Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license number 30-230, series 1- COP, which authorizes the sale of beer for consumption on premises. The licensed facility, known as Shorty's Country Club, is located in rural Gadsden County. Based on an undercover investigation, a warrant was obtained on June 4, 1981, to search Respondent's licensed premises and curtilage (Petitioner's Ex. 1). The search warrant was executed on June 12, 1981, by Beverage Officer Frederick Miller and Sheriff's Deputies B. Shelfer and T. Haire. Officer Miller served the warrant on Respondent, and read and explained it to him. The premises search disclosed material later confirmed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) laboratory to be 8.7 grams of cannabis (Item 1, Petitioner's Ex. 2). At the time of the cannabis seizure, Respondent stated to Officer Miller that the cannabis was his, to be smoked to help his eyesight, but offered no prescription or permit for cannabis possession. The premises search also produced three foil packets, each holding five 10 mg. tablets, later confirmed by the FDLE laboratory to contain Diazepam (Valium)(Item 3, Petitioner's Ex. 2). At the time of seizure, Respondent told Officer Miller that the Valium belonged to his roommate's brother, but offered nothing to support this statement. A search of the Respondent's vehicle, located adjacent to the licensed premises, revealed a case (forty-eight 200 ml. bottles) of Seagrams Gin. Vehicle permit number 659, issued by the Petitioner to Respondent for transporting the alcoholic beverages to be sold on the licensed premises, was found on the dashboard of this vehicle. Respondent admitted possession of the gin, but claimed he did not intend to sell it on the licensed premises.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of charges contained in counts one, two and four of the Notice to Show Cause. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, number 30-230 be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 1981.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held alcoholic beverage license No. 26-1715. The licensed premises is located at 621 Davis Street, Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner's undercover investigator and confidential informant (CI) entered the licensed premises on March 9, 1982. Thereafter, the CI purchased cannabis from a patron of the licensed facility (Count 3) Petitioner's investigator returned to the licensed premises with the CI on March 10, 1982, on which date both the CI and the investigator purchased cannabis from a patron. On this occasion the patron was identified as a seller by the bartender when she was asked who would sell cannabis. These transactions were carried out openly (Count 4) Petitioner's investigator was again in the licensed premises on March 11, 1982, and observed the open sale and use of cannabis. He identified the substance sold and smoked by its appearance and smell (Count 5) . In those instances where Petitioner's investigator and CI made purchases, the substances were tested by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Crime Lab, and confirmed to be cannabis. See Petitioner's Exhibit One. On March 24, 1982, Petitioner's investigator visited the licensed premises where he again observed the open sale and use of cannabis by patrons as well as by an employee (barmaid) of Respondent. The investigator also purchased cannabis from patron during this visit (Count 8). On March 25, 1982, Petitioner's investigator was on the licensed premises and observed the open sale and use of cannabis. He made purchases of this substance from a patron around 2:00 pm. and again about 11:30 p.m. (Count 9). Petitioner's investigator was in the licensed premises on March 26, 1982. He again purchased cannabis from a patron (Count 10). Respondent was not observed on the premises during any of the above periods. It was not, therefore, demonstrated that he had actual knowledge of the illegal activity.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of 45 days. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 1982.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), should revoke, suspend, or otherwise discipline the alcoholic beverage license number 13-153, Series 5-COP, issued to the Respondent, Tupelo Management, Inc., doing business as Pastime, a bar located at 3602 West Highway 98, Panama City, Florida, upon the following grounds alleged in DABT's Notice To Show Cause issued May 2, 1984: On or about March 7, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your agent, servant or employee, to wit: Margie, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did sell or deliver marijuana to Investigator Moore on your licensed premises in violation of F.S. 893.13. On or about March 12, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your servant, agent or employee, to wit: Margie, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did sell or deliver marijuana to Detective Moore on your licensed premises in violation of F.S. 893.13. On or about March 23, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your agent, servant or employee, to wit: Teresa, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did deliver marijuana to Investigator Moore on your licensed premises in violation of section 893.13. On or about March 26, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your agent, servant, or employee, to wit: Margie, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did sell or deliver marijuana to Investigator Moore and Officer Russ on your licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13. On or about April 2, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your servant, agent or employee, to wit: Margie, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did