The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Emergency Order of Suspension; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to this matter, the Respondent, Robert L. Seamans, held alcoholic beverage license no. 23-00987, series 4-COP, for the licensed premises located at 11425 S.W. 40th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida, known as the Lucky Lady. Respondent, age 64, has held alcoholic beverage licenses in the states of New York or Florida since 1963. Respondent has never been charged or reprimanded for a beverage law violation until these proceedings. At all times material to this case, the Respondent employed a barmaid at the Lucky Lady who was known as "Stella." Also present at the Lucky Lady during relevant time periods was a drifter known to the bar patrons as "Tom". In exchange for food and/or the use of the bar kitchen, Tom assisted the barmaids by carrying out trash, stocking the beer cooler, or filling the ice bins. Although Tom was not an employee at the Lucky Lady, he, like many of the regular patrons, had unrestricted use of the Lucky Lady's kitchen area. Sometime prior to April, 1990, a bar located near the Lucky Lady was closed by the Department following an investigation and a determination that controlled substances were being either sold or possessed on the licensed premises. Respondent was aware of the action taken to close the local bar and was further aware that undesirable persons from that bar might attempt to patronize the Lucky Lady. Respondent had considered joining the Department's Responsible Vendors Program but did not. Respondent's policy was to exclude any customer suspected of improper conduct whether related to drugs or other inappropriate activities. To effect that policy Respondent maintained a "barred" list which listed those individuals either by name or description who were not welcome at the Lucky Lady. Employees were instructed to request any person on the barred list to leave the facility. In the event such person refused, the police were to be summoned. On numerous occasions not described below, patrons of the Lucky Lady have observed Respondent escorting persons from the bar who were suspected of, or were known to have exhibited, improper conduct. Respondent relied on his wife, Tanya, to assist him to monitor the interior areas of the Lucky Lady. It was Mrs. Seamans' custom to remain in the licensed premises throughout the evening hours and to watch for any improper conduct. If she observed anything suspicious, she would either report the activity to her husband or to an employee for further investigation and/or action. Unfortunately, Mrs. Seamans sustained a broken hip on April 29, 1990, and was unable to supervise the licensed premises after that date. The Respondent did not obtain a replacement to perform Mrs. Seaman's monitoring function. During May, 1990, Vincent Weiner, a law enforcement investigator employed by the Department, conducted an undercover narcotics investigation of the Lucky Lady. To effect his purpose, Mr. Weiner assumed the name "Vinnie Capio" and began to patronize the licensed premises. On May 5, 1990, Mr. Weiner and a confidential informant went to the Lucky Lady and asked Stella if cocaine were available. Stella directed the two men to the restroom. Once there, they proceeded to complete the transaction with Tom based upon the price which had been negotiated with Stella ($25.00). On this occasion, in exchange for the $25.00, Mr. Weiner received a clear baggie containing a substance which was later analyzed and found to be cocaine. On May 8, 1990, Mr. Weiner returned to the Lucky Lady and again inquired if cocaine were available for purchase. On this date, Stella went to the kitchen and returned with a packet which was exchanged with Mr. Weiner across the bar counter for $25.00. This packet was later analyzed to be cocaine. At all times when Mr. Weiner was seated at the bar counter, other patrons were also present at the counter during the course of the transactions. Mr. Weiner attempted to make a second purchase of cocaine on May 8, 1990. Similar to the prior transaction of that date, Stella went to the kitchen but returned with a written message for Mr. Weiner which she handed to him (instead of another packet). Tide message stated, "he's OUT he got rid of all of them already." Stella did not identify the "he" noted in the message. On May 15, 1990, Mr. Weiner purchased two packets of cocaine at the Lucky Lady. During the first transaction, Stella advised Mr. Weiner to enter the kitchen where he met Tom. Tom then took a packet from an envelope on the kitchen shelf and exchanged it for $25.00. Later in the evening, Mr. Weiner gave $25.00 to Stella while Tom removed another packet from the envelope and handed it to the investigator. This second exchange also took place in the Lucky Lady kitchen. Both of the packets purchased on this date were later analyzed and found to be cocaine. On May 18, 1990, the investigator returned to the Lucky Lady and purchased two packets from Stella and Tom. Again, the exchange took place within the kitchen and the amount for these transactions totalled $50.00. The substance obtained on this date was later analyzed and found to be cocaine. On May 22, 1990, Mr. Weiner was seated at the bar when Stella asked him if he would be needing anything that evening. The investigator placed $25.00 on the bar while Stella went to her purse (located behind the bar counter) and retrieved a packet which she then exchanged for the money. This transaction took place in front of the other patrons seated at the bar. Later in the evening, in the same manner as described above, Mr. Weiner purchased a second packet from Stella. Both of the packets obtained on this date were later analyzed and found to be cocaine. On May 29, 1990, Stella was again behind the bar at the Lucky Lady. On this date, Mr. Weiner negotiated for one packet (which she obtained from her purse located within the bar area) in exchange for $25.00. This packet was later analyzed and found to be cocaine. The Respondent was present within the premises at the Lucky Lady during at least one of the transactions described above. There is no evidence that Respondent was personally involved in the exchanges nor that he was aware of the sales. The Respondent does not dispute that the substance purchased by Mr. Weiner on each of the occasions described above was cocaine. During the course of the investigation Mr. Weiner observed video poker games located within the licensed premises. The games were coin operated and required the player to choose a hand for five card draw poker. By discarding any or all of his original hand, the player attempts to, by the chance of the game, receive a winning hand. The game awards points for Winning hands and subtracts points for losing hands. If a player accrues more points than he paid for, he finishes ahead of the machine. On May 22, 1990, Mr. Weiner finished playing the video poker game with a total of 36 points. That total was 16 more than he had originally purchased. Mr. Weiner consulted Stella regarding the results and she wrote his name and the point total on a piece of paper which she then placed near the cash register. On May 23, 1990, Mr. Weiner returned to the Lucky Lady and requested his "mail." He intended to obtain his winnings related to the video game he had played the day before. He received $9.00 which he believed was the amount he was due for accruing the 36 points. No other explanation as to why Mr. Weiner would receive $9.00 from the bar (except in connection with video game results) was suggested by either party. On May 31, 1990, an Emergency Order of Suspension was executed by the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. That order was served on the Respondent on June 1, 1990, and the licensed premises have been closed since that time. On June 1, 1990, an inspection of the Lucky Lady premises was conducted by agents of the Department. The Respondent had keys to the video poker games described in Paragraphs 16 and 17.