Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the proceedings in this matter, the Respondents held beverage license No. 39-186, Series 2-APS. The license is issued to a drive-through beverage facility called the Beverage Castle located in Brandon, Florida. The Beverage Castle is owned by the Respondents and managed by Mr. Richard Jiosne. On April 29, 1983, Deputies Scoffield and Olsen of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department initiated surveillance at the licensed premises because of complaints that their office had received of sales of alcoholic beverages to minors. Deputy Olsen located himself in a wooded area approximately 25 to 30 yards from the licensed premises. Officer Scoffield was in a patrol car approximately 100 yards north of the licensed premises. Officer Olsen observed the licensed premises with a set of field glasses. At some point on the evening of April 29, 1983, the specific time being unknown, two white females in a red and white Mustang drove into the licensed premises and purchased a six-pack of Michelob beer. The driver of the Mustang was Tammy Jo Gibson and her passenger was Charlene Carroll Rogers. Both of these women were 18 years of age at the time of the purchase. Neither of the two women was asked for any identification prior to their purchase of the six- pack of beer. Tammy Jo Gibson did not testify at the formal hearing and the officers could not give a detailed description of her dress and physical appearance. Charlene Rogers testified but could not identify the person who sold the beer to them. The evidence was conflicting as to whether an employee, John Hanks, or the Respondent, Richard Jiosne, actually sold the beer to Ms. Gibson. From the evidence presented, it could not be determined who actually sold the beer to the two women and thus had the responsibility for checking identification. Respondents have a clear policy against selling alcoholic beverages to minors and, prior to this incident, had instructed their employees to check identification of all purchasers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondents be found not guilty of the violation charged and that the charge be dismissed. ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard N. Jiosne Anne M. Jiosne 2205 Cornell Drive Brandon, Florida 33511 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are: (1) whether Respondent violated Section 562.02, Florida Statutes (2007),1 by unlawfully possessing certain alcoholic beverages on its licensed premises which were not authorized to be sold under its license; (2) whether Respondent violated Subsection 561.14(3), Florida Statutes, by purchasing or acquiring alcoholic beverages for the purpose of resale from persons not licensed as distributors; and (3) if so, what penalty or administrative fine should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and was at all times relevant hereto, the holder of alcoholic beverage License No. 62-10299, Series 2-COP, which permits the sale of beer and wine, but no other alcoholic beverages, for consumption on the premises. Petitioner seeks to impose sanctions on the license of Respondent. Mr. Pagini owned and operated Latin American Café, a restaurant located at 3780 Tampa Road, Oldsmar, Florida. The restaurant serves Latin American and South American foods and desserts, some of which contain alcoholic beverages in preparation of said food. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the menu for Latin American Café stated that only one type of liquor was used for cooking. Respondent was placed on the Division's "No Sale" list on August 21, 2007, for failure to renew its license. As a result of being on the "No Sale" list, distributors were prohibited from selling alcoholic beverages to Respondent. Nevertheless, as discussed below, a receipt dated August 23, 2007, shows that a distributor sold alcoholic beverages to Respondent. Due to Respondent's being placed on the "No Sale" list, Casey Simon, a special agent with the Division, conducted an inspection of Latin American Café on November 21, 2007. During the inspection, Agent Casey discovered beer and liquor on the premises. The beer was located in a cooler behind the bar at the front of the premises, and the liquor was located in the manager's office and in the kitchen cupboards. The liquor discovered on Respondent's premises on November 21, 2007, consisted of the following: (a) one, one-quart bottle of Mr. Boston Crème De Cassis; (b) one, 750-millimeter bottle of Cinzano Rosso Vermouth; (c) one, 750-millimeter bottle of Chevas Regal Whiskey; (d) one, 750-millimeter bottle of Sambuca Di Amare; (e) one, 1.75-liter bottle of Heritage Triple Sec; (f) one, 250-millimeter bottle of Chasqui Licor De Café; (g) one, 750-millimeter bottle of Truffles Liquor; (h) one, one-liter bottle of Sambroso Licor De Café; and (i) one, .75-liter bottle of Heritage Rum. Respondent contends that seven of the nine kinds of suspect liquor found on the premises were used for cooking, mostly desserts, at the business. The remaining two liquors found on the premises, Chevas Regal Whiskey and Sambuca, were for Mr. Pagani's personal use. The Chevas Regal Whiskey was a present that had been given to Mr. Pagini, and at the time of the inspection, the whiskey was in a box in his office. The Sambuca Di Amare is a "digestive" liquor made in Italy and was for Mr. Pagini's personal use. Although most of the liquor was found on Respondent's premises during the inspection, Respondent's menu does not list any of the suspect liquors as an ingredient in any of the menu items. The beer discovered on Respondent's premises on November 21, 2007, consisted of the following: (a) 41, 12-ounce bottles of Bud Light, with a born date of September 2007; (b) six, 12-ounce bottles of Budweiser; (c) 27, 12-ounce bottles of Miller Lite; (d) 12, 12-ounce bottles of Heineken; and (e) 19, 12-ounce bottles of Corona. The Bud Light's "born date" of September 2007, is the date in which the beer was manufactured. Thus, it can be reasonably concluded that beer with a "born date" of September 2007, cannot be purchased prior