sell or deliver marijuana to Investigator Moore and Officer Russ on your licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13. On or about April 9, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your servant, agent or employee, to wit: Margie, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did sell or deliver marijuana to Investigator Moore and Officer Russ on your licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13. You, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, between March 7, 1984 and the date of service of this Notice to Show Cause have maintained a public nuisance on your licensed premises, to wit: a place or building which is visited by persons for the purpose of unlawfully using, keeping, selling and/or delivering controlled substances in violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, such being a violation of: (a) Florida Statutes 823.10 and 561.29(1)(c); (b) Florida Statutes 823.01 and 561.29(1)(a). You, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, between March 7, 1984 and the date of this Notice to Show Cause have maintained your licensed premises as a place resorted to by persons selling controlled substances in violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, in violation of Sections 893.13(2)(a)5 and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits admitted in evidence at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times relevant and material to this case, Tupelo Management, Inc., has been the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 13-153, Series 5- COP, issued for the premises known as the Pastime, located at 3602 West Highway 98, Panama City, Florida. Mr. John Michael Whitfield is, and was at all relevant and material times, the president of Tupelo Management, Inc. Mr. Whitfield and his wife own all of the stock of Tupelo Management, Inc. Mr. Whitfield first opened the Pastime on May 18, 1977. At that time it was a small beer and wine bar with five pool tables. Over the years the business grew and in August of 1983 Mr. Whitfield purchased a 5-COP license for the Pastime. Prior to the events giving rise to this case, the Pastime had only been cited by the DABT for two violations. The first violation occurred during the first year of Pastime's operation. It concerned the wording of an advertisement on the exterior of the building. A DABT agent wrote a report or citation and the sign was promptly removed. No penalty was imposed as a result of that event. The second violation occurred during January of 1984. On that occasion the DABT agents found two minors on the licensed premises. The January 1984 violation was resolved by stipulation, pursuant to which Tupelo Management, Inc., paid a civil penalty in the amount of $250.00. The Bay County Sheriff's Department began an investigation of the Pastime in March of 1984 on the basis of information that illegal drug activity was occurring on the licensed premises. Mr. Floyd M. Moore, Jr., an investigator with the Bay County Sheriff's Department, went to the licensed premises the evening of March 7, 1984. Investigator Moore was introduced by a confidential informant to a waitress named Margie Adams, who was employed on the licensed premises. Investigator Moore asked Margie Adams if she could obtain some marijuana and she answered in the affirmative. Investigator Moore left the premises and returned at approximately 7:45 P.M. that same evening. He made contact with Margie Adams again. Margie Adams made a telephone call and then told Investigator Moore the marijuana would be there a short time later. At about 8:45 P.M. Margie Adams asked Moore how the transaction could be made. At Moore's suggestion they went to a table on the licensed premises and Margie Adams handed Investigator Moore a clear plastic bag containing marijuana. The plastic bag was covered when it was given to Investigator Moore. Investigator Moore paid Margie Adams $35.00 for the marijuana. On March 12, 1984, at approximately 7:45 P.M. Investigator Moore and Beverage Officer Rodney Russ entered the Pastime. After Investigator Moore introduced Margie Adams to Russ, Margie asked Moore if he had liked what she had previously sold him and agreed to get another bag for Moore, stating that it would just take a phone call. Margie spoke to a female waitress for a few minutes, after which she went behind the bar and made a telephone call. She thereafter returned to the officers and stated that the marijuana would arrive in approximately 30 minutes and asked that Investigator Moore pay her at that time to avoid confusion when it arrived. Investigator Moore gave Margie $35. At approximately 8:45 P.M. Margie told Investigator Moore that the merchandise had arrived and asked him to walk to the end of the bar. Moore went to the end of the bar located next to the dart board, where there was a lot of activity and numerous people, and Margie handed him a white paper napkin covering a plastic baggie of marijuana. On the evening of March 19, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ returned to the Pastime. The officers each ordered one-quarter ounce of marijuana from Margie Adams but she stated that the person she was getting it from was not home so it would take some time. The officers observed Margie making a phone call, after which she told them that it would be approximately one hour before she could deliver. The officers left the Pastime and returned at approximately 9:00 P.M. The officers entered into a conversation with a male patron who told them there was a man in the pool room trying to sell marijuana. Investigator Moore told the patron to tell the man in the pool room that they were interested in buying. The patron went to the pool room and spoke to a male, who later came over to the officers and