Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the factual matters set forth in the Petitioner's emergency order of suspension received by Respondent on July 16, 1987. Those facts are set forth in the following paragraphs 1 through 14. The Stipulated Facts The records of the Petitioner disclose that 2000 Collins Avenue, Corp., is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 23-02639, Series 4-COP, for a licensed premises known as the Five O'Clock Club, which is located at 2000 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. On or about May 20, 1987, Petitioner's Investigators O. Santana and H. Garcia, entered the licensed premises of the Respondent as part of an ongoing narcotics investigation. While on the premises, Investigator Garcia purchased crack cocaine in plain view at the bar from a patron named "Maggy". Two male bartenders named Joe and Paul were also present. On May 27, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia returned to the licensed premises of the Respondent known as the Five O'Clock Club. Bartender Joe was on duty at this time. At approximately 6:45 p.m., Maggy appeared and inquired of Investigator Garcia whether he wished to purchase more crack cocaine. Investigator Garcia indicated that he desired to do so and gave Maggy $40.00 for the purchase. Maggy left Investigator Garcia, returned shortly thereafter and placed the crack cocaine in a napkin on the bar counter. Maggy cut a small piece of the crack cocaine rock and placed it in her mouth in plain view of the bartender and patrons on the licensed premises. On June 3, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia again entered the Five O'Clock Club in an undercover capacity. Once on the premises, the investigators were approached by a white male patron later identified as "Vincent". He asked if the investigators wished to purchase any drugs. The investigators indicated that they would take any thing that was available. The investigators indicated that they would prefer some powder cocaine and if it was unavailable some rock cocaine. Vincent went to the end of the bar and engaged in conversation with an unidentified latin male. He returned to the investigators and indicated that he could get some rock cocaine immediately from someone in the bar. Vincent indicated that he could get three cocaine rocks for $40.00 and the investigators agreed to purchase them. Vincent then returned to talk to the latin male who was also joined by Joe, the bartender on duty . During conversation between these three, Joe indicated that they should be careful to whom they sold as he did not want to get arrested. Vincent then returned to the investigators and requested identification to indicate that they were not police officers. Investigator Garcia removed his wallet showing Vincent false identification which Vincent accepted as legitimate. Garcia gave $40.00 to Vincent who then walked back over to the latin male. Vincent inquired of Joe whether Investigators Garcia and Santana were "okay". Joe indicated that the investigators were okay and were regulars at the bar. Vincent then placed a napkin on the bar in front of the investigators. When the napkin was opened on the bar top, three crack cocaine rocks were revealed. This transaction occurred, and the cocaine rocks exposed, in plain view of patrons and employees on the licensed premises. Joe made no effort at any time to terminate the transaction. On June 4, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia returned to the licensed premises known as the Five O'Clock Club in an undercover capacity. At that time, bartender "Billy" was on duty. After a period of time, the investigators observed a black male walk up to Billy and indicate that he was going to "make his rounds." The black male then proceeded from patron to patron speaking in short conversations. When the black male reached an unidentified male patron playing an amusement device, the investigators heard the black male ask the patron if he wanted some "crack". The patron indicated yes and handed the black male $10.00. The black male handed a small, clear plastic bag containing a brownish rock to the patron. Shortly after this transaction occurred, Vincent again returned to the licensed premises. He approached the investigators and inquired whether or not they desired to purchase some additional crack. The investigators indicated that they did, and Garcia handed Vincent $40.00 for the purchase. Vincent left the bar and returned a period of time later and placed a napkin with three cocaine rocks on the bar in front of the investigators. While the cocaine rocks were still in plain view on the bar, Billy served a beer to Vincent. Billy made no effort whatsoever to either complain about or terminate the drug transaction taking place in plain view on the licensed premises. On June 8, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia again returned to the Five O'Clock Club in an undercover capacity. While on the premises, the investigators observed a white female walk into the bar and engage several patrons in short conversations. She was stopped and handed a $20.00 bill by another white female patron identified as "Candy". The first white female reached into the front of her pants and pulled out a small plastic bag containing a white powder which she then handed to Candy. Candy stated, "I'm going to the restroom and have some fun." Shortly after this transaction occurred, the investigators left the premises. After exiting the Five O'Clock Club , they were confronted by Vincent. Vincent inquired whether the investigators intended to buy some crack from him on this date. The investigators indicated they would, however they did not wish to make a purchase on a public street. Vincent suggested they go back into the Five O'Clock Club and conduct the transaction at the bar. They did. While seated at the bar, Investigator Garcia gave Vincent $40.00. Billy, the bartender then on duty, stated to Vincent, "you are a great salesman." Vincent then left the bar and returned shortly thereafter placing 3 pieces of rock cocaine on the bar for the investigators and suggested that it was the "best crack on Miami Beach." After the investigators took possession of the cocaine, Billy remarked, "do you really like that stuff?" On June 15, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia again returned to the licensed premises of the Five O'Clock Club in an undercover capacity. After a period of time on the licensed premises, the investigators were unable to locate any patrons with whom they had previously transacted drug purchases. Upon leaving the premises, the investigators were approached by an individual known as "Eita", who had been previously introduced to them by Vincent. Eita and the investigators went back into the Five O'Clock Club. Eita informed the investigators that Vincent was incarcerated and that he, Eita, could obtain crack cocaine for them. The investigators agreed and provided Eita $40.00 . Eita left the premises and returned shortly with three cocaine rocks. Eita, in the presence of Billy the bartender, placed the three cocaine rocks on the bar of the licensed premises. He then wrapped the cocaine rocks in a brown piece of paper. Investigator Garcia picked the rocks up and placed them in his pocket. This transaction occurred in the immediate presence of Bill and other patrons on the licensed premises. On June 17, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia again returned to the Five O'Clock Club in an undercover capacity. At this time the licensed premises were being serviced by a barmaid known as "Toni". Eita again appeared on the licensed premises. Eita offered to sell crack cocaine to Investigators Santana and Garcia. The investigators agreed and in furtherance of the transaction provided Eita $40.00. Eita left the premises and returned shortly thereafter and seated himself next to the investigators. Eita opened his purse and began to place pieces of rock cocaine on the bar top. While this transpired Toni approached the group and placed a beer in front of Eita. Toni observed as Eita took three cocaine rocks and wrapped them in a cigarette wrapper and handed them to Investigator Garcia. Toni made no effort to either complain about or otherwise terminate the drug transaction taking place on the licensed premises. On the same date as indicated in paragraph 8 above, Investigators Santana and Garcia approached a patron known as "Paco" while on the licensed premises of the Five O'Clock Club. They engaged in a casual conversation with Paco who was known to them as a crack dealer in the Miami Beach area. They inquired of Paco whether or not he could obtain crack cocaine for them and he replied that he could. The investigators provided Paco $30.00. Paco handed Investigator Garcia three cocaine rocks which Garcia placed on the bar and subsequently wrapped in a napkin. This transaction occurred without complaint on the licensed premises in the plain view of Toni and other patrons. On June 22, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia returned to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Bartender Billy was on duty at this time. After a period of time, Paco arrived on the licensed premises and inquired of the investigators whether they needed "any thing" today. Investigator Garcia asked Paco if he could obtain some rock cocaine on this date. Paco indicated that he could. Paco left the premises, returned shortly thereafter and gave Investigator Garcia a large cocaine rock. Paco then demanded $40.00. This transaction took place in plain view at the bar in the presence of Billy and other patrons in the licensed premises. At no time did Billy complain about or terminate the transaction. On June 24, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia entered the licensed premises of the Five O'Clock Club in an undercover capacity. Bartender Joe was on duty at this time. Paco was on the licensed premises. The investigators listened while several other patrons approached Paco in an effort to obtain rock cocaine. Paco indicated that rock cocaine was presently unavailable. After a period of time, a black male came into the licensed premises and sat by Paco. The black male provided Paco several cocaine rocks which he distributed to the patrons who had made the previous requests. Further, Paco provided Investigator Garcia with a large cocaine rock for the purchase price of $30.00. These transactions took place at the bar and in the presence of Joe and other patrons. At no time did Joe object to the drug transactions taking place at the bar of the Five O'Clock Club On the same date identified in paragraph 11, shortly after the foregoing transactions occurred, Eita came into the Five O'Clock Club. Eita asked the investigators if they wished to purchase any rock cocaine and they indicated that they did. They provided Eita $35.00 whereupon he left the premises. Eita returned shortly thereafter and placed cocaine rocks on the bar in plain view of Joe and other patrons at the bar. The investigators then took possession of the cocaine. At no time did Joe protest the occurrence of this transactions. On July 13, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia returned to the licensed premises known as the Five O'Clock Club in an undercover capacity. While seated at the bar, the investigators purchased two cocaine rocks from a patron known as "Orlando". Bartender Billy was on duty at this time. The transaction took place at the bar in plain view of Billy and other patrons on the licensed premises. At no time did any employee of the bar make an effort to terminate the transaction. All substances purchased at the licensed premises and identified as cocaine have been laboratory analyzed and determined to be cocaine. Additional Facts In addition to the above stipulated facts, Respondent presented testimony upon which the following factual findings are based. Myrtle Klass is the predominant shareholder of the respondent, 2000 Collins Avenue Corporation. Mrs. Klass is 88 years of age, is in declining health, and requires the services of a full-time caregiver. Mrs. Klass's late husband purchased the building in which the Five O'Clock Club is located in the late 1950's. Upon his death a trust fund was created, 75% of which goes to Mrs. Klass and 25% of which is divided between the Klass's two children, Mrs. Marshall and her brother. Her brother, because of health problems, is totally dependent on the income from such trust fund. Portions of Mrs. Marshall's share of the trust fund are passed on to her children, one of whom is likewise dependent on such income. At the time of acquisition of the 2000 Collins Avenue building and license No. 23-2639, the neighborhood was a substantially better locale than at present. The neighborhood has significantly declined and is populated by "street people" whose involvement in drug dealing is endemic. Mrs. Klass, since 1963, has utilized the services of a certified public accountant-attorney and a property manager to manage the overall operation of the licensed property. She has utilized the same "on premises" manager since 1963 to supervise the day to day operation of the Five O'Clock Club. There have been no prior violations during the approximate 25 years in which the premises have been operated in this manner. The Klass family trust sold the building in early 1987 because of the decline in the neighborhood. The Five O'Clock Club was due to be closed permanently in September 1987. At the time of the service of the Petitioner's emergency order, license No. 23-2639, services 4-COP, was the subject of a contract for sale for $45,000 to the owner of a family restaurant located elsewhere on Collins Avenue. Because of the emergency order of suspension, the contract could not be completed. Because of Mrs. Klass's age and health, her daughter, Doris Marshall, represents that Mrs. Klass has no desire to hold any alcoholic beverage license, but only desires to sell the existing license so as not to deprive the trust and the persons dependent on the income therefrom of an asset valued at $45,000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license No. 23-2639, series 4-COP, subject first to a suspension of 120 days or such lesser period of time within which Respondent may sell the license, in an arms length transfer, to a duly qualified transferee who will agree to 1) operate such license at a location other than the present licensed premises 2) not employ any personnel of the Respondent that were present on the premises during the incidents set forth in the Notice To Show Cause and 3) operate the license under a name other than the "5 O'Clock Club." Upon completion of the license transfer in accordance with the above stated conditions or the expiration of the 120 day suspension period, whichever occurs first, the license, as to the Respondent in this case, shall stand revoked. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 29th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my ruling on proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent. All stipulated facts are included in findings numbered 1-14. Accepted in finding number 15. Accepted in finding number 16. Accepted in finding number 17. Accepted in finding number 18. Accepted in finding number 19. Accepted in finding number 20. