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
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 16-637 S, Series 4-COP, be revoked for multiple violations of the Beverage Law. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1983.
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent's beverage license should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for maintaining a licensed premises where illegal drugs are sold and solicitations for prostitution take place. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses Carol Houston, Michael Collins, Chester L. Copeland, Vincent Rodriguez and John T. Allen. Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence six exhibits. Respondent offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit. Mr. Samuel Williams testified on behalf of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds and at all times material to this action held beverage license No. 39-684, Series 4-COP. The licensed premises under that license is located at 2801 Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Mr. Samuel Williams is president of the Respondent, Skylight Corporation, and owns 60 percent of the stock of that corporation. On the evening of July 27, 1983, Beverage Officer Carol Houston went to the licensed premises, The Blue Room Lounge, to conduct an undercover investigation. Upon entering the lounge Officer Houston took a seat at the bar and ordered a drink. After the shift change, Officer Houston talked to Brenda Brock, the bartender on duty. Officer Houston told Ms. Brock she liked to get high and asked if there was anyone in the bar from whom she could buy "reefer". Reefer is a street or slang term for marijuana or cannabis. Brenda Brock told Officer Houston that the person who usually sells reefer wasn't in the lounge at that time. Ms. Brock also related that she was high herself and had smoked a joint before coming on duty. When Officer Houston had entered the bar, Officer Michael Collins of the Tampa Police Department was already present in the lounge. Officer Collins, also working undercover, asked Brenda Brock where he would purchase some marijuana. When he asked Ms. Brock this question, she pointed out a black male named Chunky and said that he sold marijuana. Officer Collins then asked Brenda Brock to get Chunky for him and she did. The young male named Chunky approached Officer Collins and said he didn't have any marijuana but would have some later. At some time later in the evening, a young black male named Ace entered the lounge and Brenda Brock pointed to him and said to Officer Collins "that's him." Ace walked over to Officer Collins and asked if he was the guy looking for some marijuana. Officer Collins told him that he was but that he had promised to buy from someone else. Ace then asked Brenda Brock to verify to Officer Collins that he had been sent by Chunky and Brenda Brock said that he had in fact been sent by Chunky. As Ace had walked up to Officer Collins, he had three plastic bags of marijuana (cannabis) in his hands. He sold one of these bags to Officer Collins. Ace then sold a second bag of marijuana to a woman named Celeste who was sitting next to Officer Collins. Celeste was the bartender who had been relieved by Brenda Brock. Celeste purchased a $5 bag of marijuana from Ace and the exchange took place in the open and was observed by Officer Collins. After making the sales to Officer Collins and to Celeste, Ace approached Beverage Officer Houston who was still seated at the bar in a different area than Officer Collins and Celeste. He asked Officer Houston if she wanted to purchase some marijuana. She said yes and further stated that she wanted a $5 bag. He handed her a plastic bag containing marijuana and Officer Houston laid it on the bar in the open. Brenda Brock walked over and told her to put the bag up. Officer Houston then placed the bag of marijuana in her purse. Officer Houston then asked Brenda Brock if she had any papers she could use to roll a "joint". A joint is a slang term or street term referring to a marijuana cigarette. Brenda Brock said she did not have any papers. The purchase by Officer Houston of the marijuana took place in the open and was observed by Officer Collins from a different area of the bar. Later in the evening of July 27, 1983 two white females came into the lounge. Brenda Brock pointed to them and said those two ugly bitches called themselves prostitutes. At the time that the purchases of marijuana were made by Officer Collins, Celeste and Officer Houston, Brenda Brock was on duty as bartender and made no effort to stop the transactions. Mr. Samuel Williams had been in the lounge earlier in the evening, but was not present in the lounge when the marijuana transactions took place. On July 28, 1983, Officer Houston returned to the licensed premises approximately 7:00 p.m. When she arrived Samuel Williams was present in the lounge. Mr. Williams was talking with two men seated at the bar and was overheard by Officer Houston to say that before he would have those two prostitutes on the phone all night, he would have it taken out. Brenda Brock was the bartender on duty that evening and Officer Houston asked her if Ace was around. Ms. Brock replied that no one was around who had any reefer. Officer Houston left the lounge approximately 8:30 p.m. and returned at approximately 11:30 p.m. Upon entering, she ordered a drink from Brenda Brock and asked Ms. Brock if Ace had been back in because she wanted to get some reefer