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 23-00987, series 4-COP, for the premises located at 11425 S.W. 40th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3447 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. To the extent the drug transactions are outlined in findings paragraphs 7 through 13, the Department's paragraphs 4 through 12 are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. To the extent the video poker games are addressed in findings paragraphs 16 and 17, the Department's paragraphs 13-15 are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 16 through 18 are accepted. But see also finding paragraphs 3 and 4. Except as addressed in finding paragraph 2, paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant, comment or argument not constituting a factual finding. Paragraph 5 is rejected as recitation of testimony. The video poker games were games of chance in that the machine, of its own design (not a player's choosing) dictated the hand received by the player. Paragraphs 6 through 9 are accepted. It is accepted that Respondent did not personally engage in the illegal sales recounted in the order; otherwise, paragraph 10 is rejected a irrelevant, argument or comment. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry A. Amoon Continental National Bank Building Suite 408 400 Southwest 107th Avenue Miami, Florida 33174 John B. Fretwell Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Stephen R. MacNamara Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Giraldo Gonzalez, d/b/a LaGoma Restaurant, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-03475, series 2- COP, for the premises known as LaGoma Restaurant, 9550 N.W. South River Drive, Miami, Dade County, Florida. On May 30, 1986, Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), following a complaint from another agency, began a narcotics investigation at the licensed premises. On that date, DABT Investigators Carlos Baixauli and Hector Garcia, operating under cover, entered the licensed premises and seated themselves at the bar. During the course of their visit they observed the on-duty bartender, Annie, deliver money to a male patron and receive from him a matchbook containing a small plastic packet of white powder. Annie subsequently delivered the matchbook to an unidentified male who was standing outside the front door of the premises. On June 3, 1986, Investigators Baixauli and Garcia returned to the licensed premises and again seated themselves at the bar. Investigator Garcia asked the on-duty bartender, Mindy, if she could get him some "perico" (Spanish slang for cocaine) Mindy subsequently approached Investigator Garcia and, sitting on his lap, pressed a small plastic bag of cocaine into his hand. Garcia paid Mindy $50.00 for the substance. 1/ On June 4, 1986, Investigators Baixauli and Garcia returned to the licensed premises. As they seated themselves at the bar, Investigator Garcia observed two patrons playing the video poker machine and shortly thereafter saw Respondent open the machine, erase the accumulated points, and pay the patrons and unknown quantity of money from the cash register. Later, while seated at the bar, Investigator Garcia engaged the on-duty bartender, Mindy, in conversation. Mindy placed a napkin on the bar in front of Garcia, poured cocaine onto it from a plastic package she had removed from her pocket, and invited Garcia to try some "perico". At that time there were a number of patrons, including a family with small children, seated proximate to Garcia. The investigators went to the bathroom and secured the cocaine in an evidence bag. Upon their return from the bathroom, the investigators heard screaming and arguing near the bar. They observed a male patron approach another male patron, who was carrying a gym bag which he claimed contained a shotgun, and demand that he put the gun away or use it. Respondent attempted to quell the disturbance; however, the patron with the bag swung it against the other patron's head, causing a severe cut and profuse bleeding. As the two patrons wrestled to the floor among broken bottles and glass, Respondent picked up the gym bag and hid it in the kitchen. After the fight broke up, Respondent's employees immediately cleaned up the premises. When the police arrived to investigate the disturbance they found no evidence of the mayhem that had occurred, and were assured by Respondent that only a miner altercation had taken place. Contrary to Respondent's assurances, a real donnybrook had occurred, and the patron struck with the gym bag had suffered severe injuries and was, at that moment, in the hospital. After the police left, another on-duty bartender, Debra (Mindy's sister), approached the investigators while they were seated at the bar and, laughing, began talking about the fight. During the course of their conversation, Debra removed a straw from her shoe and a five dollar bill from her blouse. She unfolded the bill on the bar, revealing a white powdered substance, and snorted a portion of the substance through the straw. Several patrons, together with bartender Mindy, were present at this time. Later that evening, Mindy handed Investigator Garcia a small plastic bag of cocaine, telling him to go try some. The investigators went into the bathroom where they transferred a portion of the cocaine into a plastic bag for evidence and returned the remainder to Mindy." 2/ On June 6, 1986, Investigators Baixauli and Garcia returned to the premises, and assumed their usual seats at the bar. A patron seated next to Investigator Garcia introduced himself as Eduardo and asked Garcia if he wanted to buy some good perico. When Garcia agreed, Eduardo stood, removed a small plastic bag of cocaine from his pocket, laid it on the bar, and received $45.00 from Garcia. Several patrons, together with the on-duty bartender, Maritza, observed the transaction. Later, Investigator Baixauli asked on-duty bartender Debra if she could get him some cocaine. When Debra agreed, Baixauli gave her $50.00 and she walked over to three male patrons. Upon her return, Debra placed a plastic package of cocaine on the bar in front of the investigator. Several patrons smiled at Baixauli after observing the transaction. Following this sale, off- duty waitress Jenny approached Investigator Baixauli and told him she was sure he would like the perico since she was the supplier. Subsequently, Jenny joined a male patron seated down the bar, and the two snorted a white powder off the bar in the presence of numerous patrons. On June 9, 1986, Investigators Baixauli and Garcia returned to the licensed premises. The investigators began speaking with patron Eduardo, regarding the purchase of more cocaine. The investigators left the bar for a short time with Eduardo, but returned before him. When Eduardo entered the premises, he was carrying a large plastic bag containing approximately one ounce of marijuana. Eduardo placed the bag on the bar in front of the investigators, and told them the marijuana was on the house. On-duty bartenders Esperanza and Candy, together with Respondent, were proximate to this transaction. On June 10, 1986, the investigators returned to the premises. During the course of their visit, Investigator Baixauli observed a male patron playing the video poker machine who suddenly exclaimed "I won". Respondent told the patron to "leave it on 600 and I'll pay you". Respondent then paid the patron $150.00 from the cash register. The investigators again returned