to that month. During the November 21, 2007, investigation, the Division's agent requested invoices for the beer found on the premises. Respondent produced a receipt from Sam's Club dated November 16, 2007, which reflected the sale of various items to a "member," identified, presumably, by a membership number. Among the items purchased were other documents provided to Agent Simon which showed that Latin American Café was the member on the November receipt. Next to the name of each kind of beer was the number "24" which, presumably, indicated the number of bottles of beer that were purchased. Mr. Pagini testified that many of the items purchased from Sam's Club on November 16, 2007, including the Bud Light and the Heineken, were for personal use. At this proceeding, Respondent introduced into evidence copies of two receipts which reflect that it purchased alcoholic beverages from two authorized distributors, J.J. Taylor Distributors Florida, Inc. ("J.J. Taylor Distributors") and Great Bay Distributors, Inc. ("Great Bay Distributors"). The receipts were dated August 9, 2007, and August 23, 2007, respectively. The receipt from J.J. Taylor Distributors dated August 9, 2007, reflects that Respondent purchased the following alcoholic beverages: (a) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Becks beer; (b) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Braham beer; (c) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Heineken beer; (d) 24, 12-ounce bottles of "Lite" beer; and (e) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Presidente. The receipt from Great Bay Distributors dated August 23, 2007, reflected the purchase of the following alcoholic beverages: (a) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Budweiser beer; (b) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Corona beer; (c) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Modesto Especial; and (d) 24, 12-ounce bottles of Negro Modesto. Despite Respondent's providing receipts from distributors, no plausible explanation was provided to establish when and from whom the Bud Light, discovered on Respondent's premises on November 21, 2007, was purchased. The receipts from the distributor were dated about one month prior to the Bud Light's born date of September 2007. The suspect Bud Light has a born date of September 2007, which is after the dates of the distributor receipts and after Respondent was placed on the "No Sale" list. No evidence was offered to establish where the suspect beer, Bud Light, was purchased or acquired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order: (1) finding that Respondent, Latin American Café and Market, Inc., d/b/a Latin American Café, violated Section 562.02, Florida Statutes; (2) finding that Respondent did not violate Subsection 562.14(3), Florida Statutes; (3) imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the violation of Section 562.02, Florida Statutes; and requiring the fine to be paid within 30 days of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2009.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Thomas Olhausen and Henry Stripling, d/b/a Trackside Lounge, hold Beverage License No. 23-1647, Series No. 4-COP, which was issued for the current year. On or about June 5, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold a controlled substance, namely cocaine, to Beverage Officer Terminello while he was on the licensed premises known as Trackside Lounge in Dade County, Florida. On or about June 8, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold cocaine to Beverage Officer Dodson while he was on the Trackside Lounge premises. On or about June 12, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold cocaine to Beverage Officer Terminello while he was on the premises of Trackside Lounge. The Respondent Henry Stripling did not go onto the Trackside Lounge between the dates of March 10 and June 10, 1983, pursuant to a restraining order issued on March 10, 1983, by the Dade County Circuit Court. This March 10, 1983, court order appointed two receivers to supervise the operation of the business known as Trackside Lounge. Pursuant to this authority the receivers employed Thomas Olhausen to operate and manage the business. Thus, Thomas Olhausen was not subject to the restraining order which barred Henry Stripling from entry onto the Trackside Lounge premises. The Respondent Henry Stripling had no connection with the sale of cocaine by the Respondent Thomas Olhausen to the Beverage Officers on June 5, 8 and 12, 1983. The court order of March 10, 1983, did not attempt to effect a judicial transfer of the beverage license held by the Respondents. The court appointed receivers did not file an application for a beverage license pursuant to Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, and there is no evidence that the receivers attempted to transfer the beverage license held - by the Respondents pursuant to Section S61.32(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, or Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Adminstrative Code. The court appointed receivers did not file a certified copy of the order appointing them as receivers with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco pursuant to Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the alcoholic beverage license held by the Respondents, Thomas Olhausen and Henry Stripling, being number 23-1647, Series No. 4-COP, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 26th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 26th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark A. Jacobs, Esquire 18204 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 Richard F. Hayes, Esquire Suite 20 4601 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 14th of March, 1976, Pearlie Mae Smith, a licensed vendor, did have in her possession, permit or allow someone else, to wit: Junior Lee Smith, to have in their possession on the licensed premises, alcoholic beverages, to wit: 5 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to s. 562.