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Moody, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Daniel Bosanko, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the charges against respondent, R. Hughes, Inc. d/b/a The Odyssey, contained in the Notice To Show Cause in this case. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9673 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 1984.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, James A. Singleton, doing business as Harvey's Bar B Que, possessed 2-COP Beverage License No. 60- 2295 at his place of business at 717 North Tamarind Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida. A 2-COP beverage license permits the sale of only beer and wine for on-premises consumption. No hard liquor is permitted to be sold, served or stored on the premises covered by the license. On December 17, 1982, armed with a search warrant properly issued based on probable cause provided by confidential informants, a West Palm Beach Police Department patrol headed by Lt. (then Sgt.) Eugene G. Savage entered Respondent's premises at 5:15 p.m. In a separate room to the rear of the building they found 2.2 pounds of a leafy vegetable matter packaged, some in 40 small manila envelopes (nickel bags) and some clear plastic bags. This vegetable substance was subsequently analyzed at the Palm Beach County Crime Laboratory and determined to be marijuana. At the same time, the officers also found 92 sealed half-pint bottles of hard liquor consisting of rum, vodka, gin and brandy. When Respondent was arrested at the time of the search, he had over $400 on his person. None of this money had serial numbers which matched those of money used in an undercover purchase of marijuana several days previously. Respondent explained the large sum of money as being the proceeds of his biweekly paycheck from his regular job on the railroad which he had received on December 15, 1982. Since there was no evidence to show that the undercover purchase of marijuana, which formed a part of the basis for the probable cause to issue the search warrant, was made from Respondent, there is no reason to doubt his explanation. Respondent contended he did not know anything about the marijuana. He has a full-time job with the railroad, a job he has held for 30 years, and had turned the running of his restaurant, which he had purchased for his retirement years, over to his son. His son, who has a record of prior arrests and incarceration for drug abuse, had assured him he would not do anything wrong. Since the search, the son has gotten into some undisclosed additional trouble and has run away. As for the liquor, Respondent contends that he purchased it for the personal consumption of his wife and himself. He bought it in large amounts to get it cheap. However, the half-pint is the favored size of the "Saturday Night" drinker, and, because of the large volume and the diverse nature of the stock, it is clear it was purchased for resale. Respondent is 60 years old and hopes to work for the railroad a few more years before he retires to run his restaurant. In fact, he has to work, he says, to pay off the fines incident to this situation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's alcoholic beverage license No. 60-2295 be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 2nd day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Boggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James A. Singleton c/o Harvey's Bar B Que 717 North Tamarind Avenue 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
The Issue The issues presented for resolution in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent's alcoholic beverage licensure should be subjected to disciplinary sanctions because of alleged misconduct involving the sale and use of controlled substances on a licensed premises, more specifically delineated in the Notice to Show Cause filed in this proceeding by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, JIMMIE WILLIAMS, owns the club or tavern known as the "Copa Cabana", doing business at 2901 North Haynes Street, Pensacola, Florida. That establishment holds a Series 2-COP alcoholic beverage license number 27- 00239, authorizing the sale of beer and wine on the premises. The Respondent is the sole owner of the Copa Cabana. Burnett Patterson, at times pertinent hereto, during September 1988 through February 1989, was a patrol deputy with the Okaloosa County Sheriff's Department. While a deputy with that Department, he engaged in special drug investigations. During the course of this employment, he became involved in numerous undercover operations designed to curb traffic and use of controlled substances. He thus became familiar with the appearance, properties and paraphernalia associated with crack cocaine and marijuana. On September 2, 1988, he met with Law Enforcement Investigator, Paul Blackmon, of the DABT. Investigator Blackmon asked Deputy Patterson to assist in a drug investigation of the Copa Cabana. At approximately 8:00 p.m. on that date, Deputy Patterson entered the Copa Cabana licensed premises in an undercover capacity. While in the licensed premises, inside the Copa Cabana, he observed patrons of that establishment openly smoking marijuana and crack cocaine. He observed one black male patron walking around inside the licensed premises holding a piece of crack cocaine visibly in his front teeth in order to advertise it for sale. This activity was done in the presence of the licensee/Respondent, Jimmie Williams. The undercover agent further observed numerous persons selling marijuana and cocaine inside, as well as outside the licensed premises. These persons made no attempt to conceal their illegal actions. It has not been demonstrated who owned or controlled the grounds immediately outside the door of the licensed premises. On September 16, 1988, at approximately 8:15 p.m., Deputy Patterson again entered the licensed premised in an undercover capacity. Upon entering the licensed premises, he observed 15 to 20 patrons inside and observed the Respondent working at the bar. Deputy Patterson went to the restroom inside the Copa Cabana and observed two black males cutting crack cocaine into small pieces, mixing them with marijuana, and rolling the resulting material into cigarettes or "joints" for smoking. Deputy Patterson purchased one piece of crack cocaine for $20.00 from a patron known as William Barker while inside the restroom. While inside the licensed premises, Deputy Patterson observed patrons openly smoking crack cocaine and marijuana. He was approached by other patrons, who asked if he wanted to purchase controlled substances. The substance purchased was analyzed and tested positive for cocaine. On September 19, 1988, at approximately 7:40 p.m., Deputy Patterson again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Upon entering, he made contact with patron, Jerry Green, who was accompanied by a patron known as "Killer." Deputy Patterson purchased one "baggie" of marijuana for $10.00 from "Killer." This transaction, along with the open smoking of marijuana, took place in the presence of the Respondent. Deputy Patterson also observed numerous controlled substance transactions taking place outside and near the entrance of the licensed premises. The substance he purchased was analyzed and proved to be marijuana. On September 24, 1988, at approximately 3:30 p.m., Deputy Patterson again entered the license's premises. He observed several patrons entering and exiting the restroom area. He entered the restroom and made contact with patron, John Butler. John Butler asked Deputy Patterson what he was looking for, and the Deputy replied "crack." Deputy Patterson was sold one piece of crack cocaine by John Butler and another unknown patron for $20.00. Deputy Patterson observed several patrons entering the restroom and purchasing crack cocaine. Jimmie Williams was inside the licensed premises during the time Deputy Patterson was present and making these observations. Deputy Patterson further observed several narcotic transactions outside the front entrance of the licensed premised. The substance purchased by Deputy Patterson was analyzed and tested as positive for the presence of cocaine. On October 8, 1988, at approximately 4:10 p.m., Deputy Patterson again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Prior to entering, he was asked by several patrons loitering near the entrance of the Copa Cabana if he wanted to purchase controlled substances. Once inside the licensed premises, he entered the restroom, where he made contact with patron, Calvin Black. Deputy Patterson purchased one piece of crack cocaine from Calvin Black for $20.00. Deputy Patterson then departed the restroom and observed patrons openly smoking marijuana while playing pool. Deputy Patterson contacted patron, Terry Boutwell, by the pool table. Terry Boutwell sold Deputy Patterson one baggie of marijuana for $10.00 at that location. Upon leaving the building, Deputy Patterson was again approached by persons outside the entrance to the Copa Cabana and asked if he wanted to purchase controlled substances. During all of the aforementioned events, including the sale of marijuana and the smoking of marijuana in the vicinity of the pool table, the Respondent was inside the licensed premises. Both the substance purchased from Calvin Black and that purchased from' Terry Boutwell were subsequently analyzed and proved to be controlled substances. On January 28, 1989, at approximately 5:00 p.m, a confidential informant, Alonzo Blackman, was designated to conduct a controlled substance purchase inside the licensed premises from the licensee, Jimmie Williams. The confidential informant was given specific instructions to buy only from Williams. Prior to departing the Sheriff's Department, he was thoroughly searched. It was determined that he had no controlled substances or money on his person. He was provided with a concealed, wireless voice transmitter. He was also given $50.00 of the Sheriff's Department's money for the purpose of purchasing crack cocaine. Subsequently, the confidential informant departed the Sheriff's Department with Deputy Gwen Salter. The pair was followed and traced by Escambia County Sheriff's Deputy Mark Shaeffer. Deputy Shaeffer was equipped with a radio receiver and monitored transmissions emitted from Alonzo Blackman's transmitter. Deputy Shaeffer observed Alonzo Blackman park behind the Copa Cabana to the rear of the building on a back street and depart Deputy Salter's vehicle. He observed Alonzo Blackman walk through the wooded area behind the Copa Cabana and disappear around the side of the building, moving toward the front of the Copa Cabana building. After Alonzo Blackman was out of sight around the corner of the Copa Cabana building, Deputy Shaeffer could hear normal outdoor sounds, as well as Alonzo Blackman's footsteps through the transmitter. Shortly thereafter, he heard the sound of a juke box playing and loud voices consistent with the noises one would expect when a person entered a bar. Within two or three minutes thereafter, Deputy Schaeffer observed Alonzo Blackman come back in sight around the corner of the licensed premises and enter Deputy Salter's vehicle. Deputy Schaeffer followed the two back to the Sheriff's Department, keeping Alonzo Blackman in visual sight the entire time. When Alonzo Blackman and Deputy Salter returned to the Sheriff's Department, Alonzo Blackman presented Deputy Schaeffer with a slab of rock cocaine and no longer had the $50.00 given to him by the Sheriff's Department. Subsequently, the substance purchased was analyzed and tested positive for the presence of cocaine. The Petitioner adduced a hearsay statement from Deputy Schaeffer to the effect that Alonzo Blackman had told him that he had purchased the rock cocaine in question from the Respondent. That statement was not admitted into evidence since it was not corroborative hearsay for the purposes of Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. The hearsay statement concerning the alleged purchase from the Respondent is not corroborative of the testimony concerning the other independent events in question in this proceeding involving the sale and use of controlled substances on the licensed premises by others. The only testimony or evidence directly concerning the alleged purchase of cocaine from the Respondent was that related by confidential informant, Blackman, to Deputy Schaeffer. The only other evidence purporting to show that the Respondent sold a slab of rock cocaine was the testimony by Deputy Schaeffer revealing what he saw and heard over his radio receiver. All he saw was Alonzo Blackman passing around the side of the building aid later returning around the back corner of the building. He heard his footsteps as he passed around and presumably entered the building, judging from the change in sounds received. There was no evidence that any voices or other noises transmitted to Deputy Schaeffer's listening station consisted of the actual drug transaction and specifically that any of the voices or sounds he might have heard were those of the Respondent in conducting that transaction. Since Deputy Schaeffer's testimony, itself, does not implicate the Respondent in selling the drug, the hearsay statement of the confidential informant, Alonzo Blackman, who could not be located at the time of the hearing, cannot be admissible corroborative hearsay. Thus, it was not established that on this occasion, the slab of rock cocaine was actually purchased from the Respondent. On February 8, 1989, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Alonzo Blackman was again designated to conduct a controlled substance purchase inside the Copa Cabana from the Respondent. He was given the same specific instructions, and Deputy Schaeffer made the same visual and auditory observations as he had with regard to the alleged transaction of January 28, 989. The same factual findings apply, and are made, with regard to this transaction as were made above concerning the January 28, 1989 transaction. The alleged fact that the purchase was made from Jimmie Williams was again predicated on the hearsay statement of Blackman, which was not corroborative and was uncorroborated. It cannot be used to support a finding that the Respondent sold the cocaine in question. On February 7, 1989, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Escambia County Investigators, Tyron Wicks, Melvin Possey and J. Johnson, conducted a "routine drug sweep" of the Copa Cabana. This type of operation was a routine matter for Investigator Wicks in the six months prior to February 7, 1989. Upon entering the licensed premises, Investigator Wicks went directly to the men's restroom where he observed four patrons having a conversation while looking into a paper bag. Investigator Wicks seized the paper bag which contained nine plastic baggies of marijuana ready for distribution and