introduced himself as George. George (who was later identified as George W. Osborne) told the Officers that he had heard they were interested in buying, and Moore explained that they had ordered one-quarter ounce each but it did not look like it was going to arrive. George stated that he could sell them one-quarter ounce for $35.00 and the officers agreed to buy it. George left the officers and went to speak with Margie Adams. He returned shortly and asked the officers if they were getting their marijuana from Margie Adams. Russ stated that he would rather not say, and George said it was okay because he and the waitress were getting from the same person and that he and Margie had discovered that they were each ordering for the same persons. Russ told Margie that he did not want to cut her out of a sale, and she stated that it was okay to buy from George, that it was just like buying from her and she would get credit for the sale. During the time that Russ was talking to Margie, George handed Investigator Moore an orange tablet which he stated was a Preludin. Shortly thereafter, the officers and George walked outside to a motorcycle parked near the door and George laid two plastic baggies containing marijuana on the seat of the motorcycle. Each officer obtained one of the baggies of marijuana and each paid George 535.00. On March 22, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ returned to the pastime. Margie was not on duty that night. Moore and Russ spoke to two waitresses who were on duty, Karen and Sionna, and told the waitresses they had purchased marijuana from George and were waiting to buy some more from him. The officers asked Sionna if George was an all right guy to deal with and she said that he was. Later that evening when George entered the Pastime he spoke to Sionna and then went back outside where the officers observed him talking to customers near the front door. A few minutes later George approached the officers and asked how they had liked the marijuana he had sold them. The officers said it had been fine and they asked George if he could obtain some more marijuana and some more "speed" or Preludin. George said he could obtain both and he left the premises on his motorcycle. When George returned he approached Investigator Russ and handed him five orange tablets which were supposed to be "speed" or Preludin. Investigator Russ paid George $25.00 for the tablets. George told the officers he had been unable to obtain marijuana, but would have some the following morning. The five tablets sold to Investigator Russ were later tested and found to contain caffeine, but they did not contain any controlled substances. On March 22, 1984, Detective Jonathan McNeil and Investigator Pam Hellett were also at the Pastime. They were seated at a booth with other officers. A male who identified himself as Phillip (later identified as Leroy Phillips) sat with the officers for a while. He got up to leave and told Detective McNeil that he would be back, he just needed to find something for his head. When he returned, McNeil asked Phillips where he could get something for his head and Phillips got up and said that he would go see his sister, he knew she had something. Phillips later identified his sister as Gloria, the manager of the Pastime. When Phillips returned to the table, he pulled a package of cigarettes from his pocket and showed Detective McNeil two small white square pieces of paper under the cellophane portion and stated that they were two hits of acid. McNeil paid Phillips $10.00 and took the two pieces of paper and inserted them into his cigarette package. Phillips told McNeil that the acid was "Mr. Natural." The pieces of paper were subsequently tested and found to contain LSD. The male previously identified as George came and sat with the officers and they began discussing whether a man seated at the next booth was a police officer. Investigator Hellett said to George, "Hurry up and give me everything you have," and George reached into his jacket and removed several orange tablets and some marijuana, which he placed in Investigator Hellett's lap. Hellett told George that she did not accept anything that she did not pay for and he asked how much she would like to buy. Detective McNeil asked George how much he was selling the tablets for and he stated that he would sell them to the officers for $3.00 apiece although he had sold them to other Persons for $5.00. McNeil agreed to buy five tablets and, in an attempt to be discreet, handed George $15.00 under the table. George handed the tablets to McNeil under the table, although McNeil stated that he was the only one trying to be discreet about the transaction. Investigator Hellett bought seven tablets from George in exchange for $21.00. George gave Investigator Hellett a small amount of marijuana and told her to try it and see if she liked it. The substance given to Investigator Hellett was subsequently tested and found to be marijuana, and the pills were tested and found to contain caffeine, but not to contain any controlled substance. Late in the morning on March 23, 1984, Investigator Moore went to the licensed premises to obtain the marijuana previously promised by George. George was not at the Pastime, and Moore talked to the bartender Teresa about being there to obtain marijuana from George. Teresa stated that George was probably getting it from "us." After conversing with Teresa about other drug transactions, Moore told Teresa that it looked like George was not going to arrive and Teresa stated that she would give him some. She put her purse on the bar and removed from it a small portion of marijuana and placed it in a napkin lying on the bar. Investigator Moore observed Mr. Michael Whitfield and his wife on the licensed premises, but neither of them were