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact On March 14, 1976, and up to and including the date of the hearing, the Respondent, Pearlie Mae Smith, held license no. 72-65, series 2-COP with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. The licensed premises is located at 1013 West Malloy Avenue, Perry, Florida. On the morning of March 14, 1976, Officer B.C. Maxwell with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage acting on an informant's information, searched the informant to determine if the informant had monies other than the money that the officer had given him or any alcoholic beverages on his person. Once the informant had been searched and it was determined that the informant was carrying with him only the money that the officer had given him to purchase alcoholic beverages, the informant was sent into the subject licensed premises. The informant returned with a half-pint bottle of alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold on the licensed premise and indicated that this purchase was made from one Junior Lee Smith. Later in the morning, around 11:30, officers of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage entered the licensed premises and an inspection of those premises revealed a bag containing 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka in the kitchen area of the licensed premises. This bag and contents were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit #2. The 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka are alcoholic beverages which are not allowed to be sold under the series 2-COP license on the subject premises. When the officers entered, the same Junior Lee Smith was in the licensed premises and indicated that he was in charge of the licensed premises and had been selling alcoholic beverages for "quite some time" together with his wife, Pearlie Mae Smith, the licensee. The bag he indicated, had been whiskey that had been left over from the night before.
Recommendation It is recommended that based upon the violation as established in the hearing that the licensee, Pearlie Mae Smith, have her beverage license suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Winson, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mrs. Pearlie Mae Smith 1013 West Malloy Avenue Perry, Florida
The Issue This case concerns the entitlement of the Petitioner, Price Candy Company, Inc., trading as St. James Place, to be granted a new Series 2-COP beverage license from the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco.
Findings Of Fact Beginning on June 13, 1978, the Petitioner, Price Candy Company, Inc., began the process of applying for a new Series 2-COP beverage license to be issued by the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. This license was to be issued for a premises located at 117 West Duval Street, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. The establishment for which this license is intended is a restaurant located in a building known as the May Cohens Building. The Petitioner leases a portion of that building from May Cohens and the balance of the building which constitutes the structure of the prospective licensed area, is controlled by May Cohens. The part of the building controlled by the Petitioner as a street entrance into the dining room area of the restaurant and an entrance from the May Cohens part of the building, which is an interior entrance to the restaurant. These entrances may be seen in examining the Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence, which is the Petitioner's sketch of the prospective licensed premises which was submitted to the Respondent as a part of the application. Within this diagram are several pencilled changes to the sketch which represent the current state of the building showing an extension of a wall, thereby closing off any direct access from May Cohens to the restrooms associated with Petitioner's restaurant. On May 30, 1979, the Director of the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco indicated his intent to deny the application stated that the reason was "Premises to be licensed is connected to other areas over which the applicant will have no dominion or control." As authority for that statement the Director referred to Subsection 561.01(11), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, Price Candy Company, Inc., trading as St. James Place, be granted a new Series 2-COP beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Bailey, Area Supervisor Price Candy Company, Inc. 117 West Duval Street Jacksonville, Florida 32204 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for a wholesale cigarette dealer's permit should be granted, or denied on the ground that two of its corporate officers lack good moral character.
Findings Of Fact In November, 1981, Applicant corporation applied to DABT for a wholesale cigarette dealer's permit. (P-1.) Applicant is owned by Marlene Kantor (50 percent) and Eugene and Charlotte Milgram (50 percent). Marlene Kantor is the president and chief executive officer; Eugene Milgram is the secretary-treasurer. (Testimony of Milgram, Kantor; P-1.) In January, 1982, DABT disapproved Applicant's permit application on the ground that two of the owners lacked good moral character. By letter dated February 12, 1982, DABT explained: The basis for the denial under moral char- acter is that these two individuals [Eugene and Charlotte Milgram] are corporate officers in a beverage licensed establishment which has had its beverage license revoked. (P-4.) The parties agree that, in all other respects, Applicant is qualified for the requested wholesale cigarette dealer's permit. (Prehearing Stipulation; P-2, P- 3, P-4.) In 1981, Eugene and Charlotte Milgram were stockholders and corporate officers of a licensed alcoholic beverage establishment known as the Palace Bar and Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Palace Bar ("Palace Bar" or "licensee") located in Miami, Florida. In that year, DABT instituted an administrative action against Palace Bar for alleged violations of the Beverage Law, Chapter 561, Florida Statutes. By Final Order dated July 2, 1981, in