charged him with possession of 20 grams of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Investigator Wicks is familiar with the smell of marijuana smoke; and during "drug sweeps" conducted in the licensed premises, estimated to be 20 or 30 such operations for the previous six months, he smelled such smoke in the licensed premises on a number of occasions. On these occasions, he had also found marijuana and crack and razor blades, as well as pipes and cans used for smoking crack, on the floor of the licensed premises. He has seen people buy drugs at the Copa Cabana while he has been present there with the Sheriff's Department Narcotics Unit during the years 1988 and 1989. Sergeant Bobby Jackson of the Narcotics Division of the Escambia County Sheriff's Department has bean a law enforcement officer for approximately 14 years. He is familiar with the smell and appearance of marijuana and crack cocaine. He has been involved in 20 to 30 raids at the licensed premises. On at least 15 occasions, officers in his party have found controlled substances. The Respondent was always present when these raids took place. On many of the raids, Sergeant Jackson smelled the odor of marijuana smoke in the licensed premises. He is certain that the Respondent was present on these occasions. During these raids, he has observed marijuana cigarette butts on the floor of the licensed premises and has often found people inside bagging marijuana. Prior to the suspension of the beverage license on February 10, 1989, Sergeant Jackson received quite a few complaints about the licensed premises; and each time he visited it, he would observe a great number of people standing around inside and outside the licensed premises. It has been quite different since the suspension of the license and the shutdown of operations at the Copa Cabana. Sergeant Jackson has received very few complaints since February 10, 1989. Sergeant Jackson, however, never received any complaints from the Respondent about drug use in the establishment. John Green is a black male, whose mother lives approximately a block from the licensed premises. He has been a friend of the Respondent for approximately 15 years. During the period of January and February of 1989, he patronized the licensed premises six days a week, every week. He would go there after work and stay until approximately 9:00 p.m. He states that he always saw the Respondent behind the bar. John Green stated that the bar was a self- service bar where patrons could get beer out of the cooler in front of the bar and pay for it at the counter. He maintained that he had never seen Deputy Patterson and that, in his opinion, marijuana smoke smells just like Kool cigarette smoke. He drinks beer every night, including the times when he patronized the Copa Cabana. He testified under oath that he had never seen anyone use drugs in the licensed premises and that on one occasion, however, he had thrown someone out of the licensed premises for using drugs. Dorothy Mouton lives approximately six miles from the Copa Cabana and works at Washington Junior High School in an administrative capacity. She knows the Respondent, who also works there as a coach. She, in the past, has stopped at the Copa Cabana to eat a snack and converse the During the period of August of 1988 to February of 1989, she went to the Copa Cabana every week. According to Ms. Mouton, the Respondent had a stool behind the bar and would get beer from the cooler for patrons who requested beer. She claimed that she was able, by her experience, to identify marijuana smoke and crack cocaine. She maintained that she never saw any drug of either sort in the licensed premises She also testified that it was her habit to depart the licensed premises every day between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Chris Dortch is a 27 year old black male who has known the Respondent for a long period of time. He helped the Respondent operate the Copa Cabana when he first established it. He lives approximately four blocks from the Copa Cabana. He goes to the licensed premises every day and sometimes stays until it closes. He has always observed the Respondent staying behind the bar counter while he is on duty. This witness also claimed under oath that he had never seen any cocaine or marijuana smoked in the licensed premises and had never smelled any marijuana smoke within the licensed premises. He testified that he saw police officers in the licensed premises at least ten times, but never observed any arrests. Elizabeth Freeman lives around the corner from the licensed premises and has lived there approximately four years. During the period of September of 1988 to February 10, 1989, she went to the club every day for about an hour where she would talk to Williams and play video games. She claimed that she observed Williams, on occasion, move from behind the counter into the public area of the tavern. She also testified that she has never seen any indications of drug use on the premises. Shirley Washington was in the habit of going to the club during the period of August of 1988 to February of 1989 at approximately 4:30 p.m. and generally would stay until closing, usually around 9:00 p.m. She was a member of a social group called "The Copa Cabana Queens." It was her habit, during this period of time, to drink four to five six-packs of beer each day. She is familiar with the smell of crack cocaine smoke and marijuana smoke. She testified that she had never observed any marijuana or crack cocaine within the licensed premises. She has been a friend of the Respondent for approximately 25 years. The Respondent is an instructor and coach with the Escambia County School Board. He has owned the Copa Cabana for 15 years. It is a recreation center, lounge, notion store and meeting place. He also has live entertainment and occasionally, a fashion show. His license authorizes him to sell and serve beer and wine. He is the only employee, but Ms. Washington minds the bar for him when he is temporarily away from it (in the restroom, etc.). He testified that he never observed Deputy Patterson until the day of the hearing. He testified that no drugs had ever been in the licensed premises and that he had never dealt in drugs. The testimony of Deputies Patterson and Schaeffer, Investigator Wicks, Sergeant Jackson, and Law Enforcement Investigator Ralph Kelly, to the effect that controlled substances were openly and notoriously used and sold on the premises in question, conflicts in a general sense with the testimony of Respondent's witnesses to the effect that they never saw any marijuana or crack cocaine on the premises or smelled any and so forth. This conflict in the testimony of the witnesses of the Petitioner and Respondent must be resolved by determining which are more credible. Determining the credibility of witnesses is an important and exclusive task of the fact finder Guidelines for resolving credibility issues are provided in Volume 24, Florida Jurisprudence 2nd, Sections 688-696, and grand jury instruction 2.04 on page 779 of West's Florida Criminal Laws and Rules (1989), which sets forth areas to consider in determining whether a witness is credible. Those areas include: whether the witness had an opportunity to observe and know the things about which he testifies' whether his memory seemed accurate; whether he was straight forward in his answers; whether he was interested in the result of the case at issue; whether it is consistent with other testimony and evidence adduced; and whether he has, at some different time, made an inconsistent statement from the testimony given before the court. Firstly, concerning the testimony of John Green, it can be seen that he testified to having patronized the establishment during the period of January and February of 1989 and purported never to have seen Deputy Patterson. This is not surprising since there was no testimony by the Deputy that he was in the licensed premises during those two months. Therefore, John Green would have had no opportunity to observe Deputy Patterson at the time he frequented the licensed the premises. John Green also testified that he drank beer in the licensed premises every night and, thus, could quite likely have suffered a diminution of his powers of observation as a result of drinking beer. Dorothy Mouton maintained that she went to the Copa Cabana every week during the period of August of 1988 to February of 1989. She stated that she went there between the time she got off work until 6:00 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. Her time in the licensed premises was, therefore, very limited; and everything alleged by the Petitioner's witnesses could easily have occurred without her being on the licensed premises to observe the alleged violations. Elizabeth Freeman stated that she went to the Copa Cabana for about an hour each day during the time alleged in the Notice to Show Cause. If her testimony that she saw no drugs used on the licensed premises is accepted as true that still does not resolve the problem that the amount of time that she spent on the licensed premises was quite limited. The violations testified to by the Petitioner's witnesses could have occurred during her absence from the licensed premises. Shirley Washington claimed that she was at the Copa Cabana every day from 4:30 p.m. to approximately 9:00 p.m. during the time pertinent to the charges in the Notice to Show Cause. She also testified that she would drink four to five six-packs of beer every day. That could easily diminish her powers of observation and, no doubt, did. None of the witnesses for the Respondent could describe the events of any particular day alleged in the Notice to Show Cause. Their testimony was rather of a very general nature and not date or time-specific. On the other hand, the Petitioner's witnesses were trained law enforcement officers and observers, who kept meticulous records of their participation in the events in question and who gave detailed testimony as to the time, date and circumstances of each event that took place on the licensed premises and later became the subject of the charges in the Notice to Show Cause. There is no evidence that any of the law enforcement officers were drinking or otherwise had impaired powers of observation during the pertinent times. The Respondent's witnesses' memories and resulting testimonies appeared very general at best. Concerning the issue of whether the witnesses might have some interest in how the case should be resolved, it should be pointed out that the Respondent's witnesses were all old friends of the Respondent. John Green has been a friend of the Respondent for 15 years. Dorothy Mouton is a co-worker of the Respondent's at Washington Junior High School and must be counted as a friend of the Respondent. Chris Dortch has apparently known the Respondent since he was a small child. Elizabeth Freeman has been his friend and customer for the past four years. Shirley Washington has been the Respondent's friend for 25 years. All of these people are not only friends of the Respondent, but apparently considered the Copa Cabana a sort of favorite resort or meeting place away from home and clearly wanted to continue the benefit of the close friendly relationship. The Petitioner's witnesses, on the other hand, were professional police officers, none of whom had any relationship with the Respondent or the Copa Cabana. There was no evidence that any of the officers were somehow targeting the Respondent for special prosecution efforts. It rather appears that the events which came to light, as described in their testimony and the Notice to Show Cause, were discovered through routine police operations. Further, Deputy Patterson testified concerning the issue of whether the Respondent exhibited proper diligence in supervising and maintaining surveillance over the licensed premises. He stated that when the Respondent sold' a beer, he would do so by receiving the money for the beer and then moving outside of the bar to the cooler, kept in the room near the bar, to obtain the beer and give it to the customer. The Respondent's witnesses, however, addressed this matter with differing testimony. John Green, stated that customers would get the beer themselves from the cooler and then go to the counter to pay for it. Dorothy Mouton stated that the Respondent would get the beer from the cooler himself, which required him to walk outside the area behind the bar into the area of the room, in which the bar was located, to the cooler, which would allow him to view the rear room and restroom area of the licensed premises. Chris Dortch testified that the Respondent stayed behind the counter during beer sales. Elizabeth Freeman stated that she had observed the Respondent move from behind the counter into the open area of the licensed premises in the act of getting a beer for a customer. Thus, the Respondent's witnesses' testimony as to this question was inconsistent in terms of rebutting the testimony of Deputy Patterson as to the manner in which beverages were sold by the Respondent, as that relates to the Respondent's physical position in the licensed premises and ability to see what activities transpired in the rear room, the area of the restroom entrance and the pool table. In any event, the foregoing analysis reveals that the testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses is more credible. It is concluded that that of the Respondent's witness, and the Respondent himself, show a lack of knowledge, clear memory, and consistency, at best, without reaching the question of whether any of the Respondent's witnesses deliberately falsified their testimony. Accordingly, the testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses, to the extent that it conflicts with that of the Respondent's witnesses, is accepted as more credible.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the competent, credible evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, JIMMIE WILLIAMS, d/b/a Copa Cabana, be found guilty of the offenses set forth in Counts II and III of the Notice to Show Cause. It is further recommended that Count I of the Notice to Show Cause be dismissed. It is further recommended that the alcoholic beverage license held by the Respondent be revoked and that a civil penalty of $2,000.00 be assessed against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-719 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-6. Accepted. Accepted, but not as probative of the ultimate fact of the sale of rock cocaine by the Respondent, himself. Accepted, but not as probative of the ultimate fact of the sale of rock cocaine by the Respondent, himself. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not as probative of any material issue presented for adjudication. 12.-16. Accepted, in that these proposed findings of fact describe the testimony of these witnesses. However, these witnesses have been determined to be not credible. 17. Accepted, to the extent that it is arc accurate description of the Respondent's testimony. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-4. