Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Joel Albert Collinsworth held a valid Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco liquor license for the premises known as the Silver Bullet Bar and Lounge (hereinafter licensed premises), located at 12 North Ninth Street, DeFuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida. Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The license held by Respondent is number 76- 330, Series 2-COP and is limited to the sale of beer and wine on the licensed premises. Investigator Don Taylor is a police officer with the DeFuniak Springs, Florida, Police Department. On Thursday, December 10, 1987, Investigator Taylor entered the licensed premises and seized glass containers of liquid that were marked as Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, and 4. The containers were only partly full. Investigator Taylor, has on many occasions, observed, smelled and tasted distilled spirits (and testified that the liquid was whiskey and not wine or beer.) Respondent, Joel Albert Collinsworth was on the licensed premises at the time Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 were seized and was immediately placed under arrest by Investigator Taylor. The three (3) glass containers were taken to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement laboratory in Pensacola, Florida for testing and identification of the liquid contained in the three (3) bottles. The lab results shows that the liquid contained a high concentration of ethyl alcohol. Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Investigator Roy Harris, an 18 year veteran of the Division testified that the concentrations of alcohol listed in Exhibit 5 were sufficiently high that they could not be anything other than distilled spirits. The 2-COP license held by the Respondent allowed only consumption on the premises of beer and wine. The license does not permit possession, consumption or sale of distilled spirits on the licensed premises. The evidence showed that distilled spirits were being possessed and/or consumed on the premises owned and operated by Respondent under his beverage license. Such possession and consumption constitute a violation of Section 562.02, Florida Statutes. Petitioner requested that Respondent's license be revoked for the violation of the Liquor Law. No mitigating facts were presented by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That Respondent is guilty of the offense set forth in the Notice to Show Cause issued on January 13, 1988, and that Petitioner should revoke the license of Joel Albert Collinsworth, d/b/a Silver Bullet Bar and Lounge. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 22nd day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1295 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact contained in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 have been adopted in substance in so far as material. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 W. Paul Thompson, Esquire Post Office Drawer 608 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Lt. Tom Stout, District Supervisor Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 160 Governmental Center Suite 401, 4th Floor Pensacola, Florida 32501 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the notice to show cause dated June 16, 1992; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent owns an alcoholic beverage license, license number 5803205, for a business known as Tiffany & Suzy Q's Fun and Munch located in Apopka, Florida. Mr. Bowers, Respondent's husband, does not own the subject business or license, and may not as he has prior felony convictions within the last past five years that preclude his eligibility to own or hold an alcoholic beverage license. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Mr. Bowers was on the licensed premises acting as the manager or other person in charge of the business activities. Acting on information from a confidential source, the FDLE commenced an investigation of several vendors rumored to be involved in illegal foodstamp activity. FDLE retained several confidential informants (CI) to offer foodstamps for sale at substantially reduced prices. One of the confidential sources, Ella Mae Davis, posed as the seller at Respondent's licensed store. Acting in concert with another CI, Ms. Davis went to the store and offered foodstamps for sale to Respondent's husband. Ms. Davis alleged that the foodstamps had been stolen by her boyfriend, and that she wanted to sell them. Her instructions were to make Mr. Bowers (or other person at the store if there had been another) aware that the stamps were illegal, and to determine if a sale would be possible. On the first occasion, Mr. Bowers was receptive to the offer made by Ms. Davis and the CI. Ms. Davis observed Mr. Bowers go into a backroom at the store with the other CI who had possession of the foodstamps. When the CI came out, and the two women left the premises, the CI had the money received in exchange for the foodstamps. On a second visit to the store, Ms. Davis met Mr. Bowers who introduced her to a second male. Ms. Davis observed a second exchange of foodstamps for cash with the second male. This transaction took place at the licensed premises. During each of the transactions at the licensed premises, Ms. Davis observed Mr. Bowers' physical proximity to the exchange of foodstamps for cash. On each occasion the rate of exchange for the foodstamps was approximately fifty percent of the face value of the stamps. The Respondent was not on the licensed premises on either occasion when foodstamps were exchanged by Ms. Davis or her partner CI.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking Respondent's beverage license. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4808 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein Chief Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Para Bowers, pro se 104 East 18th Street Apopka, Florida 32703 Richard W. Scully, Director Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Donald D. Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
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 its director, stockholder or corporate officer, namely: Carl Bilotti, related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance cocaine on July 15 and 18, 1981; August 20, 1981; and September 9 and 20, 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 its agent, servant or employee namely: "Anne," related to the possession of the controlled substance cocaine on August 22 and 28, 1981. 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 its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Anne," related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance cocaine on August 23, 1981, and September 4, 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 its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Sandy," related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance methaqualone on July 19 and 25, 1981, and the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance cocaine on August 14, 22 and 23, 1981. Count V 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 its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Eve," related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance diazepam on July 23, 1981. Count VI 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 its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Gina," related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance diazepam on July 25, 1981, two (2) incidents. Count VII to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Ivy " related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance cocaine on August 14, 1981. Count VIII 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 its agent, servant or employee, namely: "Shayne," related to the possession, sale and/or delivery of the controlled substance cocaine on July 25, 1981. Count IX to the Administrative Complaint alleges that between July 15, 1981, and October 2, 1981, the Respondent, by actions of its agents, servants, employees, manager, corporate officer and stockholder, maintained a place, to wit: the licensed premises, at 2095 best Fourth Avenue, Hialeah, Florida, which place was used for keeping or selling of controlled substances, namely: