The Issue Whether the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License dated April 14, 1988, filed by Ocie C. Allen, Jr., should be approved by the Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Ocie C. Allen, Jr., d/b/a OCA, filed an Application for Alcoholic Beverage License dated April 14, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with the Division. In the Application, Mr. Allen indicated under "Type of Application" that the Application type was "Other - ownership change because of contract." Mr. Allen listed himself as the "Applicant" and signed the Application as the "Applicant." The "Current License Number" listed in the Application to be transferred to Mr. Allen is 15-1924, current series 3 PS. The holder of the license was Thomas Tripp. At the end of the Application there is an "Affidavit of Seller(s)" to be executed by the licensee from whom the license is to be transferred. This affidavit has not been completed in the Application. The purchase price for the business was listed as $86,250.00. In a letter dated April 22, 1988, the Director of the Division requested the following additional information from Mr. Allen: Affidavit of seller must be signed by Thomas Tripp and notarized. Documentation as to the source of funds invested must accompany this application. The transfer fee on quota license is assessed on the average annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the three (3) years immediately proceeding transfer and is levied at the rate of four (4) mills, and in no event exceeds $5,000. The parties may elect to pay the $5,000 transfer fee or submit documents (usually sales tax records), which will establish gross sales in order to compute the transfer fee. By letter dated May 2, 1988, Mr. Allen responded as follows to the Division's request for information: Mr. Tripp has signed the Independent Contractor Agreement which is the affidavit of seller. Source of funds comes from Mr. Tripp as per the Independent Contractor Agreement. The sales tax receipts will be submitted upon approval pending payment of transfer fee. The Division notified Mr. Allen that it intended to deny the Application in a letter dated May 9, 1988. Mr. Allen was provided a Notice of Disapproval of the Application in a letter dated June 29, 1988. The following reasons were given for denial of the Application: Application to transfer the license does not bear the signature of the current licensee and, therefore does not evidence a bonafide [sic] sale of the business pursuant to [Section] 561.32, Florida Statutes. Application incomplete as applicant has failed to provide complete verification of his financial investment. Also, applicant has failed to provide records establishing the annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the three years immediately preceding the date of the request for transfer. The Division is, therefore, unable to fully investigate the application pursuant to Florida law. By letter dated July 19, 1988, Mr. Allen requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the Division's denial of the Application. Mr. Allen sent a letter to the Division dated October 27, 1988, with an Affidavit requesting permission to pay a transfer fee of $5,000.00 "in lieu of the 4-mill assessment."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing the case with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 17th day of January, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Ocie C. Allen, Jr. Post Office Box 10616 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lt. B. A. Watts, Supervisor Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 345 S. Magnolia Drive, Suite C-12 Tallahassee., Florida 32301 Harry Hooper Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927
Findings Of Fact The Tanga Lounge, operated by Respondent Rodde Inc., is located at 6333 West Columbus Avenue, Tampa, Florida. This facility has been licensed by Petitioner at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent's records show Mr. Joe Redner as the sole stockholder and corporate officer of Rodde, Inc., which is the holder of alcoholic beverage license No. 39-738. Case No. 81-2566 contains three counts of begging or soliciting for alcoholic beverages by employees of Respondent on August 6, 1980. Testimony by former Beverage Officer White established that the solicitations of three drinks by two employees were made as charged in the Notice to Show Cause. White purchased the drinks as requested by these employees, who received a "ticket" for each of the drinks purchased for them by White. Case No. 81-2567 contains 44 counts of begging or soliciting drinks by various employees of Respondent and 44 counts charging that Respondent conspired with these employees for the purpose of soliciting drinks. These charges are primarily based on the investigations of Beverage Officers Gary Hodge and Michael Freese. The period of their investigation was October 17, 1980 through May 15, 1981. Count 52 was based on a solicitation of Detective Phil Mickel of the Tampa Police Department, who was in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity on November 6, 1980. At the request of dancer-employee Cathy Andrews, Mickel purchased a "double" for her and observed that she received two tickets from the waitress. 5 Former Tampa Police Department Detective Nick Haynes was in the licensed premises on November 6, 1980, and was approached by the dancer-employee, Cheryl Jonas, who requested that Haynes purchase a drink for her. He did so. This transaction occurred as charged in Count No. 51. Beverage Officer Freese individually and in conjunction with Beverage Officer Hodge, accounted for 38 solicitation charges (Counts 53-57, 59-63, 66, 68-88, and 163-167) . The solicitations charged in Counts 53, 55, 71-80, 83, - 84, 88, 163, 166 and 167 occurred as alleged and involved direct requests for the purchase of drinks ("Will you buy me a drink," or words of similar import) . Freese observed employees receive tickets for these drinks from the bartender or waitress in most instances. The solicitations charged in Counts 54, 56, 57, 59-63,66, 68-70, 81, 82, 164 and 165 were not supported by evidence of direct requests for the beverage purchases by employees of Respondent. At a meeting held about December 17, 1980, Beverage Officers Freese and Hodge were instructed by their supervisor to require that dancers request drinks before ordering. This procedure was adopted to avoid situations where the beverage officer was not asked to buy a drink, but eventually received the bill for the dancer's drink. In implementing the instructions, Freese used these or similar words: "If you want a drink, ask for it.", This statement possibly misled the dancers to believe that Freese was inviting them to order whenever they wanted drinks. The date when Freese first used this statement was not established, but it was subsequent to the mid-December meeting. It was noted that Freese was not solicited during the first two months of the investigation. Therefore, all or substantially all of the solicitation charges involving Freese took Place after he first issued the "invitation." Beverage Officer Hodge individually testified as to solicitation Counts 58, 64, 65 and 67. Counts 58, 65 and 67 did not involve a direct request for beverage purchase. Count 64 occurred as alleged and was based on a direct request for beverage Purchase ("Why don't you buy me one now?"). This request was made during the early morning of January 13, 1981. Although this was after the December meeting which Hodge attended, it was not shown that he made any statement which could have been interpreted as an "invitation" by any employee of Respondent. The fact that customers regularly Purchased drinks for the dancers was well known to the management as evidenced by the tickets issued to employees for drinks purchased in their behalf. These tickets were redeemable by the dancers for one dollar each. Thus, employees were rewarded and implicitly permitted to solicit drinks. Respondent's announced policy