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and as not Entirely in accordance with the clear and convincing evidence. 7.-9. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and hot in accordance with the clear and convincing evidence. Rejected, as not materially dispositive of the issues presented. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and not, itself, materially dispositive. Rejected, as not, .in itself, materially dispositive. Accepted, in part, but the evidence in this case does not delineate the extent of the premises owned or controlled by the Respondent, and to that extent, it is rejected. Rejected, as subordinate to tide Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and as to it's purported material import. Rejected, as to its material import in relation to the remainder of Deputy Patterson's testimony. Rejected, as contrary to the clear and convincing evidence. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and not in accordance with the clear and convincing evidence. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and not being an accurate reflection of the overall sense of the witnesses' testimonies. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Rejected, as being contrary to the greater weight of the clear and convincing evidence. Accepted, but not, itself, dispositive of material issues presented, except to the extent that it has not been proven that the Respondent, himself, offered any drugs for sale. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and as not being, itself, dispositive of material issues presented. Rejected, as immaterial. Even if this is true, it does not overcome proof that the Copa Cabana club's operations constitute a nuisance. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Leo A. Thomas, Esq. Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. P.O. Box 12308 Pensacola, FL 32581 Leonard Ivey, Director Department Of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact Introduction Respondent, Maximilliano N. Gonzales (respondent or Max) is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-04935, Series 2-COP, issued by petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). The license is used in conjunction with the operation of a lounge known as the Los Amigos Bar (bar or lounge) located at 5 Southwest 55th Avenue, Miami, Florida. Respondent and his companion, Olga, purchased the lounge in January, 1983 and have operated it since that time. Generally, either Max or Olga is on the premises supervising operations although Max was seriously injured by a customer about a year ago while breaking up an altercation and was forced to curtail his activities. Consequently, he has hired several other persons to assist him in managing the lounge during 1987. In the summer of 1987, the Division received a list of fifty Miami area establishments where the City of Miami police department suspected illicit drug transactions were taking place. RespondeV bar was one of these establishments. As a part of its investigation, the Division sent two undercover investigators (Garcia and Santana) to the lounge on August 21, 1987 to ascertain whether the police department's suspicions were well- founded. The two visited the bar on a recurring basis until October 8, 1987 when the Division issued an Emergency Order of Suspension which shut down the lounge and suspended respondent's license. That prompted the case sub judice. During their seven week investigation, Santana and Garcia observed a number of open and flagrant drug transactions and other illicit acts taking place on the licensed premises. In accordance with the parties' stipulation, these acts are summarized in chronological order in the findings below. For purposes of this order, Roberto was a patron of the bar, Carlos was its manager, and Loreno, Rosa, Lourdes, Eliza and Genny were barmaids. Further, all employees were on duty when the events herein occurred. The investigation While visiting the lounge on or about September 2, 1987, Santana and Garcia were approached by Lorena and Roberto and asked if they wished to purchase some cocaine. The investigators told Roberto that they would each be interested in purchasing a half gram of cocaine. Roberto then left the licensed premises and returned shortly thereafter and handed each investigator a half gram packet containing what appeared to be cocaine, a controlled substance. Garcia paid Roberto sixty dollars for both packets. The transaction took place "in front of the bar" and in the presence of Lorena and Rosa. The substance purchased was sent to a laboratory where an analysis confirmed it to be cocaine. On another visit to the lounge on or about September 4, 1987, Santana and Garcia were approached by Roberto concerning a purchase of cocaine. Garcia told Roberto he and Santana wished to order a half gram each. Roberto left the licensed premises and returned a few minutes later. He handed Garcia two small packets containing what appeared to be cocaine. Garcia then paid Roberto sixty dollars for both packets. The transaction took place in plain view while the investigators were seated at the bar and in the presence of Rosa. The substance purchased was subsequently sent to a laboratory where an analysis confirmed it to be cocaine. While at the premises on September 4, Santana and Garcia heard Roberto ask Rosa in a loud voice if she wanted to purchase some cocaine. A short (but loud) conversation between Roberto and Rosa then ensued while in the presence of approximately ten patrons and three other barmaids. Throughout the same evening, several patrons were observed purchasing what appeared to be cocaine from Roberto inside the licensed premises. On or about September 8, 1987, Santana and Garcia observed Roberto selling what appeared to be cocaine to numerous patrons inside the licensed premises. The investigators were later approached by Roberto who asked if they wished to purchase the drug. After Santana responded that he wished to buy some, Roberto handed him two packets containing what appeared to be cocaine in exchange for sixty dollars. The transaction took place in plain view at the bar and in the presence of Lorena, Lourdes and Eliza. In addition, Carlos was on the licensed premises when these activities occurred. The substance purchased by the investigators from Roberto was thereafter sent to the laboratory for analysis and was found to be cocaine. On or about September 10, 1987, while on the licensed premises, Santana and Garcia were approached on two occasions by Lourdes and Genny who solicited drinks from the officers. The investigators then went to the parking lot of the licensed premises, and were approached by Roberto concerning a purchase of cocaine. After Santana responded that he wished to buy some, Roberto handed Santana two small packets containing what appeared to be cocaine in exchange for fifty dollars. The substance was later laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. After entering the premises on or about September 14, 1987, the investigators were immediately approached by Lourdes who solicited the officers for an alcoholic beverage. They were later solicited in the same fashion by Genny. Later on, Santana met with Roberto and Rosa and asked if he could buy some cocaine. Santana handed Roberto sixty dollars and returned to his seat at the bar. Shortly thereafter, Roberto approached the investigators at the bar and handed Santana two small packages containing what appeared to be cocaine. The transaction took place in plain view at the bar and in the presence of Rosa and Genny. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. On or about September 17, 1987, the investigators returned to the lounge and met with Eliza concerning a purchase of cocaine. Eliza approached a patron who was seated at the other end of the bar and briefly conversed with him. Eliza returned to the investigators and told them that she could obtain cocaine for sixty dollars per gram, and that the cocaine would be delivered to the bar in approximately thirty minutes. Some thirty minutes later, Roberto entered the lounge and approached the investigators and asked if they desired to buy the drug. Santana told him he was interested in such a purchase and handed Roberto sixty dollars in exchange for two small packets containing what appeared to be cocaine. The packets were delivered on top of the bar counter in plain view and in the presence of Eliza and Lourdes. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. While at the lounge on September 17, Genny solicited two drinks from Santana. The two investigators also had extensive conversations with Eliza regarding the purchase of cocaine. On or about September 21, 1987, Santana and Garcia met with the manager, Carlos, concerning the purchase of cocaine from Roberto. During the conversation, Carlos was told several times that the investigators had purchased cocaine from Roberto inside the licensed premises. Carlos merely responded that "Roberto is a good guy, but he is not here." At no time did Carlos express disapproval of the cocaine transactions occurring within the licensed premises. On the same visit, barmaid Genny solicited two drinks from the investigators. The investigators also had conversations with Genny regarding the availability of cocaine on the licensed premises. However, they were informed by her that Roberto had not yet arrived. On or about September 22, 1987, Santana and Garcia visited the lounge and were approached by Eliza who asked whether they wished to purchase some cocaine. Eliza also informed them that Roberto had instructed her to call him on his beeper if any of his "regular customers" needed to purchase cocaine. She added that if Roberto could not come to the bar, she could sell them drugs obtained from her source who was present at the bar. After Santana and Garcia told her that they were interested in purchasing cocaine,, Eliza took a quarter from the business cash register and placed a telephone call on the lounge telephone. Eliza then returned and informed them that Roberto was on his way to the bar. A few minutes later, Roberto entered the lounge, approached the investigators, and handed Garcia two small packages containing what appeared to be cocaine. For this, Garcia gave Roberto fifty dollars. The transaction took place in plain view at the bar and in the presence of Eliza and Carlos. The substance purchased was sent to the laboratory where an analysis confirmed the substance to be cocaine. It is also noted that on this same visit, Genny solicited a drink from the investigators. On or about September 24, 1987, Santana and Garcia returned to the bar and were approached by Eliza who asked if they wished to purchase cocaine. She again informed them that Roberto had instructed her to call him on his beeper should the investigators wish to make a purchase. After Santana and Garcia placed an order for cocaine, Eliza went to the public telephone inside the licensed premises, and made a telephone call. After she returned she advised them that Roberto would be arriving soon. Approximately twenty minutes later, Roberto arrived at the licensed premises and told them that he had the cocaine that they had ordered. Roberto then gave Santana one gram of a substance that appeared to be cocaine in exchange for sixty dollars. He also handed Garcia one-half gram of a substance appearing to be cocaine in exchange for thirty dollars. The two transactions took place in plain view in the bar and in the presence of Eliza and Carlos. The substances purchased were laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. During this same visit, Genny solicited a drink from the investigators. On or about September 28, 1987, the two investigators returned to the lounge and were approached by Eliza and Genny who asked if they were interested in purchasing some cocaine. Eliza told them that Roberto was not in the bar but that she could call him on his beeper. Garcia requested that Eliza telephone Roberto and order a gram of cocaine. Eliza left for a few moments and was observed making a telephone call inside the licensed premises. A few minutes later, Roberto entered the lounge and handed Garcia two small packets containing what appeared to be cocaine. For this, Garcia gave Roberto fifty dollars. The transaction took place in plain view at the bar and in the presence of Eliza and Genny. The purchased substance was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. On the same visit, Santana asked Roberto if he could purchase a gram of cocaine. Roberto said yes and told him the cocaine was stored in his car in the parking lot. The two then went to the car, where Roberto removed a package containing what appeared to be a half gram of cocaine, and gave it to Santana in exchange for twenty-five dollars. The substance was sent to the laboratory for analysis and was found to be cocaine. On October 1, 1987, Santana and Garcia again visited the lounge and were approached by Eliza who asked them if they wished to purchase cocaine. She also advised them that Roberto had not been in the lounge that day. Even so, she told them she could obtain the drug from another source. Garcia and Santana then placed orders for one and one-half grams of cocaine, respectively. After leaving for a few moments, Eliza returned and handed Santana and Garcia a brown paper napkin containing what appeared to be a gram and a half of cocaine. She was then paid seventy-five dollars by the investigators. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. On October 6, 1987, Santana and Garcia returned to the lounge and were asked by Eliza if they were interested in purchasing cocaine. Although she noted that Roberto had not been in the lounge that day, she told them she could obtain the drug from another source. Thereafter, Garcia and Santana each ordered one-half gram of cocaine from Eliza. After leaving the premises for a few minutes, Eliza returned and gave each investigator what appeared to be one- half gram of cocaine in exchange for fifty dollars. A laboratory analysis of the substance confirmed it was cocaine. When the above events occurred, there were no signs posted in the lounge warning patrons not to use drugs or to bring them on the premises. Further, the two investigators were never told by the manager or other employees to not use drugs, nor did they ever see a patron asked to leave because of having drugs in his possession. Max was seen in the lounge almost every day when the investigators were conducting their operation. However, there is no evidence that he personally saw a drug transaction take place, or that he was aware of any illicit activity. This is also the first occasion on which the licensed premises has been investigated. Mitigation At hearing Max and Olga appeared remorseful about this episode. They denied having knowledge of any drug transactions, and stated that around six months ago they had requested two Miami police officers to lend assistance in ridding their lounge of undesirable elements. They also told the police that "rocks" were being smoked in an adjacent parking lot. After the suspension of their license, the barmaids were fired. It is not clear whether Carlos was fired, but he only worked at the lounge for one or two months. A former manager who worked the first five months of 1987 testified he saw no drugs during his tenure, and that he was advised by Max to call the police if there were any problems. Because of his gunshot wounds, Max concedes it was necessary to hire other persons, perhaps too young, to oversee the lounge. He blames the incidents on those employees. If the license is reinstated, Max intends to shorten business hours and to have either himself or Olga on the premises at all times to ensure that no illicit activities occur. They also desire to sell the establishment, since they have invested their life savings in the business, and it represents their sole support.