to the premises on June 12, 1986. As Investigator Garcia spoke with off-duty waitress Jenny, she removed a small change purse from her boot, which she opened to reveal several small packages of white powder. Jenny told Garcia she would sell him some for $50.00, as opposed to $60.00, if he would agree to let on-duty bartender Maritza have some. When Garcia agreed, Jenny and Haritza went to the restroom. Jenny subsequently returned and handed the packet of cocaine to Investigator Garcia. Later, a patron identified as Roger sat next to Investigator Garcia and Jenny, and purchased a packet of cocaine from her. Roger subsequently handed Jenny the packet and told her to let her friends try some. Investigator Garcia went to the restroom, secured a sample of the cocaine for evidence, and returned the remainder to Jenny. On June 16, 1986, the investigators returned to the premises and took their usual seats at the bar; on duty were bartenders Mindy and Debra. Investigator Baixauli observed Respondent standing at the video poker machine watching a patron play. When the patron had achieved a score of 400 points, he told Respondent to "credit me 50 on the machine and give me the rest". Respondent credited the machine 50 points, and paid the patron an unknown amount of money from the cash register. Meanwhile, Eduardo seated himself next to Investigator Garcia and asked if he wanted to buy some good cocaine. Garcia told Eduardo that he was a little short of cash, however, since Mindy volunteered to go halves, Garcia agreed. Garcia gave Mindy $25.00, she borrowed $10.00 from Debra, and gave Eduardo a total of $50.00 in exchange for a plastic packet of cocaine. Mindy held the packet up for Debra to see, whereupon they went to the restroom. Upon their return, Mindy placed the packet of cocaine on the bar in front of Garcia. On June 18, 1986, the investigators returned to the premises, and took their usual seats at the bar. While Garcia was seated next to, and speaking with, off-duty waitress Jenny, Jenny summoned Respondent. While Respondent was present, Garcia asked Jenny if she had a small amount of perico he could have since he was short of cash. At that point, Respondent moved about 3-4 feet away to speak with a patron. Jenny removed a plastic packet of cocaine from her pocket and placed it on the bar. As Garcia reached to pick up the packet, he observed Respondent looking in his direction. As Garcia continued to speak with Jenny, a male patron approached her and asked if she had his "stuff". Jenny handed the man a plastic packet containing a white powder and he paid her an unknown quantity of money. Investigator Garcia subsequently observed the patron snort a portion of the white powder through a rolled up dollar bill while standing in the pool room area. A number of patrons were playing pool or standing in the area during his activity. The investigators returned to the premises on June 20, 1986, and observed Respondent pay off on the video poker machine. Later in the evening, while Respondent was speaking to Sixto Gonzalez, Sixto called Mindy over and handed her a marijuana cigarette. Mindy and her sister Debra went to the service door and smoked the marijuana. On June 23, 1986, the investigators returned to the premises. After assuming their usual seats, Investigator Baixauli asked on-duty bartender Debra if she had any cocaine for sale. Debra replied that she did not, but that she could get some from another on-duty bartender, Esperanza. Baixauli gave Debra $50.00, and she secured a plastic packet of cocaine from Esperanza and delivered it to Baixauli. Several patrons, who were speaking with Esperanza at the time, observed the transaction. On June 27, 1986, the investigators returned to the premises for the last time. Seated in their usual seats, Investigator Baixauli counted out $50.00 in front of on-duty bartender Mindy. Mindy immediately picked up the money and, walking away, announced "it's perico time". Baixauli observed Mindy approach a male known as Flaco and then go the restroom. When she returned to Baixauli, she handed him a plastic packet of cocaine. Baixauli held the packet up in the presence of other patrons, and while Respondent was standing behind the bar. All of the events summarized in the preceding paragraphs took place at the licensed premises during normal business hours and at times when Respondent was present. At no time did Respondent or his employees express any concern about any of the drug transactions. In fact, all of the employees who worked in the bar portion of the licensed premises knew that marijuana and cocaine were being used and sold on the licensed premises, on a regular, frequent, and flagrant basis. Neither Respondent, nor any of his employees, took any action to prevent, discourage, or terminate the sale or use of controlled substances.
The Issue abetting bookmaking on its licensed premises. If so, what disciplinary action
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against Rickey's Restaurant and Bar, Inc., be DISMISSED. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 5th day of February, 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
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the notice to show cause.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Lehigh Acres Memorial Post #4174, VFW of U. S., Inc. (respondent or club), held alcoholic beverage license number 46-00555, series 11-C, issued by petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). Respondent used the license to sell alcoholic beverages at its club located at 18 South Homestead Road, Lehigh Acres, Florida. Under the license, respondent was authorized to sell alcoholic beverages to its members and guests, provided such guests signed a guest book and the members paid for all drinks. Described by respondent's qualified representative as a "day of infamy", October 29, 1989, was the day on which petitioner conducted a search of respondent's licensed premises. The search was conducted after Division investigator Steven H. Thompkins visited the club on three prior occasions in October 1989 in an undercover capacity. Those visits were prompted by an anonymous complaint that the club was engaged in illegal gambling activities. Based upon information uncovered during the three visits, a search warrant was obtained from a local judge, and two Division investigators and three Lee County deputy sheriffs entered the licensed premises on Sunday afternoon, October 29, during the midst of a Bingo game being attended by forty or fifty club members and their guests. Thereafter, a notice to show cause was issued by the Division alleging that respondent had violated chapter 561 in several respects. The issuance of the notice to show cause prompted respondent to initiate this proceeding. Search Warrant A search warrant was obtained by Thompkins and an assistant state attorney from a local county judge on October 27, 1989. The probable cause was based upon an affidavit filed by Thompkins which requested that the judge issue the warrant to search the premises of the club in "the daytime or the nighttime, or on Sunday as the exigencies of the occasion demand or require." Although the warrant was executed on a Sunday, the warrant did not refer to Sunday or specifically authorize a search to be made on a Sunday. Rather, after referring to Thompkins' affidavit, describing the premises to be searched, and citing the type of gambling paraphernalia believed to be on the premises, the warrant read in relevant part as follows: THESE ARE THEREFORE to command you with proper and necessary assistants of the law enforcement agencies, to enter and to search the above described premises referred to as VFW Post 4174, 18 South Homestead Road, Lehigh Acres, Lee County, Florida, for