State of Florida Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. Palace Bar and Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Palace Bar, DOAH Case No. 81-501, DABT revoked the alcoholic beverage license of Palace Bar on the ground that it was negligent and failed to exercise due diligence by not taking necessary steps to prohibit illicit drug activity on the premises. The order indicates that several illicit drug transactions occurred between undercover agents and patrons of the bar during a 13-day period; that none of the transactions exceeded $25; that the licensee did not condone this activity; that measures (although subsequently proved inadequate) had been taken to prevent drug activity on the premises; that there was no showing that the licensee participated in or had direct knowledge of the patrons' illicit drug activities; and that owners of the licensee-- whose visits to the premises were infrequent--left the management of the licensed premises (during the period in question) in the hands of its full-time bar manager. This DABT order has been appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal. (R-2, P-5.) Since 1966, Eugene Milgram has owned and operated Wash & Dry Vending Company, a company which owns and maintains laundry equipment in apartments and institutions. He and Charlotte Milgram, his wife, have reputations in the Miami area as honest people. Business loans which they have obtained have been timely repaid; because of their good record, Barnett Bank of South Florida would, if requested, extend to them an unsecured line of credit of up to $500,000. (Testimony of Randall, Rossin, Milgram.) During the years the Milgrams operated the Palace Bar and Wash & Dry Vending Company, they complied with all federal and state tax reporting requirements. Internal Revenue Service audits of their tax records did not reveal any significant deficiencies. (Testimony of Rossin.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the requested wholesale cigarette dealer's permit be issued. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1982.
The Issue The issue presented in this case is whether the Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent sold alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21, in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice To Show Cause issued October 8, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Jin I. Jeon, (licensee), held license number 39-03637, series 2-APS, authorizing him to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of the Diwan Food Store, located at 7504 N. Florida Avenue, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida (premises). On or about September 16, 1992, Special Agent A. Murray, Special Agent K. Hamilton, Investigative Aide D. Snow and Intern M. Dolitsky went to Diwan Food Store to investigate complaints of alcoholic beverage sales to minors. Investigative Aide D. Snow's date of birth is November 11, 1973. She was 18 years of age on September 16, 1992. In accordance with the intructions of the law enforcement officers, Investigative Aide Snow entered the premises and selected a one-quart bottle of Budweiser beer, an alcoholic beverage, from a cooler. The bottle of beer was sealed and clearly marked as an alcoholic beverage. She proceeded to the cash register, where the Respondent was waiting. Snow paid the Respondent, who rang up the sale on the register. The Respondent did not request to see Snow's identification, nor did he ask her whether she was at least 21 years of age. The Respondent's defense was that he was not the person who sold Snow the beer. When he was confronted with the charges, he disclaimed any knowledge of them and blamed an employee, Min Sup Lee, whom he believed must have been the person involved in the sale. He immediately fired Lee because of the charges. Lee testified that he was employed by the Respondent from March 1992 through January, 1993. Lee testified that he worked for Respondent six days a week, primarily at night, and that he was the person in charge of the cash register the majority of the time. He asserted that he probably worked the cash register on the night of the violation. However, he denied ever having seen either Special Agent Murray or Special Agent Hamilton, or Investigative Aide Snow, and he denied any knowledge of the incident. It seems clear that Lee was not the person who sold the beer to the Investigative Aide Snow. Communication problems (the Respondent's English language limitations) may be at the root of the Respondent's inability to understand and to carry out his responsibilities as a vendor under the Beverage Law. Later on the evening of the sale in question, Special Agent Murray returned to the store to talk to the Respondent about the violation but she was not confident that he understood anything she was saying. It is possible that, due to the Respondent's lack of facility with the English language, he did not understand that Murray was charging him with illegal sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor and that, when, some time later, the Respondent came understand the nature of the charge against him, he assumed that his employee must have been responsible. On the other hand, it is possible that the Respondent knows full well his responsibilities under the Beverage Law, and knows full well that he failed to meet those responsibilities on September 16, 1992, but that he knowingly and unfairly tried to use his employee to avoid his own responsibity. In any event, it is found that it was the Respondent, not Lee, who sold the beer to Snow and that, in all likelihood, Lee either was not working on September 16, 1992, or was occupied elsewhere with other responsibilities when Snow and Murray were in the store. The Division's standard penalty for the violation alleged in the Notice to Show Cause is a twenty-day license suspension and a thousand dollar ($1,000.00) civil penalty. This standard penalty has been noticed as proposed Rule 7A-2.022, Penalty Guidelines, pending public workshop and approval.