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of all charges in the Notice to Show Cause and that his License No. 230495, Series 2-COP, be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4483 Petitioner: 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. 2. Covered in finding of fact 5. 3. Covered in finding of fact 6. 4. Covered in finding of fact 7. 5. Covered in finding of fact 8. 6. Covered in finding of fact 9. 7. Covered in finding of fact 10. 8. Covered in finding of fact 11. 9. Covered in finding of fact 11. 10. Covered in finding of fact 12. 11. Covered in finding of fact 13. 12. Covered in finding of fact 14. 13. Covered in finding of fact 15. 14. Covered in finding of fact 16. 15. Covered in finding of fact 17. 16. Covered in finding of fact 18. 17. Covered in finding of fact 19. 18. Covered in finding of fact 20. 19. Covered in finding of fact 3. 20. Covered in findings of fact 4 and 21. Respondent: Covered in findings of fact 1 and 3. Covered in findings of fact 1 and 3. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. 5.(a) Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3 to the extent the investigation was prompted by the City of Miami. The remainder is not supported by the evidence. Covered in finding of fact 22. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 22. Rejected since the evidence shows Lourdes and Rosa worked "many months" and "3-4 months," respectively. Covered in finding of fact 22. Covered in finding of fact 23. 6. Covered in finding of fact 23. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020 Jose M. Herrera, Esquire Post Office Box 345118 Coral Gables, Florida 33114 Daniel Bosanko, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue Whether the Respondent's beverage license should be revoked or suspended?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent is John Timmons, Jr., d/b/a Harold's Grocery. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent, at all times relevant to this proceeding, operated a grocery store where beer and wine was sold under beverage license number 23-1197, Series 2-APS. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent's licensed premises is located at 17347 Homestead Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. (Stipulated Fact). On September 21, 1962, the Respondent applied for a transfer of the subject beverage license to its current location. Included with the transfer application was a "Sketch of Licensed Premises." In pertinent part, the licensed premises was identified as follows: Based upon the Sketch of the Licensed Premises submitted by the Respondent to the Petitioner, the licensed premises consisted of only a portion of the building located in the northern part of the building. The southern portion of the building consisted of a pool hall which was not identified as a part of the licensed premises. The Respondent owned the entire building. The pool hall is identified above by the dotted lines. The dotted lines were not a part of the Sketch of the Licensed Premises. The Respondent agreed as an incidence of filing the transfer application that any alterations or additions to the licensed premises could be inspected in the same manner as the portion of the licensed premises identified- on the Sketch of the Licensed Premises. The Respondent subsequently made substantial alterations to the building. The portion of the building formerly used for the pool hall has been incorporated, at least in part, into the portion of the building used by the Respondent in his business. The building and its uses during the period of time at issue in this proceeding consisted of the following: The portion of the building to the south of the dotted line is the area where the pool "all was located. That area is now used as a storeroom, the Respondent's living quarters and as a part of the store. The area of the building identified as a part of the store and the storeroom are part of the licensed premises. The area of the building identified as the Respondent's living quarters is not a part of the licensed premises. This area is used exclusively by the Respondent as his personal residence. Although there is access through a door from the living quarters into the store, the living quarters were not readily accessible by anyone except the Respondent and his personal guests. Employees of the Respondent and patrons did not go into the Respondent's living quarters. No business was conducted in the living quarters. On or before February 10, 1983, the Metro-Dade Police Department (hereinafter referred to as "MDPD") began an undercover narcotics investigation of the Respondent. On February 10, 1983, MDPD Sergeant Ed Howett searched a confidential informant, gave the informant $10.00 and watched him enter the licensed premises. `When the informant left the licensed premises, the informant was in possession of marijuana and did not have the $10.00 given to him or her. The informant had purchased the marijuana from someone in the Respondent's building. Based upon the sworn affidavits of two MDPD officers as to the reliability of the confidential informant and the events of February 10, 1983, a search warrant for the Respondent's building was issued on February 11, 1983, by the Honorable Judge Alan Kornblum. On February 15, 1983, MDPD Detective Ricky Smith entered the licensed premises. (Stipulated Fact). Detective Smith was not in uniform. Detective Smith approached Mary Williams, an employee of the Respondent, who was behind the counter on the licensed premises. Detective Smith purchased $2.00 worth of marijuana (2 marijuana cigarettes) from Mary Williams. (Stipulated Fact). Shortly after Detective Smith's purchase of marijuana, MDPD officers entered the licensed premises to execute the search warrant issued on February 11, 1983. (Stipulated Fact). The search warrant applied to the entire building. At the time of the search Mary Williams, Henry Timmons and the Respondent were present on the licensed premises. (Stipulated Fact). Henry Timmons was behind the counter on the licensed premises. (Stipulated Fact). Henry Timmons is the Respondent's brother and was an employee of the Respondent. Located at the cash register closest to the front door was Mary Williams. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent was located on a patio with Cary Lou Harris. The patio was outside the Respondent's living quarters and was accessible from the living quarters. The Respondent and his brother have similar facial hair. People have confused the Respondent and his brother. Detective Smith and MDPD Detective Preston Lucas, however, were able to distinguish the Respondent from his brother. Detective Smith grew up in the area where the Respondent's store is located and was familiar enough with the Respondent to recognize him. During the execution of the search warrant, approximately 100 marijuana cigarettes and several separate bags of marijuana were found in plain view on the counter on the licensed premises. (Stipulated Fact). Marijuana was also found in Henry Timmons' back pocket. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent was surrounded to the area of the licensed premises where the police officers had entered. After discovering the marijuana on the counter, the Respondent was asked by the police if that was all of the marijuana. The Respondent replied "yeah, that should be all of it." (Stipulated Fact). Henry Timmons accompanied police officers to the storeroom at the back of the licensed premises. Although Henry Timmons worked in the storeroom, he lied when he indicated that he was unable to find the light switch. Therefore, the Respondent went to the storeroom and turned the light on. Additional bags of marijuana were found in the storeroom (Stipulated Fact). "Then these additional bags were found the Respondent stated that "well, now you really got it all." (Stipulated Fact). Based upon the Respondent's statements to police during the execution of the search warrant, it is clear that the Respondent knew that marijuana was located on the licensed premises. On three separate occasions (March 2, 4 and 28, 1983) MDPD officers entered the licensed premises in an attempt to purchase marijuana from an employee. (Stipulated Fact). On each of the occasions, the employee referred the officers to Larry Wilcox, an individual who was standing outside the licensed premises. (Stipulated Fact). On each of the occasions, the officer purchased marijuana from Larry Wilcox, who retrieved it from a brown paper bag which was stored behind an ice machine in front of the licensed premises. (Stipulated Fact). On March 2, 1983, Detective Smith entered the licensed premises and asked Mary Williams, who was still employed by the Respondent, if he could buy marijuana. Mary Williams pointed to Larry Wilcox, who was standing outside the licensed premises. The Respondent did not witness this event. Detective Smith left the licensed premises and approached Larry Wilcox. Wilcox, who was never employed by the Respondent, sold marijuana to Detective Smith. The marijuana was obtained from a bag retrieved by Larry Wilcox from behind the tee machine which "`as located outside of the licensed premises. No evidence was presented as to who owned the ice machine. On March 4, 1983, Detective Smith and Detective Lucas returned to the licensed premises. They drove up to the curb of the street in front of the licensed premises. The evidence does not show which employee (as stipulated to by the parties) referred Detective Smith to Wilcox on this occasion. Detective Smith approached Larry `Wilcox who was standing on the sidewalk in front of the licensed premises. Detective Smith again purchased marijuana from Larry Wilcox. The marijuana was retrieved from behind the ice machine. The Respondent and Henry Timmons were present on the sidewalk in front of the licensed premises during the March 4, 1983 purchase. The Respondent was close enough to witness the transaction. On March 28, 1983, Detective Smith returned to the licensed premises. He entered the licensed premises and approached the Respondent and Larry Wilcox, who were standing inside the licensed premises. Mary Williams was behind the counter. Detective Smith announced to no one in particular that he wished to buy some marijuana. Again, the evidence does not prove which employee referred the officer to Larry Wilcox. The evidence does prove that the Respondent pointed to Larry Wilcox in response to Detective Smith's question. Larry Wilcox and Detective Smith then left the licensed premises. Detective Smith again purchased marijuana from Larry Wilcox which was obtained from behind the ice machine. On March 29, 1983, upon sworn affidavit, another search warrant was obtained from the Honorable Judge Alan Kornblum for the Respondent's building (Stipulated Fact). The search warrant was executed on the same day. It applied to the entire building. During the execution of the search warrant, Larry Wilcox was arrested on the licensed premises. Upon searching Larry Wilcox, marijuana and quaaludes were discovered. (Stipulated Fact). Marijuana and quaaludes were also found in a trash can located outside the front door of the licensed premises. (Stipulated Fact). No evidence was presented as to who owned the trash can. Two cigar boxes, a metal can, a plastic container and three strainers, all of which contained marijuana residue, were discovered in the living quarters. The Respondent was not present during the March ?9, 1983 search of the licensed premises or his living quarters. On April 28, 1984, MDPD Sergeant Louis Battle and Investigator Lou Terminello entered the licensed premises to conduct a license inspection (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent was located behind the counter on the licensed premises when Sergeant Battle and Investigator Terminello entered. A burnt marijuana cigarette was found in plain view on the counter. (Stipulated Fact). During questioning, the Respondent stated that he smoked marijuana in his living quarters and that he no longer sold marijuana. Marijuana residue was found in the living quarters. During the April 28, 1984, search, a loaded, stolen firearm was found underneath the counter on the licensed premises. It was not proved whether the Respondent was aware of the fact that the firearm was stolen. Administrative charges were brought against the Respondent based upon alleged violations of the controlled substance statute within the beverage statute. Specifically, the Respondent was charged with possession of marijuana on the premises, conspiracy to sell marijuana, possession of marijuana by his employees on the premises, sale and conspiracy to sell marijuana by one of his employees on the premises and public nuisance. The Respondent usually worked on the licensed premises until 4:00 p.m. After 4:00 p.m. the Respondent normally retired to his living quarters. All of the events involved in this proceeding occurred after 4:00 p.m. Although there was testimony to the contrary, it is concluded that the Respondent did not take steps to prevent the possession or sale and/or delivery of marijuana on the licensed premises. The Respondent made statements which indicated that he was aware that marijuana was kept on the licensed premises, he admitted smoking marijuana in his living quarters, marijuana was found in his living quarters on several occasions and he did not fire his brother or Mary Williams after the execution of the first search warrant on February 1, 1983. The Respondent was negligent in supervising the operation of his business. The Respondent entered into a Stipulation on October 7, 1974, whereby he agreed to pay a civil penalty of $250.00 in settlement of charges that the Respondent sold alcoholic beverages for food coupons.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of a violation (possession of marijuana) within Section 561.29(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 1. It is further RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of a violation (possession of marijuana) within Section 561.29(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 2. The Respondent should, however, be found not guilty of a violation within Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 2 and that portion of Count 2 should be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of a violation within Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (possession of marijuana on the licensed premises but not the marijuana found in his 1iving quarters), and a violation within Section 561.29(1)(b), Florida Statutes (possession of marijuana on the licensed premises and in the living quarters), as alleged in Count 3. It is further RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found not guilty of conspiracy as alleged in Count Count 4 should he dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of a violation (possession of marijuana by an employee) with Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count It is further RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of a violation (sale and/or delivery of marijuana by an employee) within Section 561.29(1)(a) , Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 6. It is further RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of a violation (possession of marijuana by an employee) within Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 7. It is further