cocaine, methaqualone and diazepam, in violation of Subsection 893.13(2)(a) 5; Florida Statutes, within the meaning of Subsection 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Count X to the Administrative Complaint alleges that between July 15, 1981, and October 2, 1981, the Respondent, through its agents, servants, employees, manager, corporate officer and stockholder, kept or maintained a public nuisance on the licensed premises, to wit: maintaining a building or place which is used for the illegal keeping, selling or delivering of controlled substances within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 823.10, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(c) , Florida Statutes. Count XI to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about July 25, 1981, an agent, servant or employee of the Respondent, one Gina, while engaged as a dancer, unlawfully offered to commit prostitution, in violation of Subsection 796.07(3)(a), Florida Statutes, causing a violation on the part of the Respondent of Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida .Statutes. Count XII to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about October 2, 1981, an agent, servant or employee of the Respondent, namely: Cathryne Edmondson, possessed a controlled substance, to wit: marijuana, on the licensed premises, in violation of Subsection 893.13(1)(a) Florida Statutes, causing a violation of Subsection 561.29 (1)(a) , Florida Statutes. Count XIII to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about December 2, 1981, a director, stockholder or corporate officer, namely: Carl Bilotti, corporate vice-president and 50 percent stockholder, pled guilty and was adjudicated guilty in the Circuit Court of the State of Florida, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, on five (5) counts of violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, sale of controlled substances, namely: cocaine, a felony, and that the felony conviction impairs qualifications of the Respondent to obtain and continue holding an alcoholic beverage license under Subsection 561.15(3), Florida Statutes, and Subsection 56l.29(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner had served an Administrative Complaint on the Respondent, which Administrative Complaint contained the Counts as set forth in the Issues statement to this Recommended Order. Subsequent to that time, the Respondent, in the person of counsel, requested a formal Subsection 120.57 (1), Florida Statutes, hearing and the formal hearing was conducted on January 6, 1982. As indicated by correspondence from former counsel for the Respondent to counsel for the Petitioner dated December 15, 1901, Respondent's counsel withdrew from the case. This withdrawal of counsel postdated a Notice of Hearing setting forth January 6, 1982, as the date for hearing and a separate Order of November 24, 1981, which identified January 6, 1982, a the date for hearing. Notwithstanding the Notice and separate Order identifying January 6, 1982, as the hearing date, the Respondent, by and through its attorney or other authorized representative, did not attend the formal hearing. Although the Respondent was not in attendance, the hearing was conducted in view of the continuing request for hearing, which has never been withdrawn. The Petitioner is a governmental agency in the State of Florida, which has, among other duties, the licensure of the several alcoholic beverage license holders in the State of Florida, and the requirement to discipline those beverage license holders who have violated the terms and conditions of their licensure. The Respondent Carl and Mike, Inc., is the holder of an alcoholic beverage license issued by the Petitioner. The Respondent trades as the Raw Hide Bar at a licensed premises at 2095 West Fourth Avenue, Hialeah, Dade County, Florida. On July 15, 1981, at approximately 9:45 P.M., Beverage Officer L. J. Terminello, and a confidential informant, who was assisting Officer Terminello, entered the licensed premises in undercover capacities to continue an investigation which had begun on July 12, 1981. (The Beverage Officer and confidential informant had been in the licensed premises on that former date for purposes of conducting a narcotics investigation.) On this occasion, the investigative purpose was to purchase narcotics. Terminello and the informant took a seat at the bar and waited for the appearance of Carl N. Bilotti, the vice-president of the Respondent and 50 shareholder. It was the intention of Terminello to attempt to purchase narcotics from Bilotti. At 10:50 P.M. Bilotti had not arrived at the licensed premises and Terminello decided to leave; however, when he reached the front door, Bilotti was entering and Bilotti spoke to the confidential informant in the parking lot area of the licensed premises. The confidential informant, in the course of that conversation, asked Bilotti if, "we could get any coke," meaning Terminello and the confidential informant were interested in purchasing cocaine. Bilotti responded by stating, "Sure, no problem. Wait here a minute, I'll be right back." Bilotti then entered the licensed premises and returned a few minutes later and handed the confidential informant a piece of aluminum foil which was folded and the confidential informant handed this item to Terminello. Terminello opened the package and noted a quantity of white powder. Terminello asked Bilotti, "how much" and Bilotti stated, "anything close to $70.00." Terminello paid Bilotti $70.00 in United States currency and following a short conversation, departed the area of the licensed premises. The white powder in question was in fact cocaine. Terminello and the confidential informant returned to the licensed premises on July 18, 1981, at approximately 12:15 A.M. Terminello approached Carl Bilotti who was standing at the end of the bar area next to a cash register. Terminello asked Bilotti if he had any "stuff," referring to cocaine. Bilotti answered "sure" and indicated that the cost for the cocaine would be $70.00. Terminello agreed to the price, telling Bilotti that he would meet him in the mens room for purposes of the exchange of drugs and money. At approximately 12:20 A.M., while located in the mens rest room of the licensed premises, Terminello paid Bilotti $70.00 in United States currency and Bilotti gave Terminello a folded piece of white paper which Terminello could see contained white powder. Shortly thereafter, Terminello and the confidential informant exited the licensed premises. The white powder which had been purchased was analyzed and revealed the presence of cocaine. On July 19, 1981, at around 11:00 P.M., Officer Terminello returned to the licensed premises. While in the licensed premises he spoke with Sandra McQuire, a person that he had met on July 12, 1981. On July 12, 1981, McQuire had been employed as a cocktail waitress on the licensed premises and Terminello had been advised by the confidential informant that McQuire had delivered ten (10) methaqualone tablets to the confidential informant on that date. On that date, July 19, 1981, Terminello told employee McQuire that he wanted to purchase ten (10) more "ludes, meaning methaqualone. At around 11:20 P.M., while Terminello was sitting at the bar, McQuire walked by and handed him a napkin containing ten (10) white tablets. A few minutes later, Terminello handed McQuire $30.00 in U.S. currency in payment for the white tablets. Terminello then left the licensed premises at approximately 11:40 P.M. The ten (10) tablets were subsequently analyzed and found to be methaqualone. On July 23, 1981, at approximately 12:30 A.M., Officer Terminello and the confidential informant entered the licensed premises. Terminello and the confidential informant took a seat at the bar, where shortly afterwards a conversation ensued with an employee/dancer who identified herself as "Eve" and was later determined to be one Eve Mary Carroll. Carroll and the confidential informant had been acquainted prior to this time. During the course of the conversation, Terminello asked Carroll if she knew where he could get some "good ludes." This refers again to methaqualone. Carroll told him that she was "holding," meaning that she had some in her possession. She asked Terminello to pay her $4.00 for each tablet. She stated that