the property described above: a daily number book, betting pool sheets for baseball, pull tab cards for a game of chance instant bingo, two video poker machines, a green bag or envelope, and papers or documents or currency used in connection with the gambling operation. When the warrant was executed on the club premises, the affidavit was not physically attached to the warrant. This finding is based on uncontroverted testimony presented by respondent. Count (1) Count (1) of the notice to show cause alleges that between October 15 and October 22, 1989, respondent, through its agents Walter Adams and Cindy Carboni, "did sell alcoholic beverages to a nonmember to wit: Stephen Thompkins." Respondent has stipulated that Adams, a club bartender, did sell a beer Thompkins on October 15 and 22, 1989, and a mixed drink on October 22, 1989. The record also shows that Thompkins purchased a mixed drink from Carboni on October 19, 1989. All sales were in the club bar on the licensed premises. Thompkins was not a member of the club, had not signed in on the club's guest book, and was not a member's guest. The record further shows that Thompkins did not mislead or deceive the club bartenders into believing that he was a member or guest. Therefore, the allegation in Count I has been sustained. Count 2(a) Part (a) of the second count charges that between October 15 and 29, 1989, the club possessed "Bingo pull tabs tickets and door prize raffle tickets within (its) licensed premises which are gambling devices and had `been used for gambling purposes contrary to F.S. 849.231(1)." Each Sunday afternoon around 1:45 p.m., the club conducted a Bingo game. In order to play Bingo and receive a Bingo card, a patron had to purchase a minimum of four double numbered tickets at fifty cents per ticket. Half of the ticket was retained by the club and used as the basis for a drawing at intermission. On his October 22, 1989, visit, agent Thompkins was a winner on the drawing and received a Florida Lottery Wild Winner's ticket as a prize. For fifty cents each, a patron could also purchase Bingo pull tab cards which are small cards having five removable tabs. These cards were sold only on Sundays by Robert Wagner, a club officer, during the 3:30 p.m. intermission. If the right combination (e.g. the letters "BINGO") was underneath the tabs, a customer could win cash prizes. Indeed, on Thompkins' first visit, one of the forty tickets he purchased for $20 was a winner, and Thompkins received a $51 cash prize. The club also conducted a daily drawing wherein patrons purchased for twenty-five cents a chance to win by placing their names in small capsules which were kept in a large plastic jar. At the end of each day a capsule was drawn out of the jar at random, and the name selected won a prize. To keep track of the participants, the club required them to write their names in a "daily book" (a stenographer's pad) while the prize money was retained in a coffee can kept for that purpose. In addition to the daily drawings, the club conducted what was called a weekly 50:50 drawing which involved essentially the same procedure as the daily drawing, that is, patrons purchased chances by placing their names into small capsules which were kept in a plastic jar until the lucky capsule wad drawn once a week. In both games, the club retained a portion of the moneys wagered by the patrons. Thus, the club was engaged in gambling activities as alleged in the notice to show cause. Count (2)(b) The second portion of Count (2) alleges that between October 15 and 29, 1989, the club "did possess World Series Baseball Pool Sheets and two (2) video poker machines which are gambling devices and had been used for gambling purposes." In the club bar, the bartender (Adams) maintained a World Series pool sheet, which was a large card with ten numbered spaces across the top and ten numbered spaces down, or one hundred spaces in all. Individuals participating in the pool signed their names in various blocks of the card indicating what they thought the score would be. Each chance cost twenty-five cents, and on his first visit, Thompkins purchased twelve chances for three dollars. Such a sheet was also maintained for subsequent World Series games. Therefore, it is found that the club possessed baseball pool sheets for gambling purposes. During the time period in question, the club maintained two Greyhound electric video game machines on its licensed premises. One was known as "Hi Lo Joker Poker", the other as "Super Poker." Each game required a minimum quarter deposit to play. Agent Thompkins observed several club patrons play the machines and Thompkins himself played the Joker Poker machine, albeit unsuccessfully. The club bartender explained to Thompkins that a minimum of forty points had to be earned on the machine before credit would be recorded and that every forty points equaled ten dollars in credits or winnings. Through the expert testimony of Pinellas County sheriff's detective Brian Beery, it was established that the two machines had been modified by a computer chip so that their character was no longer amusement in nature but instead were illegal gambling machines. In their modified state, the machines could be reset and cleared after each player with a remote control device operated by the bartender. Moreover, the payoff odds were controlled by the club. According to Beery's uncontradicted testimony, the club retained 56% of all moneys deposited in the machines. Beery added that the machines are generally modified at the lessee's or renter's direction and that the owner of the machines shares in the profits. The name of the owner of the machines is not of record. According to the club's past commander, the machines had been on the premises for less than two weeks prior to the October 29 raid. This was not controverted. Even so, for those two weeks, the club was utilizing video poker machines for gambling purposes as alleged in the notice to show cause. Count (3) The third count charges that between October 15 and 29, 1989, respondent maintained "a gambling house by allowing video poker machines, "bingo" pull tabs tickets and door prize raffles to be used for gambling purposes within (its) licensed premises." The evidence detailed in findings of fact 7, 8 and 11 supports a finding that the club maintained video machines, Bingo pull tab tickets and door prize raffles for gambling purposes during the time period in question. Count (4) The last count alleges that respondent "did conduct lottery drawings by having 3rd and 4th game World Series Baseball Pool and conducting drawings at the intermission of bingo each Sunday." Respondent has admitted that Walter Adams, the club's bartender, conducted a World Series pool for two games during the 1989 series. A description of such activities is found in finding of fact 10. The club's only defense to this allegation was that Adams was not authorized to conduct the pool, and the canteen (bar) was not under the post commander's direct responsibility. Even so, this charge has been sustained. The evidence also shows that during the intermission of the Bingo game on October 15 and 22, 1989, Robert Donahue, a post member, conducted a drawing for a prize. Additional findings as to this allegation are contained in finding of fact 7. Therefore, this charge has been established. Penalty and Mitigating Evidence The Division's district supervisor has recommended that respondent's license be revoked. This recommendation is based on the fact that pursuant to a consent agreement executed in October 1986 respondent suffered a $2,000 fine and a thirty day suspension of its license for illegal gambling activities. Further, the supervisor pointed out that: the club has been lectured on illicit gambling as recently as August 7, 1989. Moreover, the club was given a verbal warning concerning illegal alcoholic sales to non- members on January 16, 1986. Finally, the Division calculated what it believed to be the amount of profits realized by the club from its gambling activities. These profits exceeded $5,000 which, according to the supervisor, is the threshold amount of illegal income to justify revocation of a license. In mitigation, the club contended that it did not know that many of the activities were illegal and that it was simply engaged in activities that are commonplace in other clubs and business enterprises. Moreover, the club points out that much of its profits from gambling were donated to charitable causes. In addition, the club building is now in need of a new roof and the club contends it cannot afford to lose the revenues that are generated by the liquor license. Finally, the club maintains that Adams' activities were not authorized, and the club should not be penalized for his actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as charged in the notice to show cause and that its license be REVOKED. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 19th of October, 1990.
The Issue Whether or not on or about May 11, 1979, on his licensed premises, Albert Parrish, while being directly in charge of these premises, did unlawfully permit persons to play games of dice and cards for money, in violation of Section 849.01, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about June 1, 1979, in his licensed premises, the Petitioner, Albert Parrish, did unlawfully maintain a house, booth, tent, shelter or other place, to wit: The Red Honey, 835 East Brownlee Street, Starke, Bradford County, Florida, for the purpose of gaming or gambling, in violation of Section 849.01, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon a Notice to Show Cause (Administrative Complaint) filed by the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, against Albert Parrish who trades as the Red Honey in a licensed premises located at 835 East Brownlee Street, Starke, Bradford County, Florida. The Respondent, Albert Parrish, is the holder of license No. 14-69, Series 2-COP, which allows the Respondent to sell beer and wine at the aforementioned premises. The State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty to regulate those persons and other entities who hold beverage licenses within this state and it is in keeping with that charge that the Notice to Show Cause (Administrative Complaint) has been brought against the Petitioner, Albert Parrish, for the offenses as set out in the Issues statement of this Recommended Order. The Respondent has contested those allegations and the case has been considered in accordance with Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On May 11, 1979, Beverage Officer Phyllis Williams, in the company of Columbia County, Florida, Sheriff's Officer Oliver Lake went to the licensed premises in Starke, Florida. After entering the licensed premises, they stayed for a period of one to one and one-half hours, during which time the Respondent, Albert Parrish, was present. In this sequence of time Albert Parrish was located at a pool table found in the licensed premises and a number of other persons were at the pool table rolling dice, which is a game of chance. Money was being placed on the table by the players and Parrish was picking up money from the table and placing it in a box which was in his custody and control. Parrish was in charge of the dice game to the extent of being an active participant and receiving financial benefit and to the extent of allowing other persons to play the dice game. While Officers Williams and Lake were in the licensed premises on May 11, 1979, they also observed a card game being played and this went on for some forty-five minutes. The game being played was a game known as "Tunk" which on this occasion was being played with wagered money pieced on the table. The Respondent, Parrish, was not directly participating in the card game, in that he was running the dice game at a separate location within the licensed premises; however, the person who appeared to be in charge of the "Tunk" card game was seen to pass an item to Parrish during the course of the time in which the officers were in the licensed premises. Therefore, although Parrish did not actively participate in the card game, he did unlawfully permit other persons to participate in the card game in his licensed premises. On June 1, 1979, Beverage Officer James Bates went back to the licensed premises in Starke, Florida. On this occasion, Bates observed a number of persons around a pool table and Parrish standing next to the pool table and a dice game being played. Two dice were being thrown and money was being wagered. Parrish was in charge of the dice game to the extent that wagers of money would be placed and Parrish would put a playing card on top of the money and then when a winner had prevailed, Parrish would pay off that winner. Bates observed the fact of this activity for approximately two hours and Parrish remained at the pool table for the entire period of time. Bates also observed an individual who was acting as a lookout and when police cars would pass by, the lockout would give a warning and all of those persons in the licensed premises would step away from the pool table until the police car had left the area of the licensed premises, at which time the game would be resumed.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Albert Parrish, have his beverage license No. 14-69, Series 2-COP, suspended for a period of ninety (90) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th 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: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Albert Parrish t/a Red Honey 835 East Brownlee Street Starke, Florida ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent, or his agent or employee, possessed, or permitted someone to possess, at or in the licensed premises, alcoholic beverages not authorized by law to be sold by Respondent. Whether Respondent, or his agent or employee, allowed patrons to gamble at card games, contrary to Section 849.01, Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent, his agent or employee allowed patrons to possess and consume marijuana and crack cocaine on the licensed premises.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Dennis Maxwell holds DABT License number 45-00933, and owns and operates the Club 21 in Leesburg, Florida. License number 45-00933 is a series 2-COP license, authorizing the sale and consumption of beer and wine only on the premises. Mr. Maxwell has been in business as the Club 21 at 945 East Main Street in Leesburg, Florida, since approximately February 1992. Club 21 is frequented by a predominantly young (early 20's), black clientele, not unlike a number of other bars in Leesburg. Club 21, however, has been unique in the severity of problems experienced by the Leesburg Police in attempting to maintain peace and lawfulness. Upon information that the service of alcoholic beverages to minors has been occurring, agents of DABT, with assistance from local law enforcement, entered Club 21 in an undercover capacity at approximately 10:00 p.m. on Friday, January 15, 1993. They discovered open and obvious violations of both the beverage law and Florida criminal law, specifically gambling (card game for money), and unauthorized liquor being stored and consumed on the premises. On January 15, 1993, at 10:00 p.m., a high stakes card game was in progress in a somewhat separate area of the premises just to the left of the entrance. At a table with a group of men playing cards, was a pile of currency, with a large "pot" of money in the middle of the table. The