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent guilty as charged in the Notice to Show Cause; (2) suspending the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for twenty days; and (3) ordering the Respondent to pay a $1,000 civil penalty. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Jin I. Jeon 7504 N. Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604 John Harrison, Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Donald D. Conn, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of its license under the beverage law. Specifically, Respondent purportedly violated the actions set forth in two counts, as follows: Count I--Respondent failed to "provide the required service area, seating and equipment to serve 200 persons full course meals at tables at one time as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes"; and Count II--Respondent failed to "provide at least 4,000 square feet of area dedicated to the operation of the restaurant as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes." Respondent has also raised the issue of whether Petitioner should be estopped from enforcement actions concerning the alleged violations.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, issuing and monitoring licenses to businesses within the state relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is the holder of an alcoholic beverage license, No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR (the "License"). An SR, or Special Restaurant, license is a unique kind of license which was issued by the Division prior to the establishment of quota licenses. Holders of SR licenses are allowed to sell beer, wine and liquor, package sales and sales by the drink on the premises. Quota licenses are issued based on a population ratio, i.e., no more than one license per 7,500 people in a given geographic area may exist. When Respondent obtained its SR license in 1979 (by way of transfer from the original owner of that license), the existing statutes mandated that the License be housed in a building of not less than 4,000 square feet with room in the building to seat at least 200 people at any one time. The statutes also required that food be served at all times the establishment was open. In 1979, when Respondent filed an application seeking to obtain the transfer of the SR license that had been issued in 1957, the application included an Affidavit from Marianne Gunn agreeing to a specific location (2704 Anderson Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida)1 for the business, which was to be known as the Stardust Lounge. The Affidavit affirmed Marianne Gunn's agreement to maintain the premises with the necessary equipment and supplies to seat 200 people at any one time. The Affidavit affirmed that the building housing Stardust Lounge would be at least 4,000 square feet in size. The License was then transferred to Respondent by the Division. Approximately one year after receiving the License and commencing operations, the Stardust Lounge burned down. Some undisclosed portion of the building remained, but no business could be operated on the site. It would have been difficult to rebuild the building under the then-current building codes. Further, the City of Fort Myers expressed its opposition to the existence of an alcoholic beverage establishment at that site. Some time after the fire, Respondent asked the Division to place the License in an inactive status (also known as placing a license in escrow). The request from Respondent asked that the License be placed in escrow for up to eight months. Respondent represented that it was in negotiation with the City of Fort Myers concerning a land swap to settle certain claims Respondent had against the city. Respondent estimated the negotiations would go on for approximately two months. Respondent advised the Division that if negotiations were successful, it would allow the License to be cancelled upon transfer of the premises to the city. If the negotiations were not successful, Respondent estimated it would need at least six months to sell the property at a private sale. It was Respondent's intent that the License be "taken care of" along with the land deal. "That's what that was all about," Fox testified at final hearing. Based upon Respondent's request, the Division apparently placed the License in escrow. There was no documentation presented at final hearing to substantiate this fact. However, the Division sent Respondent a bill each year to renew the License despite there being no physical site for operating a business by the licensee. Respondent dutifully paid the renewal fee each year. Eighteen years after the License was placed in escrow, the State of Florida commenced condemnation proceedings relating to a portion of the premises where the Stardust Lounge had formerly existed.2 During this nearly two-decade hiatus, Respondent continued to renew the License each year upon notice from the Division. Respondent's counsel sent a letter to the Division dated June 27, 2000, which said in pertinent part: We send you this letter at the request of our client, Mrs. Fox. . . . She has a liquor license in escrow with the Department. Due to the condemnation taking, she will not be able to utilize the license at this location and she has agreed that if this license can be moved to another location, it would not be an issue in the condemnation case. The letter did not address the issue of Respondent's prior representation that the License would be cancelled within eight months of its May 21, 1982, letter, some 18 years earlier. The Division responded to Respondent's counsel in a letter dated the very next day which stated in pertinent part: I am responding to the request of you and the licensee wanting to know if the liquor license that is held in the name of Marianne Gunn, DBA Stardust Lounge is movable. In the case of the property being taken by the state, the license may be moved one time and only one time. Providing that we have copies of all paperwork involved with the property condemnation taking. This license is not a moveable license unless in a case like this. The only thing that the licensee needs to understand is that it is changing location only one time. The Division's letter did not mention the escrow status of the License, either. The inartfully worded request and nebulous response added to the confusion concerning the status of the License. There is no evidence indicating whether any information concerning the condemnation was ever provided to the Division. Respondent could not say at final hearing when the condemnation actually occurred, how much land was taken, or how much was paid for the land. The License apparently remained in escrow at that time pending a move to some other location. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that the reason for her negotiations with the City of Fort Myers in 1982 was partly because the city did not want the bar located at the site where it had burned down. She testified that she had received insurance proceeds from the fire and intended to rebuild the lounge, but the city objected. That was the only testimony given as to why the lounge was not rebuilt during the 18 years it remained in escrow. Glen Fox testified that the original site of the Stardust Lounge would not be acceptable for rebuilding the structure after the fire due to certain building code issues. Both Mr. and Mrs. Fox testified that there was insufficient land available to build on site after the property condemnation taking. Fox testified that she owned three lots at the corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Cranford Avenue. Those lots were 50-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep (for a presumed total lot size of 150-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep). Fox does not know the size of the lots after the condemnation proceeding. It has long been the policy of the Division, pursuant to its interpretations of the Beverage Law set forth in statute, that SR licenses could not be moved from their original location. In 2005 or 2006, a licensee who was operating a business in American Beach filed a lawsuit against the Division seeking to move his SR license to a different location. As a result of the lawsuit, the Division changed its existing policy to allow for such a change. The new policy was posted on the Division's website for review by SR license holders. There is no evidence that SR license holders were notified about the change in policy by any other means. Respondent does not remember receiving any notice whatsoever regarding the change in policy. Within four to six months, and as a result of further legal research by Division attorneys, the Division once again altered its policy concerning the transfer of SR licenses. The newly-revised policy established the current Division position, i.e., that no SR license could be moved for any reason. Further, the policy states that all licensed premises must be in continuous operation or else the license would be forfeited. Again, the Division posted the new policy on its website and notified all SR license holders by way of letters to their establishments (or, in the case of Respondent, to the last known address). It is unclear from the record whether the letter was ever sent to or received by Respondent, although the Division obviously had Respondent's address because it sent renewal notices there each year. Some time after the change in policy, the Division determined that Respondent's license must be terminated or revoked. At that time, there were no premises associated with the License. The last time the License was in operation was 1979 or 1980, some 28 years prior to the Administrative Action being filed. The official address of the premises on the License during each of the renewal periods since 1980 had been "Escrow." That is, there was no site address associated with the License. There was obviously some address associated with the License, however, since Fox received annual billing statements from the Division. In November 2007, the Division issued an Administrative Action against Respondent concerning the License. The Administrative Action alleged that Respondent had not complied with the requirements of the License, i.e., size of premises and on-going operations. The Division indicated that it would sanction the License, including, but not limited to, revocation. Respondent does not dispute the fact that it is not complying with the requirements for an active license, but maintains that its escrowed license is exempt from those requirements. The License, despite being inactive for 28 years, is still apparently valid at this point in time (based on the Division's acceptance of Respondent's renewal payments each year). The License may have some monetary value, but there was no competent, substantial evidence presented at final hearing as to what the value might actually be. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that she did not know how much the License was worth, only that "nothing is worth as much as it used to be." Fox cannot remember how much she paid for the License when it was transferred to her. She cannot remember how much she asked for the License when she offered it for sale. She cannot remember how much was offered for the License as part of the condemnation sale. Fox does know that she paid an annual fee each year for renewal of the License. She does not know what the fee was each year, but "I paid whatever the state told me was due." (The Division testified that the annual fee was $1,820.00. Presuming 28 years of payments, the total paid to-date would be approximately $50,960.) When suggested to Fox by her counsel that the License was worth $300,000, she agreed with that amount, but could not substantiate why that amount was valid. Fox testified that she would like a "reasonable time" to market the License for sale. She did not express what a reasonable time might be, but has not been able (or willing) to sell the License for over 28 years. Respondent put the License "out for feelers" three or four years ago, but did not include an asking price for the License. About seven months ago, someone told Fox that the License was worth approximately $326,000, but there is no support for that estimate. Patrick