the price was higher because they were "pure methaqualone tablets" and that they would "really do a job." Terminello told Carroll that he would purchase three (3) tablets and handed her $12.00 in U.S. currency. A few moments beyond this time, at around 12:45 A.M., Carroll handed Terminello three (3) tablets, each individually wrapped in aluminum foil, which tablets Terminello placed in his pocket. The suspect methaqualone tablets were later determined to be diazepam. On the same date, July 23, 1981, Terminello observed Carl Bilotti enter the licensed premises at around 1:00 A.M. In the course of a conversation that ensued, Bilotti told Terminello he could sell Terminello some cocaine, but that the transaction would have to occur later, in that Bilotti had to leave the licensed premises. Terminello waited until 2:30 A.M. and Bilotti never returned. On July 25, 1981, at approximately 12:00 A.M., Terminello and the confidential informant went back to the licensed premises. Over the next hour and a half, Terminello talked to Carl Bilotti and employee Sandra McQuire about purchasing narcotics; however, neither of those persons were able to deliver narcotics at that time. On that same date, Terminello and the confidential informant did speak with a dancer/employee in the licensed premises who was identified as "Gina" and this individual indicated that she had some "ludes" for sale, meaning methaqualone, that she would sell for $3.00 each. Terminello indicated that he would like to purchase five (5) tablets and they walked out the front door of the premises and Terminello gave her $15.00 in U.S. currency, in return for five (5) white tablets which were marked "Lemon 714." Those tablets were subsequently analyzed and found to be diazepam. At around 2:45 A.M. on July 25, 1981, while in the bar area, Terminello and the confidential informant spoke to an individual, a male, who was known as "Frenchie" later identified to be one Laurent E. Duval, who was in the company of a dancer employed in the licensed premises whose name was "Shayne" later identified to be Sharon K. Hicks. In the presence of Hicks, Terminello and Duval negotiated for the sale of a quantity of cocaine for the amount of $75.00. Duval also indicated that he had to be careful because he had a stolen car, was carrying a firearm and had recently been placed on probation by Circuit Court for narcotics and firearms charges. Duval told Terminello that the narcotics arrangement would have to be consummated in the parking lot of the licensed premises in view of the fact that too many people he did not know were in the bar. Terminello and the confidential informant exited the licensed premises at around 3:00 A.M. in the company of Duval and Hicks. Duval took a seat on the driver's side of an automobile in the parking lot and Hicks sat in the front passenger side seat. Duval handed Terminello a large plastic bag. containing a quantity of white powder which was suspect cocaine. Terminello started to hand Duval $75.00 in U.S. currency but Duval refused to take it, telling Terminello to hand the money to Hicks. Hicks had been observing this transaction and agreed to take the money and did accept the $75.00 in U.S. currency. The suspected cocaine was later revealed to be cocaine. Terminello next returned to the licensed premises on July 25, 1981, at around 9:30 P.M. At that time he was in the presence of the confidential informant. Terminello and the confidential informant took a seat at the bar and were approached by a dancer/employee who had earlier been identified as "Gina." There had been a prior telephone negotiation between the confidential informant and "Gina" for the purchase of five (5) "ludes," methaqualone, and in keeping with that arrangement, "Gina" handed Terminello a white napkin which contained five (5) white tablets. Terminello in turn gave "Gina" $15.00 in U.S. currency. Those tablets were subsequently analyzed and found to be diazepam. On the same evening, i.e., July 25, 1981, at around 9:45 P.M., the cocktail waitress, Sandra McQuire, approached Terminello and stated that she had five (5) methaqualone tablets that Terminello had asked for on the prior evening. She handed him a zip-lock plastic bag containing five (5) white tablets marked "Lemon 714." Shortly after this time, Terminello gave McQuire $15.00 in U.S. currency to pay for the tablets. Those tablets were subsequently analyzed and found to be methaqualone. At around 10:15 P.M. on July 25, 1981, the dancer/ employee "Gina" approached Terminello while he was seated at the bar and advised him that if he "got rid of" his "old lady" and returned about 4:00 A.M. to the premises that she, "Gina," would show him a good time by "fucking his brain out" for $50.00. Terminello acknowledged this offer. On August 3, 1981, at approximately 10:30 P.M., Terminello and the confidential informant returned to the licensed premises. At that time, Terminello entered into a conversation with Carl Bilotti on the subject of narcotics; however, Bilotti indicated that he was unable to procure cocaine at that time. Bilotti did state that he expected a delivery soon and that Terminello should wait a while. Nothing had transpired by 11:45 P.M. concerning the narcotics and Terminello and the confidential informant left the licensed premises. On August 14, 1981, at approximately 10:45 P.M., Terminello and the confidential informant went back to the licensed premises and upon entry took a seat at the bar where they were greeted by the cocktail waitress Sandra McQuire. Terminello asked McQuire if there were any "ludes" around, meaning methaqualone, and McQuire answered in the negative, but she did indicate that there was some "toot," meaning cocaine available for $70.00 a gram if Terminello was interested. Terminello advised McQuire that he was interested and removed $70.. 00 in U.S. currency from his wallet, wrapped it in a napkin and handed it to McQuire. She then stated that she would be back in a few moments. After several moments, McQuire signaled Terminello to walk over to the opposite side of the bar where she was fixing drinks. She then made a comment about the good quality of the "stuff." While Terminello was talking to McQuire, another employee, a dancer in the licensed premises identified as "Ivy" later shown to be one Julie Ann Schwartz, approached Terminello and handed him a plastic zip- lock bag containing white powder. She told Terminello "here is a present from Sandy." Terminello accepted the material. Schwartz then asked Terminello if she could "do a line," referring to the ingestion of cocaine. In view of the circumstances, Terminello did allow Schwartz to taste the cocaine. Schwartz did this by opening the packet in plain view at the bar area and placing her finger into the container and then tasting the substance that adhered to her finger. She then handed the plastic bag back to Terminello and said "you are going to enjoy this. That's good stuff." These matters transpired in the presence of McQuire. The white powder was subsequently analyzed and revealed to be cocaine. On August 22, 1981, at approximately 11:00 P.M., Terminello returned to the licensed premises. Upon entry to the licensed premises, Terminello was greeted by Carl Bilotti who appeared to be leaving the bar at that time. Bilotti told Terminello he could be back in about one hour if Terminello wanted to wait for purposes of purchasing cocaine. Terminello told him he would wait. Following his conversation with Bilotti, Terminello spoke with the cocktail waitress Sandra McQuire asking her if there was any "toot" around, meaning cocaine. McQuire indicated that there was and it would cost $70.00. Terminello followed McQuire into the hallway outside the ladies' room where he handed her a hundred dollar bill and she handed him a plastic wrapped package containing white powder. A few minutes later, Terminello was sitting at the bar when McQuire returned and laid $30.00 in U.S. currency before Terminello stating "thank you very much." This material in the plastic bag which had been provided to Terminello by McQuire was subsequently determined to be cocaine. Terminello was still in the bar area at around 12:30 A.M. on August 23, 1981, and entered into a conversation with the manager of the licensed premises identified a "Anne" later shown to be Anne R. Milotta, also known as