The Issue This case concerns an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent. Count I to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: Penny Reid, related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on July 26, 1981, and August 22, 1981. Count II to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: Penny Reid, related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on July 16, 1981, and July 20, 1981, and September 9, 1981. In addition, there are allegations of a sale of lysergic acid diethylamid, on July 16, 1981. 2/ Count III to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Eve" related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on August 14, 1981, and with the sale of the substance cocaine, on August 15, 1981. Count IV to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Kitty," related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on August 15, 1981, and with the sale of the substance cocaine on September 26, 1981. Count V to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03, 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Orlando," related to sales of the substance cannabis, on July 26, 1981. Count VI to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03, 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Julie," related to sales of the substance cocaine on September 26, 1981. Count VII to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent, between July 16, 1981, and October 2, 1981, of maintaining a place, namely the licensed premises, which was used for keeping or selling controlled substances, in particular methaqualone, cocaine and cannabis, in violation of Subsections 893.13(2)(a).5 and 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Count VIII contends that between July 16, 1981, and October 2, 1981, the Respondent, by actions of its agents, servants or employees and patrons, kept or maintained the building or place which was used for illegal keeping, selling or delivering of substances controlled under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, and in doing so violated Section 823.10, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Count IX accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Annie D. Bryant, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count X accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Danita Buchin, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count XI accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Barbara Jean O'Rourke, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count XII accuses the Respondent, on April 20, 1981, through its corporate officers, directors, stockholders, employees, agents, or servants, of failing to file a sworn declaration of the transfer of voting stock of the corporate licensee, in violation of Rule 7A-3.37, Florida Administrative Code. Count XIII accuses the Respondent, through actions of its corporate officers, directors, stockholders, employees, agents, or servants, on May 4, 1981, of failing to notify the Petitioner of a change of corporate officers within ten (10) days of that change, in particular, within ten (10) days of the resignation of George and Florrie Pappas, as corporate officers and directors of the corporate licensee, in violation of Rule 7A-2.07(2), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Effective August 18, 1980, Pappas Enterprises, Inc., which trades or does business as Foremost Liquors and Hideaway Lounge, at 1005 East 49th Street, in Hialeah, Dade County, Florida, was licensed by the Petitioner to sell alcoholic beverages. At that time, the sole officers listed for the corporation were George and Florrie Pappas. George Pappas was listed as the sole shareholder. In May, 1981, Miguel Rodriguez purchased the shares in the corporation, Pappas Enterprises, Inc. At that time, in his attorney's office, he executed a personal data sheet and certificate of incumbency for the benefit of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; however, this personal data sheet proposing Rodriguez as a new officer and shareholder of the subject corporation was not filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco until October 14, 1981. Furthermore, the first official request for change of corporate officers, owners and shareholders from the Pappases to Rodriguez was not filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco until November 4, 1981. Prior to October 14, 1981, the Respondent corporation, in the person of Miguel Rodriguez, was served with a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint containing the first eight (8) counts alluded to in the Issues statement in this Recommended Order. The date of this service was October 2, 1981. Subsequent to that time, an amendment was allowed adding the remaining counts to the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent, through actions of Miguel Rodriguez, in his effort to protect his interest in the Respondent corporation, which he had purchased, and in view of the fact that he had effective control of the licensed premises during all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, has requested a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, following service of him at the licensed premises as agent in fact for the corporation. The hearing was allowed to go forward upon the request made by Rodriguez because Rodriguez's substantial interests are at stake. The requested transfer of ownership and substitution of officers filed on November 4, 1981, is unresolved pending the outcome of the proceedings herein. See Subsection 561.32(2), Florida Statutes. On July 15, 1981, in the evening hours, Beverage Officer, Louis J. Terminello, went to the licensed premises known as the Hideaway for purposes of conducting an undercover narcotics investigation. Once he had entered the premises, he spoke with one of the employees, Penny Reid, a dancer. Upon his inquiry concerning the subject of narcotics Reid told him that she would sell him methaqualone tablets for $3.00 each and lysergic acid diethylamid (LSD) for $5.00 per dosage. In order to consummate the transaction, she explained that she would need to leave the licensed premises. Around 12:15 A.M. on July 16, 1981, Reid approached Miguel Rodriguez and asked permission to leave the licensed premises. She was granted that permission and Reid and Terminello went to a residence location off the licensed premises where a purchase was made of ten (10) methaqualone tablets and four (4) units of LSD at the unit prices as have been indicated. The Beverage Officer and dancer then returned to the licensed premises around 1:30 A.M. On July 20, 1981, at around 9:45 P.M., Officer Robert Chastain entered the licensed premises and spoke with Penny Reid. This conversation ensued when Reid approached Chastain. The subject of drugs was discussed and subsequent to that time, Reid received permission to leave the licensed premises. (She was still employed by the Respondent.) On the date above, Reid and Chastain went to a residence and purchased ten (10) methaqualone tablets. The price for the tablets was $30.00. When they returned to the bar, while in the premises, Reid removed one methaqualone tablet from the napkins in which they were wrapped and gave Chastain nine (9) tablets. Terminello came back to the licensed premises on the evening of July 25, 1981, and spoke with the dancer Reid. During the conversation methaqualone was discussed and she indicated that she did not have that substance at the time. She said she might have some of the material available to her later that night. Reid left the licensed premises around 11:35 P.M. on July 25, 1981, to return around 11:55 P.M. While in the licensed premises she exchanged five (5) methaqualone tablets at $3.00 per tablet, in return for $15.00 on July 26, 1981. This transaction took place in the hall area near the rest rooms in the licensed premises and no effort was made on the part of Reid to disguise the transaction. On July .26, 1981, during his visit to the licensed premises, at approximately 1:30 A.M., Officer Terminello spoke to a man who identified himself as "Orlando" and who claimed to be a manager at the premises and the son of Miguel Rodriguez. In fact, "Orlando" was not a manager at the licensed premises nor the son of Rodriguez. During this conversation, Terminello asked "Orlando" where he could get coke, meaning the controlled substance cocaine. "Orlando" responded that he might get the cocaine on some occasion but not on that evening. "Orlando" did give Officer Terminello marijuana, also known as cannabis, a controlled substance. This item was given to Officer Terminello as he was departing the premises on July 26, 1981. Terminello returned to the licensed premises on August 14, 1981, around 9:45 P.M. On that evening, he spoke with a dancer identified to him as "Eve" who was later determined to be Eve Mae Carroll. Carroll was employed as a dancer in the licensed premises. While seated at a table near the front door, Carroll told Terminello that she would sell "quaaludes" meaning methaqualone at a price of $2.50 a tablet and a total of three (3) tablets. Terminello paid her the prescribed price and she delivered the substance methaqualone to him while seated at the table. She also indicated that she would sell him cocaine at a later time, in that she was expecting a delivery of that substance. At around 12:30 A.M. on August 15, 1981, a further discussion was held between Terminello and Carroll and while standing at the bar, Terminello purchased cocaine from Carroll. On August 15, 1981, at around 12:45 A.M., Terminello spoke with another dancer employed in the licensed premises who was identified as "Kitty" whose actual name is Kathleen Keddie, who explained to him that she had some "ludes," meaning methaqualone. She wanted $4.00 for each tablet and while seated at a table in the bar area, Terminello purchased two (2) methaqualone tablets from Kitty. On August 22, 1981, Terminello was back in the licensed premises at approximately 9:50 P.M. and was seated at the bar talking to Penny Reid who told him she was going to get some "ludes," methaqualone. This activity was to occur on her next break from dancing as an employee in the licensed premises. She left the licensed premises with a patron and returned at around 10:25P.M. and handed Terminello a paper towel containing five (5) methaqualone tablets for which he paid her $15.00. On September 9, 1981, Terminello was again at the licensed premises and was approached by Penny Reid. He asked her for "ludes or acid" meaning methaqualone or LSD, respectively. She told Terminello that she would have to go to a house to obtain these items. She then asked the manager to leave and Terminello and Reid went to the residence where methaqualone was purchased and suspected LSD as requested by Terminello. (She was still employed by the Respondent.) On September 16, 1981, while pursuing the investigation, Terminello again returned to the licensed premises and spoke with Reid who was still an employee at the premises. She told Terminello that she could go to a residence and obtain narcotics. At this time Terminello was accompanied by another Beverage Officer, Robert Chastain. After entering into a discussion on the evening in question, the two (2) officers went with Reid to an off-premises residence where methaqualone and suspected LSD were purchased. On this occasion, Reid took part of the methaqualone purchased as a "tip" and carried those methaqualone tablets back into the licensed premises when the officers and the dancer returned to the licensed premises. On September 19, 1981, Officer Terminello talked to Reid who remained employed at the licensed premises and the discussion concerned narcotics. Then they left the licensed premises and went to a residence where cocaine and methaqualone were purchased. Reid kept three (3) of the methaqualone tablets as a "tip" and she carried those methaqualone tablets back into the licensed premises when Terminello and the dancer returned to the bar. When they had returned to the licensed premises on September 19, 1981, Terminello was approached in the bar by a Michael Harrington who asked Terminello if he wanted to buy coke, meaning cocaine. Harrington then indicated that they should go out into the parking lot of the premises which they did and in the presence of another patron, Alexis Pagan, Terminello purchased a gram of cocaine. On September 25, 1981, Terminello returned to the licensed premises and spoke to an employee/dancer previously identified as Kathleen Keddie. Keddie told him that her "old man" could bring some cocaine into the premises and make some of it available to Terminello. This conversation took place around 9:45 P.M. on that evening. At approximately 12:05 A.M. on September 26, 1981, while seated at the bar, Terminello purchased approximately one (1) gram of cocaine from Keddie for $75.00. In the early morning hours of September 26, 1981, Terminello was also approached by a Julie Murphy who was employed as a cocktail waitress in the licensed premises and she told Terminello that she could sell him cocaine cheaper, at $55.00 a gram. She indicated she would serve as a go-between, intermediary, and told Terminello to leave the premises and come back later. Terminello left and returned at around 3:00 A.M., and while at the bar, purchased the cocaine from Murphy at the agreed upon price of $55.00. During the course of Terminello's investigation at the licensed premises, on a number of occasions he saw people sniffing what, from his expertise in law enforcement, appeared to be cocaine and, from the appearance and odor, using cigarettes thought to be marijuana. These activities occurred in the bathroom areas, halls and package store area. Augusto Garcia who was employed as a manager in the licensed premises was observed at times in the proximity of the activities referred to immediately above and Garcia was also observed by Officer Terminello in the men's room snorting what appeared to be cocaine. On one occasion Garcia was observed near the front door to the bar and package area where a marijuana type cigarette was