now. Ms. Brock replied that he was in the lounge and that she would get him for her. Shortly thereafter, Ace came over and asked Officer Houston what she wanted. She told him she wanted some reefer. Ace then walked away and shortly returned with a plastic bag containing marijuana. Officer Houston handed Ace a $20 bill and because Ace indicated he had no change, Officer Houston handed the $20 bill to Brenda Brock who gave her two $5 bills and one $10 bill as change. Officer Houston then handed a $5 bill to Ace as payment for the bag of marijuana. Also on the evening of July 28, 1983, while Officer Houston was seated at the bar, Brenda Brock told her a gentleman wanted to speak to her. The gentleman was Officer Collins, also working undercover. Officer Houston walked over and spoke to him briefly and the two of them returned to where Officer Houston had been seated in front of the cash register. There they discussed the price of a "date". A date is a common palance or street term for a sexual encounter for money or prostitution. A "date" is also referred to as a "trick". After agreeing upon a price, Officer Houston handed her purse and drink to Brenda Brock and asked Ms. Brock to hold them while she went outside to do a trick. Brenda accepted the purse and drink and Officer Houston left the bar with Officer Collins. Approximately 20 minutes later, Officer Houston returned and Brenda Brock gave her back her purse and her drink. At no time did Brenda Brock object to or inquire about Officer Houston's activities. On July 30, 1983, Beverage Officer Houston returned to The Blue Room Lounge at approximately 5:30 p.m. She entered the lounge and took a seat at the bar and ordered a drink from Brenda Brock who was on duty as bartender. While she was seated at the bar a young black female came up and asked her if she wanted to buy some reefer. Officer Houston had seen this young woman in the bar previously. She told her she did not want to buy any marijuana and after the young woman left she asked Brenda Brock who the young woman was. Brenda Brock said she was Ace's sister and in response to Officer Houston's questions, indicated that it was alright to buy reefer from her. Later that evening Ace came in and asked Officer Houston if she wanted to buy some marijuana. She told him that she had met his sister and Ace then called the young black female over and introduced her to Officer Houston as his sister. Officer Houston told Ace that she wanted to buy a $5 bag of marijuana. Ace then went over to his sister and brought back a clear plastic bag of marijuana. Officer Houston handed him a $20 bill and he indicated he did not have change. She then obtained change for the $20 bill from Brenda Brock and handed $5 of the change to Ace. Brenda Brock was standing right in front of her at the bar when she handed Ace the $5. In the early morning hours of July 30, 1983, just after midnight, Beverage Officer Hamilton entered the The Blue Room Lounge. He came over and talked with Officer Houston about a "date". While they haggled over a price Brenda Brock was seated directly across the bar from Beverage Officer Houston. After agreeing upon a price for the date, Officer Houston handed her purse to Brenda Brock and asked her to hold it while she did this trick. Brenda Brock took the purse and agreed to hold it. Beverage Officer Houston then left the lounge with Officer Hamilton. A few minutes later Beverage Officer Houston returned to the bar and Brenda Brock gave her her purse and put the drink which she had been drinking back on the bar. On August 1, 1983, Officer Houston returned to the licensed premises at approximately 9:30 p.m. She took the same seat near the cash register where she had sat on the previous evenings. Ace was present in the lounge. Officer Houston asked Brenda Brock to ask Ace to bring her a dime bag of marijuana. (A dime bag is a $10 bag. Brenda Brock went over to Ace and Ace then approached Officer Houston and asked her how much she wanted. At that time Officer Houston asked him if he could sell her some cocaine. He said he didn't have any but would have some later. Officer Houston then purchased two bags of marijuana from Ace for which she paid him $10. She handed him a $20 bill and he gave her $10 in change and when this exchange took place, Brenda Brock was in the area nearby on the other side of the bar. Officer Collins also went to the licensed premises on August 1, 1983 at approximately 10:55 p.m. After entering the lounge he told the barmaid, Brenda Brock, that he wanted to buy some good marijuana. She signaled to Ace and Ace came over to her. She whispered to Ace. Ace had walked up with a bag of marijuana already in his hand and after speaking with Brenda Brock he walked over and sold the bag of marijuana to Officer Collins for $5. Brenda Brock never objected to discussions regarding drugs or refused to get involved. There were no signs in the bar saying "No Drugs, No Loitering, No Prostitution", or signs with rules of management. On the evening of August 1, 1983, Officer Chester L. Copeland of the Tampa Police Department was also in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. While standing at the bar Officer Copeland talked with Brenda Brock and asked her if Carol Houston was "dating". Brenda Brock said she didn't know. Ms. Brock then walked over and whispered something to Carol Houston and then returned to where Officer Copeland was standing and informed him that Carol was "dating". Officer Copeland then went over to Officer Houston and