was, however, to reprimand or discharge any employee who was caught begging or soliciting drinks. This policy was attested to by bartenders; former employees and dancers. Although it cannot be found that Respondent actively encouraged its employees to solicit drinks, it did encourage socializing with customers to a degree which would elicit offers to purchase drinks for them. Respondent has since discontinued the practice of issuing tickets or other employee incentives to obtain customer purchased drinks. Counts 127 through 161 involve drug charges. Purchases were made by Beverage Officer Freese and Hedge, individually and together. Their testimony and that of Florida Department of Law Enforcement Crime Lab personnel established that controlled substances were purchased from dancer-employees of Respondent on the licensed premises as charged in Counts 127 through 137, 156 and 158. The transactions which-were established to have been carried out involved cocaine, methaqualone and cannabis deliveries by dancer-employees Margie Wade, Janie Marsie, Lori Basch and Lisa Scibilia on February 21, 24, 27; March 2, 9, 13, 17, 23; May 13, 15, 1981. It should be noted that Counts 136 and 137 actually involved one transaction where Hodge and Freese split the delivery. Count 161 concerned a transaction outside the licensed premises and this count, as well as Count 158, involved an employee of another establishment. Petitioner's Exhibit 43 and the supporting testimony concerned a transaction for which there was no charge. Counts 138 through 151, 154 and 159-161 alleged conspiracies to deliver controlled substances corresponding to other counts which alleged actual deliveries. There was testimony on the involvement of third person (not shown to be associated with the Respondent) only as to Counts 134, 146, and 147, which essentially covered a single transaction. No other evidence of conspiracy was presented. On one occasion, Redner was in the Tanga Lounge and within about 15 feet of the beverage officer and the dancer when the delivery took place. However, there was no evidence that Redner was involved or that he had any knowledge of the transaction. Testimony by a former employee that Redner participated in drug use was lacking in credibility and was not corroborated. Counts 3 through 30 and 33 through 50 are charges of lewd dancing by employees of Respondent on the licensed premises. The charges cover 46 dances on 12 separate dates between October, 1980, and February, 1981, performed by 11 different dancer-employees. The acts complained of in these counts were witnessed and attested to by Beverage Officers Hodge and Freese and Tampa Police Department Detective Mickel. The alleged lewd conduct included exposing of the breasts, vagina and anus by dancers during their on-stage performances. Typically, the dancers received dollar tips which customers placed in their bikini bottoms. Some dancers allowed customers to reach inside the bikinis in order to touch their pubic areas. On several occasions the dancers squatted and picked up the dollar bills with their exposed genital areas. On December 11, dancer Cathy Andrews rubbed her vagina, then rubbed the genital area of Beverage Officer Freese, who was observing the dance. Mr. Redner was present during much of the alleged lewd conduct. Although Redner testified that "flashing" was acceptable, the exposure of sexual organs as attested to was not limited to brief "flashes," but was prolonged. Further, Respondent's contention that dancers receiving tips tried to avoid contact by customers is not credible. Rather, the testimony of the officers established that dancers frequently encouraged customers to place their hands against the dancers pubic areas when offering tips. Respondent's, lounge is advertised as an adult entertainment facility and is generally known to include nude dancing. There was no competent evidence as to community standards for this type of conduct in the Tampa area, nor was there any evidence that these acts shocked or offended anyone present other than the investigating officers. Detective Mickel conceded that about five other bars he has visited offer this type of entertainment. Counts 31 and 32 concern an offer of prostitution by one of the dancer-employees to the beverage officers. Their testimony established that the offer was made as charged. This was, however, a single incident and there was no evidence that such offers were recurring or that Respondent had knowledge of this transaction. Counts 1 and 2 of Case No. 81-2567 allege that Robert Rodriguez holds an undisclosed interest in the licensed premises. Such interest, if any, was not reflected in the license transfer application submitted on April 23, 1976. Rather, Joseph Redner and Joe DeFriese were identified as the sole stockholders with no direct or indirect interest held by any other person. Rodriguez previously owned an interest in Deep South Plantation Foods, Inc., whose alcoholic beverage license was revoked by Petitioner. Redner was at one time employed by Rodriguez as manager of Deep South Petitioner asserts that Rodriguez became ineligible to hold an interest in an alcoholic beverage license as a result of the revocation, pursuant to Section 561.15, Florida Statutes, and that he and Redner therefore concealed Rodriguez's subsequent interest in the Tanga Lounge. Respondent contends that Rodriguez is the manager of the Tanga Lounge, but holds no direct or indirect interest therein. Rodde, Inc., was organized on April 19, 1976, and a $2,000 down payment deposit on the contract for purchase of the Tanga Lounge and liquor license was made on April 20, 1976, pursuant to contract signed by DeFriese and the prior owners on that date. This $2,000 check was issued by Robert Rodriguez against his own account. Petitioner produced this cancelled check (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) and numerous other documents which establish that Rodriguez participated in all aspects of Rodde, Inc., management and financial operations since its inception. Rodriguez has unrestricted authority to withdraw funds from corporate accounts and has signed or cosigned for loans and credit purchases. Rodriguez also utilized a Rodde, Inc., credit card to pay personal expenses on a vacation to Las Vegas in 1979. There was no evidence of reimbursement or other accounting to the corporation for these expenditures. The testimony of the Rodde, Inc., employees did not corroborate Redner's testimony that Rodriguez is manager of the Tanga Lounge. Rather, these employees believed Rodriguez was somehow associated with the business, but regarded Redner as the manager and their only supervisor. Rodriguez issued two checks for $1,408.05 on December 1, 1979, one payable to himself and the other to Redner (Petitioner's Exhibit 32) . These checks each carried the notation "bonus $1500", with a further notation apparently accounting for $91.95 in withholding tax. In view of Rodriguez's duties and functions within the corporation, this "bonus" can only be considered a participation in profits. Redner's credit rating and financial management skills are poor. Therefore, Respondent contends that a manager with strength in these areas was needed to ensure business success. However, Rodriguez's unlimited authority in dealing with corporate funds, the investment or loan of his personal funds, his participation in business profits and the absence of any apparent supervisory duties are inconsistent with the employee theory held out by Respondent.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts 1, 2 and 3 of the Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause in Case No. 81-2566. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts 1, 2, 31, 32, 51, 52, 64, 127-137, 156, and 158 of the Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause in Case No. 81-2567. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License No. 39-738 be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1982 at 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 9th day of July, 1982.
