Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 56-526, Series 2-COP. The licensed premises is known as the "Green Frog" and is located at 1216 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The corporate officers of Respondent are Charles J. Schoener, Marlene D. Schoener, Mitch M. Smith and Charles M. Hall. On September 27, 1983, Investigator Robert Randle of the Gulf Breeze Police Department was approached by two individuals as he exited the licensed premises of the Green Frog and was asked if he wanted to purchase some marijuana. While discussing the marijuana purchase, Randle was approached by the Green Frog doorman who was working on the premises that night. The doorman, known as "Animal," inquired of Randle if he wanted to buy a small quantity of cocaine and displayed a small plastic baggie containing a white substance which he offered to sell for $30. After paying the doorman $30 for the small package represented to be cocaine, Randle submitted the contents for chemical analysis. Subsequent analysis revealed the presence of no controlled substance. On or about February 18, 1984, Officer Randle again entered the licensed premises of the Green Frog in an undercover capacity. While on the licensed premises, Randle contacted a dancer known as "Angel." Randle asked Angel where he could obtain some narcotics and she directed him to her apartment. Randle went to the apartment but was unable to purchase any drugs. He returned to the Green Frog and told Angel that he had been unsuccessful. She left Randle's presence but later delivered a partial marijuana cigarette to him on the licensed premises. Subsequent analysis of the partial cigarette showed the contents to be cannabis/marijuana. On or about February 28, 1984, Officer Randle again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. On this date, he made contact with a dancer known as "Sugar" and asked her if he could obtain some marijuana or cocaine. Sugar directed Randle to the dancer Angel's apartment where he was told he could purchase a baggie of marijuana. Upon reaching the apartment Officer Randle informed Angel that Sugar had told him he could buy a bag of marijuana from her. At this time Angel sold a baggie of marijuana to Officer Randle for $25. Subsequent analysis of the baggie's contents revealed that it contained cannabis/marijuana. On or about March 6, 1984, Officer Randle returned to the licensed premises as part of this investigation. Upon entering, Randle engaged the dancer Sugar in conversation and advised her he was looking for narcotics. Shortly thereafter, Sugar told Randle he could purchase one-quarter gram of cocaine for $25. Later, she informed him that she was obtaining the cocaine from another dancer who would only sell half-gram amounts for $50. Randle then gave Sugar $50 and observed Sugar leave his table, speak to an unidentified dancer and return to his table. Sugar then handed Randle a plastic baggie containing a white powdery substance. Subsequent analysis of the contents of the bag showed that it contained cocaine. On or about March 17, 1984, Officer Randle again entered the licensed premises as part of the ongoing investigation. Randle made contact with the dancer "Kelly" and the dancer "Lisa." Randle told Kelly that he had "scored" some good cocaine previously from the dancer Sugar and that he was looking for her. In response to this statement, Kelly informed Randle that she had supplied Sugar with the cocaine and that she could sell him a half-gram of cocaine for $50 that evening. Later, Randle was approached by the dancer Lisa who asked him if he was holding some cocaine. Randle informed her that he was looking for cocaine and asked her if she could sell him some. Lisa also told him that she was waiting for her supplier and that she would sell him a $50 package when the supplier arrived. While waiting for the supplier to arrive on the premises, Randle was again approached by Lisa who gave him the phone number of her supplier and suggested he call the supplier and tell him to come to the licensed premises with the cocaine. Later, a male patron arrived at the premises and was observed talking to Lisa by Randle. Shortly thereafter, both Lisa and Kelly delivered small plastic baggies containing white substances to Randle who was seated at a table. Both deliveries were made inside the lounge in plain view. Subsequent analysis confirmed that both packages contained cocaine. Beginning around late February 1984, Mr. Tim Forehand regularly sold and supplied cocaine on the licensed premises. His sales were generally in one- half gram packages and the dollar amount of such sales on the licensed premises ranged from $200 to $1800 per night. Forehand supplied the cocaine on March 17, 1984, to the dancers Lisa and Kelly who then sold this substance to Officer Randle. Forehand also sold cocaine six or eight times to a corporate officer's son, David Schoener, who worked as a bartender on the licensed premises. On one occasion, Charles Schoener barred Forehand from the licensed premises for dealing drugs. He was, however, allowed back onto the premises within one week, The testimony of Lisa Dixon, Melissa Crawford (a/k/a Sugar) and Tim Forehand indicated that drug use and sales in the licensed premises were open and extensive. Sugar testified that see had used cocaine with Charles Hall, an officer-owner, on the licensed premises. Similarly, Lisa Dixon testified that she was in the presence of Charles Schoener on an occasion when he used cocaine in the licensed premises. In their testimony, Charles Schoener and Charles Hall denied using drugs on the licensed premises. Their testimony and that of a third owner- manager, Mitch Smith, a bartender, Jim Ellis, and a dancer, Evangeline Potts, indicated that drug use and sales were rarely observed and that action was taken to bar customers or warn employees when such incidents occurred. The documentary evidence and testimony of both Petitioner's and Respondent's witnesses established that Respondent had a stated policy against drug use or possession on the premises. Employee rules to this effect had been adopted and posted for over a year and periodic employee meetings were held at which the no drug policy was discussed. However, enforcement was not vigorous as indicated by the fact that Forehand was allowed to return to the Green Frog even though he had earlier been barred for drug activity. Further, Charles Schoener, the corporation president, did not discharge the dancer Kelly, even when he suspected her of illegal drug activity on the licensed premises. Much of the testimony of the witnesses with the exception of Officer Randle and Officer Kiker (who was not directly involved), was self-serving and lacking in credibility. Forehand, Dixon and Crawford have all been arrested and charged with criminal offenses. They were advised that their cooperation in this proceeding could favorably effect their sentences if convicted. Respondent's witnesses are owners and employees of the licensed premises, and thus have a stake in preserving the beverage license. In addition to their denials, the purported use of cocaine by Charles Schoener and Charles Hall on the licensed premises in the presence of their employees is inconsistent with their efforts to prohibit or at least discourage drug use. Further, the testimony of Officer Randle indicates that drug sales and use were not "wide open" as claimed by Petitioner's other witnesses. Randle visited the licensed premises in an undercover capacity on numerous occasions beginning September 27, 1983, but was not able to obtain a delivery of a controlled substance until February 18, 1984.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of 90 days, including the emergency suspension now in effect. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1984, 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 17th day of April, 1984.
The Issue This case arises out of a notice to show cause served upon the Respondent by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco alleging that Beverage License No. 27-92 should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for five separate counts involving drug sales on the licensed premises. As a basis for its proof, Petitioner relied upon a stipulation entered into with the Respondent and a Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Case Report which was admitted without objection. Mr. Charles Andrews testified on behalf of himself as licensee. A copy of the notice to show cause was admitted as Joint Exhibit 1 and the Petitioner of foreign and had admitted without objection one exhibit, the case report of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco.