conversed with her about the price of a date. Brenda Brock was standing nearby during this conversation and made no objection to the discussion. After agreeing on a price Officer Houston handed her purse to Brenda Brock and left the lounge with Officer Copeland. Officer Collins also present in the lounge, observed Officer Houston and Officer Copeland leave the lounge together. Prior to this occasion Officer Collins had asked Brenda Brock if Officer Houston dated. Ms. Brock had indicated she didn't know and he had told her to go ask. She did go ask Officer Houston and came back and informed Officer Collins that she did date. Officer Collins then asked Ms. Brock the price of a date and she said she didn't know. Officer Collins asked her to go ask. Ms. Brock walked over and spoke with Officer Houston and came back and said the price was $50. On this particular evening of August 1, 1983, after he observed Officer Houston and Officer Copeland leave the bar, Officer Collins asked Brenda Brock if Officer Houston was coming back. Ms. Brock said she didn't know. Officer Collins then asked her if Carol (Officer Houston) was out on a date and Brenda Brock replied that she thought so. On each of the occasions that Officer Collins discussed prostitution with Brenda Brock he instituted the conversation, but Ms. Brock freely discussed it and made no objection to the discussions. Shortly after she had left with Officer Copeland, Carol Houston returned to the licensed premises. Officer Collins then approached her and talked about a "date". After a short discussion he and Officer Houston left the bar together. On August 3, 1983, Officer Houston again returned to the licensed premises at approximately 10:30 p.m. She took a seat at the bar directly in front of where Brenda Brock was working as bartender. Seated near her at the bar was a latin male who kept asking her to come over. After she had been there a short time, Brenda Brock came over to Officer Houston and said that the latin male wanted to know how much she charged for a date. Officer Houston did not respond and Brenda Brock shouted to the latin male $100. A short time later Brenda Brock came back over to Officer Houston and said that the latin male said he had some cocaine. Officer Houston then told the latin male in a loud voice that he better also have lots of money. That same evening Brenda Brock also told Officer Houston that another male, Officer Collins, wanted a date and had some cocaine. On the evening of August 3, 1983, Officer Copeland also entered the licensed premises. While seated at the bar, Officer Copeland met the young man named Ace. Ace came over and asked if he wanted to buy a $5 bag of reefer. He indicated that he did and gave Ace $5, and Ace handed him a plastic baggie of marijuana. On August 9, 1983, Officer Houston entered the licensed premises approximately 10:30 p.m. She took a seat at the bar, ordered a drink, and asked Brenda Brock, the bartender on duty, if Ace was around. Brenda Brock indicated that he was over at the Pac-Man machine but he had left the lounge. Later Ace came in and Brenda Brock said "there he is" to Officer Houston. Ace came over to Officer Houston and said he had some cocaine and asked if she still wanted to buy some. She asked now how much it would cost. Ace indicated he had "nickel" ($5) pieces. Ace stated that it was back at his room and he left and then returned with a small foil pack. Officer Houston gave Ace $5 and he handed her the small foil pack. The small foil pack contained cocaine, a controlled substance under Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. That same evening Officer Houston observed two black males rolling some type of cigarette. She observed a plastic bag containing material similar to marijuana. She observed Brenda Brock obtain some rolling papers from behind the bar and hand them to the two males. On August 10, 1983, Officer Houston entered the licensed premises approximately 10:00 p.m. Ace was not in the lounge when she arrived, but approximately 10:15 p.m. Ace entered the lounge and came over and asked if she wanted to buy some "coke". "Coke" is a slang or street term for cocaine. She said she would like to buy some and he said he would have it later. At approximately 11:30 p.m., Ace came over to Officer Houston and stated that he had coke. Officer Houston told him that she wanted two hits and she then bought two foil packs from Ace. Officer Houston gave Ace a $20 bill but he had no change. She then handed the $20 bill to Brenda Brock who gave her change. She paid $10 for the two foil packs which contained cocaine. That same evening a black male was seated at the bar smoking a marijuana cigarette. Brenda Brock who was the bartender on duty stated "Do I smell dope?" She then looked at the male smoking the marijuana cigarette, but made no effort to stop him. On August 11, 1983, Officer Houston was again on the licensed premises. While seated at the bar, Officer Houston observed a white female smoking what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette Brenda Brock came over to Officer Houston and said that the white female had just gotten some reefer and wanted to know if she wanted some. Officer Houston told her that she did not. Mr. Samuel Williams the president of the Respondent corporation was the manager and owner of the licensed premises. During the time of the charges in this case, Mr. Williams would open the bar in the mornings and remain at the bar all day until the shift change at approximately 