The Issue This case concerns the application of William E. Morey, who does business as Morey's Restaurant, to acquire a new series 2-COP beverage license from the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, in which the Respondent has denied the license application on the grounds that the granting of such a license would be contrary to provisions of Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, and Rule 7A-4.18, Florida Administrative Code. These provisions of the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code deal with the prohibition of a financial interest directly or indirectly between distributors of alcoholic beverages and vendors of alcoholic beverages.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Willian E. Morey, applied to the State of Florida, Departent of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, for the issuance of series 2-COP alcoholic beverage license. By letter dated, January 23, 1979, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco denied the application based upon the belief that such issuance wood violate the provisions of Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, and Rule 7A-4.18, Florida Administrative Code. The pertinent provision of Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, states: 561.42 Tied house evil; financial aid and assistance to vendor by manufacturer or distributor prohibited; procedure for en- forcement; exception.-- (1) No licensed manufacturer or distributor of any of the beverages herein referred to shall have any financial interest, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or business of any vendor licensed under the Beverage Law, nor shall such licensed manu- facturer or distributor assist any vendor by any gifts or loans of money or property of any description or by the giving of rebates of any kind whatsoever. * * * In keeping with the general principle announced in Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, the Respondent has enacted Rule 7A-4.18, Florida Administrative Code, which states: 7A-4.18 Rental between vendor and distri- butor prohibited. It shall be considered a violation of Section 561.42, Florida Sta- tutes, for any distributor to rent any property to a licensed vendor or from a licensed vendor if said property is used, in whole or part as part of the licensed premises of said vendor or if said property is used in any manner in connection with said vendor's place of business. The facts in this case reveal that William E. Morey leases the premises, for which he has applied for a license, from Anthony Distributors, Inc., of 1710 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Anthony Distributors, Inc., is the holder of a J-DBW license to distribute alcoholic beverages in the State of Florida. This license is held with the permission of the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Consequently, the issuance of a series 2-COP license to William E. Morey at a time when he is leasing the licensed premises from a distributor of alcoholic beverages, namely, Anthony Distributors, Inc., would be in violation of Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, and Role 7A-4.18, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, William E. Morey's application for a series 2-COP beverage license be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 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: Willian E. Morey d/b/a Morey's Restaurant 4101 North 66th Street St. Petersburg, Florida 33709 Mary Jo M. Gallay, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent is 201 West, Inc., d/b/a Central City, who is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 11-00259, Series 4-COP, a "quota license." Respondent's licensed premises is located at 201 West University Avenue, Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. Craig Cinque is Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Joseph Cinque, Craig Cinque's father, was formerly Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Prior to becoming the owner of Central City, Craig Cinque managed the licensed premises on behalf of his father. During this period of time, the Division filed ten separate Notices to Show Cause against Respondent, alleging multiple sales to and consumption of alcoholic beverages by underaged persons. On August 29, 1989, the licensed premises was closed by an Emergency Order of Suspension. The administrative charges arising therefrom were resolved by a Stipulation and Consent Agreement, wherein the Respondent in that case admitted substantially to all of the violations. Craig Cinque individually executed the agreement, admitted responsibility for previous violations, and acknowledged that future violations of a similar nature could result in suspension or revocation of the alcoholic beverage license. The agency has issued numerous Notices to Show Cause against Respondent since the entry of the consent order. However, unproven Notices to Show Cause and unproven counts within any Notices to Show Cause are only unproven accusations, and as such are not probative herein even for purposes of showing "aggravation." Beverage Law Institute is an "approved trainer" under the Responsible Vendors Act, having been approved by the Petitioner as such. Petitioner certified Respondent Central City as a certified Responsible Vendor under the Act, on April 13, 1990. See, Subsections 561.701-561.706 F.S. Of the 483 nondistributor alcoholic beverage licensees in Alachua County, only 94 have been certified by Petitioner as Responsible Vendors. Of those 94, only 13 hold "4-COP" licenses, the category of license held by Respondent, which permits liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on premises or in a sealed container. Prior to the events of the instant Notices to Show Cause, and continuing through the 14-month period of the Notices to Show Cause and beyond, Respondent was engaged in a voluntary program designed to teach employees not to serve alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. Many of the materials therefor were provided by Beverage Law Institute. The training program and procedures involved multiple ID checkers at the front door. Also at the front door, wristbands to signify and quickly identify patrons of legal drinking age were issued. Once snapped on a customer's wrist, the band itself was stamped at a right angle across the customer's wrist to prevent or at least inhibit the wristband's transfer to an underage patron and to prevent a patron bringing in a counterfeit or "ringer" wristband. All patrons, regardless of age, received a stamp directly on the wrist to identify that they had paid their admission fee. Security personnel circulated inside the licensed premises checking drinks and wristbands, and waitresses were also instructed to check on drinks already purchased by customers. The training programs and procedures also involved Respondent's policy manual regarding IDs, extensive training and testing of employees, frequent oral reminders to employees concerning the law and concerning licensee policy, sporadic staff meetings regarding policy, videotaped instruction programs, provision of and instructions to employees to use an "ID Checking Guide" at the front door and at every internal bar within the licensed premises, confiscation of