Ann Bilotti, the sister of Carl Bilotti. Terminello told Milotta that he felt that her brother Carl Bilotti was inconsiderate in that Terminello had planned to purchase cocaine from Bilotti that night and Bilotti had not come back to the premises. Milotta agreed with Terminello and told him that he could sit in the manager's office with her to have a drink and to wait for her brother to return. Milotta and Terminello went to the manager's office. While in that office, ,Milotta answered the telephone, gave directions to employees, answered questions, was observed to have the keys to the office, and at times was seen tending bar. These managerial activities were further substantiated on a later date based upon Terminello's procurement of a copy of an application which Milotta had made with the City of Hialeah, Florida, for an identification card in which she had listed herself as the "owner-manager of the licensed premises." While in the office with Milotta, she told Terminello that it was too bad that her brother had not yet come back so that Terminello could purchase cocaine. Terminello, during this conversation, indicated to Milotta that he had purchased cocaine from Sandy McQuire, the cocktail waitress, and Milotta stated to Terminello "how 'bout turning me on to a line" and Terminello responded "OK." Terminello removed the cocaine he had received from McQuire and handed it to Milotta. She opened it and tapped out two one and one half inch long "lines" of cocaine on the desk in the office and handed the package back to Terminello. Terminello then watched Milotta ingest one of the lines through her nose using a plastic straw and he in turn simulated that activity. At around 1:15 A.M., on August 23, 1981, Terminello indicated to Milotta that, in view of the fact that Carl Bilotti was not going to appear, he would like to purchase another gram of cocaine to keep him supplied for the upcoming week. Milotta stated she would get McQuire and exited the office and called McQuire in, telling her that Terminello wanted to purchase another gram of cocaine. McQuire indicated that this would not be a problem and removed another packet similar to the first from a large plastic bag she kept on her person. This large bag appeared to have twenty (20) to thirty (30) similar type packets within it. Terminello removed a hundred dollar bill from his wallet and handed it to Milotta who in turn handed it to McQuire. McQuire then reached over Milotta and handed Terminello the packet. Shortly after this exchange, McQuire left the office and Milotta continued in general conversation both in the bar and office area until Terminello left the premises at approximately 1:50 A.M. The second package that McQuire gave to Terminello was subsequently determined to be cocaine. On August 28, 1981, at approximately 10:30 A.M., Terminello went back to the licensed premises to continue the investigation. Upon entering the licensed premises he spoke with Carl Bilotti asking if he had any "toot," meaning cocaine. Bilotti stated that he did and that it would be the same price as usual, $70.00. A few minutes later, Bilotti walked up to Terminello who was sitting at the bar and handed him a plastic zip-lock bag containing white powder and Terminello gave him $70.00 in U.S. currency in exchange. The substance which Terminello had purchased from Bilotti was subsequently determined to be cocaine. A few minutes after the exchange of cocaine and currency, Anne Milotta approached Terminello in the bar area and invited him into the manager's office for a drink. When they entered the office, Milotta told Terminello that she had seen the transaction involving the sale of cocaine between Terminello and her brother and wanted to make sure that Terminello was satisfied with the "product." The conversation continued while Milotta intended her managerial duties of making schedules, and answering the telephone. At approximately 11:00 P.M., Milotta asked Terminello if she could "do a line" of his cocaine, meaning use the material. She indicated that she knew "this coke was as good as all the coke that Carl gets." Terminello complied with her request by handing her the plastic zip-lock bag that he had purchased from Carl Bilotti. She again placed two (2) "lines" of the cocaine on the desk and on this occasion used a twenty dollar bill which had been rolled up as a tool to ingest the cocaine in her nose. Terminello simulated the use of cocaine in her presence. Terminello then left the office and exited the licensed premises. On September 4, 1981, at approximately 9:30 P.M., Terminello went back to the licensed premises. When he entered the premises he spoke with Anne Milotta asking her if her brother had "any shit to sell," referring to cocaine. Milotta invited Terminello into her office indicating that her brother did not have cocaine for sale but that she did. Terminello told her that he wanted one (1) gram. She left the office and returned a few minutes later, at around 9:50 P.M., handing Terminello a piece of plastic wrapping containing white powder. Terminello handed her 580.00 in U.S. currency and she returned $5.00, stating that her price was $75.00. Subsequent analysis of the material which he had received from Milotta revealed the presence of cocaine. While in the office area, Milotta continued to perform managerial duties. As Terminello was preparing to leave the licensed premises on this date, Milotta approached him and gave him an additional $5.00 in U.S. currency stating that she had made a mistake and that a gram should only be $70.00 and that she did not want Terminello to think that she was "ripping him off." This discussion of money referred to the purchase of cocaine. On September 9, 1981, at around 10:10 P.M., Terminello went back to the licensed premises. He took a seat at the bar and waited for the appearance of Carl Bilotti. Bilotti entered the licensed premises at around 10:25 P.M. and Terminello asked him if he was "holding any shit," referring to cocaine. Bilotti stated that he was and that it was the usual price of $70.00. Bilotti and Terminello then went to the manager's office. Bilotti left Terminello in that office, shortly thereafter and following this sequence, Terminello gave Bilotti $70.00 in U.S. currency while in the office in exchange for a white piece of paper folded in four parts which contained white, powder. The analysis of this white powder material revealed cocaine. Terminello and Bilotti stayed in the office for a few minutes discussing general topics and the possibility of a large narcotics purchase in the future. Bilotti told Terminello that he would be better off buying a quarter ounce of cocaine for $425.00 rather than one gram at a time for $70.00. Terminello then left the licensed premises at approximately 10:45 P.M. On September 20, 1901, at approximately 12:15 A.M., Terminello returned to the licensed premises. He undertook a conversation with Carl Bilotti while standing near the outside of the front door. After a short conversation, Bilotti indicated that he had cocaine for sale. A few minutes later while inside the licensed premises, Bilotti waved Terminello into the manager's office where he removed a quantity of white powder from a large plastic bag and placed a small quantity of white powder into a piece of paper on the desk. He then folded the piece of paper and handed it to Terminello who handed Bilotti 570.00 in U.S. currency. This white powder was subsequently determined to be cocaine. At approximately 1:00 A.M., Terminello left the licensed premises. On September 26, 1981, at approximately 12:20 A.M., Terminello, while in the licensed premises, entered into a discussion with Carl Bilotti about a narcotics transaction involving the purchase of cocaine. Bilotti indicated that two (2) ounces of cocaine could be purchased for $1,700.00 an ounce and he stated that the safest place for the transaction to occur would be in the office at the licensed premises. On September 29, 1981, at around 11:15 P.M., Terminello and Carl Bilotti, while in the office at the licensed premises, confirmed a future purchase of two (2) ounces of cocaine. Bilotti explained to Terminello the packaging and adulterating procedures to be used in connection with selling the cocaine. On October 2, 1981, at approximately 12:45 A.M., in the office of the licensed premises, Anne