being smoked in the presence of Garcia, by an employee who worked in the package store. Reid had also told Terminello that she had been fired as an employee at the licensed premises because she was so "luded" out that she fell off the stage. Nonetheless, she had been rehired. Terminello had observed Miguel Rodriguez in the licensed premises during the course of the investigation, mostly in the package store and on occasion in the bar area. Terminello did not speak with Rodriguez during the investigation. On October 2, 1981, the petitioning agency served the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint at the licensed premises. Following this service, an inspection was conducted in the licensed premises of the lockers of several dancers, for which the dancers had the keys. These dancers were employees at the licensed premises on that date. The search of the lockers and purses of the dancers led to the discovery of marijuana. The dancers in question were Annie D. Bryant, Danita Buchin and Barbara Jean O'Rourke. (Following the October 2, 1981, service of the Administrative Complaint on Miguel Rodriguez, and with Rodriguez's knowledge of the pendency of narcotics allegations being placed against the dancers, Kathleen Keddie, Annie D. Bryant and Danita Buchin, those individuals were allowed to remain as employees in the licensed premises.) During the time in question by the Administrative Complaint, Augusto Garcia acted as a manager in the licensed premises. He had been hired by Miguel Rodriguez. His normal hours of employment were 6:00 P.M. through as late as 4:30 A.M., except for Fridays and Saturdays when he worked a couple of hours. When he was on duty, Rodriguez was ordinarily at the licensed premises. Rodriguez had instructed Garcia to be cognizant of drug problems in the licensed premises and to keep the bar quiet and peaceful. In particular, Rodriguez had instructed Garcia not to allow drugs in the bar and if someone was found with drugs to throw him out. An individual identified as Hector who is a friend of Garcia's assisted in these matters. Garcia indicated the policy of management at the licensed premises was to check the person of the dancers and their bathroom and dressing area to discover narcotics. Nevertheless, testimony by Kathleen Keddie, a person implicated in these matters for narcotics violations and an employee at the bar as a dancer established the fact that she had never been searched for narcotics. Rodriguez was not told by Garcia about people selling drugs in the licensed premises, Garcia would simply "throw them out." Garcia did tell Rodriguez about people "sniffing" what he suspected to be cocaine. At the time Garcia served as a manager in the licensed premises, one Willie Rolack also was a manager in the licensed premises. Willie Rolack's duties as manager were primarily associated with the package store, in contrast to the bar, area. He would periodically go in the bar to check to see if there were fights occurring and to determine if drugs were being used. Rolack had been instructed by Rodriguez to call the Hialeah Police Department if persons who were using drugs would not depart the premises. At times, the Hialeah Police Department has assisted in removing those patrons. Additionally, some employees at the licensed premises had been dismissed for drug involvement as observed by Rolack. Miguel Rodriguez worked sixteen (16) to eighteen (18) hours in the licensed premises, mostly in the package store; however, he did have occasion to check the bar area while at the licensed premises. Rodriguez had told the dancers that he would not tolerate their involvement with drugs and he had instructed customers who were found with drugs that they should leave and not return. He had a policy of not allowing the dancers to leave the licensed premises except on occasion to go for food at nearby restaurants; however, as has been determined in the facts found, the occasions of the departures of the dancers were fairly frequent and not always for the purposes of obtaining food. Rodriguez, through his testimony, verifies a general policy of checking dancers' lockers and pocketbooks and watching their activities. The lockers as have been indicated before were controlled by the dancers themselves who had keys. Prior to July, 1981, and in particular, in June, 1981, one Alexis Pagan had worked as the bar manager and had been dismissed for drug involvement. Nonetheless, the same Alexis Pagan had been observed in the licensed premises during the times set forth in the administrative charges, to include the instance mentioned before.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, revoke alcoholic beverage license number 23-1341, Series 2-COP, held by Maritza Garcia, d/b/a Maritza's Pub. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings 1550 Hearings J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 23rd day of May, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the stipulations of the parties, the documentary evidence presented and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: The Respondent, Ceola Virginia Cutliff is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 23-06844, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Club Night Shift, located at 6704 N.W. 18th Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. On or about September 18, 1987, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) Investigators R. Campbell, R. Thompson and C. Houston entered the licensed premises as part of an ongoing narcotics task force investigation. An individual named "Frances" was on duty at the bar. The investigators observed Frances sell what appeared to be narcotics to several patrons on the licensed premises. At approximately 7:50 p.m., Investigator Houston approached Frances and asked to purchase narcotics. Frances and Investigator Houston then went to the rear of the bar where Frances sold 2 pieces of "crack" cocaine to Investigator Houston for $10.00. Approximately fifteen minutes later, Investigator Campbell asked Frances if he could purchase narcotics. Frances presented a piece of rock cocaine which Investigator Campbell purchased for $5.00. This transaction took place in plain view of other individuals in the licensed premises. Frances, upon making a sale, would take the money and give it to a black male called "Spider" a/k/a Arthur Dorsey. Spider would then retain the money. On September 19, 1987, Investigators Houston and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as Club Night Shift. On duty that night, was a black female known as "Josephine". Spider was also on the licensed premises positioned in the D.J.'s booth, apparently trying to fix a speaker. Houston and Thompson had observed a black male, named "Gary", exchanging an unknown substance for money with various individuals, immediately outside the licensed premises. Gary, upon receiving money in exchange for the unknown substance, would go into the licensed premises and hand the money to Spider. Later that evening, Investigator Houston noticed that Spider had a brown paper bag in his hand. Gary and Spider proceeded to the bathroom on the licensed premises. After exiting the bathroom, Gary left the premises and Spider went behind the bar and began counting a large amount of money onto the counter of the bar. Spider placed the money in his back pocket. Investigator Thompson then inquired whether Spider could sell him some crack cocaine. Spider acknowledged that he could and proceeded with Thompson to the rear of the bar, where Spider sold Thompson 20 pieces of rock cocaine for $100.00. On September 22, 1987, Investigators Houston and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as Club Night Shift. Bartender Josephine-was on duty at that time along with another black female known as "Niecey". When the investigators inquired as to the whereabouts of Spider, Niecey replied that "he went home to cook up the stuff because they were very low on supply." Niecey reiterated the above statement on numerous occasions when individuals would enter the bar searching for Spider. At approximately 10:30 p.m., Spider appeared on the licensed premises with a brown paper bag in his possession. Patrons that had been waiting outside the premises came inside and Niecey locked the doors to the front and rear exits of the bar. Spider went to the D.J.'s booth and pbured the contents of the paper bag onto the counter inside the booth. The bag contained approximately 200 small zip-lock bags containing suspected crack cocaine. The patrons who had been waiting outside for the arrival of Spider then proceeded to line up in front of the D.J.'s booth in order to make purchases. Niecey would take the money from the individual patrons and Spider would deliver the crack cocaine. Investigator Houston got in line and upon arriving at the booth, purchased 20 packets of crack cocaine from Spider in exchange for $100.00. These transactions took place in plain view on the licensed premises. On September 23, 1987, Investigators Houston, Thompson and Campbell entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. The barmaid on duty was Josephine. Spider was positioned in the D.J.'s booth making sales to patrons of what appeared to be crack cocaine. Investigator Campbell walked over to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase ten (10) pieces of crack cocaine from Spider. Approximately 200 zip-lock packets of suspected crack cocaine were positioned in front of Spider. Spider motioned for Campbell" to pick them out." Campbell then picked out ten (10) packets in exchange for $50.00 which he gave to Spider. This transaction occurred in plain view of other individuals on the licensed premises. Before leaving Spider went behind the bar, obtained a .357 magnum pistol, placed it inside his pants and exited the premises. On September 29, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. The bartender on duty was Josephine. Shortly after the investigators arrived, Spider appeared on the premises and went behind the bar where he took a pistol from inside his pants and placed it under the bar counter. Spider then removed a brown paper bag from under the bar counter and went to the D.J. s booth. Investigator Thompson proceeded to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase two (2) large pieces of crack cocaine. Spider reached into the bag and gave Investigator Thompson two (2) large pieces of crack cocaine in exchange for $100.00. On October 3, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. Investigator Campbell approached an unknown black male who Campbell had seen selling narcotics on prior occasions. Campbell made inquiries relative to the purchase of cocaine and the unknown black male indicated that he could sell Campbell crack cocaine. The unknown male then gave two five dollar ($5.00) pieces of crack cocaine to Investigator Campbell in exchange for $10.00. This transaction took place in plain view on the licensed premises. On October 6, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. Shortly after the investigators arrived, they observed Spider on the premises selling crack cocaine to patrons from the D.J.'s booth. Subsequently, Investigator Thompson went to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase twenty (20) pieces of crack cocaine. In response thereto, Spider left the licensed premises and proceeded to a pickup truck parked outside. Spider then retrieved a brown paper bag from the vehicle, returned to Investigator Thompson and handed him twenty (20) pieces of crack cocaine in exchange for $100.00. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. The Respondent licensee admitted to being an absentee owner. The Respondent did not maintain payroll, employment or other pertinent business records. The licensee was aware that drugs were a major problem in the area surrounding the premises and that drug transactions were known to take place immediately outside of the licensed premises. The licensee did nothing to prevent the incursion of narcotics trafficking onto the licensed premises. The licensee, CeoIa Cutliff, is engaged to Arthur Dorsey. Ms. Cutliff gave Mr. Dorsey a key to the premises and knew or should have known that he was operating in the capacity of a manager on the licensed premises. Josephine, the bartender generally on duty, referred to Mr. Dorsey as "boss man" and Mr. Dorsey directed her activities in the licensed premises. Mr. Dorsey a/k/a Spider utilized the licensed premises as if they were his own and was operating in the capacity of a manager at the Club Night Shift.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent's beverage license 23-06844, Series 2-COP, located in Miami, Dade County, Florida, be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of November, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4482 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. 2. (Petitioner has two paragraphs numbered 2) Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. 8. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 9. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10, 11 & 12. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent (None Submitted). COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Moody, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 R. Scott Boundy, Esquire 901 E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Daniel Bosanko Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on the grounds stated in petitioner's Notice to Show Cause, as amended.