fake or questionable IDs at the door, 1/ and use of warning handbills given out to customers. Upon receipt, the handbills proclaiming the licensee's "of age only" policy were usually immediately discarded by customers. Some employees looked upon their training with more enthusiasm than others. Some employees considered the policy and training all for show. Most employees complied regularly with the requirements for training, review, and instructions. A few were lax in their compliance and had to be urged to attend staff meetings or to retest. In addition to all this, from the time the Responsible Vendor tests were available, all employees except two cashiers were tested according to the requirements of the Responsible Vendor Act and within the time frames provided therein. Every underage operative who testified admitted she or he had been "carded" at the door and that none had been issued wristbands. The parties stipulated that all of the individuals named in the four Notices to Show Cause (except for those alleged to have sold or given alcoholic beverages) were under the legal drinking age on the dates indicated by the respective Notices to Show Cause and that although each of these individuals "was actually in possession of alcoholic beverages as plead (sic), there was no evidence that any of the alcoholic beverages were obtained from Respondent's employees, agents, or servants." The stipulation listed the underage persons of the Notices to Show Cause but did not employ the term "consumption" which was specifically used only in the second Notice to Show Cause (GA11890496). Petitioner put on no witnesses as to "consumption." Likewise, Petitioner did not have admitted in evidence any confiscated alcoholic beverages alleged to have been sold by Respondent's agents/employees, nor did Petitioner present any laboratory reports to establish that any substance sold was alcohol. The only evidence of alcohol content is discussed infra. With regard to Craig Cinque's attitude and Central City's compliance with the Responsible Vendors Act, the testimony of Eileen Tenly and of William Cooter has been weighed and considered. Ms. Tenly is a totally noncredible witness whose testimony demonstrates an "axe to grind," and whose candor and demeanor is unpersuasive of anything except her animosity for Mr. Cinque. Petitioner's Investigator William Cooter, however, testified credibly that after having numerous conversations with Mr. Cinque on the subject of underage sales, Mr. Cinque stated that he was not worried about losing his alcoholic beverage license because he could get another one in his mother's name. On the other hand, Mr. Cooter, by his own testimony, has been invited by Mr. Cinque to instruct and has, in fact, instructed Mr. Cinque's employees on how to prevent underage drinking. The evidence as a whole, but most particularly that of Prince Miles, Respondent's janitor, who is a credible witness, is persuasive that patrons sometimes smuggle alcoholic beverages onto the licensed premises and that each time the establishment closes, commercial alcoholic beverage containers which are not part of the inventory sold by Respondent must be swept out. Since this smuggling activity must substantially reduce Respondent's profits, it is a logical inference that such smuggling is contrary to Respondent's policy and that Respondent does not encourage or condone it, whether done by adults or minors. I. Notice to Show Cause GA11890374; September 16, 1989 through February 9, 1990; sale to Toombs, Kittles, Goldtrap, and Ormsbee by Green, Halladay, Howell, and Grimes and possession by Peters, Conf, Kelly, Garcia, Fernandez, Shiskin, Brejhanan, Benz, Yawn, and Plettner All of the violations charged in Notice to Show Cause GA11890374 arose prior to Respondent's becoming a certified Responsible Vendor on April 13, 1990. On September 16, 1989, Ryan Conf and Alejandra Peters were each under the age of 21 and in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises as pled. On September 19, 1989, Central City bartender David Green sold the Division's underaged operative, Bridgette Toombs, a liquid beverage in a long- neck, factory-produced 12-ounce bottle labelled "Michelob Dry." At that time, the licensed premises was not busy and Mr. Green noted that Ms. Toombs had no wristband. He therefore checked Ms. Toombs' underage ID and instructed her that since she was old enough to drink, she should go get a wristband. This transaction was observed by Petitioner's agent, Ms. Pendarakis, but Ms. Pendarakis did not overhear the conversation. After delivering a sample of the liquid beverage to Ms. Pendarakis in the ladies' room, Ms. Toombs crossed in front of Mr. Green's bar on her way to exit the licensed premises. Mr. Green sent word to Ms. Toombs by another Central City employee that he wanted to see her. Ms. Toombs complied with Mr. Green's request and showed him her underage ID once more. At that point, Mr. Green recognized his error in thinking that Ms. Toombs was 21 or over and called over several other Central City employees, all of whom viewed the ID showing Ms. Toombs was actually two months short of 19 years old. Mr. Green was not arrested until after the ID was passed around, so it may be inferred that his recognizing his mistake was not the result of any confrontation with Petitioner's agents or law enforcement officers or due to his perception that he had been "caught." Indeed, Petitioner's witness, Ms. Toombs, attributed Mr. Green's illegal sale to her as a mistake in subtraction. Mr. Green had previously successfully passed all tests required under the licensee's policy in existence before the Responsible Vendor tests were available. On October 20, 1989, Charlotte Kelly and Alezandro Garcia, who were under the age of 21, were each in the actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1989, Cesar Fernandez, who was under the age of 21, was in possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On the same date, underage operative Megan Kittles was inside the licensed premises. She was not wearing a wristband, and her hand was stamped indicating that she was under 21. She first approached a white male bartender who checked her and refused to serve her. She then ordered a rum and coke from Respondent's bartender, Craig Halladay. Mr. Halladay did not check Ms. Kittles' ID and served her a liquid beverage which Mr. Szabo of the Division testified that he had identified by smell as containing alcohol. No one saw the drink mixed, and Mr. Szabo admitted that he did not know what kind of alcohol the drink contained. He stated that he "would not swear it was rum." Mr. Szabo also was not aware until formal hearing that Respondent sold any nonalcoholic mixed drinks. Although the evidence is weak, it is persuasive that Ms. Kittles was served alcohol. Mr. Halladay successfully passed the licensee's policy test before this incident and the Responsible Vendor test afterwards. Also on October 21, 1989, Matthew Goldtrap, another underage operative, ordered a "Budweiser" and obtained a 12-ounce bottle labelled "beer" from a floor waitress named Shannon Howell. Mr. Goldtrap had no wristband but did have a stamp on his wrist. He gave the container to Investigator Smith. Mr. Szabo then took both of Respondent's employees into custody. Mr. Goldtrap does not