Roberts, former law enforcement major with the Division, opined that he would have handled Respondent's case differently had it come across his desk. He opined that the requirement for 4,000 square feet and seating for 200 people should only apply to an existing business, not one in escrow. Roberts agreed that only quota licenses are allowed escrow status by statute. Roberts did not express any opinion as to the requirement that a business be on-going at all times. Roberts agreed that an SR license should not be placed in escrow, but said he'd try to negotiate a settlement, rather than file an Administrative Action. He did concur that an Administrative Action might be necessary if all else failed. Roberts did not opine that an Administrative Action was improper, only that it wasn't his first choice of action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, revoking Respondent, Fox Marianne Gunn, d/b/a Stardust Lounge's, License No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 562.11(1)(a), and 561.29(1)(a) (sale of an alcoholic beverage to an underage person) and/or 561.29(1)(a) and 561.17(3) (failure to notify Petitioner licensing agency of the transfer of ten percent or more of any financial interest, change of executive officers or directors or a divestiture or resignation of such interest or position), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 4, 2008, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was licensed under the Florida Beverage Law, by Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent is subject to Petitioner’s regulatory jurisdiction, having been issued License Number 72-00497, Series 2-APS, to sell beer and wine in sealed containers for consumption off of the licensed premises only. There is no evidence that Respondent business had ever been previously cited for violation of its license or that Petitioner was investigating the premises on the basis of a complaint or allegation at the time this case arose. Charging Paragraph One 4/ Petitioner’s Special Agent and a Lieutenant, who at all times material was working as Petitioner's Special Agent, addressed “a directed enforcement issue,” the belief that because energy drinks containing alcohol had newly come on the market, there would be sales of them to underage persons. On April 25, 2008, the agents conducted undercover operations at what their paperwork shows to be a minimum of 13 alcoholic beverage retail stores in Perry, Florida, and one store in Steinhatchee, Florida, between 4:35 p.m. and 8:22 p.m. The agents testified that their operation on that date also involved even more stores in several counties. The agents’ paperwork shows they arrived at Respondent’s store at 5:11 p.m. on April 25, 2008, and that they followed standard Agency procedures. On April 25, 2008, the Agency employed M.C. as “Investigative Aide AL0015.” M.C. had worked for the Agency as an undercover operative for almost five years and previously had worked with the aforementioned two agents. On that date, M.C., a female, was 19 years old. On April 25, 2008, the agents gave M.C. a $5.00 bill with which to make “the buy.” She took no other money into Respondent’s store with her. Petitioner’s two agents testified that at 5:11 p.m., while sitting in their car parked in front of Respondent’s store, they witnessed M.C. purchase a “Sparks” from Respondent Meah. Between them, the officers’ testimony included details such as seeing that one other person was in the store when M.C. entered the store; seeing M.C. remove a Sparks can from the cooler; seeing that no conversation took place between M.C. and Respondent Meah; and seeing that no identification was requested by Mr. Meah. M.C. did not relate that anyone else was in the store at the time of her purchase. The agents provided no information as to how they saw so much detail through their car's windshield and the window of the store. Clearly, they could not have heard any conversation at that distance and under those conditions. There also is no evidence of backlighting from inside the store by which the agents could even see Huranur Rashid Meah and M.C. in silhouette so as to observe them talking or not talking. For these reasons, the only competent evidence of what occurred between M.C. and Mr. Meah is the testimony of M.C. and Mr. Meah. M.C. testified that at approximately 5:12 p.m. on April 25, 2008, M.C. presented a can of “Sparks” alcoholic beverage and a package of Orbits gum to Respondent Meah at the cash register; that he did not require identification/proof of age from her; that he did not ask her how old she was; and that he rang up her purchase, giving her $1.92 in change, the can of “Sparks,” and the gum. Huranur Rashid Meah testified that he sold only one can of Sparks at approximately 5:27 p.m. on April 25, 2008, to his long-time customer, Stephanie Lee Wood, née Johnson. At hearing, Ms. Wood presented herself as an adult, without stating her age for the record. She testified that for a significant period of time, she was in Respondent's store every day about the same time and at that time "mostly" bought a Sparks Malt Beverage from Respondent Meah. Ms. Wood is Caucasian, and M.C. is a light-skinned Negro, but they have very similar builds or silhouettes, and could be mistaken for being of a similar age. Upon observation of M.C. at hearing, the undersigned was unable to discern her age, and without testimony would not have guessed she was merely 21 years old on the date of hearing. Her photograph in evidence, taken on April 25, 2008, does not look like an under-age person, or even very much as M.C. looked when she testified at age 21. When M.C. returned from Respondent’s store to the car containing the two agents on April 25, 2009, the agents verified that she had only $1.92 on her; that she had with her a can of “Sparks” and a package of Orbits gum; and that $1.92 was an appropriate remainder for the purchase of a “Sparks” 16 oz. can and a package of Orbits gum, plus tax. Then all three of Petitioner’s operatives filled-out their on-scene paperwork. Before leaving the scene on April 25, 2008, the agents issued