Findings Of Fact Charles D. Andrews, trading as Odom's Bar, is the licensee of Beverage License No. 27-92, License Series 4-COP. The licensed premises is located on Highway 29 in Century, Escambia County, Florida. The Petitioner and Respondent, having stipulated to the truth and accuracy of those facts alleged in the notice to show cause, and based upon that stipulation, the undersigned Hearing Officer finds those facts set forth in A through F of this paragraph: On May 24, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D. Andrews, did violate the laws of the State of Florida by delivering a controlled substance, to wit: cannabis to Agent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews, contrary to Florida Statute 893.13 within Florida Statute 561.29. On June 14, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D Andrews, did violate Florida Statute 893.13 and Florida Statute 561.29 by delivering a controlled substance, cannabis, to Agent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews. On June 17, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D. Andrews, did violate Florida Statute 893.13 and Florida Statute 561.29 by delivering a controlled substance, cannabis, to Agent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews. On July 11, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D. Andrews, did violate Florida Statute 893.13 and Florida Statute 561.29 by delivering a controlled substance, LSD, to Agent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews. On August 6, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D. Andrews, did violate Florida Statute 893.13 and Florida Statute 561.29 by delivering a controlled substance, LSD, to Actent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews. A. The negotiations and discussions about the May 24, 1982, transaction occurred inside Odom's Bar and the delivery took place through the drive-in window located on the north side of the licensed premises. On June 14, 1982, Beverage Officer Blackman drove to the drive-in window and asked Johnny Andrews if he was holding any pot. Johnny Andrews stated he was holding a 35 cents bag. After a short discussion about possible purchase of a larger quantity, Officer Blackman purchased the bag of marijuana for $35.00. The plastic bag of marijuana was in a brown paper bag and was handed to Officer Blackman through the drive-in window. The delivery of the marijuana to Officer Blackman on June 17, 1982, also took place at the drive-in window. Johnny Andrews handed Blackman a brown paper bag containing a Miller and a plastic bag of marijuana. On July 11, 1982, Officer Blackman observed three patrons smoking a marijuana cigarette in Odom's Bar, and this activity was observed. by the barmaid on duty. No attempt was made to stop the activity. Officer Blackman was offered the marijuana cigarette and he pretended to smoke it. At this time, Johnny Andrews approached Officer Blackman and offered to 7 sell him some "acid" (LSD). Officer Blackman agreed and was instructed to drive around to the drive- in window. He did so and the delivery of the "acid" took place through the drive-in window. On August 5, 1982, Officer Blackman, after being in the licensed premises, drove up to the drive-in window where Johnny Andrews offered to sell him some "acid" (LSD) Officer Blackman agreed to purchase and agreed to return on August 6 to pick up the "acid". on august 6, 1982, Officer Blackman returned to the drive-in window where Andrews handed him a bag containing six hits of acid. At the time of the conversations and purchases on June 14, August 5, and August 6, 1982, Johnny Andrews was on duty and working at Odom's Bar. Mr. Charles Andrews has owned Odom's Bar for the past five years and worked for the two previous owners. He began working at Odom's Bar 20 years ago. The bar is managed by Respondent and his wife. Johnny Andrews, referred to in the stipulation above, is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Charles D. Andrews, and during the time period of the incidents set forth in Paragraph 1, was working as an employee at the bar. This was the first summer he had worked at the bar. He was working while he was home from college, and has not been allowed to work at the bar since August, 1982, when he was arrested. Generally, Johnny Andrews would relieve Mr. and Mrs. Andrews and they would leave the bar while he was working. The Respondent, Charles D. Andrews, had no knowledge of the drug transactions his son was involved in. Prior to the incidents in question, Odom's Bar was operated by Mr. and Mrs. Andrews with the help of four women whom they employed. Mr. Andrews had previously given instructions to his employees that they were not to allow drugs of any type to be used or sold on the premises. On the date of Johnny Andrews' arrest, agents for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco thoroughly searched the licensed premises and found no drugs. The clientele of Odom's Bar is primarily middle- aged persons. Prior to the incidents described in Paragraph 1 above, the licensee, Charles Andrews, had had no other violations of the law or drug related problems at the licensed premises. Once Mr. and Mrs. Andrews were notified of the charges and arrest warrant for their son, they cooperated with the police and also aided them in completing their arrest of Johnny Andrews. Although the Respondent testified that he had cautioned his employees against drugs on the premises, there was no evidence that he took any steps to ensure that the premises were being properly supervised and legally operated in his absence. There was no arrangement or plan whereby the licensee monitored what was occurring at the licensed premises in his absence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Florida statute 561.29, imposing a civil penalty of $1,000,and suspending Respondent's beverage license for a period of 60 days. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Mr. Howard N. Rasmussen Department of Business Director, Division of Alcoholic Regulation Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Charles D. Andrews Mr. Gary Rutledge Highway 29, Odom's Bar Secretary, Department of Business Century, Florida Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the Respondent's 1 APS license 15-00386 should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Notice to Show Cause filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations in issue here, the Division was the state agency responsible for the licensing of the sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages in Florida. Respondent operated the S & D Food Market at 531 Blake Avenue, Cocoa. On August 27, 1991, SA Wylie, a member of the Division's Orlando office, was, along with several other Special Agents, including SA Felton, assisting the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to serve search warrants and search covered premises, including that of the Respondent. When he arrived at the Respondent's facility he asked the clerk on duty to show him the alcoholic beverage license for the store and determined it permitted only the sale of packaged beer for off-premises consumption. He conducted an inspection of the store to insure only beer was being sold in compliance with the license and discovered several bottles of wine in the cooler along with wine cooler and beer. These items were in the display section open to the public. Mr. Wylie went around back into the cooler and found more wine, and when he went into the store's back storage room, found cases of wine stacked up against the wall. When he saw this, he went back to the clerk and asked why wine was being sold when the license permitted only the sale of beer. The clerk claimed to know nothing about it. Wylie asked for the invoices for the wine purchases and the clerk went to get them. While waiting in the office, Mr. Wylie also saw several cartons of cigarettes which showed a Publix stamp on the end. The presence of these stamps on the cartons indicated to him that the cigarettes had been purchased at Publix and not from a wholesale distributor. He assumed the cigarettes were for resale, though all other cigarettes in the store were in the display rack out front. These cigarettes were legal. When the clerk came back with the invoices, Wylie also asked him for the purchase receipt for the cigarettes and the clerk went to get that, too. In the meantime, SA Felton arrived on the scene and Wylie turned over all the wine and the cartons of cigarettes to her. Felton inventoried the wine and determined there were in excess of 76 full cases of wine in addition to numerous loose bottles.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered in this case dismissing the allegation that Respondent, Edward Andre Jones, possessed cigarettes not purchased from a wholesale dealer, but finging him Guilty of the allegation of possessing unauthorized alcoholic beverages on the premises covered by 1 APS license 15- 00386; placing his license on probation for one year, and assessing an administrative fine of $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of January, 1993. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lane Vaughn, Esquire 2007 South Melbourne Court Melbourne, Florida 32901 Janet E. Ferris Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Donald D. Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Richard W. Scully Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be suspended or revoked on charges that its licensed lounge: (1) was resorted to be persona using illicit drugs or was used for the keeping or selling of' illicit drugs; and (2) constituted a public nuisance by virtue of such illicit drug activity.