drink alcohol. Investigator Smith did not testify, but it is inferred from the description of the beer bottle and the circumstances of the transaction as a whole that Mr. Goldtrap was served an alcoholic beverage. Ms. Howell successfully passed the licensee's test prior to this incident. On January 19, 1990, Scott Shiskin, Michael Brejhanan, and Carolyn Benz, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On February 9, 1990, Central City bartender Steve Grimes sold Petitioner's 19-year old operative Octavia Ormsbee a liquid beverage. Ms. Ormsbee, who had no wristband on, was first denied a sale of alcoholic beverage at the downstairs back bar after Respondent's bartender there checked her underage ID. Ms. Ormsbee then went to an upstairs bar and ordered a "Bud Light." She was told by Mr. Grimes, a bartender at that bar, that they were out of "Bud Light," and by agreement, a beer bottle labelled "Budweiser" was substituted. Ms. Ormsbee does not drink alcohol and did not testify that what she received from Mr. Grimes was alcohol. The bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee was turned over to Officer Byrd of the Gainesville Police Department. Officer Byrd, who is familiar with alcoholic beverages through his own education, training, practice, and experience, identified the contents of the bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee as being "beer." Officer Byrd turned the bottle over to Petitioner's agent Cooter. Also on this occasion, Preston Yawn and Eric Plettner, who were under the age of 21, were each actually in possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Mr. Grimes had successfully passed the licensee's policy test prior to this incident. All of the underaged operatives who testified concerning this Notice to Show Cause testified that Petitioner's adult operatives forbade them to drink (consume) what they were sold and that they did not consume any. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constituted their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, mere possession does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 2/ Therefore, Petitioner has only established that on September 19, 1989 Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to Petitioner's underage operative Bridgette Toombs; that on October 21, 1989, Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Megan Kittles; that also on October 21, 1989, Respondent's floor waitress sold Petitioner's underage operative Matthew Goldtrap an alcoholic beverage; and that on February 9, 1990, Respondent's bartender sold the Division's underage operative Octavia Ormsbee an alcoholic beverage. One of these sales was clearly a mistake and two other operatives had to go to two bartenders each before an illegal sale was made. II. Notice to Show Cause GA11890496; June 8, 1990 through June 16, 1990; sale to Wearner by Edge and to Seligman by Lemberger and Bergine and possession by Tetstone, Lockey, Klug, Skipper, and Bissell On June 8, 1990, Jennifer Tetstone and Amy Lockey, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. On June 16, 1990, Ann Klug, Shana Skipper, and Michael Bissell were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Also on June 16, 1990, Central City bartenders Michael Edge, Michael Bergine, and Robert Lemberger, respectively, sold each of the Division's underage operatives Kathy Wearner (who did not testify but who was stipulated to be underage) and Charles Seligman an alcoholic beverage. Neither underaged operative wore a wristband or was requested to produce an ID for purposes of the respective sales. As of date of formal hearing, the Respondent continued to employ these same bartenders. All of these bartenders had successfully completed the Responsible Vendor test before these incidents. Mr. Edge also had passed the licensee's earlier policy test. The underaged operative, Kathy Wearner, asked Michael Edge for "a Budweiser" and was sold liquid in a "Budweiser" beer bottle inverted in a drinking glass. Officer Rockey of the Gainesville Police Department convincingly described the liquid that came out of the bottle as beer, an alcoholic beverage. He turned the materials confiscated over to an unnamed agent of Respondent and has not seen them since. On the same date, Central City bartender Robert Lemberger sold a 12-ounce bottle labelled "Budweiser" to 18- year-old operative Charles Seligman. Mr. Seligman was at all times without a wristband and bearing a stamp on his hand. Mr. Seligman delivered the bottle he received from Mr. Lemberger to Officer Posey of the Gainesville Police Department who had watched the entire transaction. Mr. Seligman later purchased a 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to Officer Posey. Mr. Seligman purchased a third 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to one of Petitioner's agents, Ernest Wilson. Mr. Seligman does not drink alcohol. Agent Wilson does drink alcohol and testified that the bottle Charles Seligman handed him was, in fact, beer. Although Agent Wilson also testified that Mr. Seligman's first name was "Tom" and that Mr. Seligman had purchased a rum drink, nonetheless, Mr. Wilson was convincing that the bottle handed him by Mr. Seligman did, in fact, contain beer, an alcoholic beverage. Officer Posey convincingly described the first bottle he received from Mr. Seligman as containing beer, an alcoholic beverage, and upon all the circumstances, the undersigned infers that the second bottle given Officer Posey also contained beer. All the underaged operatives who testified on this Notice to Show Cause testified that they were forbidden to drink (consume) what they were sold and did not do so. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the other minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constitutes their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 3/ Therefore, Petitioner has established only that on June 16, 1990 Respondent's personnel sold one alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Wearner and three alcoholic beverages to the Petitioner's underage operative Seligman. III. Notice to Show Cause GA11900209; September 22, 1990 through September 29, 1990; service to, or consumption by Stanton, Coody, Willis, and, Torres On September 22, 1990, Amy Stanton and Janet Coody, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. On September 29, 1990, Betty Willis and Jose Torres, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 4/ IV. Notice to Show Cause GA11900254 October 19, 1990 through November 16, 1990; 9 counts possession by Harriett, Ortega, McKinney, Nelson, Smith, Winter, Joyner, Cooke, Sammon; "giving" by Blackwell and Strawser On October 19, 1990, Steven Harriett, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1990, Jamie Ortega, who was under the age of 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 20, 1990, Brian McKinney, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 15, 1990, Karen Nelson, Hollie Smith, Michael Winter, and Julia Joyner, all underage, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 16, 1990, Denise Cooke and Teresa Sammon, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 5/ No evidence was introduced to establish the allegations of Counts 4 and 6 of Notice to Show Cause GA11900254, alleging "giving."