in sight at the time Teresa placed the marijuana on the napkin. Moore also talked to Teresa about cocaine and she said she could obtain some for him for $100.00 a gram. On March 26, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ returned to the Pastime. They asked the waitress Margie Adams if she could get them a quarter ounce of marijuana. At first she said she could not, because she said she had had a fight with her supplier. Later she said she could obtain some marijuana from someone else, but that she did not know anything about the quality of the marijuana. The officers told Margie that they would trust her judgment on the matter. Investigator Russ paid Margie $40.00 for the marijuana, $5.00 of which was a tip for her. At about 8:55 P.M. that evening Margie Adams approached Investigator Moore. She had a napkin on a tray and told Moore that it was in the napkin. Investigator Moore took the napkin from the tray. Inside the napkin was a small plastic bag containing marijuana. On April 2, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ returned to the Pastime. The waitress Margie Adams told the officers that she was leaving at 8:00 P.M. and Investigator Russ advised her that they would like to purchase one-quarter ounce of marijuana before she left. Margie stated that she would see what she could do and later came over and said that she had arranged for some marijuana to be delivered and that if it did not arrive before she left, one of the other waitresses would deliver it to them. A short time later Margie returned and showed Investigator Russ a towel on her tray. A plastic baggie of marijuana was under the towel. Investigator Russ took the plastic baggie of marijuana and paid Margie for it. Then he placed the baggie on the table and both investigators wrote their initials on it. On April 9, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ returned to the Pastime. Margie Adams approached the officers and Russ asked whether she could get them some more of the same marijuana. She said she could and asked how much they wanted. The officers openly discussed the amount to be purchased and agreed upon one-half ounce, which Margie stated would be cheaper than purchasing two one-quarter ounces. Russ asked Margie if she could get some LSD or acid. Margie later came over to the officers and stated that the marijuana had arrived but that she could not deliver it because an undercover officer was seated at the bar. Margie later returned and sat beside Moore and handed him a white napkin covering a clear plastic baggie of marijuana. The officers paid her for the marijuana. Margie told them that she had not been able to get any acid. Investigator Russ told her he would be in town later on and would like to have a couple of hits of acid. On April 11, 1984, Investigator Russ went to the Pastime and asked Margie Adams if she had been able to obtain any acid or LSD. Margie said she had been unable to get it yet. Russ told her he was going to Montego Bay (another bar) and Margie said that if she was able to get the acid she would bring it to him at Montego Bay later that night. Russ paid her $20.00 for three hits of acid at $5.00 each, plus $5.00 as a tip for her. On April 16, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ entered the Pastime to find out if Margie Adams had been able to obtain the acid Investigator Russ had paid her for. Margie was not present when the investigators arrived. When she came in later, she told the officers she had been unable to obtain the acid since she had been out of town for her grandmother's funeral. George Osborne was on the premises and Investigator Moore asked George if he had a quarter- ounce of marijuana to sell. George stated that he could get it for them in a few seconds. George left and returned shortly, motioning to investigator Moore to follow him. Moore followed George to the restroom and George handed Moore a plastic baggie containing marijuana. As Moore was examining the baggie, two white males entered the restroom, observed George and Moore, commented on how nice the marijuana looked, and asked how much it cost. Officer Moore paid George $45.00 for the marijuana and returned to the table and handed the baggie to Russ. Russ opened the baggie in plain view of other patrons and smelled the contents. Margie Adams, who was waiting on another nearby table, observed the bag of marijuana and commented to the investigators that she saw that they had gotten what they were looking for. Russ then put the baggie of marijuana in his shirt pocket so that half of it was visible and visited around the bar for several minutes. One patron told Russ that he was about to lose something out of his pocket. On April 25, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ entered the Pastime again. They asked Margie Adams if she had been able to obtain the acid Russ had paid her for. Margie told the investigators she had been unable to obtain the acid. Investigator Moore contacted George Osborne and asked whether George could get the officers a quarter-ounce bag of marijuana and also asked how long it would take. Shortly thereafter George and the two investigators walked outside to George's motorcycle and George removed from his shoe a wallet containing two plastic baggies. As George handed Moore one of the baggies, a white male walked up. George asked what he wanted and he said he wanted a bag. George went inside to make change for the $40.00 Moore had given him. While George was inside the white male said that he had been told to go to the Pastime if he wanted drugs. George returned with Moore's change and then walked around to the back of the establishment with the white male. The baggie George had handed to Moore contained marijuana. In brief summary of the foregoing, during the 7-week period from March 7, 1984, through April 25, 1984, the following events occurred on the licensed premises: 3/07/84 Employee Margie Adams sold marijuana to Investigator Moore. 