pot was collected by the winner of each hand. Additionally, other persons standing around the seated players were placing separate wagers in connection with the ongoing game. The game was occurring in plain view of the patrons in the bar, and anyone entering or exiting the premises. The card game continued for approximately 20-30 minutes prior to uniformed law enforcement officers entering the premises. The Respondent was present at Club 21 during that entire night, and admitted to having permitted the card games to occur, but denied that gambling was occurring. Mr. Maxwell, likewise, admitted that he would recognize the commonly understood circumstances of a card game for money by the money set out in front of each card player, and the "pot" of money in the middle of the table. Although he observed the same game occurring as testified to by other witnesses, he does not recall seeing the money on the table. Respondent further testified that the area of the bar known as the "game room" was often used for card games, but that he had never been aware of gambling occurring in connection with such games. Respondent's testimony is not credible in light of the circumstances. The licensee did permit persons to play for money at a card game on his premises. During the course of the DABT operation on January 15, 1993, several bottles of unauthorized liquor was observed in plain view in the kitchen of Club The liquor consisted of one unsealed 1.75 liter bottle of Seagram's Dry Gin, one unsealed .750 liter bottle of Seagram's dry Gin, and one unsealed pint bottle of Canadian Mist Whiskey. Petitioner was aware that the liquor described was in fact in the kitchen. As to the larger bottle of gin, Mr. Maxwell contended that it belonged to one of his employees, Karl Welcome, who was celebrating his birthday that night, and had stopped by the premises to engage in a celebratory toast with his friends and coworkers. Mr. Welcome testified to that effect on direct examination, but admitted on cross that his birthday is actually May 18, not January 15, and that he had made up that story originally for the benefit of the officer who had found the liquor. As to the remaining bottles of liquor, Respondent claimed that he had confiscated them from patrons earlier that afternoon, and placed them in the kitchen because he was too busy to dump them out. In light of Mr. Maxwell's further testimony that there is hardly any business at Club 21 in the afternoon, and he does not have much to do until nighttime, his contention is not credible. Petitioner knew that the liquor was in the kitchen, and took no meaningful action to correct that situation. During the course of their stay in an undercover capacity inside Club 21, two witnesses observed what they believed was marijuana being openly smoked by patrons in the area of the bar itself on the premises. One witness described two patrons openly sharing what appeared to be a marijuana joint while actually seated at the bar. The "joint" was passed back and forth openly and in plain view of two bartenders who were standing directly in front of these patrons, and who actually brought beer to, and took money from, these patrons while they were openly smoking a joint. Two witnesses smelled an odor which is commonly associated with the smell of marijuana burning in the area of the bar during the entire time they were there. From the smell, they testified that in their opinion it was obvious that other patrons besides those seated directly at the bar were smoking as well. Officers of the Leesburg Police Department arrested a patron of Club 21 on the premises for possession of cocaine on the evening of January 15, 1993. Officer Mullin field tested the substance and testified that both his field test and the laboratory analysis conducted on it confirmed that it was cocaine. The possession charges are the subject of an ongoing criminal case. Respondent had been visited by a DABT Special Agent during the fall of 1992 on a routine call. At that time, unauthorized liquor was found of the same variety as was found in January 1993. A record of the discovery was made but a notice of violation was not issued. Rather, the seriousness of unauthorized liquor on the premises was discussed and Mr. Maxwell had been warned not only about that particular violation, but about the dangers of drug use on the premises, and related problems. Mr. Maxwell recalled the visit and the warning, and testified that Agent Hurlburt had been honest and forthright with him, and had emphasized the risk of an enforcement action against a licensee for allowing violations of law to occur on a licensed premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license number 45-0093 be suspended for a period of twenty (20) days, and that Respondent pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10(in part), 13, 14 Rejected as immaterial, irrelevant or subsumed or argument: paragraphs 4, 5, 10(in part), 12(in part) Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 12(in part) COPIES FURNISHED: John F. Gilroy, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Dennis L. Maxwell Post Office Box 53 Eustis, Florida 32727 John Harris Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Northwood Center 1940 No. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether or not on or about August 9, 1975, Martha L. Washington, a licensed vendor did have in her place of business, one (1) four-fifths brokenseal bottle of Barcardi Rum, Light, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to Section 562.02, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that a civil penalty in the amount of $200.00 be imposed against the license of Martha L. Washington for the violation established through the allegation of the subject Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 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: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Martha L. Washington 1085 Palmetto Street Bartow, Florida
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the notice to show cause and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The bar At all times pertinent hereto, respondent, Melba Mosca, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-00737, series 2-COP, for the premises known as 71 Bar and Grill (the "premises"), located at 1220 Normandy Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. The investigation On January 28, 1994, Officer Luis King of the Miami Beach Police Department, operating undercover, entered the licensed premises as part of an investigation of illegal drug activity. The premises is a small bar, containing one main bar, a pool table, a pinball machine and a jukebox. At the time he entered, Officer King observed between 15 and 20 patrons, a female bartender, and another individual behind the bar, later identified as "Dave." At the time, Dave appeared to Officer King to be the manager or in charge of the premises since he had the keys to the register, full access to the bar and the remainder of the premises, and actively controlled the bartender and patrons. During subsequent visits, Officer King discovered that Dave was the son of the owner, respondent Melba Mosca, and his activities in the bar, from bartending, scheduling the bartenders, and ordering bar supplies and food, confirmed his employment and management status in the bar. 1/ That evening, Officer King observed one Phillipi Blanco (Flip), a known narcotics dealer, on the premises, and the pattern of his activities suggested to Officer King that Flip might be dealing narcotics. Accordingly, Officer King resolved to return to the premises on another occasion. On February 11, 1994, Officer King returned to the premises at or about 9:30 p.m., and noticed Dave, the only employee on the premises, tending the bar. Dave appeared very agitated that evening, consistent with being under the influence of some controlled substance, and exhibited some strange behavior, such as exposing his genitalia while working behind the bar. On one occasion that night, Dave locked himself in the men's restroom with unknown patrons for approximately one-half hour, leaving the bar unattended. That same evening, Officer King met with Eugene Scott, who he had met the previous night, in the men's restroom, and Scott offered to sell Officer King one plastic baggie of cocaine for $30. Officer King accepted, and paid Scott $30 in exchange for the cocaine. 