Milotta told Terminello that she was aware of the pending large transaction for the purchase of cocaine between Terminello and Carl Bilotti and that her understanding was that the purchase was to occur later that evening. She further stated that due to her brother's unreliability she would also guarantee that two (2) ounces of cocaine would be in the office by 7:00 P.M. on October 2, 1981. On October 2, 1981, a search was made of the licensed premises in connection with a warrant issued by the Dade County Circuit Court. The search warrant was read to Dorothy Bilotti, a principal in the beverage license. During the course of the search, Cathryne Edmondson, one of the dancer/employees was found in possession of marijuana. On December 2, 1981, Carl Bilotti entered a plea of guilty to five (5) counts of sale of cocaine and five (5) counts of possession of cocaine. He was subsequently adjudicated guilty of the sale of cocaine and adjudication was withheld on the counts of possession of cocaine. These matters were in connection with a court case in the Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Respondent currently holds alcoholic beverage license number 69-007441, series 2COP, for the licensed premises known as Javis Pub located at 600 North Highway 17-92, Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. At all material times, Jose Javier Zudaire (Javi) was the sole owner and officer of Respondent. At all material times, a person known only by the name of John was employed by Respondent as a bartender. On April 7, 1988, Sandra D. Owens, who was employed by the Seminole County Narcotic Unit, entered Javis Pub in an undercover capacity with a confidential informant who had advised the law enforcement authorities that illicit drugs were being sold in the bar. At the time, the informant was negotiating with Javi for the purchase of the bar. The informant introduced Ms. Owens to Javi. In the ensuing conversation, Javi told Ms. Owens that he had not gotten home until 7:00 a.m. that day because he had been out taking cocaine the prior evening. Ms. Owens complained that cocaine was hard to come by. Javi began to discuss the quality of the cocaine that he could obtain and the prices for which he could obtain it. Javi then offered to get Ms. Owens a free sample of his cocaine, but she stated that she would rather purchase it. They then agreed that she would return the next evening and purchase 1/8 ounce for $200 from John, who was the bartender. When Ms. Owens returned the next evening, John was not there. Javi and Ms. Owens began conversing. After a short time, Javi picked up a pack of cigarettes that Ms. Owens had laid down on the bar, emptied it of most of the cigarettes, took the pack into a back room behind the bar, and returned with the pack, into which he had placed 1/8 ounce of cocaine. Javi then placed the pack in front of Ms. Owens, who placed two one-hundred dollar bills under a nearby ashtray. Javi completed the transaction by taking the two bills. Before Ms. Owens left the bar, Javi assured her that she would like the cocaine. She left the bar, but returned later in the evening to thank Javi and tell him that she would be leaving town for a week or so. During the next couple of weeks, Ms. Owens spoke by telephone with Javi and John about seven times. Although she in fact had remained in town, she told them that she was visiting friends in Houston and gave them a telephone number in Houston to call her. Through an arrangement with the Houston police department, they took the calls on a private line and forwarded all messages to Ms. Owens. On the evening of April 21, 1988, Ms. Owens returned to the bar. She met with John, who told her that he would sell her an ounce of cocaine if she returned to the bar at midnight. Ms. Owens returned to the bar at 11:55 p.m. on April 21. John was waiting outside for her. Together, they entered the bar where they were joined by Javi. Javi asked John if he was going to take care of Ms. Owens. Javi then left the bar and John went to the back room behind the bar and returned with a white envelope containing cocaine. He removed the envelope from a back pocket and Ms. Owens asked him if he wanted to complete the transaction out in the open. He told her not to worry about "my people." While seated at the bar in good lighting with other persons present, Ms. Owens counted out, onto the surface of the bar, the $1300 cash that they had agreed upon and John gave her the cocaine. Shortly after purchasing the cocaine, Javi returned to the bar, asked Ms. Owens if John had taken care of her, and assured her that she would like the cocaine. Petitioner's policy calls for the revocation of an alcoholic beverage license whenever illegal drug sales repeatedly take place in the licensed premises, the premises are declared a public nuisance, and the premises are a place of dealing, storing, selling, or using illegal drugs; the licensee sells a controlled substance one or more times; or an employee makes three or more sales of a controlled substance on the licensed premises and in an open manner so as to indicate culpable negligence on the part of the licensee in the management of the premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 561.29(1)(a) and (c) Florida Statutes, and revoking the subject alcoholic beverages license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2. Adopted. 3. First and last sentences adopted. Remainder rejected as unsupported by the evidence. 4-6 . Adopted. 7. Rejected as legal argument. 8-12. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Richard A. Colgrove, Esquire Firm of Thomas C. Greene, Esquire 212 North Park Avenue Post Office Box 695 Sanford, Florida 32772-0693 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Horace Clare, was the holder of alcohol beverage license #63-01368, series 2-COP, for the licensed premises known as Campbell's Restaurant situated at 1305 North 11th Street, Haines City, Polk County, Florida. Petitioner used an undercover agent, C.I., who was directed to attempt to purchase controlled substances from the licensed premises. On January 24, 1992, at approximately 7:35 p.m., C.I. contacted an individual to ascertain if "weed" was available to purchase at the licensed premises. Sgt. Spicer of the Haines City Police Department was assigned to insure that the confidential informant, "Snoops" was under constant eye surveillance. Spicer was given $20 by the Haines City Police Department while under the surveillance of Sgt. Spicer. Spicer searched the C.I.'s person and insured that the C.I. was not given any additional monies. The C.I. entered the licensed premises and was introduced to a woman whose nickname was "Snoops", later known as Mary Allen. The C.I. went directly to the kitchen and tendered Snoops the $20 dollar bill she was given by Spicer. Snoops went into the kitchen area and returned with a small packet of marijuana in exchange for the $20 dollar bill. The C.I. left the licensed premises and returned to the area of Officer Alexander of the Haines City Police Department. The C.I. was again searched and possessed only the marijuana which she gave to Spicer. On January 25, 1992 at approximately 7:17 p.m., the confidential informant again met with Sergeant Spicer for the purpose of making a controlled purchase of marijuana. Sergeant Spicer searched and observed the confidential informant in the same manner as she had on the evening of January 24, 1992. Spicer gave the C.I. $20.00 and watched the C.I. from her vehicle until she entered the licensed premises. The C.I. contacted Snoops, tendered her $20.00 whereupon Snoops went into the kitchen area and returned with a small packet of marijuana which she retrieved from her purse. Snoops exchanged the marijuana for the $20.00 that the C.I. had given her. The C.I. left the licensed premises and immediately contacted Sergeant Spicer whereupon she tendered the marijuana to her. On or about January 26, 1992 at approximately 6:53 p.m., the confidential informant again met with Sergeant Spicer of the Haines City Police Department. She was searched to determine if she had any controlled substances on her person and also to ascertain that she had no additional monies. Sergeant Spicer again gave the C.I. $20.00 for the purpose of making a controlled purchase of marijuana from the licensed premises. Upon