to Respondent Meah an Arrest/Notice to Appear/Probable Cause Affidavit. Respondent Meah signed on the bottom of this item, acknowledging receipt thereof. After repeating similar procedures multiple times throughout the remainder of the evening, Petitioner’s agents checked the can of “Sparks” they had bagged at the scene into their headquarters' secure evidence lock-up, and prepared additional paperwork at headquarters. Sparks Malt Beverage apparently contains seven percent alcohol. From differences in the paperwork filled out at the scene, the paperwork from the evidence lock-up, and the oral testimony at hearing, one could guess that the 16-oz. can allegedly purchased by the underage operative from Respondent Meah contained “Sparks Plus Lemonade,” “Sparks Malt Beverage,” or “Sparks” as an energy drink. Ultimately, the State Attorney for Taylor County, in and for the Third Judicial Circuit, issued a “nolle prosequi,” for the associated criminal case, brought against Respondent Meah,5/ and destroyed the “Sparks” can involved. No physical evidence of the can allegedly purchased by M.C. was available to be admitted in evidence during this administrative case’s disputed-fact hearing. Respondent Meah submitted in evidence an automatically printed cash register tape from his store’s single cash register. He claimed this item showed the transaction he had with Ms. Wood on April 25, 2008. The register tape shows that only one sale for the combined amount of $1.69 (the cost of a can of Sparks Malt Beverage), and for $1.19, (the cost of a package of Orbits gum), was rung up together on that date. It further shows that after tax, $1.92 was given in change to the customer. Respondent's cash register tape also shows a sales time of 5:27 p.m. on April 25, 2008. This is the only similar transaction on that date on the whole cash register receipt. Several other transactions on the tape show beer sales at $1.69 each, but no other transactions match the exact amount(s) testified-to by Meah, Wood, and Petitioner's three operatives. Based on the evidence as a whole, there is no persuasive reason to rely on the time posted on this cash register receipt as being reliable; but likewise, there is no clear evidence that the time on the receipt is not reliable. The receipt could be read to show Sparks and Orbits were sold to M.C. or that Ms. Wood purchased the Sparks and something else at that time. It could also be interpreted in a variety of other ways, but clearly, it shows only one sale matching all witnesses' testimony occurred on that date. Charging Paragraph Two On August 8, 2006, Respondent had completed and submitted to Petitioner his application for a beverage license. Section six, on page seven of that application, shows “Abdul Latif Meah” (Respondent Hurunar Rashid Meah’s father) as a 50 percent owner of the corporate Respondent (licensed premises), and further shows Respondent “Harunur Rashid Meah” as a 50 percent owner. It also shows the father as corporate president and Respondent Meah as corporate vice-president. At no time has anyone notified Petitioner that any change in the stock or ownership interest in the licensed facilities has taken place, or that the corporate officers have changed. However, as of November 26, 2007, Respondent Harunur Rashid Meah filed with the Secretary of State, Division of Corporations, papers for “reinstatement” of the Respondent Corporation, and these papers show Harunur Rashid Meah, as the sole owner/president, treasurer/director of Respondent corporation. Respondent Meah's explanation of the foregoing is that: He “missed a payment.” He never dissolved the original corporation, but he needed to get the corporation reinstated or reactivated, which he did as of November 26, 2007, listing only himself on the papers required by the Division of Corporations. Respondent Meah also testified that he had signed all the papers for obtaining the alcoholic beverage license from Petitioner without understanding or reading them, and without appreciating the oath thereon that he signed, promising to tell the truth on those papers, and further promising to comply with the Florida Beverage Law. Among other requirements, the Florida Beverage Law requires notice to Petitioner of the transfer of ten percent or more of any financial interest, change of executive officers or directors, or divestiture or resignation of such interest or position. (See Conclusions of Law.) Petitioner Agency asserts that the contradiction between the August 8, 2006, disclosure of interested parties on Section Six of the Beverage Law license application and the interested parties listed on the November 26, 2007, Division of Corporations documents violates Section 561.17(3), Florida Statutes, because Mr. Meah did not notify the Petitioner Agency as he was required to do, and that the present situation is especially serious because Petitioner had previously warned Respondent of the violation. Special Agent Lastinger’s testimony is credible that he discovered the November 26, 2007, incorporation papers when he was preparing to draft the criminal and administrative charges after the April 25, 2008, undercover operation. However, his testimony that finding those papers after April 25, 2008, reminded him that he had warned Respondent Meah two years before April 25, 2008 (that is, sometime between April and December 2006) that Respondent could be prosecuted for ownership problems, is not credible or persuasive testimony, since the change of ownership, if any, can only be traced to November 2007.6/
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a Final Order that (1) Dismisses Charging Paragraph One, sale of alcoholic beverage to an underage person; (2) Finds Respondent guilty of Charging Paragraph Two, failure to notify Petitioner of the transfer of ten percent or more of any financial interest, or change of executive officers or directors, and fines him $500.00, therefor; and (3) Requires Respondent to notify Petitioner of the current ownership interests and names of executive officers within 30 days of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 2009.