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic and Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order dismissing Notices to Show Cause GA11900209 and GA11900254; finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890374, imposing a total of $1750 in civil fines therefor; and finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890496, imposing a total of $2000 in civil fines therefor. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1991.
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverage license should be denied because of the direct or indirect interest of John Lee Johnson, a person allegedly lacking good moral character.
Findings Of Fact In May, 1982, petitioner Betty Jean Johnson applied for a 2 APS (beer and wine) alcoholic beverage license to be used in connection with a business known as Johnson's Corner Grocery, 1400 North J. Street, Pensacola, Florida. On her application, petitioner indicated that she owned the business and that no other person had a direct or indirect interest in the business. (R-1) Prior to the petitioner filing her application, John Lee Johnson, her husband, had applied for a beverage license for the same location under his own name. When he failed to disclose his criminal history on the application, his application was denied and he was charged with the crime of filing a false official written statement. On May 12, 1982, he was convicted by the County Court of Escambia County. (Testimony of Baxley; R-3) John Johnson's filing of a false official statement supports an inference that he lacks good moral character. Petitioner did not present evidence sufficient to rebut or negate this inference. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, John Johnson has a direct or indirect interest in Johnson's Corner Grocery. He owns the underlying real property. He signs, and is authorized to sign, checks on the business account of Johnson's Corner Grocery. The business's utilities, light, water, and gas accounts are all in his name. (Testimony of Baxley, Johnson, Kelly; R-4) Petitioner, however, manage's the day-to-day operations of Johnson's Corner Grocery. On her application, she indicated that she had purchased the business for $80,000, with $25,000 down, and $55,000 financed by the Barnett Bank. She now admits that the $25,000 down payment was provided by John Johnson, her husband, and that he also co-signed the $55,000 note and mortgage. Her application, however, does not disclose Mr. Johnson's participation in the purchase and financing of, the business. (Testimony of Johnson; R-1, R-4) On November 9, 1982, three days before hearing, Mr. Johnson leased the Johnson's Corner Grocery property to petitioner for $675.00 per month for three years. The handwritten lease, which was not signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses, states that Mr. Johnson will not be "responsible for . . . the operations of . . . [the] business." This assertion is rejected as unworthy of belief in light of his extensive involvement in purchasing and setting up the business, and his continuing access to its funds. (P-1)
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined for allegedly serving alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 19 contrary to Section 562.11(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license No. 64-00061, Series 6-COP. Under this license, it operates a liquor store and lounge, where it serves alcoholic beverages, at ABC Liquors #65 ("lounge #65" or "licensed premises"), 2527 Reid Street, Palatka, Florida. (Testimony of Ewing, Holloway, Ottens.) I. At approximately 7:00 p.m. on October 23, 1981, Clay Lamar Strickland, 16 years old, entered respondent's lounge in the company of several friends--one was 20, the others were 19 years old. During the two hours which followed, he ordered and was served by two barmaids, a beer and eight or nine mixed alcoholic drinks. Neither barmaid requested identification. (Testimony of Strickland.) At approximately 9:30 p.m., he left the lounge for twenty minutes, then returned and ordered additional mixed drinks. Again, the barmaids did not check his identification. (Testimony of Strickland.) When he left the lounge at the end of the evening, he was involved in a car accident and charged with driving while intoxicated and wanton reckless driving. After a test was administered, he was informed that the alcohol content of his blood was 0.12 percent. (Testimony of Strickland.) The two barmaids who served Mr. Strickland, Mary Tyler and Brenda Adams, did not intentionally serve alcohol to a minor. They believed he was 19 or older. At that time, he played football for Palatka High School; he was approximately 5'll" tall and weighed 170 pounds. Because of his size and mature-looking face, he could easily have been mistaken for an adult. (Testimony of Adams, Tyler, Strickland.) October 23, 1981, was not r. Strickland's first visit to the lounge. Once before, he had succeeded in purchasing one beer; on other occasions, his identification had been checked and service was refused. He was well aware that he was underage and could not legally purchase alcohol. (Testimony of Strickland.) II. Respondent operates 148 similar liquor stores and lounges throughout Florida. It has announced and repeatedly emphasized to its employees a policy prohibiting sales of alcohol to minors. Its regulations inform new employees of the law against sales of alcohol to persons under 19, and require that bartenders check I.D.s of anyone who "doesn't look 23" or older. Periodic bulletins which must be signed and returned by employees, and posted notes of supervisors' meetings have reiterated respondent's company-wide policy against the sale of alcohol to minors. Further, the manager and night manager of store #65 frequently reminded their employees of the policy against sales to minors and the requirement to check I.D.s when in doubt about a customer's age. Ms. Tyler and Ms. Adams, the barmaids who served Mr. Strickland, were aware of this policy. (Testimony of Holloway, Tyler, Adams; R-1, R-2, R.