3/12/84 Employee Margie Adams sold marijuana to Investigator Moore. 3/19/84 Employee Margie Adams agreed to sell marijuana to Investigator Moore and Russ, but she did not sell them anything that day. 3/19/84 Patron George Osborne, with the knowledge of employee Margie Adams, agreed to sell marijuana to Investigator Moore and Russ. (The actual sale took place outside the licensed premises.) 3/22/84 Patron George Osborne, with the knowledge of employee Sionna, agreed to sell marijuana and "speed," or Preludin to Investigators Moore and Russ, and actually sold 5 tablets to Investigator Moore which were supposed to he "speed," or Preludin. 3/22/84 Patron Leroy Phillips sold fro tabs of LSD to Detective McNeil. 3/22/84 Patron George Osborne gave some marijuana to Investigator Hellett, sold 7 tablets that were supposed to be "speed," or Preludin to Investigator Hellett and sold 5 of the same tablets to Detective McNeil. 3/23/84 Employee Teresa gave some marijuana to Investigator Moore and told him she could obtain cocaine for him. 3/26/84 Employee Margie Adams sold marijuana to Investigators Moore and Russ. 4/02/84 Employee Margie Adams sold marijuana to Investigators Moore and Russ. 4/09/84 Employee Margie Adams sold marijuana to Investigators Moore and Russ and agreed to sell Russ some LSD. 4/11/84 Employee Margie Adams agreed to sell LSD to Investigator Russ and accepted payment for same, but did not deliver anything to him that day. 4/16/84 Patron George Osborne, with the knowledge of employee Margie Adams, sold marijuana to Investigator Moore. 4/25/84 Patron George Osborne agreed to sell marijuana to Investigators Moore and Russ. (The actual sale took place outside the licensed premises.) The vast majority of the drug transactions described above were accomplished in a relatively discreet manner. Most of the transactions took place in a booth and involved delivery of marijuana that was covered with a towel or a napkin. During the period of the investigation which led up to this case, the police officers and DABT investigators did not see any illegal drug usage or any illegal drug transactions on the licensed premises other than the ones they were personally involved in. Mr. John Michael Whitfield, the President of Tupelo Management, Inc., and co-owner with his wife of all of the corporation's stock, takes an active role in the management of the business because it is his family's sole source of income. He usually visits this licensed premises six days per week and he spends between 40 and 50 hours per week at the licensed premises. Mr. Whitfield is well educated. His formal education includes a Bachelor of Science degree in Social Welfare and a Master's degree in Social Work, both from Florida State University. After receiving his Master's degree, Mr. Whitfield was employed for three years as the Assistant Director of the Mental Health Center in Panama City, Florida. Thereafter he also worked for a year as Director of the Gerontology program at the same Mental Health Center. His work at the Mental Health Center included work in the area of drug abuse and alcoholism programs. Mr. Whitfield has never used any type of illegal drugs and is opposed to the use of illegal drugs by others. Mr. Whitfield has a very responsible attitude towards the fulfillment of his obligations and responsibilities as an alcoholic beverage licensee. For example, prior to January 1984, Mr. Whitfield had always used his own employees as doormen to check identification of patrons. Immediately after two minors were found on the licensed premises in January of 1984, Mr. Whitfield not only fired the doorman who was on duty that night, but arranged with Florida Security Service to provide extra uniformed security personnel to check the identification of patrons. When Mr. Whitfield met with DABT representatives concerning the problem with the two minors, he was advised that the two major priorities of the DABT were minors and drugs. Mr. Whitfield had several meetings with all of his employees in which he told them explicitly that he did not want to have any problems with minors or drugs on the licensed premises. He told all of the employees that they would be fired if they were responsible for any problems on the licensed premises related to minors or drugs. He also told the employees they would not be given any second chances about such matters, but would be fired for a first offense. Prior to May 2, 1904, when the Notice To Show Cause was served on the Pastime, Mr. Whitfield had never seen anything that caused him to suspect there was a drug problem at the Pastime. The security service never told him that there was a drug problem at the Pastime or that they suspected a drug problem. The uniformed police officers who walked through the Pastime practically every night never told him he had a drug problem on the licensed premises. Mr. Whitfield usually requires prospective employees to fill out a written application form. He usually does not check references, but he usually does check with prior employers. Mr. Whitfield will not hire people who have previously worked in what he considers to be dives. His usual employment practices notwithstanding, Mr. Whitfield has occasionally failed to require a written application and has occasionally failed to check the background of new employees. Some of the employees and former employees he failed to check were the causes of the present charges against Mr. Whitfield. One former employee whose background was not checked was George Osborne. Mr. Whitfield has barred several patrons in the past for improper conduct on the licensed premises and he has barred a suspected drug dealer from patronizing the Pastime. The DABT sent a letter to all alcoholic beverage licensees in south Florida in March of 1984 advising them of the DABT's priorities. The main priorities were the prevention of sales of alcoholic beverages to minors and the prevention of illegal drug activities on the licensed premises. The letter was not sent to alcoholic beverage licensees in north Florida, but will be sent to them later.