2/ On February 12, 1994, Officer King returned to the licensed premises at or about 7:30 p.m. Officer King did not recall if Dave was on the premises that evening, but about 8:40 p.m. he approached Eugene Scott by the back door and asked Scott if he could purchase some more cocaine. Scott stated that he did not have any cocaine but that he did have some marijuana. In exchange for $10, Officer King purchased a baggie of marijuana from Scott. As noted, this transaction occurred near the back door, and was not observable from the bar. During the evening of February 19, 1994, Officer King returned to the licensed premises to continue his investigation. While at the premises, Officer King played pool with a patron known as Manuel Fernandez (Manny), who he knew from previous visits and during the course of that game asked Manny if he could purchase some cocaine. Manny refused. Later, Officer King observed Flip and an unknown patron enter the restroom. Officer King and Manny entered the restroom and Officer King asked Flip if he could buy some cocaine. Flip refused, because he "did not know " Officer King "well enough." Immediately after Flip left the restroom, Manny asked Officer King what he wanted and Officer King replied that he wanted to purchase $20 worth of cocaine. Officer King handed Manny $20 and a few minutes later Manny joined Officer King at the pool table and handed him a plastic baggie, secreted inside a matchbook, containing cocaine. Dave was in the bar at the time, but the proof fails to demonstrate that he observed or had the opportunity to observe any of these discussions or transactions. On March 1, 1994, at or about 7:45 p.m., Officer King returned to the licensed premises to continue his investigation, and during the course of that visit engaged Dave in a game of pool. While playing pool, Officer King was approached by a patron known as "Gennie," who Officer King had observed on the premises previously. Gennie asked Officer King if he needed anything and Officer King replied that he wished to purchase $20 worth of cocaine. Officer King gave Gennie $20 and Gennie approached Dave and asked if he had any cocaine. Dave replied that it would be a little while, and shortly thereafter he left the premises. A few minutes later Dave returned with an unknown male, entered the men's restroom, and locked the door. A few minutes later, Dave exited the restroom, and he and Gennie engaged in a hand-to-hand transaction. Gennie then went to the lady's restroom, and on her return handed Officer King a plastic baggie of cocaine and explained she had taken a "hit" before delivering it to him. Later that evening, Officer King asked Gennie if she could get him another $20 worth of cocaine. Gennie replied that would be "no problem," and approached Dave and asked him for another $20 worth of cocaine. Shortly thereafter, Dave and the unknown male again entered the men's restroom and locked the door. When he exited a few moments later, Dave went directly to Gennie and they again engaged in a hand-to-hand transaction. Gennie then went to the lady's restroom, and when she emerged a few moments later handed Officer King a small plastic baggie containing cocaine. Gennie again advised Officer King that she had taken a "hit" prior to delivery, as "her payment". On March 4, 1994, Officer King returned to the licensed premises to continue his investigation. Upon entering the premises Officer King went directly to the restroom and was followed by Scott. Scott asked Officer King if he "needed anything." Officer King told Scott he wished to purchase some cocaine, and later that he wished to purchase some marijuana and crack cocaine. Scott advised Officer King that it would be a while before he could get the cocaine, but that he could get the marijuana and crack cocaine immediately for $10 each. Officer King gave Scott $20, and Scott left the premises. A few minutes later, Scott returned to the premises and handed Officer King a plastic baggie containing marijuana and a rock of crack cocaine. Officer King then left the premises, but returned about 30 minutes later. While Officer King was playing pool with Dave, Scott returned to the premises, approached Officer King, and handed Officer King a plastic baggie containing cocaine. This transaction occurred openly, with no attempt by Scott to conceal the transaction from Dave. The owner's explanation Respondent, Melba Mosca, is 70 years of age, and has owned the 71 Bar and Grill since April 1993. According to respondent, she has been very alert to prevent drugs from being present on the premises, has signs posted in the bar prohibiting drugs, and has instructed her bartenders not to allow drugs and to phone the police if they see any drugs. Respondent further averred that in October 1993 she was hospitalized for an operation, and her ability to supervise the premises since that time was impaired. Notwithstanding, she was on the premises two to three times a day, and at shift change. According to respondent, her son Dave "watched" the premises for her when she was ill, but was not an employee. The testimony of Helia Mercado, respondent's nighttime bartender, was consistent with that of respondent. As heretofore noted in endnote 1, the testimony of respondent and Ms. Mercado that Dave was not an employee or agent of the owner was rejected as not persuasive or credible. Indeed, respondent's own testimony that Dave "watched" the premises for her, and Officer King's observation of his activities, compel the conclusion that Dave was an agent or employee of the owner. The testimony of respondent and Ms. Mercado that they had never observed any narcotics activity on the premises, as well as the efforts that were taken to discourage it, while of questionable credibility, stands unrefuted. Indeed, there is no proof of record that respondent was present on the premises when any of the transactions occurred that are the subject matter of the notice to show cause, and no proof that she or any of her agents or employees, except for Dave, were ever in a position to observe, much less observed, those or any other illicit activities on the premises. Under such circumstances, and given the limited number of transactions, the limited time of day at which they occurred, and the surreptitious nature of the majority of the transactions at issue, it cannot be concluded that respondent, based on the competent proof of record, fostered, condoned, or negligently overlooked such illegal activity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the notice to show cause. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of April 1994. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 15th day of April 1994.