entering the licensed premises, the C.I. met with Respondent and handed him $20.00. Respondent reached under the cash register and retrieved a small packet of marijuana from a brown bag which he then gave to the C.I. The C.I. left the licensed premises and turned the marijuana over to Sergeant Spicer. The C.I. described Respondent and identified him at the hearing. Sergeant Spicer next directed Officer Mervin Stewart to go to the licensed premises and ascertain the identity of Respondent. Officer Stewart, as directed, encountered Respondent and asked him for identification. Respondent identified himself to officer Stewart as the owner of the licensed premises. On January 29, 1992, the Haines City Police Department executed a search warrant at the licensed premises with the assistance of the Polk County Sheriff's Office. An employee named Mary Allen a/k/a "Snoops" was present during the search. The search resulted in the discovery of 21 packets of marijuana, five packets of rolling papers and three packets of cocaine and several "baggies". In addition, several containers of money were found as well as $120.00 that was found in the wicker purse with the marijuana. A narcotics dog assisted in the search of the licensed premises for the presence of controlled substances. The narcotics dog alerted to the presence of a controlled substance in an envelope containing money from the licensed premises evidencing that the subject money had been in contact with controlled substances. Each of the packets purchased by the C.I. were tested with a presumptive field test by Sergeant Spicer. Each packet tested positive for the presence of marijuana. Likewise, each packet had the odor, appearance and packaging common to marijuana. Each packet was sent to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for analysis and each packet tested positive for marijuana, a controlled substance. Likewise, the cocaine from the licensed premises also field tested positive for the presence of cocaine and upon subsequent laboratory analysis, tested positive for cocaine. Rolling papers are commonly used to roll marijuana cigarettes or loose tobacco cigarettes. No loose tobacco was found on the licensed premises. The empty baggies seized in the house and the licensed premises were identical to those used to package marijuana. Consequently, the rolling papers and the baggies are drug paraphernalia. The licensed premises is 651 feet and 8 inches from the Bethune Elementary School in Haines City. A consensual seal search was conducted of Respondent's home which was shared by Mary Allen. That search resulted in the seizure of fifty packets of marijuana, a number of empty baggies and a scale. The marijuana was located in the master bedroom. Respondent has lived with Mary Allen for ten years. At the hearing, Respondent also acknowledged that he lived with and worked with Mary Allen whose nickname is "Snoops".
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license at the licensed premises, to wit, Horace Clare, d/b/a Campbell's Restaurant, license number 63-01368, Series 2-COP. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: NANCY C WALLER ESQ ASST GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 S BRONOUGH ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1007 HORACE CLARE CAMPBELL'S RESTAURANT 1305 N 11TH ST HAINES CITY FL 33844 RICHARD W SCULLY DIRECTOR DIVISION OF HOTELS & RESTAURANTS 725 S BRONOUGH ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1007 DONALD D CONN ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 S BRONOUGH ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1007
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Alice Waldo, holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 45- 00293, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as the SILVER DOLLAR CAFE located in Lake County, Florida. On or about February 4, 1989, an investigator employed by Petitioner entered the licensed premises of Respondent. While in Respondent's facility, the investigator observed several patrons smoking a substance, which by its smell and usage, he believed to be marijuana. The investigator then met with a patron, ordered a small quantity of crack cocaine and handed the patron some money for the forthcoming purchase. The patron then asked Respondent to hold the money while he left the premises to retrieve the controlled substance from his automobile. Shortly thereafter, the patron returned with the cocaine. The investigator showed the substance to Respondent's daughter, who had taken her mother's place at the bar. The purpose of displaying the drug to the proprietor, or the proprietor's daughter in this instance, was to later illustrate that Respondent condoned the use and sale of the drug in connection with her licensed premises. A field test by the investigator and a later laboratory test confirmed the identity of the substance purchased as crack cocaine. Petitioner's investigator again entered Respondent's facility on or about February 10, 1989. On this occasion, the investigator purchased a quantity of marijuana from a female patron, then took the substance over to the bar where he proceeded to roll a marijuana cigarette in the presence of Petitioner. At no time did Petitioner inform the investigator that controlled substances were not allowed on the licensed premises. Upon later laboratory analysis, the substance was confirmed to be marijuana. Upon leaving Respondent's facility on February 10, 1989, Petitioner's investigator met an individual within 10 feet of the front door of the premises who sold him a quantity of a substance later determined by laboratory analysis to be crack cocaine. On or about February 24, 1989, Petitioner's investigator entered Respondent's facility. On the front porch of Respondent's facility, the investigator purchased a quantity of a substance later determined by the investigator's field test and a subsequent laboratory analysis to be crack cocaine. After completing the purchase of the substance, the investigator went inside the facility, placed the material on the counter and recounted to Respondent that it had just been purchased on the front porch. Respondent made no reply to the investigator's announcement and, instead, complied with his request for change for a $20 bill. Upon receipt of the change, the investigator wrapped the crack cocaine in a $1 bill in Respondent's presence. On February 28, 1989, Petitioner's investigator again entered Respondent's facility. He approached a black female named "Lilly" and gave her $20 for the purchase of crack cocaine. However, after the lady accepted the $20 and left to retrieve the cocaine, she did not return. The investigator complained to Respondent that "Lilly" had failed to deliver the drug to him. The investigator also told Respondent that the lady could keep the $20 if Respondent would get him some of the drug. At that time, Respondent referred the investigator to a group of three male patrons on the front porch of the facility who appeared to be smoking marijuana. At no time during this incident did Respondent take any steps to prevent the use of any controlled substances on the licensed premises. Subsequently, Petitioner's investigator returned to Respondent's facility on or about March 4, 1989. He purchased a beer and went outside to the front porch of the facility. He observed a number of furtive transactions where currency was passed between certain individuals. He noticed Respondent go to one of the automobiles in the facility parking lot, get into the automobile, engage in conversation with the occupants and shortly thereafter emerge from the automobile. Respondent went back into the facility. The investigator approached a black male and gave him $20 for some crack cocaine. The black male took the investigator's money, then went directly to the automobile where Respondent had been previously. He returned shortly thereafter to the investigator with two pieces of a substance which later tested positive, via field test and laboratory analysis, as cocaine. During another visit to Respondent's facility on or about March 9, 1989, Petitioner's investigator observed a patron rolling what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes in Respondent's presence. While Respondent took no action to prohibit the use or possession of the apparently