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons I recommend that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order finding that the Respondent has violated Sections 561.29(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes, ordering the Respondent to pay a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each of the violations charged in the first six paragraphs of the Notice To Show Cause (a total of three thousand dollars), and suspending the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of six months. DONE and ORDERED this 29day of October, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, revoke alcoholic beverage license number 23-1341, Series 2-COP, held by Maritza Garcia, d/b/a Maritza's Pub. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings 1550 Hearings J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 23rd day of May, 1985.
Findings Of Fact 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
Findings Of Fact Respondents hold alcoholic beverage license number 60- 0122, series 2- COP, and do business at 704 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach under the name of The Brass Bull. Respondents have operated The Brass Bull for six years without any complaints from law enforcement agencies until the execution of a search warrant on the premises on November 29, 1994. On September 12, 1984 the Petitioner and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office began an investigation of The Brass Bull and met with a confidential informant, hereinafter referred to as CI, who was employed at the time as a dancer at The Brass Bull. The CI agreed to make introductions for law enforcement officers to employees on the premises and was paid $150 on November 26, 1964 for making these introductions. The CI had been placed on probation in July, 1983 and was on probation during this investigation. The CI's husband was placed on probation on September 11, 1984. On September 14, 1984 Investigator Kenneth Goodman, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, and Sergeant David R. Harris, Riviera Beach Police Department, entered the licensed premises and talked with a dancer identified as "Linda" about the purchase of some marijuana. Linda gave Investigator Goodman a single marijuana cigarette analyzed as containing 260 milligrams of cannabis, but she did not have any to sell. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris met another dancer on the premises, identified as "Sunrise," on September 19, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine. Sunrise was later identified as Dawn Birnbaum. Sgt. Harris gave Sunrise $40, she left the premises through the front door, returned in a few minutes and handed Sgt. Harris two aluminum foil packets later analyzed as containing 200 milligrams of cocaine. Investigator Goodman also purchased 100 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise on September 19, 1984. These sales took place on the premises while other patrons were present, although Sunrise left the premises to obtain the cocaine for the sales. On September 25, 1984, Sgt. Harris entered the licensed premises with Investigator Richard Walker, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Investigator Walker purchased 505 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise who left the premises to obtain the cocaine but returned to complete the sale on the premises. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were on the licensed premises on October 6, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase cocaine with a dancer identified as Christine Flynn. They each gave Flynn $45, she left the premises, returned and handed them each a plastic baggie containing a total of 590 milligrams of cocaine. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. On October 12, 1984, Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris entered the premises and met a waitress identified as April Finster. Investigator Goodman asked to buy some marijuana. She went into a back room on the premises and returned with one marijuana cigarette containing 300 milligrams of cannabis, which she gave to Investigator Goodman. On October 16, 1984, Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer identified as "Blondie" on the premises and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine from Blondie. The CI was present during this discussion, took $20 from Sgt. Harris, and then left the premises with Blondie. When Blondie and the CI returned, the CI gave Sgt. Harris a plastic bag which was heat sealed and filled with 110 milligrams of cocaine. Blondie stated that she always heat sealed her bags. Later Sgt. Harris gave Blondie $100, she brought him $70 change and then went into the dressing room. When Blondie exited the dressing room she approached the CI and they approached the table where Sgt. Harris was sitting. The CI placed a book of matches on the table and Blondie told Harris the cocaine was in the book of matches. Sgt. Harris found a heat sealed plastic bag containing 135 milligrams of cocaine in the matches. There were other patrons on the premises when these transactions took place. Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer named "Lola" on the premises on October 30, 1984. Sgt. Harris gave Lola $80, she entered the dressing room and then returned to where Sgt. Harris was seated with a white towel around her hand. Inside the towel was a bag containing 800 milligrams of cocaine. While on the premises with Sgt. Harris on October 31, 1984, Investigator Walker gave Lola $100. She left the premises and returned with a plastic bag containing 560 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Walker. On November 6, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris, and Investigator Goodman gave Lola $55. Lola approached a white male patron and then returned to Investigator Goodman and gave him a plastic bag containing 400 milligrams of cocaine. On November 20, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris. Lola approached Investigator Goodman and asked him if he wanted to buy some cocaine. He gave her $50, she left the premises and returned with a bag containing 300 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Goodman. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were also on the licensed premises on September 28, October 9 and 10, November 1 and 5. On each occasion they discussed the purchase of controlled substances as defined in Section 893.03, F.S., with Respondents' employees who were on the premises at the time of these discussions. No actual transactions took place on these dates. In brief summary of the foregoing, during the period of September 14 to November 20, 1984, transactions involving the sale of a total of 3.7 grams of cocaine and gifts of 560 milligrams of cannabis took place at The Brass Bull between Respondents' employees and Investigators Goodman and Walker, and Sgt. Harris. There were also five occasions when the purchase of controlled substances was discussed with Respondents' employees on the premises but no actual transaction took place. The CI was on the premises during most of these occasions, introducing the law enforcement officers to the various employees. The transactions usually took place while other patrons were on the premises, and included Respondents' employees passing the controlled substances on or above the table at which the officers were seated. On some occasions the employees left the premises after receiving money from the officers and returned a short time later with the controlled substance which they then gave to the officers on the premises. Respondents do not take an active role in managing The Brass Bull. They rely on a day manager and a night manager to hire, fire and discipline employees, to schedule the dancers, and to enforce the rules which are posted in the employees' dressing room. Rule 11 prohibits employees from having drugs or "liquors" on the premises, and states that anyone having these substances on the premises will be terminated immediately. Respondents never met with employees, other than their managers with whom they met or talked almost daily. Conversations and meetings with the managers were usually social, however, and generally did not involve business matters. Business meetings with the managers were held infrequently. Robert Meloche only visited the premises at 7:00 a.m. when no one else was present in order to review the prior night's receipts. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents employed various dancers on the licensed premises under the terms of an Entertainment Booking Agreement. All dancers were required to sign the booking agreement and agree to working conditions prescribed by the Respondents, including compensation arrangements, the number and color of their costumes, work hours, and the additional duties of cleaning and serving tables. Respondents also prescribed a set of seventeen (17) rules for all dancers and other employees. The above referenced individuals named Linda, Sunrise, Christine Flynn, April Finster, Blondie, Lola, and the Confidential Informant were employees of Respondents' at the licensed premises during the time relevant to this case. In making the above findings, the undersigned Hearing Officer has considered proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4., F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary or not based on competent substantial evidence. Specifically, Respondents' proposed findings as to Counts 14, 15 and 16 are rejected since they are not based on competent substantial evidence and are otherwise immaterial and irrelevant.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's license number 60-0122, series 2-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether petitioner's application to change its corporate officers should be denied because the proposed officer allegedly lacks good moral character.
Findings Of Fact The Village Zoo holds alcoholic beverage license no. 16-839, Series 4- COP SR, authorizing it to serve alcoholic beverages at its bar (the "licensed premises") at 900 Sunrise Lane, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On September 22, 1982, the Village Zoo filed an application with DABT to change corporate officers by adding James C. Dowd as a vice president1. While this application was pending, James C. Dowd was employed as one of the managers at the Village Zoo. One of his duties was to help the bartender serve alcoholic beverages on an as-needed basis. On November 5, 1982, undercover Beverage Officer Tom Wheeler, 24, entered the licensed premises to investigate complaints of alleged sales of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons--persons under the age of 19. He paid a cover charge at the door, his identification was not checked. Inside, he saw 50-75 young patrons crowded in the area of the second floor bar. Two persons were tending bar, one of whom was James C. Dowd. Officer Wheeler saw two young patrons, William Esler, 17, and Kelly Heatherman, 18, approach the bar and ordered drinks from Mr. Dowd, who then served them two alcoholic beverages. (William Esler ordered and was served a Whiskey and Seven- up; Kelly Heatherman ordered and was served a Budweiser beer). Mr. Dowd served them these drinks without asking their age or checking their identification. When these two underaged individuals ordered the drinks, they were standing at the bar and in plain view of Mr. Dowd; they were neither standing behind others nor hidden from view. After Mr. Dowd served these two drinks, he was arrested and charged with the crime of serving alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 19. When Kelly Heatherman and William Esler, the two underaged persons, entered the premises that evening, they paid a cover charge but their age was not questioned at the entry door. Neither was their identification checked. The Village Zoo has a reputation in the community as a popular gathering place for young people. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman had been there before. William Esler had been there twice, prior to the November 5, 1982, incident, and once since. His identification had never been checked, although he did not order a drink on his last visit. Kelly Heatherman had been there every week from approximately September (1982) to November 5, 1982. During most of his visits, he ordered alcoholic beverages. One time, his identification was checked at the door and he was turned away. Since the November 5, 1982, incident, he has returned to the Village Zoo a couple of times. James C. Dowd was aware of Heatherman's continued patronage of the Village Zoo and described Heatherman as a regular customer. Heatherman continued to order and was served alcoholic beverages during his visits to the Village Zoo after November 5, 1982. After November 5, 1982, Heatherman continued to enter the Village Zoo without having his identification checked, despite the fact he was identified to the Village Zoo and James C. Dowd, on November 5, 1982, as being under the legal age (19) to possess or consume alcoholic beverages. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman were, as of the date of the administrative hearing on this case, under the age of 19 years. James C. Dowd knew or should have known that Kelly Heatherman's consumption of alcoholic beverages served by the Village Zoo after November 5, 1982, was contrary to the Beverage Law. (This paragraph contains findings of fact which are in addition to those found by the Hearing Officer. Such additional facts are not contrary to those found by the Hearing Officer, rather they amplify the same and are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the form of sworn testimony of Kelly Heatherman, William Esler and James C. Dowd). The Village Zoo had an announced policy prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons and prohibiting their entry onto the licensed premises. To enforce this policy, two persons were posted at the entryway to check identification and collect cover charges from patrons. Peter Balcunas, and off-duty Fort Lauderdale policeman, was also hired to provide security and assistance to the door-checkers. He was ordinarily posted near the front door, outside the premises. Under this Village Zoo policy, the two door-checkers had the primary responsibility to check the identification of patrons and prevent underaged persons from entering the premises. All employees, however, had the duty to check the identification of any patron if there was any question or doubt about whether the individual was of drinking age. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman fall within this "questionable or doubtful" category. From their demeanor and outward appearance at hearing, it is difficult to determine their true age. Their faces are mature for their age and they could reasonably pass as 18, 19 or 20-year olds. On the evening of November 5, 1982, Kelly Heatherman and William Esler entered the premises, walking past the door-checkers and Officer Balcunas. They then proceeded to the second floor bar and ordered drinks from Mr. Dowd. Their age was not questioned and their identification was not checked. The Village Zoo's announced policy of forbidding sale of alcoholic beverages to minors, including steps taken to enforce it, compares favorably with those of similar businesses in the area serving alcoholic beverages. James C. Dowd, the person allegedly lacking in good moral character, has a reputation in the community as an honest trustworthy, hardworking and law- abiding man. He attends church regularly. His business associates view him as a man who honors his financial obligations and who has good moral character. Mr. Dowd does not recall serving alcoholic beverages to William Esler and Kelly Heatherman on November 5, 1982. There was a crowd of customers near the bar at the time, and he was helping the bartender serve drinks as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, in his haste, he violated the Village Zoo policy. He served alcoholic beverages to two youthful-looking persons whose age was difficult to determine, without inquiring as to their age or checking their identification. There is no evidence that he knowingly and intentionally sold alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. (Two sentences contained in the Recommended Order at this place, were deleted as such constitute conclusions of law, not of fact). Although there was evidence that the two underaged persons had been served alcoholic beverages at the Village Zoo prior to and after November 5, 1982, it was not shown that Mr. Dowd served them or that (as one of the managers) he was culpably responsible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Village Zoo's application to change corporate officers be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1983.
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