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. He was not present in the bar when the various transactions took place and was generally not present in the bar in the evening. A Mr. Raifield had been hired by him to manage the bar at night. However, Mr. Raifield had been terminated shortly before the transactions which are the subject of this case. Brenda Brock had become a full-time bartender on July 26, 1983. Prior to that time she had worked part-time and Mr. Williams had no indication that she used drugs or allowed other people to use drugs or solicit for prostitution on the licensed premises. At no time was Mr. Williams aware that Brenda Brock was permitting drug transactions and solicitations for prostitution to take place in the licensed premises. There is a substantial prostitution problem in the Nebraska Avenue area where the licensed premises is located. Mr. Williams has been active in civic attempts to eliminate the prostitution from this area. Within a year of the charges which are the subject of this case, Mr. Williams' life was threatened by a pimp operating along Nebraska Avenue and the tires and convertible top of his car were slashed. One of the reasons that Mr. Williams was not in the lounge in the evening was because he had been advised by the police that it would be safer for him to not be in the lounge in the evenings. This occurred following the threat on his life. Mr. Williams had no policy of random visits or inspections to the lounge in the evenings. There have been no prior complaints or charges brought against the Respondent's license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, and imposing a civil penalty of 1,000 and suspending Respondent's beverage license for a period of sixty (60) days. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Samuel Williams 3513 Rivergrove Drive Tampa, Florida Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondents hold alcoholic beverage license number 60- 0122, series 2- COP, and do business at 704 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach under the name of The Brass Bull. Respondents have operated The Brass Bull for six years without any complaints from law enforcement agencies until the execution of a search warrant on the premises on November 29, 1994. On September 12, 1984 the Petitioner and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office began an investigation of The Brass Bull and met with a confidential informant, hereinafter referred to as CI, who was employed at the time as a dancer at The Brass Bull. The CI agreed to make introductions for law enforcement officers to employees on the premises and was paid $150 on November 26, 1964 for making these introductions. The CI had been placed on probation in July, 1983 and was on probation during this investigation. The CI's husband was placed on probation on September 11, 1984. On September 14, 1984 Investigator Kenneth Goodman, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, and Sergeant David R. Harris, Riviera Beach Police Department, entered the licensed premises and talked with a dancer identified as "Linda" about the purchase of some marijuana. Linda gave Investigator Goodman a single marijuana cigarette analyzed as containing 260 milligrams of cannabis, but she did not have any to sell. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris met another dancer on the premises, identified as "Sunrise," on September 19, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine. Sunrise was later identified as Dawn Birnbaum. Sgt. Harris gave Sunrise $40, she left the premises through the front door, returned in a few minutes and handed Sgt. Harris two aluminum foil packets later analyzed as containing 200 milligrams of cocaine. Investigator Goodman also purchased 100 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise on September 19, 1984. These sales took place on the premises while other patrons were present, although Sunrise left the premises to obtain the cocaine for the sales. On September 25, 1984, Sgt. Harris entered the licensed premises with Investigator Richard Walker, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Investigator Walker purchased 505 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise who left the premises to obtain the cocaine but returned to complete the sale on the premises. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were on the licensed premises on October 6, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase cocaine with a dancer identified as Christine Flynn. They each gave Flynn $45, she left the premises, returned and handed them each a plastic baggie containing a total of 590 milligrams of cocaine. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. On October 12, 1984, Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris entered the premises and met a waitress identified as April Finster. Investigator Goodman asked to buy some marijuana. She went into a back room on the premises and returned with one marijuana cigarette containing 300 milligrams of cannabis, which she gave to Investigator Goodman. On October 16, 1984, Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer identified as "Blondie" on the premises and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine from Blondie. The CI was present during this discussion, took $20 from Sgt. Harris, and then left the premises with Blondie. When Blondie and the CI returned, the CI gave Sgt. Harris a plastic bag which was heat sealed and filled with 110 milligrams of cocaine. Blondie stated that she always heat sealed her bags. Later Sgt. Harris gave Blondie $100, she brought him $70 change and then went into the dressing room. When Blondie exited the dressing room she approached the CI and they approached the table where Sgt. Harris was sitting. The CI placed a book of matches on the table and Blondie told Harris the cocaine was in the book of matches. Sgt. Harris found a heat sealed plastic bag containing 135 milligrams of cocaine in the matches. There were other patrons on the premises when these transactions took place. Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer named "Lola" on the premises on October 30, 1984. Sgt. Harris gave Lola $80, she entered the dressing room and then returned to where Sgt. Harris was seated with a white towel around her hand. Inside the towel was a bag containing 800 milligrams of cocaine. While on the premises with Sgt. Harris on October 31, 1984, Investigator Walker gave Lola $100. She left the premises and returned with a plastic bag containing 560 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Walker. On November 6, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris, and Investigator Goodman gave Lola $55. Lola approached a white male patron and then returned to Investigator Goodman and gave him a plastic bag containing 400 milligrams of cocaine. On November 20, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris. Lola approached Investigator Goodman and asked him if he wanted to buy some cocaine. He gave her $50, she left the premises and returned with a bag containing 300 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Goodman. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were also on the licensed premises on September 28, October 9 and 10, November 1 and 5. On each occasion they discussed the purchase of controlled substances as defined in Section 893.03, F.S., with Respondents' employees who were on the premises at the time of these discussions. No actual transactions took place on these dates. In brief summary of the foregoing, during the period of September 14 to November 20, 1984, transactions involving the sale of a total of 3.7 grams of cocaine and gifts of 560 milligrams of cannabis took place at The Brass Bull between Respondents' employees and Investigators Goodman and Walker, and Sgt. Harris. There were also five occasions when the purchase of controlled substances was discussed with Respondents' employees on the premises but no actual transaction took place. The CI was on the premises during most of these occasions, introducing the law enforcement officers to the various employees. The transactions usually took place while other patrons were on the premises, and included Respondents' employees passing the controlled substances on or above the table at which the officers were seated. On some occasions the employees left the premises after receiving money from the officers and returned a short time later with the controlled substance which they then gave to the officers on the premises. Respondents do not take an active role in managing The Brass Bull. They rely on a day manager and a night manager to hire, fire and discipline employees, to schedule the dancers, and to enforce the rules which are posted in the employees' dressing room. Rule 11 prohibits employees from having drugs or "liquors" on the premises, and states that anyone having these substances on the premises will be terminated immediately. Respondents never met with employees, other than their managers with whom they met or talked almost daily. Conversations and meetings with the managers were usually social, however, and generally did not involve business matters. Business meetings with the managers were held infrequently. Robert Meloche only visited the premises at 7:00 a.m. when no one else was present in order to review the prior night's receipts. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents employed various dancers on the licensed premises under the terms of an Entertainment Booking Agreement. All dancers were required to sign the booking agreement and agree to working conditions prescribed by the Respondents, including compensation arrangements, the number and color of their costumes, work hours, and the additional duties of cleaning and serving tables. Respondents also prescribed a set of seventeen (17) rules for all dancers and other employees. The above referenced individuals named Linda, Sunrise, Christine Flynn, April Finster, Blondie, Lola, and the Confidential Informant were employees of Respondents' at the licensed premises during the time relevant to this case. In making the above findings, the undersigned Hearing Officer has considered proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4., F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary or not based on competent substantial evidence. Specifically, Respondents' proposed findings as to Counts 14, 15 and 16 are rejected since they are not based on competent substantial evidence and are otherwise immaterial and irrelevant.