controlled substance, she did get her coat and leave shortly after the investigator's arrival. On or about March 11, 1989, Petitioner's investigator reentered Respondent's facility. The investigator purchased a small quantity of crack cocaine from a black male on the front porch of the facility. The investigator then took the controlled substance inside the building and displayed it to Respondent, telling her that he had just obtained the drug on the porch. Respondent asked the investigator if he was going to smoke the drug, and he replied yes. Later, a field test and laboratory analysis confirmed the drug to be cocaine. On or about March 17, 1989, Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's facility. This time the investigator purchased a small quantity of a drug on the front porch of the building which, upon subsequent field test and laboratory analysis, was confirmed to be cocaine. After completing the purchase, the investigator took the substance inside and showed it to Respondent. Later in the evening, the investigator engaged Respondent in conversation on the front porch and related to her that he had observed numerous drug transactions taking place in her facility. Respondent smiled in acknowledgment of the investigator's statement and replied that she certainly hoped he was not a policeman. He told her that he was not a policeman. Respondent took no action to prohibit further use or transactions relating to drugs on the premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Respondent's beverage license bearing number 45-00293, Series 2- COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 13th day of June, 1989 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-10. Addressed. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: EDWIN R. IVY, ESQUIRE BOX 3223 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 THOMAS A. KLEIN, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 STEPHEN R. MACNAMARA, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 LEONARD IVEY, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007
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
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the regulatory agency charged with enforcing beverage and cigarette tax laws. As part of its duties, Petitioner investigate the sales of cigarettes to minors (under age persons). Respondent, Workman, Inc., d/b/a Coastal Mart, is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 39-02924, series 1-APS, and retail tobacco products permit number 39-04440. Respondent's licensed premises is located at 9931 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Raymond Daoud is Respondent's sole stockholder and is a corporate officer. Pursuant to an anonymous complaint received by Petitioner during the spring of 1993, Special Agent Joseph A. Maggio directed investigative aide Kimberly Siebel to enter the premises of Coastal Mart and attempt to purchase cigarettes. Petitioner, during times material, utilized the services of investigative aides Kimberly Siebel and Stephanie Haley, whose birth dates are September 20, 1975, and January 24, 1978, respectively. Both aides were under the age of 18 during the spring of 1993. Investigative aides Siebel and Haley, are trained by Petitioner, when conducting investigations for the purchase of either beer or cigarettes, to enter premises and to truthfully tell their age when requested. They also provide proper identification to establish their age if requested to do so by the clerk when they are attempting to purchase beer or cigarettes. This procedure was used in this case by investigative aides Siebel and Haley when they purchased cigarettes from Respondent on May 20 and July 8, 1993. When investigative aide Siebel purchased cigarettes from Respondent on May 20, 1993, she had previously worked as an undercover operative for Petitioner approximately 30 times. On May 20, 1993, Siebel entered the premises of Respondent with Special Agent Maggio at approximately 9:25 p.m. Investigative aide Siebel approached the counter and ordered a pack of Marlboro Light cigarettes from the clerk who was later identified as Angela Schulte, an employee of Respondent. Ms. Siebel received a pack of Marlboro Light cigarettes as requested from Schulte without being asked for identification. She paid for the cigarettes and exited the store. Special Agent Maggio observed the purchase of cigarettes by Siebel from his position next in line behind her. When Siebel purchased the cigarettes from Schulte on May 20, 1993, she and Special Agent Maggio observed Respondent, Daoud, behind the counter when they entered the licensed premises. When Siebel and Maggio exited the premises, Siebel gave the cigarettes to Maggio. Maggio placed the cigarettes in a plastic bag and Siebel signed them. Maggio then sealed and placed them in the locked trunk of his vehicle until they were deposited in Petitioner's evidence file the following day. Approximately ten minutes after Siebel purchased the cigarettes and turned them over to Maggio, he reentered the premises, identified himself to Schulte, and advised her that she was under arrest for the sale of cigarettes to an under age person. Daoud was still inside the premises near the front counter. Special Agent Fisher, who is no longer employed by Petitioner, accompanied Special Agent Maggio inside the premises. Fisher completed a letter of warning and Daoud signed the warning. Fisher gave Daoud a copy of the warning as they left. On July 8, 1993, Maggio again directed investigative aide Stephanie Haley to enter Respondent's premises to attempt to purchase cigarettes. On July 8, 1993, investigative aide Haley was fifteen years old. Haley had on her person a Florida Drivers License showing her birthday to be January 24, 1978. On July 8, 1993, investigative aide Haley had previously acted as an undercover operative for Petitioner approximately 20 times. On July 8, 1993, Haley entered the premises of Respondent and approached the counter. She ordered a pack of Marlboro Light cigarettes from the clerk, who was later identified as Raymond Daoud. Daoud asked Haley for identification whereupon she presented her Florida Drivers License. Daoud examined the license and completed the transaction. Haley exited the premises and turned over the cigarettes purchased to Special Agent Maggio. Special Agents Maggio and Bock witnessed the transaction from a vantage point outside the premises. Maggio and Special Agent Bock then entered the premises of Coastal Mart and Bock identified himself and placed Daoud under arrest for the sale of cigarettes to an underage person. Daoud complained that he had been "setup" and that he remembered the girl, "thought she was young," and asked her for identification. Daoud observed Haley's license and thought that it had eighteen years of age on it. Special Agent Bock reminded Daoud that the license did not have an age on it. Daoud insisted that he thought the license had the date 1979 which would, of course, make investigative aide Haley, fourteen when she was, in fact, fifteen at the time. Petitioner has a policy of not letting undercover operatives reenter premises to allow licensed vendors to review items from undercover operatives such as their identification cards, etc., so as not to jeopardize them in future operations and for their own personal safety. Petitioner explained to Respondent that he could examine the identifying card (license) either during the hearing or in court. Respondent suspended Schulte for one week without pay for selling cigarettes to a minor. Respondent also verbally warned Schulte for selling cigarettes to a minor and reminded her that it was against company policy to do so. Schulte recalled that Respondent was "extremely mad" about the incident. Respondent would not knowingly sell cigarettes or alcoholic beverages to a minor. Respondent has operated his business for approximately three years, and this is the first infraction that he has received for the sale of beer or cigarettes to a minor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 39-02924, series #1-APS, be assessed a $500.00 civil penalty for each count for a total civil penalty of $1,000.00. 1/ RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of April, 1994. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 4th day of April, 1994.
