purchased cannabis from patron during this visit (Count 8). On March 25, 1982, Petitioner's investigator was on the licensed premises and observed the open sale and use of cannabis. He made purchases of this substance from a patron around 2:00 pm. and again about 11:30 p.m. (Count 9). Petitioner's investigator was in the licensed premises on March 26, 1982. He again purchased cannabis from a patron (Count 10). Respondent was not observed on the premises during any of the above periods. It was not, therefore, demonstrated that he had actual knowledge of the illegal activity.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of 45 days. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 7th day of December, 1982.
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked or suspended on grounds that its corporate officer was convicted of a federal crime--Conspiracy to Import Marijuana.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: In 1977, the Division issued an alcoholic beverage license No. 23-276, series 4-COP, to licensee. (Joint Exhibit Nos. 1, 8.) At all times material to this proceeding, Eugene Willner has been an owner and officer of the licensee corporation. On August 27, 1980, Eugene Willner was convicted of violating federal law; the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana found him guilty of Conspiracy to Import Marijuana, a violation of Title 21 U.S.C. 963. (Joint Exhibit Nos. 1, 4, 8.) By application dated March 10, 1981, the licensee sought Division approval to transfer the beverage license in question to a new owner. The Division notified licensee that it intended to deny the application because of the pending administrative charge against the licensee, the charge which is the subject of this proceeding. (Joint Exhibit Nos. 5, 6, 8.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That licensee's alcoholic beverage license No. 23-276, series 4-COP, be REVOKED. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1982.
The Issue By Notice to Show Cause filed December 19, 1977, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the alcoholic beverage license number 60-0883 issued to James R. Rogers, trading as Ray's Tavern. As grounds therefor it is alleged that Rogers, in order to secure a license to sell alcoholic beverages, made false written statements to the agents of Respondent in violation of 537.06 and 561.29 F.S. One witness was called by Petitioner and four exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact On December 21, 1977, notice of the hearing scheduled to commence on January 12, 1978 at 1457 N. Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida was served on Respondent by a beverage agent of Petitioner. (Exhibit 1) In answer to question 13 on the application for Transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License, which asked "Has a license covering the place described in this application or any other place in which any of' the above named persons were at the time interested ever been revoked by the Director?" Respondent answered "No". (Exhibit 2). By Order of the Director of the Division of Beverages dated September 30, 1955 (Exhibit 3) the alcoholic beverage license issued to James R. Rogers, Curley's Tavern, aka Ray's Tavern was revoked for maintaining gambling paraphernalia and permitting gambling on the licensed premises.