-3.) On the whole, respondent has been successful in preventing sales of alcohol to minors in its stores and lounges. In the last ten years, it has been cited only ten times for violations relating to the unlawful sale of alcohol to minors. But a disproportionate number of those violations occurred at the Palatka #65 lounge. On two previous occasions, in 1979 and 1981, respondent admitted to unlawful sales of alcohol to minors at the #65 lounge and paid civil penalties. (Testimony of Holloway; P-1, P-6.) Yet, after each of these violations, including the incident involving Mr. Strickland in October, 1981, respondent's remedial action was simply to reinstruct employees at #65 of its policy not to serve alcoholic beverages to minors and to prevent such incidents from occurring. This action was not substantially different from the routine reminders it periodically issued to its employees in the past. (Testimony of Holloway, Ottens, Lindholtz.) At lounge #65, signs were not posted calling attention to its policy that sales to minors were prohibited. Neither did it post an employee at the main entrance to check I.D.s and keep minors out of the premises. (Testimony of Holloway, Ottens, Lindholtz.) III. The foregoing findings support a factual inference that respondent was not reasonably diligent in taking steps to prevent further repetition of sales to minors at its #65 lounge. Having been placed on notice that such incidents were occurring in disproportionate number at #65 lounge, it had a duty to investigate, to determine why such a phenomenon had occurred, and to take further precautionary measures. Instead, it was satisfied to simply remind the employees of store #65 of longstanding company policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license for lounge #65 be suspended for thirty days from entry of the final order in this proceeding. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 1st day of October, 1982.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, alcoholic beverage license No. 26-01841, Series No. 2-APS, was issued to Respondents, Frank D. and Estella S. Ryers, for their establishment known as the Big B Restaurant, located at 5570 Avenue B, Jacksonville, Florida. A 2-APS license permits the package sale only of beer and wine. It does not permit the consumption on the premises of beer, wine, or liquor. On March 27, 1983, Investigator Wendell M. Reeves conducted an undercover operation directed against the Big B Restaurant predicated upon reports received by Petitioner that Respondents were conducting sales of alcoholic beverages not permitted by the license at the licensed premises. In furtherance of that operation, Reeves utilized another beverage agent, Van Young, in an undercover capacity to make a controlled buy of an improperly sold substance from the licensees. Prior to sending Young into the licensed premises, Reeves searched Young to ensure that he, Young, had no alcoholic beverage or money in his possession. Satisfying himself that that was the case, he gave Young $15 in U.S. currency and sent him into the licensed premises to make the buy. Young entered the Big B Restaurant at 1:00 p.m. and came out 17 minutes later. When he came out of the licensed premises, Young came over to where Reeves was waiting and turned over to him a sealed 200 ml bottle of Fleishman's Gin. Young told Reeves that he had purchased the gin in the licensed premises from a black male whose description matched that of Respondent Frank D. Byers which is contained on Respondent's application for license. Respondent Frank Byers denies making the sale. On balance, however, there is little doubt it was Respondent who made the sale, especially in light of the fact that this same licensee was issued a letter of warning by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in October 1981 for possession on the premises of an alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold under the license. Young also stated that he purchased a second bottle which he consumed on the premises with another black male. However, this evidence was in the form of Reeves' report of what was told him by Young. As such, it is clearly hearsay and can be used only to corroborate or explain other admissible evidence. Therefore, as to the allegation regarding the consumption of the gin on the premises, since it is the only evidence of that offense, it cannot be used to support a finding of fact on that allegation. It may, however, be used to explain how Young got the bottle with which he was seen by Reeves to come out of the licensed premises. Several days later, on March 30, 1983, Reeves again entered the licensed premises, where he told Respondent Estella Byers he was there to inspect the site. She opened the cooler for him and he inspected the beer inside and the cigarettes. While he was doing that, however, he noticed her take a cloth towel and drape it over something behind the bar. He went over to it, removed the towel, and found that it covered a bottle of Schenley's gin. Mrs. Byers immediately said she thought it was her husband's, Respondent Frank Byers, but another individual present at the time, Sharon Thomas, said she had taken it from her brother, who was drunk, and had put it there. Again, as to Ms. Thomas' comments, they, too, are hearsay and can only serve here to explain or corroborate other admissible evidence. In any case, after Ms. Thomas made her comment, she was immediately contradicted by Respondent Estella Byers, who again indicated she thought the bottle was her husband's. In any case, at the hearing, Respondent Estella Byers contended she did not know it was there. On balance, Mr. Reeves' testimony that she covered it with a towel while he was inspecting and the evidence of the prior warning for an identical offense tend to indicate she did know it was there and that it was unlawful for it to be there. There is, however, no evidence to establish sufficiently the reason for its being there.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Action, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent operated a restaurant, Atlantic Street Station, located in Delray Beach, Florida. Since 1998, Respondent has held a Special Restaurant License (license number 60-11520 4COP SRX), authorizing it to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of Atlantic Street Station. During the months of January and February 2000, $66,729.49, or slightly less than 33% of Atlantic Street Station's total gross revenues of $205,679.76, came from the retail sale on the licensed premises of food and non-alcoholic beverages.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that DABT enter a final order finding Respondent violated Section 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Action, and disciplining Respondent therefor by revoking its license "without prejudice to obtain any other type of license, but with prejudice to obtain the same type of special license for 5 years," and fining Respondent $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ____________________________ STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 2001.
The Issue Whether the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) should take disciplinary action against respondent or its DABT license for the reasons alleged in the notice to show cause?