Findings Of Fact Respondent and the Licensed Premises Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license No. 27-00312 (Series 2- COP). Under this license he owns and operates a lounge known as the "Laugh Inn" at 49 Navy Boulevard, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. The lounge sells beer, wine, and food to its customers. (Testimony of W. Flynn; P-13.) The Laugh Inn ("licensed premises" or "premises") has two main rooms with a connecting passageway. The front room contains tables, chairs, pool tables, and a bar. To the rear of the bar is an enclosed storage room separating the front from the rear room. The passageway connecting to the rear room is approximately 6 feet wide. On the north aide of the passageway are three restrooms. The rear room contains additional tables and chairs, pool tables, pinball machines, and a "football" table. Because the two main rooms are separated by the storage room, a person tending bar in the front room would be unable to see the rear room area. The rear room ceilings contain three exhaust fans to remove smoke and odors. (Testimony of W. Flynn; R-1.) The licensed premises does not include any area outside the lounge. No property outside of the lounge building was included in the sketch attached to respondent's application for an alcoholic beverage license. Be owns land in back of the premises on which he has placed a small trailer. Be owns a narrow strip of land on each side of the premises and a 3-foot-wide strip of land in front, facing Navy Boulevard. The front parking area--where customers ordinarily park their cars--is neither owned nor controlled by respondent. This parking area is on publicly owned property. Several windows on the premises face the parking area, but they have curtains which are ordinarily closed during business hours. There are no other windows on the premises from which the front parking area can be seen. (Testimony of W. Flynn; R-1.) II. Illicit Drug Activities on or Adjacent to Licensed Premises In April, 1982, undercover officers from the Escambia County Sheriff's Office began an investigation to determine whether violations of the controlled substances law were occurring on the licensed premises. On April 20, 1982, Deputy Linda Dees of the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office took delivery of a controlled substance--approximately 25.6 grams of cannabis (marijuana) --from Eric Babcock, a patron of the premises. The delivery took place on the premises at the front bar, where Deputy Bees and Mr. Babcock were seated. He placed the bag of cannabis into her purse--which was on her lap below the bar--and she paid him $35. (Testimony of Dees.) On that same day, April 20, 1982, Deputy Marilyn Medlin of the Escambia County Sheriff's Office took delivery of a controlled substance--approximately 12 grams of cannabis--from Mike Milstead, another patron. Although discussions for the purchase took place in the licensed premises--in a normal tone of voice- -the drugs were delivered and paid for in a vehicle located in the parking area in front of the licensed premises--an area neither owned nor controlled by respondent. (Testimony of Medlin; Seven days later, on April 27, 1982, Deputy Medlin purchased a controlled substance--three tablets of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) --from Lydia Quinonas, another patron. The purchase and delivery took place in the rear room of the premises, where Deputy Medlin and Ms. Quinonas were seated. The three tablets were small in size--smaller than ordinary aspirin tablets; Ms. Quinonas delivered the tablets by placing the palm of her hand over the deputy's upturned palm and dropping the tablets. During this transaction, several other persons were in the rear room playing pool. The area was well lighted. (Testimony of Medlin.) On the same day--April 27, 1982--Deputy Dees purchased approximately 21.7 grams of cannabis from Steve Sweat and Kenny Crabtree, patrons of the bar. They also gave Deputy Bees the remaining portion of a marijuana cigarette. The delivery and sale of these drugs took place outside the licensed premises in a truck parked in the front parking area--an area neither owned nor controlled by respondent. Deputy Dees placed the drugs inside her purse where they remained until delivered to law enforcement authorities. (Testimony of Dees.) On May 3, 1982, Deputy Medlin purchased a bag containing approximately 18 grams of cannabis from Thurston Raines, a bar patron. The delivery took place in a private vehicle parked in a well-lighted area in front of the premises. (Neither the vehicle nor the area in which it was parked was owned or controlled by respondent.) Deputy Medlin immediately placed the cannabis into her purse where it remained until delivered to the Sheriff's Office. (Testimony of Medlin.) Later in the evening on May 3, 1982, Deputy Dees i1purchased approximately 17 grams of cannabis from Eric Babcock, a patron of the bar. Mr. Babcock removed a grocery bag concealed above the ceiling in the rear room of the premises. They then proceeded to a private vehicle parked in front of the premises where Deputy Dees selected one of what appeared to be several bags of cannabis in the grocery sack. After placing the bag and the grocery sack in her purse, they returned to the rear room of the premises, where Mr. Babcock returned the grocery bag to its hiding place. (Deputy Dees concealed the grocery bag in her purse when they reentered the premises because Mr. Babcock did not want to be seen carrying it.) The ceiling of the rear room was recently replaced and respondent was not informed of any cannabis having been stored in the ceiling. (Testimony of Dees.) On May 4, 1982, Louis Austie gave Deputy Medlin the remaining portion (.3 gram) of a marijuana cigarette. The cigarette was being smoked by several persons standing outside the front door of the licensed premises. When a sheriff's patrol car entered the lot, Mr. Austie quickly extinguished the cigarette and gave it to Deputy Medlin. This drug transaction took place on property neither owned nor controlled by respondent. (Testimony of Medlin.) During the evening of May 14, 1982, Deputy Medlin telephoned Kay Towney, the night bartender on the premises, and asked her if she knew anyone who would sell her marijuana. Ms. Towney replied that there was a customer on the premises who would sell it to her. Deputy Medlin then proceeded to the premises where Ms. Towney introduced her to Tom Suggs, a customer. After negotiating the sale of .25 ounces of marijuana, Deputy Medlin and Mr. Suggs proceeded to a private car in the front parking area; the delivery took place inside the parked vehicle. (In a subsequent statement given to police officers, Ms. Towney stated that she was aware of drug trafficking on the licensed premises; that she helped arrange drug transactions between her customers; that she knew Eric Babcock had hidden drugs in the ceiling; and that she knew Mr. Babcock, Mark Padgett, and one other person were drug dealers.) (Testimony of Medlin, Kiker.) On May 14, 1982, Mark Padgett approached Deputy Medlin on the premises and asked her if she wanted to buy some quaaludes. She responded that she did. He then delivered a drug to Deputy Medlin in the parking lot area in front of the premises. Subsequent laboratory analysis revealed that drug was not a controlled substance. (Testimony of Medlin.) On several occasions during her investigation, Deputy Medlin observed people in the rear room of the premises smoking what appeared to be marijuana. Since she is familiar with the odor of marijuana smoke, her conclusion is accepted as persuasive. (Testimony of Medlin.) On three or four separate occasions during April, 1982, Stewart Stamm- -a person familiar with the appearance and odor of burning marijuana--saw customers smoking marijuana in the rear room of the licensed premises. He also has purchased marijuana from patrons of th& bar approximately 30 times. (Testimony of Stamm.) On May 26, 1982, Deputy Medlin engaged in an open and loud conversation with Kay Towney, the night bartender. The conversation took place at the bar on the premises and concerned the use of quaaludes. Other customers were 5 to 7 feet away. Ms. Towney then sold to Deputy Medlin what she represented to be two quaalude tablets. 