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
The Issue Whether Respondent has fostered, condoned, and/or negligently overlooked trafficking in and use of illegal narcotics and controlled substances on or about the licensed premises. Whether Respondent has failed to exercise due diligence in supervising his employees and managing his licensed premises so as to prevent the illegal trafficking and use of narcotics on the licensed premises. Whether Respondent may transfer his alcoholic beverage license to a qualified licensee or if it should be permanently revoked.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 69-0876, series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Stormy Norman's, which is located at 3006 South U.S. 17- 92, Casselberry, Seminole County, Florida. On March 13, 1990, five patrons were observed passing and smoking a marijuana cigarette, just outside the rear door on the "patio". The "patio" is a fenced-in, partially covered area, which contains picnic tables and is located immediately behind the licensed premises. The patio is primarily accessible through the rear door of the licensed premises, which is usually left open during business hours. However, access could be made to the patio through the back of the premises onto the patio without knowledge of the Respondent as to who was there or what activity was going on. On March 13, 1990, a patron known as "Billy" sold marijuana to two different patrons on the patio. Subsequently, other patrons were observed dividing up marijuana into plastic bags, rolling "joints" and smoking marijuana on the patio. During this time, the rear door of the licensed premises was open and the smoke from the marijuana cigarettes was easily detectable inside the premises. Also, inside the licenses premises, several patrons openly discussed the purchase and consumption of controlled substances in the presence of employees. On March 14, 1990, a patron known as "Kelly" sold a plastic bag containing marijuana for the sum of $35.00. The sale was discussed in the presence of the bartender known as "Gordie". After this transaction, Kelly offered to sell large quantities of cocaine to Petitioner's investigators. On March 15, 1990, while Respondent was on the premises, several patrons rolled "joints", manufactured a "pipe" and smoked marijuana on the patio. These patrons would freely enter and depart the licensed premises from the patio and did nothing to conceal their activities. Inside the licensed premises, the patrons openly discussed the use of controlled substances and extended invitations to other patrons to consume the same on the patio. In addition, Kelly openly sold a baggy of marijuana to a patron, in plain view and in the presence of several other patrons and bartender Gordie. On March 20, 1990, several patrons were rolling and smoking marijuana cigarettes on the patio. A patron known as "Rabbit" sold and delivered marijuana to another patron known as "Stan". During this time, Respondent was on the licensed premises and was in a position to detect the use of controlled substances. On March 21, 1990, a patron Billy gave Petitioner's investigator a muscle relaxant in exchange for a beer, while in the presence of bartender Gordie at the licensed premises. During this time, Respondent was playing darts near the rear door of the licensed premises and was observed looking out the rear door and watching patrons smoke marijuana. While doing so, several patrons were heard to yell "He's out back doing drugs," in response to bartender Gordie's inquiry about another patron. On March 22, 1990, Petitioner's investigators made two controlled buys of marijuana while on the patio. One of the sellers was Respondent's day manager, known as "Little Dave". On the same date, while Respondent was on the licensed premises, several patrons were observed smoking marijuana on the patio, and other patrons were observed in possession of plastic bags containing marijuana inside the licensed premises. On March 28, 1990, Petitioner's investigator made a controlled buy of marijuana from Respondent's day manager, Little Dave. Just prior to this sale, the bartender known as "Cookie" was asked to make change for a marijuana purchase. In response thereto, Cookie smiled and freely made change for a twenty dollar bill. On this occasion, patrons openly smoked marijuana on the patio, the odor of which was easily detectable inside the licensed premises. On April 4, 1990, patrons were smoking marijuana on the patio, and the bartender Cookie had open conversations regarding the use of cocaine. On April 10, 1990, patron Stan sold marijuana on the patio to two patrons. On April 12, 1990, a patron known as "Fred" approached the bar to purchase a beer. While at the bar, Fred openly displayed two small white pills and a small quantity of marijuana on the bar counter in the presence of bartender Gordie. Subsequently, Fred went to the patio, where he was observed selling white pills to patrons, which were later determined to be "white- crosses". On April 18, 1990, several patrons were observed rolling and smoking marijuana cigarettes. On April 19, 1990, Respondent's day manager, Little Dave, sold a small plastic bag containing marijuana to Petitioner's investigator for $35 while on the patio. Throughout this transaction, there was a young boy, approximately 8 years of age, playing on the patio. Also, bartender Cookie went to the patio on three occasions while on duty to smoke a marijuana cigarette. On one occasion she was observed blowing marijuana smoke at bartender Gordie's face. During this general time period, Respondent was on the patio while several patrons were smoking marijuana. On April 24, 1990, Petitioner's investigator made a purchase of a small bag of marijuana in plain view of the bar while on the licensed premises. On April 25, 1990, several patrons were observed smoking marijuana on the patio of the licensed premises. At no time throughout the entire investigation did the licensee or any of his employees do or say anything to prevent employees from using or selling controlled substances on the licensed premises. The Respondent did not participate in the sale of any controlled substances or drugs, nor did he witness the sale of drugs at any time during the course of the investigation. Respondent was aware of customers smoking marijuana on the patio on several occasions and did not evict them from the premises. Respondent did ask Little Dave to leave the property on divers occasions when it was discovered that he was selling marijuana, but he was allowed to return to the premises. Respondent was taken advantage of by his friends and customers and was not aware that drug use was so prevalent, although he did know that at times some marijuana smoking was going on. Respondent seeks to transfer his beverage license, as provided by Section 561.3 2, Florida Statutes, to Elizabeth Ann Allen of Casselberry, Florida, who would qualify for a temporary license upon application for transfer as provided in Section 561.331, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License Number 69- 0876, Series 2-COP be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL N. KILBRIDE 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 4 day of September, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Mark E. NeJame, Esquire 1520 E. Amelia Street Orlando, FL 32803 Leonard Ivey Director, DABT Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