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent 201 West, Inc. d/b/a Central City/Congo Craig's Safari, has held a quota license, No. 11-00259 4COP, authorizing it to sell alcoholic beverages at 201 West University Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. On August 23, 1991, Craig Cinque, respondent's sole shareholder and officer, executed on respondent's behalf a consent agreement which petitioner accepted and filed on September 6, 1991, resolving administrative proceedings then pending. The consent agreement provides: "The second and third floors now known as 'Congo Craig's' shall not admit customers under 21 years of age for a period of two years " Underaged Patrons Apprehended At eleven o'clock on a crowded Saturday night, September 7, 1991, five DABT officers entered Congo Craig's to check patrons' ages. DABT and other witnesses agreed that the bar had enough staff demanding proof from patrons of their ages as they entered, and that the lighting was adequate for this purpose. The DABT officers checked a number of already admitted patrons' "ID's" themselves, and found a false one that a 20-year-old woman, Amy L. Bruns, whom they saw drinking draft beer, had used to gain admission. The Maryland driver's license described a woman of its bearer's height and weight, but depicted a blonde, not the brunette the officers accosted. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The next time DABT officers, again a contingent of five, discovered an under age patron at Congo Craig's was on October 12, 1991, another Saturday night when DABT and other witnesses agreed that the bar had enough staff checking patrons' ages as they entered, and that the lighting was adequate. Kim M. Chiappara, then 20 years and eight months old, was sharing a pitcher of draft beer with her older sister and others when she was interrogated by the DABT officers that night. A search of her person turned up no false identification. She was not asked whether she had used any, or borrowed her sister's identification, to get by the bouncers. The next Friday night DABT officers apprehended Dari A. Layne, who was born on October 27, 1972, at Congo Craig's shortly before midnight, as she was consuming a mixed drink. The "very good" counterfeit Pennsylvania driver's license she produced when asked for identification has her photograph, but lacks a holographic state stamp on the obverse and has a photocopied reverse, albeit duly laminated. After midnight on the same foray, DABT officers discovered Kim C. Stampler, three months and a week shy of her 21st birthday, holding a clear plastic cup containing a purple liquid. She denied having false identification, but a DABT officer's search turned some up. Also in the early hours of October 19, 1991, DABT officers arrested Christopher Wisniewski, an apparently intoxicated 16-year-old, whose father, also apparently intoxicated, only reluctantly admitted their relationship. Christopher, who was not asked what or whose identification, if any, he had used to get in, had a valid Florida driver's license on his person. Bar Tender Arrested The personnel that respondent assigned to check patrons identification as they entered did not take their stations until five o'clock evenings, an hour after opening. Aware of this, the DABT dispatched Randy Gordon (a stout, older- looking 19-year-old, who has succeeded two out of three times in efforts of this kind at some ten other establishments) to Congo Craig's. He readily gained admission between four and half past on the afternoon of November 8, 1991, without being asked for identification. The first customer of the evening, Randy asked Eric Frauman (who had agreed at the last minute to fill in for another bartender, and who ordinarily worked evenings when the bouncers, not the bartenders, are responsible for checking customers' identification) for a hamburger and a beer. Although he had been told to "card" everybody, Mr. Frauman neglected to ask young Mr. Gordon for identification. The second customer that evening was Ernest Wilson, the special DABT agent responsible for paying five dollars an hour for Mr. Gordon's services. Mr. Wilson took the beer, and Mr. Gordon, who paid for both, got the hamburger, which he described as very good. Mr. Frauman, a graduate student hoping to work as an educational counselor, was arrested and eventually prosecuted criminally. Precautions Taken Respondent is qualified as a responsible vendor, and was so certified during the time DABT made such certifications. All of the 18 employees respondent relies on for "security," those checking patrons' ages at night as well as the daytime bartenders and servers, are current with regard to the courses, tests and update meetings the responsible vendor program requires. Respondent's managers are current on requirements for managers. At weekly meetings of the managers, underage drinking was a regular topic. A book depicting driver's licenses in various jurisdictions is kept on the premises, and respondent's employees who testified seemed knowledgeable on the subject. Employees responsible for checking patrons' ages are told to require, at least of anybody who looks younger than 45, a driver's license, military identification or a passport. Several repeat customers testified that they had invariably been "carded." Although Congo Craig's can lawfully accommodate no more than 925 persons at any one time, the crowd "turns over" as the night wears on. From 35,000 to 45,000 patrons were on the premises between September 7, 1991, and November 18, 1991. During this period, DABT officers made several visits on which they failed to find a single patron under the age of 21. According to Kim Ehrich, who once worked at Congo Craig's, but now works elsewhere, Congo Craig's is probably the "strictest" bar in Gainesville, and does a more thorough job checking identification than the three other bars where she has worked in Gainesville. Willful Breach A week or so before the party at Congo Craig's on October 3, 1991, Charlotte Olsen, then social chairperson for the Phi Sigma Sigma sorority, told somebody at Congo Craig's that some of the party-goers would be under 21 years of age. She offered the sorority's wrist bands to demarcate those old enough to drink legally, but Congo Craig's used its own instead. Mr. Cinque was aware that underaged persons were expected to attend the party scheduled for the second and third floors, and decided to allow it, despite the consent agreement, in order to preserve "good will." About half of the 50 to 60 people at the party were under 21 years of age. He added staff, he testified, in an effort to stymie drinking by underaged attendees. This effort proved dramatically unsuccessful. Past Problems DABT established (in aggravation of penalty only) that respondent has a long history of problems of the kind proven in this case, dating to when respondent's father owned the establishment. When Mr. Cinque worked as a manager, before he became the owner, DABT issued some ten orders to show cause alleging beverage law violations, most of which respondent admitted. Since the younger Mr. Cinque assumed ownership, DABT has filed eight additional orders to show cause, the first seven of which were consolidated and disposed of by the consent agreement accepted by DABT on September 6, 1991.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco suspend respondent's license for ten (10) days. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of December, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 December 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 34- 46, 50, 53-56 and 58 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 22 and 23, it is not that easy to make out the eye color of the woman depicted on the license. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 26, Ms. Chiappara did not testify at hearing; it is not clear what sworn statement is meant. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 27, the evidence suggested that she used the counterfeit license to gain entry. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 30 and 33, the method of entry was not proven, but there was speculation. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 32, she was drinking a purple beverage. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 47, she so testified. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 48, 49 and 59 are properly proposed conclusions of law. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact No. 51 and 52 have been rejected as not established by the weight of the evidence. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 57, the number of allegations is immaterial. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-10 and 14-17 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11, Mr. Frauman did not usually work the day shift. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, time constraints do not account for the failure to honor the consent order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 13 is properly a proposed conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Sy Chadroff, Esquire 2700 S. W. 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133-2728 Donald D. Conn General Counsel The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Richard W. Scully Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