2/ (Testimony of Medlin.) On April 20, 1982, Deputy Medlin observed Kay Towney remove what appeared to be brushes from a compartment in the pool table in the rear room on the premises. A few minutes later, a patron returned to the pool table, opened the compartment and inserted several clear plastic bags containing what appeared to be marijuana. (The bags have not been recovered, so their contents have not been definitively identified.) (Testimony of Medlin.) III. Respondent was Unaware of Illicit Drug Activities on or Adjacent to Licensed Premises Respondent did not know that illicit drug activities had occurred and were occurring on or adjacent to the licensed premises; neither did Frances Flynn, his wife, who acted as the night manager until October, 1981, when she left for eight months to care for her terminally ill brother-in the State of Washington; neither did Doris Sheldon, the daytime bartender; neither did Carolyn Burch, the employee who closed the premises each morning at 2:30 a.m. (Testimony of W. Flynn, F. Flynn, Sheldon, Burch.) Respondent employed Larry Harrison and Pat Randolph to clean in and around the licensed premises on a daily basis. Mr. Harrison and Ms. Randolph would occasionally find in the parking area the remains of what they suspected to be marijuana cigarettes; but there is no evidence that they ever informed respondent of their suspicions. (Testimony of Harrison, Randolph.) No law enforcement officers, including agents of the DABT, have ever informed respondent that they suspected or had reason to believe that illicit drug activities were occurring on the licensed premises. Several regular customers of the bar testified that they had never sheen controlled substances being used, sold, or stored inside or outside the licensed premises. (Testimony of Saucier, Settles, Finney, Donlon.) All of the purchases of the controlled substances described in section II above were initiated by the undercover officers involved. Most of the described purchases and deliveries of controlled substances occurred in the front parking area--an area neither owned nor controlled by respondent and which is not part of the licensed premises. IV. Failure to Diligently Supervise and Maintain Surveillance of Licensed Premises During Evening Hours The illicit drug transactions described above occurred, for the most part, during the evening hours. During those hours--from 6:00 p.m. to 2:30 a.m.--Kay Towney served as the night bartender. Frances Flynn, wife of respondent, ordinarily served as the night-shift manager and supervised the night bartender; but Ms. Flynn was absent from October, 1981, to May, 1982, when she was caring for her ill brother in Washington. (Testimony of W. Flynn, F. Flynn.) Ms. Towney was hired by respondent toward the end of 1981--while his wife was in Washington. At the job interview, respondent asked her if she used drugs; she answered she had used marijuana in the past. During April and May, 1982--when the drug transactions already mentioned took place--Ms. Towney was the only employee regularly on the premises during the night shift. Although respondent considered her a bartender, she considered herself the night manager. (Testimony of W. Flynn.) In April and May, 1982--when the alleged violations occurred-- respondent did not normally supervise and maintain surveillance of the premises during the night shift. He would open the bar at 10:00 a.m. and work there throughout the day, until 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. Then he would go home; Ms. Towney was instructed to call him if any problems arose. During Ms. Flynn's eight- month absence, respondent employed David Saucier to periodically inspect the premises during the night shift. Mr. Saucier inspected the premises approximately ten times and did not observe any illicit drug activities on or adjacent to the premises. (Testimony of W. Flynn, Saucier.) During the time in question--April and May, 1982-- it is concluded that respondent was negligent in that he did not exercise due diligence in supervising and maintaining surveillance of the licensed premises during the evening hours. illicit drug activities occurred repeatedly on the premises-- particularly in the rear room. Such activities were open and persistent and recur- ring. Marijuana was openly smoked in the rear room. The fact that the three exhaust fans may have helped remove the smoke--thus limiting it to the rear room--does not excuse respondent's failure to monitor the rear room area. The person nominally in charge of the premises during the night shift was aware of the illicit drug activity; she not only condoned it but actively participated in it. Although respondent was normally absent from the premises during the night shift, he employed a friend to inspect the premises only about ten times during the night-shift manager's eight-month absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage' license be suspended for sixty (60) days, subtracting therefrom the number of days such license has been suspended due to the emergency suspension order served May 28, 1982. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 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 29th day of June, 1982.
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend, revoke, and/or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license. The primary grounds for the proposed disciplinary action are that the licensee has permitted patrons on the licensed premises to sell cocaine on numerous occasions in violation of various statutory provisions. The specific allegations are set forth in a Notice To Show Cause dated February 27, 1989. An Emergency Order Of Suspension was served on the Respondent on February 27, 1989. The Respondent requested an emergency hearing, which was conducted on March 7, 1989. Both parties offered evidence at the hearing. Following the hearing the parties requested and were allowed until March 17, 1989, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The Petitioner filed a timely proposed recommended order. The Respondent has not filed any post-hearing documents. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Ocean Drive Hotel Corporation, d/b/a/ Ocean Haven Restaurant, is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License Number 23-3568, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Ocean Haven Restaurant, which is located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. The licensed premises are located in a neighborhood which is somewhat less than wholesome; a neighborhood in which there is a substantial amount of illegal drug related activity. It is a neighborhood in which it is not uncommon for police officers to observe people who have been previously arrested for drug violations. The Respondent corporation owns the licensed premises, as well as the hotel premises of which the licensed premises are a part. The Respondent corporation is owned by Mr. Heriberto Velasco. Mr. Velasco is the president of the Respondent corporation and he is the manager of both the hotel and the restaurant businesses. Mr. Velasco lives in the hotel with his wife, his mother, and one of his sons. Mr. Velasco takes most of his meals in the restaurant which comprises the licensed premises, and usually visits the licensed premises at least three times a day for that purpose. There is no evidence that he regularly spends any other time supervising activities in the restaurant. There are four employees in the restaurant that comprises the licensed premises. Two of those employees are Gloria E. Berlioz and Antonia Rodriguez de Alcina. The latter is also known by the name of Nora. Ms. Berlioz and Ms. Alcina have both been employees on the licensed premises for a year or two. Ms. Alcina is employed as a waitress. Ms. Berlioz is employed as a cook. During the course of an undercover investigation during the months of January and February of 1989, the following transactions involving controlled substances took place within the licensed premises: On January 10, 1989, a patron known as Loraine sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 18, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 19, 1989, an unknown white Latin male patron sold cocaine to a patron named Tommy. On January 25, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 26, 1989, an unknown Latin male patron sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 6, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 7, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet in two separate transactions. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also sold cocaine to Investigator Lerra. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet, in two separate transactions. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also delivered cocaine to an unknown white male patron. On February 22, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in the preceding paragraph, the people involved in the transactions discussed the subject of drug transactions in normal conversational tones of voice. During the majority of those conversations, either Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have heard the conversations. During some of the conversations, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter, within two or three feet from the conversations. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, the drugs involved in the transactions were openly displayed on the table top or on the counter top in front of the participants to the transactions. In each of the transactions involving purchases by Investigator Huguet, the investigator attempted to be obvious about what he was doing by holding the drugs in front of his face to inspect them before putting the drugs in his pocket. During the vast majority of those transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have observed the transactions. During some of the transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter within two or three feet from the drug transactions. One of the drug transactions took place while Mr. Heriberto Velasco was standing several feet away. All of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place within the licensed premises during business hours when employees and patrons were present on the licensed premises. None of the employees ever called the police or asked any of the parties to the drug transactions to leave the licensed premises. Mr. Heriberto Velasco was aware that the licensed premises are located in a neighborhood in which there is a high level of illegal drug activity. Nevertheless, he did not take any special precautions to prevent or detect drug activity on the licensed premises other than to tell the employees to let him know if they saw any drug activity. Mr. Heriberto Velasco has never asked the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for assistance or suggestions with respect to preventing or eliminating drug activity on the licensed premises, even though the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco advises all licensees of the availability of such assistance. Mr. Heriberto Velasco did not have actual knowledge that drug transactions were taking place on the licensed premises. He is opposed to drug trafficking and he has not knowingly permitted sales of drugs in his hotel or on the licensed premises. He has instructed his employees in the hotel and in the restaurant to call him if they observe any drug related activity so that he can throw out anyone involved in such activity. He has thrown people out of the hotel when he suspected they were involved in drug related activities. The employees in the licensed premises never told him about any drug related activity on the premises. Mr. Velasco never observed any activity on the licensed premises that he thought was drug related activity. Mr. Velasco does not know what crack cocaine looks like. Mr. Eric Velasco is the 20-year-old son of Mr. Heriberto Velasco. The son lives at the hotel with his parents and helps with the management of the hotel and restaurant to the extent he can between going to college and working at another near-by job. Mr. Eric Velasco has never observed any activity in the licensed premises that appeared to him to be drug related activity. He does not know what crack cocaine looks like. In brief summary, the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place in plain view within the licensed premises. The open exchanges of drugs and money in conjunction with the open conversations about drug transactions demonstrate a persistent pattern of open and flagrant drug activity. The subject drug transactions were sufficiently open that they would have been noticed by a reasonably diligent licensee.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in this case revoking the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 23-3568, series 2-COP, for the premises located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1096 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Further, some details proposed in this paragraph are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Accepted in substance, with many subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21: Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by Respondent (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Gino P. Negretti, Esquire 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of Florida statutes pertaining to alcoholic beverage licenses, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The Petitioner contends that Respondent violated the provisions of Sections 561.29(1)(a) and (c) by condoning and/or negligently overlooking trafficking in illegal, controlled substances on his licensed premises. The Respondent contends that he took all reasonable steps to prevent any unlawful activities from occurring on his licensed premises, and that to the extent any unlawful activities were conducted on his licensed premises, he neither condoned nor negligently overlooked them.
Findings Of Fact Robert Pauley is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 60-1229, Series 2-COP. The licensed premises is located at 4458 Purdy Lane, West Palm Beach, Florida, and is operated under the name "The Treehouse Saloon". The Treehouse Saloon is a "topless bar". It offers so-called adult entertainment to members of the public as well as beer and wine for consumption on the premises. The entertainment consists of women who dance nude or semi- nude. The premises includes numerous tables and a bar where patrons sit, pool tables, restrooms, an office where the Respondent conducted business, a disc jockey's booth, and a dance floor where the women performed. The Treehouse Saloon has been closed since June 8, 1983, when the Petitioner issued an emergency suspension order and notice to show cause. During May and June, 1983, John T. Slavin, an agent employed with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department, was acting in an undercover capacity. He took on the appearance and wore clothes compatible with the role of a member of a motorcycle gang. He had been directed to frequent topless lounges in Palm Beach County and to work undercover to determine if illegal drug activities or prostitution were occurring. On May 5, 1983, Slavin entered the Treehouse Saloon. During the evening, he made friends with "Duane" who was working in the saloon as a disc jockey. Slavin asked Duane about the prospects of purchasing cocaine. Duane told Slavin that that could be arranged and that it would cost $60 for three- fourths of a gram. Slavin gave Duane $60. Duane left the disc jockey area and approached one of the dancers whose name was "Barbara." Duane then returned to Slavin and advised him that the "product" was on the way. A short time later, Barbara approached Duane, then Duane brought a matchbox to Slavin. The matchbox contained a transparent plastic bag with white powder in it. After he left the bar, Slavin 7 field-tested the "product" then turned it over to a chemist employed with the Sheriff's Department. The "product" was cocaine. The sale was made at approximately 2:00 a.m. On or about May 12, 1983, Slavin entered the Treehouse lounge at approximately 11:45 p.m. He saw Duane and asked whether Duane was "playing oldies." This was a signal meaning that Slavin wished to purchase more cocaine. Duane said that he was "playing oldies nightly" and asked Slavin how much he wanted. Slavin handed Duane $60. A short time later, Duane delivered a cigarette pack to Slavin and told Slavin that a cigarette was missing. Slavin found two transparent bags containing a white powder inside the cigarette pack. Slavin later field-tested the contents and delivered them to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On or about May 13, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon at approximately 11:30 p.m. Shortly after mid- night on May 14, he approached Duane's booth and asked if they could do business. Duane said "yes," but that it would take a little longer for the delivery due to a special event (a "banana eating contest") that was being presented. Slavin gave Duane $60 which Duane put in his pocket. Later that morning, Duane put a pack of matches in Slavin's pocket. Slavin went to the men's room and found two plastic bags with a white powder inside. He later field-tested the contents then delivered them to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On or about May 18, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon at approximately 10:30 p.m. He saw Duane at the bar and asked him why he was not in the disc jockey's booth. Duane indicated that he was squabbling with the management and would be taking some time off. Duane asked Slavin if he was interested in "some white" which is a "street name" for cocaine. Slavin asked if Duane could get him a gram. Duane said that he could. Slavin gave Duane $80. Later, Duane handed Slavin an aspirin tin. There were two small bags of white powder inside the tin. Slavin later field tested the contents then delivered them to a chemist. The product was cocaine. On this occasion, Duane said that he would be away for a while. Slavin asked Duane who could supply "coke" (cocaine) in Duane's absence. Duane named three dancers: "Linda," "Doree," and "Barbara." Although Duane was not in the disc jockey's booth on that occasion, he did appear to be directing other employees, including dancers, in their activities. On or about May 19, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon at approximately 1:00 a.m. He talked to a dancer called "Doree." Doree's actual name is Diana Donnell. Since then, she has been arrested. Slavin asked Doree if she could get him some "coke." She told Slavin that it would cost $40 for a half gram. Slavin asked if he could buy a full gram, and she said "yes." Doree then performed as a dancer, after which Slavin gave her $80. At that time, he was standing right next to the dance floor. A short time later, Doree returned with two small plastic bags which contained a white powder. Later, Slavin field-tested the powder and turned it over to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On or about May 25, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon shortly after noon. He sat at the bar next to a dancer whose name was "Samantha." Slavin asked her where Doree was, and was told that Doree was not working there anymore. Slavin asked Samantha if she could help him buy a half gram of cocaine. She said "yes" and that it would cost $40. Slavin placed $40 on the bar between them. She placed a cigarette pack on the bar and told him that there was a half gram inside. She took the money. The witness examined the contents of the cigarette pack, removed a plastic bag which contained a white substance, and returned the cigarettes to Samantha. Samantha told Slavin that he could buy from her in the future. Later, Slavin field-tested the product and delivered it to the chemist. The product was cocaine. Later in the day on May 25, 1983, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon. He saw Samantha and asked her if he could buy another half gram. She told him it would cost $40. Slavin gave her $40 and she went into the dressing room that was on the premises. When she came out, she gave him a transparent package that had white powder inside. Later, Slavin field-tested the contents and delivered it to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On May 31, 1983, at approximately 10:45 p.m. Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon. He talked to a dancer known as "Mama She She." Slavin asked if Samantha was available and was told that she was not there. Maid She She, whose actual name is Michelle West, said that she had "done a line of coke" earlier which was "dirty," but had given her a "good high." She told Slavin that a half gram would cost $40. Shortly after midnight, Slavin gave her $40. He did not receive anything from Mama She She until approximately 3:50 a.m. On several occasions in the interim, Slavin talked to Mama She She about it, but she indicated she was having some difficulty obtaining the cocaine. Eventually, she gave him a clear bag that had powder inside. She told Slavin that she would be working the next day (June 2) from 11:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. and that the witness could buy more then. Later, Slavin field-tested the contents of the bag and delivered them to the chemist. The product was cocaine. On or about June 2, 1983, Slavin returned to the Treehouse Saloon at approximately 3:30 p.m. He saw Mama She She and talked to her. She asked him if he was interested in "a half or a whole." He said "A half." She returned a bit later and said that there was nothing there then, but that if he would wait, she could probably get it. Later, she told Slavin that she was a bit reluctant to sell to him because he had not given her a "line" from his purchases. Slavin told Mama She She that he was buying it for friend to whom he owed money. At approximately 7:30 p.m., Mama She She still had not delivered anything to Slavin. She asked if he could drive her home, which he agreed to do. As they were leaving, another dancer, "Barbie," came in. Barbie asked Slavin if he recognized her. She told him that he had gotten cocaine from her through Duane in the past. Slavin asked if he could get a half gram, and Barbie said "yes." Slavin then took Mama She She home and returned at approximately 8:30 p.m. Barbie gave him a plastic bag with white powder inside. Slavin later field- tested the product and delivered it to the chemist. The product was cocaine. All of the women that Slavin dealt with at the Treehouse Saloon were dancers. They were either scantily clad or nude. They would dance for three songs on the dance floor, and customers would put money in their garter belts. A bartender and a bouncer were also present at the saloon. From time to time, a bartender or the disc jockey would tell a dancer it was her turn. The Respondent had hired the dancers as "independent contractors." Whatever their status at the Treehouse Saloon, the dancers were subject to direction from the Respondent or his managers. A list of rules for dancers provided, among other things, that no hard liquor or drugs were allowed on the premises and that the first offense would result in termination. The dancers were required to sign an "independent contractor agreement." The contract provided that dancers would not be considered an agent or employee of the saloon for any purpose. Despite these provisions, the dancers were clearly subject to direction by the bartender or disc jockey at the saloon. In addition, they were required to wait on tables, to circulate among customers, to work their complete shifts, to tip the bartender, and to perform other functions. They were clearly subject to the supervision and control of the Respondent, the bartender, or the disc jockey. When Slavin made the cocaine purchases described above, he communicated with Duane or the dancers in a normal conversational tone. A normal conversational tone in the Treehouse Saloon would he somewhat loud because loud music was constantly playing. The transactions were made in a somewhat secretive manner. A person who was carefully observing or monitoring the premises, however, would necessarily have been suspicious of Slavin, Duane, and the dancers. The Respondent did post rules in various locations of the Treehouse Saloon which provided that illicit drugs were not allowed. His dancers' rules provided to the same effect. Other than that, it does not appear that the Respondent took any steps to properly monitor his premises to assure that such activities were not occurring. Given the number of transactions and the nature of the transactions undertaken by Slavin, the transactions would have been observed by a manager who was reasonably observing and monitoring the premises. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that the Respondent was directly involved in any drug trafficking or that he condoned it. The evidence does, however, establish that he was negligent in not properly monitoring the licensed premises to assure that illegal activities were not being undertaken there.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation, finding the Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the notice to show cause and suspending his beverage license for a period of two years. RECOMMENDED this 14 day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 14th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Albert R. Wilber, Jr., Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 301 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Mr. Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondents hold alcoholic beverage license number 60- 0122, series 2- COP, and do business at 704 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach under the name of The Brass Bull. Respondents have operated The Brass Bull for six years without any complaints from law enforcement agencies until the execution of a search warrant on the premises on November 29, 1994. On September 12, 1984 the Petitioner and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office began an investigation of The Brass Bull and met with a confidential informant, hereinafter referred to as CI, who was employed at the time as a dancer at The Brass Bull. The CI agreed to make introductions for law enforcement officers to employees on the premises and was paid $150 on November 26, 1964 for making these introductions. The CI had been placed on probation in July, 1983 and was on probation during this investigation. The CI's husband was placed on probation on September 11, 1984. On September 14, 1984 Investigator Kenneth Goodman, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, and Sergeant David R. Harris, Riviera Beach Police Department, entered the licensed premises and talked with a dancer identified as "Linda" about the purchase of some marijuana. Linda gave Investigator Goodman a single marijuana cigarette analyzed as containing 260 milligrams of cannabis, but she did not have any to sell. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris met another dancer on the premises, identified as "Sunrise," on September 19, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine. Sunrise was later identified as Dawn Birnbaum. Sgt. Harris gave Sunrise $40, she left the premises through the front door, returned in a few minutes and handed Sgt. Harris two aluminum foil packets later analyzed as containing 200 milligrams of cocaine. Investigator Goodman also purchased 100 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise on September 19, 1984. These sales took place on the premises while other patrons were present, although Sunrise left the premises to obtain the cocaine for the sales. On September 25, 1984, Sgt. Harris entered the licensed premises with Investigator Richard Walker, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Investigator Walker purchased 505 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise who left the premises to obtain the cocaine but returned to complete the sale on the premises. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were on the licensed premises on October 6, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase cocaine with a dancer identified as Christine Flynn. They each gave Flynn $45, she left the premises, returned and handed them each a plastic baggie containing a total of 590 milligrams of cocaine. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. On October 12, 1984, Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris entered the premises and met a waitress identified as April Finster. Investigator Goodman asked to buy some marijuana. She went into a back room on the premises and returned with one marijuana cigarette containing 300 milligrams of cannabis, which she gave to Investigator Goodman. On October 16, 1984, Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer identified as "Blondie" on the premises and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine from Blondie. The CI was present during this discussion, took $20 from Sgt. Harris, and then left the premises with Blondie. When Blondie and the CI returned, the CI gave Sgt. Harris a plastic bag which was heat sealed and filled with 110 milligrams of cocaine. Blondie stated that she always heat sealed her bags. Later Sgt. Harris gave Blondie $100, she brought him $70 change and then went into the dressing room. When Blondie exited the dressing room she approached the CI and they approached the table where Sgt. Harris was sitting. The CI placed a book of matches on the table and Blondie told Harris the cocaine was in the book of matches. Sgt. Harris found a heat sealed plastic bag containing 135 milligrams of cocaine in the matches. There were other patrons on the premises when these transactions took place. Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer named "Lola" on the premises on October 30, 1984. Sgt. Harris gave Lola $80, she entered the dressing room and then returned to where Sgt. Harris was seated with a white towel around her hand. Inside the towel was a bag containing 800 milligrams of cocaine. While on the premises with Sgt. Harris on October 31, 1984, Investigator Walker gave Lola $100. She left the premises and returned with a plastic bag containing 560 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Walker. On November 6, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris, and Investigator Goodman gave Lola $55. Lola approached a white male patron and then returned to Investigator Goodman and gave him a plastic bag containing 400 milligrams of cocaine. On November 20, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris. Lola approached Investigator Goodman and asked him if he wanted to buy some cocaine. He gave her $50, she left the premises and returned with a bag containing 300 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Goodman. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were also on the licensed premises on September 28, October 9 and 10, November 1 and 5. On each occasion they discussed the purchase of controlled substances as defined in Section 893.03, F.S., with Respondents' employees who were on the premises at the time of these discussions. No actual transactions took place on these dates. In brief summary of the foregoing, during the period of September 14 to November 20, 1984, transactions involving the sale of a total of 3.7 grams of cocaine and gifts of 560 milligrams of cannabis took place at The Brass Bull between Respondents' employees and Investigators Goodman and Walker, and Sgt. Harris. There were also five occasions when the purchase of controlled substances was discussed with Respondents' employees on the premises but no actual transaction took place. The CI was on the premises during most of these occasions, introducing the law enforcement officers to the various employees. The transactions usually took place while other patrons were on the premises, and included Respondents' employees passing the controlled substances on or above the table at which the officers were seated. On some occasions the employees left the premises after receiving money from the officers and returned a short time later with the controlled substance which they then gave to the officers on the premises. Respondents do not take an active role in managing The Brass Bull. They rely on a day manager and a night manager to hire, fire and discipline employees, to schedule the dancers, and to enforce the rules which are posted in the employees' dressing room. Rule 11 prohibits employees from having drugs or "liquors" on the premises, and states that anyone having these substances on the premises will be terminated immediately. Respondents never met with employees, other than their managers with whom they met or talked almost daily. Conversations and meetings with the managers were usually social, however, and generally did not involve business matters. Business meetings with the managers were held infrequently. Robert Meloche only visited the premises at 7:00 a.m. when no one else was present in order to review the prior night's receipts. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents employed various dancers on the licensed premises under the terms of an Entertainment Booking Agreement. All dancers were required to sign the booking agreement and agree to working conditions prescribed by the Respondents, including compensation arrangements, the number and color of their costumes, work hours, and the additional duties of cleaning and serving tables. Respondents also prescribed a set of seventeen (17) rules for all dancers and other employees. The above referenced individuals named Linda, Sunrise, Christine Flynn, April Finster, Blondie, Lola, and the Confidential Informant were employees of Respondents' at the licensed premises during the time relevant to this case. In making the above findings, the undersigned Hearing Officer has considered proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4., F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary or not based on competent substantial evidence. Specifically, Respondents' proposed findings as to Counts 14, 15 and 16 are rejected since they are not based on competent substantial evidence and are otherwise immaterial and irrelevant.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's license number 60-0122, series 2-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance; cocaine, and whether said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 in U.S. currency, and whether said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage license premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine contrary to Section 893.13, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc. d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $2,200, U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. A count seven was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. A count eight was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. Whether or not on or about November 20, 1976, a bottle of non-tax paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered on the licensed premises, and whether or not said bottle bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid, contrary to Section 562.16, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 1, 1976, and continuing until on or about November 24, 1976, the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did maintain a public nuisance, to wit; maintain a place where controlled substances were illegally sold, kept or used, contrary to Section 823.10, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not investigation revealed that on or about November 20, 1976, the Respondent, its agent, servant, or employee, did remove, deposit, or conceal a beverage, to wit, one (1) 2,000 cc bottle of Ron Medeliin Rum, with the intent to defraud the state of tax, contrary to Section 562.32, F.S. and Section 562.30, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this complaint the Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, was the holder of a license no. 23-1901, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, and that license was for the premises located at 1601 Collins Avenue Miami Beach, Florida. The management of the licensed premises makes arrangements to hire entertainment in the form of musicians. This arrangement is made through agreement with the band leader. One of these agreements was made with a band leader who had as his band member Leouigildo Hernandez. On September 28, 1976, Officer E. Santiago, of the Miami Beach, Florida, Police Department entered the licensed premises and while in the licensed premises entered into discussion with Hernandez. Hernandez left the bar proper and came back with an amount of a substance known as cocaine. Santiago paid Hernandez $100 for the quantity of cocaine and the sale was consummated in the licensed premises. On October 30, 1976, Officer Santiago returned to the licensed premises. Santiago had been in the licensed premises many times prior to that occasion. Among the persons he had seen in the bar was Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales. Morales was the girlfriend of Anthony Bilbao, one of the principals in the ownership of the licensed premises. Morales had also served Santiago drinks in the bar on more than 50 occasions. On the evening in question, October 30, 1976, discussion was entered into between Santiago and Morales about the purchase of a substance known as cocaine. Morales produced a quantity of the cocaine and reached across the bar that she was standing behind and handed the quantity of the substance cocaine to Santiago, who was in the area where customers were served at the bar. Santiago paid her $100 for the cocaine. In the late hours of November 4 and early hours of November 5, 1976, Santiago again entered the licensed premises, his purpose for going to the licensed premises was to purchase a large quantity of cocaine from Morales. This arrangement had been entered into based upon the sample of cocaine that had been provided him on October 30, 1976. Morales left the licensed premises and returned 3 to 5 minutes later with a quantity of cocaine, for which Santiago paid her $2,200. On one of the above occasions of a purchase of cocaine from Morales, while in the licensed premises, Morales had conferred with Anthony Bilbao. In the course of that conference, Bilbao told Morales to be careful to whom she sold because "you don't know him", meaning Santiago. In the course of an investigation in the license premises on November 28, 1976, a bottle of non-tax-paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered in the licensed premises, which bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid. The size of the bottle was 2,000 cc.