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Respondent corporation holds alcoholic beverage license No. 23-00739, Series 4 COP, issued by the DABT, and operates a bar known as Doc Watson's ("the licensed premises") at 4591 Northwest 36th Street, Miami Springs, Florida. Entertainment is provided by female dancers who perform to jukebox music. (Testimony of Harden; P-1, R-1.) As to Count I II. Sale, Use, or Possession of Drugs on the Licensed Premises On November 8, 1981, at approximately 12:30 a.m., undercover Beverage Agent Donald Chastain purchased cocaine for $70 from Mike Pack, a doorman employed by respondent. The sale took place in the storeroom at the east entrance to the west bar on the licensed premises. During the drug transaction, Pack remarked that he "had been turning them [cocaine sales] over like hotcakes- -10 to 12 a day." (Testimony of Chastain.) On November 14, 1981, during the evening hours, Agent Chastain purchased a clear plastic baggie of cocaine (a white powder) for $70 from doorman Pack. The transaction took place, in plain view, at the east entrance to the west bar on the licensed premises. (Testimony of Chastain.) On November 21, 1981, during the evening hours, Agent Chastain again purchased a clear plastic baggie of cocaine for 565 from doorman Pack. The sale took place at the east entrance to the west bar on the licensed premises, and in plain view of Carlos Santana (known as "Manny") , a male patron. (Testimony of Chastain.) On December 11, 1981, during the evening hours, Agent Chastain again approached doorman Pack at the east entrance to the west bar on the licensed premises and offered to buy cocaine. Pack replied that he had none but would try to find some; he then left his post at the bar entrance, walked to the pool table area where he talked with Sonya Olitsky, a female dancer, then returned to Agent Chastain. Doorman Pack then sold a clear plastic baggie containing cocaine to Agent Chastain for 570. (Testimony of Chastain.) On December 21, 1981, during the evening hours, Agent Chastain again approached doorman Pack at the east entrance to the licensed premises and asked to purchase cocaine. Pack replied that he had none but could obtain some; a little later, Agent Chastain approached Pack again, but he still did not have any cocaine available. Doorman Pack then offered to obtain some from another employee on the licensed premises; after Chastain gave him 570, Pack left his post and, a few minutes later, returned and gave Agent Chastain a clear plastic baggie containing cocaine. The drug exchange took place in plain view at doorman Pack's duty station, the east entrance to the bar. (Testimony of Chastain.) On February 10, 1982, doorman Pack, off duty at the time, approached Agent Chastain on the licensed premises and asked if he was looking for cocaine. Chastain said yes; Pack replied that it would cost 570. Chastain then gave him 570 for a white plastic baggie containing cocaine; this transaction occurred at the entrance to the east bar, in plain view of Victor Narin, the on-duty doorman. After the sale, at Pack's request, Chastain brought the cocaine to a bathroom on the premises where Pack ingested a small quantity. (Testimony of Chastain.) On February 15, 1982, during the evening hours, Agent Chastain entered the premises. Doorman Pack asked him if he wanted to buy some excellent cocaine; Chastain agreed and handed him $70 for a clear plastic baggie of cocaine. This transaction took place in plain view at Pack's duty station at the east entrance to the west bar. (Testimony of Chastain.) On February 23, 1982, Agent Chastain met doorman Pack at his duty station at the east entrance to the west bar and asked if he had any cocaine for sale; Pack replied that he had none but sent Ray Patterson, an off-duty doorman, to get Joe Hevia, a patron. Hevia told Chastain that he would need $70 "up- front"; Chastain was reluctant to agree since he didn't know Hevia. Doorman Pack then obtained a clear plastic baggie of cocaine from Benjamin Maples, 2/ a former doorman on the premises, and sold it to Chastain for $70. This transaction took place in plain view at the east entrance to the west bar. (Testimony of Chastain.) As to Count II On December 15, 1981, Agent Chastain approached Dorothy E. Zink, a dancer employed by respondent, and asked if he could buy some cocaine; she agreed. He gave her $70; she directed him to a pay telephone across from the stage area on the licensed premises where he found a small baggie of cocaine in the coin return slot. (Testimony of Chastain.) Later that evening, Agent Chastain asked dancer Zink if she knew where he could get some quaaludes; she agreed to sell him some. He handed her $12, and she told him the quaaludes would be placed in the same coin return slot of the pay telephone used earlier. He proceeded to the pay telephone and found a plastic bag containing four tablets of diazepam. (Testimony of Chastain; P-7.) On January 4, 1982, Agent Chastain approached dancer Zink on the licensed premises and gave her $70 for the purchase of cocaine. After checking elsewhere in the bar, she returned and told him that she could only find one- half a gram for $35. Thereafter, he met her by the pay telephone and, in plain view, gave him a clear plastic baggie containing cocaine. (Testimony of Chastain.) On January 21, 1982, in response to Agent Chastain's inquiry, dancer Zink agreed to sell him cocaine for $70. He slowly counted out $70 while in the stage area of the west bar of the licensed premises and in plain view of several nearby patrons. He placed the money in an address book held by dancer Zink, then ;net her at the pay telephone where she handed him a folded piece of paper containing cocaine. (Testimony of Chastain.) As to Count III On January 26, 1982, Darlene Harper, Melaine Goransky, and Linda Pryor, dancers employed by respondent, exited the west entrance of the licensed premises with purses in hand. They entered a parked vehicle where they removed from one of the purses a marijuana cigarette which they lit and passed between them. (Testimony of Johnson; P-3, P-4.) As to Count IV On February 10, 1982, during the evening hours, Agent Chastain entered the west bar of the licensed premises. Michael Stoodley, the doorman, told him that doorman Pack had some good cocaine for sale. Chastain replied that he had just bought some; Stoodley then asked Chastain to give him some. After Chastain handed him the cocaine, Stoodley entered the storeroom near the east entrance and ingested some. Upon exiting the storeroom, doorman Stoodley handed him a tablet containing methaqualone. (Testimony of Chastain.) When Agent Chastain entered the licensed premises on March 4, 1982, doorman Pack approached him and asked if he wanted to buy some cocaine for $75. Chastain declined but said he wanted to buy some quaaludes. Pack said to contact doorman Stoodley, who was then on duty at the entrance to the east bar. Agent Chastain then proceeded to the entrance and bought four methaqualone tablets from doorman Stoodley for $12. (Testimony of Chastain.) As to Count V On February 23, 1982, Benjamin Maples supplied cocaine to doorman Pack which was, in turn, sold to Agent Chastain on the licensed premises. (See paragraph 9 above.) He was, however, no longer employed by respondent, since he had been fired in October, 1981. (Testimony of Chastain, Harden, Swanfeld.) On February 27, 1982, after midnight, Agent Chastain entered the licensed premises and discussed with doormen Patterson, Pack, and former doorman Maples a cocaine purchase he had made there two days earlier. Maples then offered to sell Chastain a gram of cocaine. Chastain agreed and handed Maples $70 in return for a clear plastic baggie containing cocaine. But, when this transaction took place, Maples was not an employee of the respondent. (Testimony of Chastain, Harden, Swanfeld, Coronado.) As to Count VI On February 25, 1982, during the evening hours, Agent Chastain entered the licensed premises and asked Dale Patterson, the doorman on duty, if he knew where he could buy some cocaine. Patterson told him he would sell him one gram for $100. After Chastain balked at the price, Patterson lowered it to $80 and told him to check back with him in 15 minutes. Later, when Chastain returned, Patterson introduced him to Jack Corderra, a patron, who took him to a room separating the two bars on the licensed premises and sold him two lumps of cocaine for $80. (Testimony of Chastain.) As to Counts VII and VIII Between November 8, 1981, and March 6, 1982, illicit drugs, including cocaine, methaqualone, marijuana, and percodan (oxycodone) were kept, sold, and delivered on the licensed premises in the manner described herein. As to Count IX through XIII Pursuant to a search warrant executed on the licensed premises on March 6, 1982, respondent's employees and their possessions were searched. Percodan, containing oxycodone, was found in the purse of dancer Cynthia Lytle; marijuana was found in the purse of dancer Margaret McLain; diazepam was found in the purse of dancer Nicole Moon; marijuana was found in the purse of dancer Deronda Doolittle; and a packet of cocaine was found on waitress Ruth Robinson. (Testimony of Houston, Chastain.) III. Respondent's Management and Supervision of the Licensed Premises A. The No-Drug Policy Both before and during the time in which these drug transactions occurred on the licensed premises, respondent announced a no-drug policy to its employees. It posted notices and distributed memoranda prohibiting the possession, use, or sale of any illicit drugs on the premises; employees were told to report any drug violations to the manager and warned that violation of the no-drug policy would result in immediate dismissal. (Testimony of Harden; R-1, R-3.) During the time in question, respondent was aware that complaints had been made to DABT about narcotic violations occurring on the licensed premises. By letter to the Dade County Liquor Consortium, Inc., dated November 2, 1981, DABT expressed a hope that the owners of Doc Watson's, and several other named licensees, "will strictly supervise the conduct of their employees (P-2.) Respondent requested information concerning the complaints; DABT did not provide the requested information because it was conducting an ongoing drug investigation of the premises and did not know, at that time, whether management was involved in illicit drug activities. Respondent also sought advice from Miami Springs police officers on how to control illegal drug activities. (Testimony of Harris, Lifset; P-2, R-21.) Respondent took several steps to implement its no-drug policy. In February, 1981, it hired Larry Williams, a former police officer, as its-new night manager. Williams was instructed to eliminate drug violations on the premises; during the next several months he caught four employees possessing, using, or selling drugs and summarily fired them. Between 1980 and 1981, several other employees had been fired because of suspected use of drugs on the licensed premises. When customers were observed passing illicit drugs, they were asked to leave the premises. (Testimony of Williams, Lifset, Milligan, Sayer, Harden; R-5, R-6, R-7, R-8, R-9.) Respondent required its employees to keep their personal belongings in lockers provided on the premises. The combinations to the locks were known to respondent, and it would occasionally spot search the lockers for illicit drugs. (Testimony of Harden, Hoffman.) Respondent reiterated its no-drug policy at its staff meetings held every four to six weeks. (Testimony of Harden, Lifset, Williams.) Neither James Harden, sole stockholder of the respondent corporation, nor any of respondent's managers were personally involved in any of the illicit drug violations described in Part II above. H. Widespread and Persistent Drug Trafficking on the Licensed Premises Despite respondent's announced no-drug policy, employees, during the time in question, engaged in illicit drug activities on the licensed premises in a persistent and practiced manner. Beverage Agent Chastain was successful in purchasing illicit drugs during one-half of his 25-30 visits to the licensed premises. Employees who did not have drugs available at the time often helped him locate and purchase drugs from others on the premises. (Testimony of Chastain, Houston.) These drug transactions were not isolated events. Drug trafficking on the premises was widespread and occurred in plain view of other employees and patrons. Drugs were sold and talked about in an open manner. For instance, on March 2, 198.2-- when Agent Chastain stepped from his car in respondent's parking lot--doorman Pack called down from an apartment on the second floor above the licensed premises and, in a loud voice, asked him if he wanted some white powder, meaning cocaine. (Testimony of Chastain.) Many of the 75 employees of respondent were involved or implicated in the drug transactions described in Part II above. Out of a total of six doormen, three sold drugs to Agent Chastain. Of approximately five waitresses employed by respondent, two were arrested for possessing illicit drugs on March 6, 1982. Of the 30-35 dancers, at least five engaged in illicit drug activities on the premises between November, 1981, and March, 1982. (Testimony of Chastain, Houston.) C. Respondent's Failure to Diligently Enforce its No-Drug Policy By November, 1981, the owner of respondent was aware that illicit drug activities had been occurring on its licensed premises. Earlier in the year he had hired a former policeman as night manager to control such activities; several persons had been fired for illicit drug activities on the premises. (Testimony of Harris, Harden, Williams.) Respondent was also aware of concrete steps--suggested by DABT--which could be taken by bar owners to prevent illicit drug activity on their premises. 3/ Those steps included giving polygraph examinations to employees, forbidding employees access to their personal belongings while on duty, checking the background of prospective employees for drug history, strictly enforcing rules of conduct for employees, and periodically searching employees. (Testimony of Harris, Harden.) Under these circumstances, respondent failed to diligently supervise its employees and enforce its no-drug policy between November, 1981, and March, 1982. Employees who violated the no-drug policy, such as Darlene Harper, Melanie Goransky, and Linda Pryor (see paragraph 14 above) , were not immediately dismissed. Neither was dancer Dorothy Zink, although day-manager Marilyn Lifset suspected her of selling drugs. Employee searches and spot checks were haphazard and infrequent: Jack Wandel, a bartender for six years, and Sandra Sayer, a waitress for 3 1/2 years, had never been searched; Ann Hoffman, a dancer for five months, had never been searched; Sandra Olitsky, a dancer for two years, and Kathy Mitler, a bartender for eight months, had each been searched once. (Testimony of Chastain, Lifset, Wandel, Sayer, Hoffman, Olitsky, Mitler.) Night-manager Larry Williams conscientiously enforced the no-drug policy between February and October, 1981. A former police officer, Williams watched his employees closely and fired employees he suspected of drug trafficking. But, manager Williams left respondent's employment in October, 1981, before the drug violations in question here occurred. There is no evidence to indicate that his eventual replacement, who has since left respondent's employment, enforced the no-drug policy with equal commitment. Most of the illicit drug activities encompassed by the charges at issue occurred during the night shift. (Testimony of Williams, Harden, Chastain.) Respondent neglected to take reasonable steps to effectively carry out its no-drug policy. Although it knew illicit drug activity had occurred on the premises it: (1) failed to conduct frequent and thorough spot searches of its employees; (2) failed to promptly dismiss employees who violated the policy; (3) failed to consistently investigate the background of prospective employees; (4) failed to administer polygraph examinations; (5) failed to prohibit employee access to personal belongings while on duty; and (6) failed to closely monitor and supervise its nightshift employees for the purpose of detecting illicit drug activity. IV. Prior Record Licensee has never before been cited for any violation of the Beverage Law. (Testimony of Harden.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be suspended for a period of 90 days, with credit given for any period of suspension effected by the Emergency Order of Suspension executed in March, 1982. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of April, 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 2nd day of April, 1982.