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend, revoke, and/or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license. The primary grounds for the proposed disciplinary action are that the licensee has permitted patrons on the licensed premises to sell cocaine on numerous occasions in violation of various statutory provisions. The specific allegations are set forth in a Notice To Show Cause dated February 27, 1989. An Emergency Order Of Suspension was served on the Respondent on February 27, 1989. The Respondent requested an emergency hearing, which was conducted on March 7, 1989. Both parties offered evidence at the hearing. Following the hearing the parties requested and were allowed until March 17, 1989, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The Petitioner filed a timely proposed recommended order. The Respondent has not filed any post-hearing documents. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Ocean Drive Hotel Corporation, d/b/a/ Ocean Haven Restaurant, is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License Number 23-3568, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Ocean Haven Restaurant, which is located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. The licensed premises are located in a neighborhood which is somewhat less than wholesome; a neighborhood in which there is a substantial amount of illegal drug related activity. It is a neighborhood in which it is not uncommon for police officers to observe people who have been previously arrested for drug violations. The Respondent corporation owns the licensed premises, as well as the hotel premises of which the licensed premises are a part. The Respondent corporation is owned by Mr. Heriberto Velasco. Mr. Velasco is the president of the Respondent corporation and he is the manager of both the hotel and the restaurant businesses. Mr. Velasco lives in the hotel with his wife, his mother, and one of his sons. Mr. Velasco takes most of his meals in the restaurant which comprises the licensed premises, and usually visits the licensed premises at least three times a day for that purpose. There is no evidence that he regularly spends any other time supervising activities in the restaurant. There are four employees in the restaurant that comprises the licensed premises. Two of those employees are Gloria E. Berlioz and Antonia Rodriguez de Alcina. The latter is also known by the name of Nora. Ms. Berlioz and Ms. Alcina have both been employees on the licensed premises for a year or two. Ms. Alcina is employed as a waitress. Ms. Berlioz is employed as a cook. During the course of an undercover investigation during the months of January and February of 1989, the following transactions involving controlled substances took place within the licensed premises: On January 10, 1989, a patron known as Loraine sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 18, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 19, 1989, an unknown white Latin male patron sold cocaine to a patron named Tommy. On January 25, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 26, 1989, an unknown Latin male patron sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 6, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 7, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet in two separate transactions. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also sold cocaine to Investigator Lerra. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet, in two separate transactions. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also delivered cocaine to an unknown white male patron. On February 22, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in the preceding paragraph, the people involved in the transactions discussed the subject of drug transactions in normal conversational tones of voice. During the majority of those conversations, either Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have heard the conversations. During some of the conversations, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter, within two or three feet from the conversations. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, the drugs involved in the transactions were openly displayed on the table top or on the counter top in front of the participants to the transactions. In each of the transactions involving purchases by Investigator Huguet, the investigator attempted to be obvious about what he was doing by holding the drugs in front of his face to inspect them before putting the drugs in his pocket. During the vast majority of those transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have observed the transactions. During some of the transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter within two or three feet from the drug transactions. One of the drug transactions took place while Mr. Heriberto Velasco was standing several feet away. All of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place within the licensed premises during business hours when employees and patrons were present on the licensed premises. None of the employees ever called the police or asked any of the parties to the drug transactions to leave the licensed premises. Mr. Heriberto Velasco was aware that the licensed premises are located in a neighborhood in which there is a high level of illegal drug activity. Nevertheless, he did not take any special precautions to prevent or detect drug activity on the licensed premises other than to tell the employees to let him know if they saw any drug activity. Mr. Heriberto Velasco has never asked the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for assistance or suggestions with respect to preventing or eliminating drug activity on the licensed premises, even though the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco advises all licensees of the availability of such assistance. Mr. Heriberto Velasco did not have actual knowledge that drug transactions were taking place on the licensed premises. He is opposed to drug trafficking and he has not knowingly permitted sales of drugs in his hotel or on the licensed premises. He has instructed his employees in the hotel and in the restaurant to call him if they observe any drug related activity so that he can throw out anyone involved in such activity. He has thrown people out of the hotel when he suspected they were involved in drug related activities. The employees in the licensed premises never told him about any drug related activity on the premises. Mr. Velasco never observed any activity on the licensed premises that he thought was drug related activity. Mr. Velasco does not know what crack cocaine looks like. Mr. Eric Velasco is the 20-year-old son of Mr. Heriberto Velasco. The son lives at the hotel with his parents and helps with the management of the hotel and restaurant to the extent he can between going to college and working at another near-by job. Mr. Eric Velasco has never observed any activity in the licensed premises that appeared to him to be drug related activity. He does not know what crack cocaine looks like. In brief summary, the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place in plain view within the licensed premises. The open exchanges of drugs and money in conjunction with the open conversations about drug transactions demonstrate a persistent pattern of open and flagrant drug activity. The subject drug transactions were sufficiently open that they would have been noticed by a reasonably diligent licensee.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in this case revoking the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 23-3568, series 2-COP, for the premises located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1096 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Further, some details proposed in this paragraph are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Accepted in substance, with many subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21: Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by Respondent (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Gino P. Negretti, Esquire 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