Recommendation Based upon the violations as established in the hearing on the notice to show cause, it is recommended that the license no. 23-1901 held by Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee ,Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Michael B. Solomon, Esquire Division of Beverage Theodore M. Trushin, Law Office The Johns Building 420 Lincoln Road, Number 600 725 Bronough Street Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Nathaniel Barone, Esquire 777 N.E. 79th Street Miami, Florida 33138
The Issue Whether the Respondents, ORLANDO MULKEY and LORETTA MULKEY, d/b/a SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER, should have their alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents ORLANDO MULKEY and LORETTA MULKEY hold Beverage License No. 36-00019, Series No. 2-APS for the premises known as SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER located at 635 and 637 Alabama Avenue, Clewiston, Florida. On July 14, 1987, the Respondent ORLANDO MULKEY was adjudicated guilty of the offense "Sale of a Controlled Substance, Cocaine" in Circuit Court Case No. 87-59 in Hendry County, Florida. Although the specific statute number was not set forth in the judgment and sentence as suggested in the uniform judgment and sentence found in Rule 3.986, Rules of Criminal Procedure, it appears that ORLANDO MULKEY was found guilty of a felony under Section 893.13(1)(a) and Section 893.03(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes. This finding is based upon the length of the probation term (5 years) and the written description of the offense in the judgment. The judgment and sentence were a result of a criminal offense which took place on November 13, 1986. During the hearing, after receiving instruction from the Hearing Officer concerning his Constitutional right against self-incrimination, which he appeared to understand, ORLANDO MULKEY admitted to possessing crack cocaine on the premises of SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER on November 13, 1986, during his management shift. ORLANDO MULKEY and LORETTA MULKEY conducted business in SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER on different shifts. LORETTA MULKEY was not aware that ORLANDO MULKEY, her co-licensee, was using crack cocaine. She was not aware that he had crack cocaine in his possession on the licensed premises during his shift. As the managerial and supervisory responsibilities were divided between the co- licensees on the basis of their respective shifts, LORETTA MULKEY, had no connection with any drug related activities. On June 18, 1987, ORLANDO MULKEY quitclaimed his interest in the real property where SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER is located to LORETTA MULKEY. Although ORLANDO MULKEY and LORETTA MULKEY are co- licensees, there is no evidence in the record to establish that a legal entity relationship exists between the MULKEYS in the conduct of business as SONNY'S SERVICE CENTER.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Mary L. Alexander holds beverage license No. 28-0041, Series 2-COP. Under this license she sells beer and wine at Whisper's Cafe, a business which she has owned and operated for approximately two years in Bunnell, Florida. (Testimony of respondent) Respondent employs a cook and a part-time bartender, who also serves as a disc jockey. The cook works primarily in the kitchen. At around 8:30 P.M., the bartender begins operating the juke box and remains in the dance area of the licensed premises, an area separated by a wall from the rest of the premises. Respondent (or a substitute bartender), works primarily in the bar and pool table area, which is located between the dining and dance areas of the premises. (Testimony of respondent) The evidence establishes, without contradiction, that two of respondent's bartenders committed three separate drug violations on the premises during April and May, 1982. Two violations involved bartender Ronney Locke, one involved bartender Fred Austin. I. Two Drug Violations by Bartender Locke On April 30, 1982, Maria Scruggs, a DABT Beverage Officer, entered Whisper's Cafe in an undercover capacity. Approximately twenty customers were on the premises--four or five were standing at the bar. Officer Scruggs ordered a drink at the bar. Several minutes later, Thomas Alexander, respondent's son, approached her and a conversation ensued. She asked him if he had any marijuana she could buy. He replied that he did not, and then referred the question to bartender Ronney Locke. Mr. Locke, offering to check around the bar, approached Clarence Lorick, a customer, who then delivered a small quantity of marijuana to Mr. Alexander for $5.00. Mr. Alexander, seated at the bar, rolled a marijuana (cannabis) cigarette in his lap and gave it to Officer Scruggs, who then left the premises. The cigarette was rolled in an open manner and in plain view of others on the premises. Respondent was not on the premises during this transaction and was unaware of its occurrence. (Testimony of Scruggs, respondent, P-1) On May 7, 1982, Officer Scruggs reentered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. She began to talk, separately, with respondent and bartender Locke. She asked Mr. Locke if any cocaine or marijuana was available. He replied that he would check with the other customers for a $5.00 bag of marijuana. He approached Ginnie Lee Caskins a customer, Who then approached Officer Scruggs and handed her a manilla envelope containing marijuana (cannabis). Officer Scruggs said nothing and handed her $5.00. This exchange of money and marijuana took place under the bar and out of view of the other customers on the premises. Although respondent was on the premises, she was not close by and did not see the exchange or overhear the conversation. (Testimony of respondent, Scruggs, P-2) II. Drug Violation by Bartender Austin On May 12, 1982, Alphonso Junious, another DABT Beverage Officer, entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. He asked bartender Fred Austin, an employee of respondent, if he knew where he could buy some marijuana. Mr. Austin walked to the door and summoned Clarence Lorick, who then entered the premises. After a brief conversation, Mr. Lorick handed a small quantity of marijuana (cannabis) to Officer Junious, who, in turn, handed him $5.00. This exchange took place in a secretive manner and occurred after respondent had left the premises. She was also unaware of this drug transaction. (Testimony of Junious, respondent, P-3) III. Drug Violation by Respondent DABT also contends that on May 14, 1982, respondent unlawfully aided, counseled, or procured the sale or delivery of marijuana (cannabis) to Officer Junious. Respondent denies it. The evidence, although conflicting, substantiates DABT's contention. On May 14, 1982, Officer Junious reentered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. He purchased a beer from respondent, who was tending bar. While seated at the bar, he overheard respondent tell an unidentified female patron that she (respondent) had been to a musical concert and had to leave to get something to smoke. Officer Junious, construing this to mean marijuana, said to her, "I could use something to smoke too," or words to that effect. Respondent replied, "Boot got some." (Testimony of Junious) Officer Junious knew who "Boot" (Henry Brown) was, having previously purchased marijuana from him in an undercover capacity. Officer Junious then left the premises, found "Boot" outside, and purchased a small quantity of marijuana (cannabis) from him for $5.00. (Testimony of Junious) These findings are based on the testimony of Officer Junious. Respondent denies that she said "Boot got some" or that she had any conversation with Officer Junious on May 14, 1982. She also denies that she said she could use something to smoke, and states that she does not smoke either tobacco or marijuana. Taking into account her bias and interest in the outcome of this proceeding, the testimony of Officer Junious is more credible and is accepted as persuasive. IV. Respondent's Supervision of the Premises Respondent, periodically, reminded her employees that no marijuana was allowed on the premises. She took no other action to ensure that drug violations would not occur on the premises. (Testimony of respondent On May 27, 1982, arrest warrants were executed by DABT and the licensed premises was searched. No illicit drugs were found on the premises. (Testimony of Scruggs) There is no evidence that marijuana has ever been smoked in the licensed premises. Neither does the evidence support a finding that respondent knew that marijuana had been, or was being, sold or delivered on the premises. The four separate drug violations committed on the licensed premises, and the manner in which they were committed, however, support a conclusion that these violations of law were fostered, condoned, or negligently overlooked by respondent, and they occurred, at least in part, due to respondent's failure to diligently supervise her employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be suspended for a period of 90 days. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of December,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 10th day of December, 1982.