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's license number 60-0122, series 2-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent Mary L. Alexander holds beverage license No. 28-0041, Series 2-COP. Under this license she sells beer and wine at Whisper's Cafe, a business which she has owned and operated for approximately two years in Bunnell, Florida. (Testimony of respondent) Respondent employs a cook and a part-time bartender, who also serves as a disc jockey. The cook works primarily in the kitchen. At around 8:30 P.M., the bartender begins operating the juke box and remains in the dance area of the licensed premises, an area separated by a wall from the rest of the premises. Respondent (or a substitute bartender), works primarily in the bar and pool table area, which is located between the dining and dance areas of the premises. (Testimony of respondent) The evidence establishes, without contradiction, that two of respondent's bartenders committed three separate drug violations on the premises during April and May, 1982. Two violations involved bartender Ronney Locke, one involved bartender Fred Austin. I. Two Drug Violations by Bartender Locke On April 30, 1982, Maria Scruggs, a DABT Beverage Officer, entered Whisper's Cafe in an undercover capacity. Approximately twenty customers were on the premises--four or five were standing at the bar. Officer Scruggs ordered a drink at the bar. Several minutes later, Thomas Alexander, respondent's son, approached her and a conversation ensued. She asked him if he had any marijuana she could buy. He replied that he did not, and then referred the question to bartender Ronney Locke. Mr. Locke, offering to check around the bar, approached Clarence Lorick, a customer, who then delivered a small quantity of marijuana to Mr. Alexander for $5.00. Mr. Alexander, seated at the bar, rolled a marijuana (cannabis) cigarette in his lap and gave it to Officer Scruggs, who then left the premises. The cigarette was rolled in an open manner and in plain view of others on the premises. Respondent was not on the premises during this transaction and was unaware of its occurrence. (Testimony of Scruggs, respondent, P-1) On May 7, 1982, Officer Scruggs reentered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. She began to talk, separately, with respondent and bartender Locke. She asked Mr. Locke if any cocaine or marijuana was available. He replied that he would check with the other customers for a $5.00 bag of marijuana. He approached Ginnie Lee Caskins a customer, Who then approached Officer Scruggs and handed her a manilla envelope containing marijuana (cannabis). Officer Scruggs said nothing and handed her $5.00. This exchange of money and marijuana took place under the bar and out of view of the other customers on the premises. Although respondent was on the premises, she was not close by and did not see the exchange or overhear the conversation. (Testimony of respondent, Scruggs, P-2) II. Drug Violation by Bartender Austin On May 12, 1982, Alphonso Junious, another DABT Beverage Officer, entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. He asked bartender Fred Austin, an employee of respondent, if he knew where he could buy some marijuana. Mr. Austin walked to the door and summoned Clarence Lorick, who then entered the premises. After a brief conversation, Mr. Lorick handed a small quantity of marijuana (cannabis) to Officer Junious, who, in turn, handed him $5.00. This exchange took place in a secretive manner and occurred after respondent had left the premises. She was also unaware of this drug transaction. (Testimony of Junious, respondent, P-3) III. Drug Violation by Respondent DABT also contends that on May 14, 1982, respondent unlawfully aided, counseled, or procured the sale or delivery of marijuana (cannabis) to Officer Junious. Respondent denies it. The evidence, although conflicting, substantiates DABT's contention. On May 14, 1982, Officer Junious reentered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. He purchased a beer from respondent, who was tending bar. While seated at the bar, he overheard respondent tell an unidentified female patron that she (respondent) had been to a musical concert and had to leave to get something to smoke. Officer Junious, construing this to mean marijuana, said to her, "I could use something to smoke too," or words to that effect. Respondent replied, "Boot got some." (Testimony of Junious) Officer Junious knew who "Boot" (Henry Brown) was, having previously purchased marijuana from him in an undercover capacity. Officer Junious then left the premises, found "Boot" outside, and purchased a small quantity of marijuana (cannabis) from him for $5.00. (Testimony of Junious) These findings are based on the testimony of Officer Junious. Respondent denies that she said "Boot got some" or that she had any conversation with Officer Junious on May 14, 1982. She also denies that she said she could use something to smoke, and states that she does not smoke either tobacco or marijuana. Taking into account her bias and interest in the outcome of this proceeding, the testimony of Officer Junious is more credible and is accepted as persuasive. IV. Respondent's Supervision of the Premises Respondent, periodically, reminded her employees that no marijuana was allowed on the premises. She took no other action to ensure that drug violations would not occur on the premises. (Testimony of respondent On May 27, 1982, arrest warrants were executed by DABT and the licensed premises was searched. No illicit drugs were found on the premises. (Testimony of Scruggs) There is no evidence that marijuana has ever been smoked in the licensed premises. Neither does the evidence support a finding that respondent knew that marijuana had been, or was being, sold or delivered on the premises. The four separate drug violations committed on the licensed premises, and the manner in which they were committed, however, support a conclusion that these violations of law were fostered, condoned, or negligently overlooked by respondent, and they occurred, at least in part, due to respondent's failure to diligently supervise her employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be suspended for a period of 90 days. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of December,1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1982.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Thomas Olhausen and Henry Stripling, d/b/a Trackside Lounge, hold Beverage License No. 23-1647, Series No. 4-COP, which was issued for the current year. On or about June 5, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold a controlled substance, namely cocaine, to Beverage Officer Terminello while he was on the licensed premises known as Trackside Lounge in Dade County, Florida. On or about June 8, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold cocaine to Beverage Officer Dodson while he was on the Trackside Lounge premises. On or about June 12, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold cocaine to Beverage Officer Terminello while he was on the premises of Trackside Lounge. The Respondent Henry Stripling did not go onto the Trackside Lounge between the dates of March 10 and June 10, 1983, pursuant to a restraining order issued on March 10, 1983, by the Dade County Circuit Court. This March 10, 1983, court order appointed two receivers to supervise the operation of the business known as Trackside Lounge. Pursuant to this authority the receivers employed Thomas Olhausen to operate and manage the business. Thus, Thomas Olhausen was not subject to the restraining order which barred Henry Stripling from entry onto the Trackside Lounge premises. The Respondent Henry Stripling had no connection with the sale of cocaine by the Respondent Thomas Olhausen to the Beverage Officers on June 5, 8 and 12, 1983. The court order of March 10, 1983, did not attempt to effect a judicial transfer of the beverage license held by the Respondents. The court appointed receivers did not file an application for a beverage license pursuant to Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, and there is no evidence that the receivers attempted to transfer the beverage license held - by the Respondents pursuant to Section S61.32(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, or Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Adminstrative Code. The court appointed receivers did not file a certified copy of the order appointing them as receivers with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco pursuant to Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the alcoholic beverage license held by the Respondents, Thomas Olhausen and Henry Stripling, being number 23-1647, Series No. 4-COP, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 26th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark A. Jacobs, Esquire 18204 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 Richard F. Hayes, Esquire Suite 20 4601 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of its license under the beverage law. Specifically, Respondent purportedly violated the actions set forth in two counts, as follows: Count I--Respondent failed to "provide the required service area, seating and equipment to serve 200 persons full course meals at tables at one time as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes"; and Count II--Respondent failed to "provide at least 4,000 square feet of area dedicated to the operation of the restaurant as required by its license. [S]ections 561.20(2)(A)(4), within Section 561.29(1)(A), Florida Statutes." Respondent has also raised the issue of whether Petitioner should be estopped from enforcement actions concerning the alleged violations.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, issuing and monitoring licenses to businesses within the state relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is the holder of an alcoholic beverage license, No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR (the "License"). An SR, or Special Restaurant, license is a unique kind of license which was issued by the Division prior to the establishment of quota licenses. Holders of SR licenses are allowed to sell beer, wine and liquor, package sales and sales by the drink on the premises. Quota licenses are issued based on a population ratio, i.e., no more than one license per 7,500 people in a given geographic area may exist. When Respondent obtained its SR license in 1979 (by way of transfer from the original owner of that license), the existing statutes mandated that the License be housed in a building of not less than 4,000 square feet with room in the building to seat at least 200 people at any one time. The statutes also required that food be served at all times the establishment was open. In 1979, when Respondent filed an application seeking to obtain the transfer of the SR license that had been issued in 1957, the application included an Affidavit from Marianne Gunn agreeing to a specific location (2704 Anderson Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida)1 for the business, which was to be known as the Stardust Lounge. The Affidavit affirmed Marianne Gunn's agreement to maintain the premises with the necessary equipment and supplies to seat 200 people at any one time. The Affidavit affirmed that the building housing Stardust Lounge would be at least 4,000 square feet in size. The License was then transferred to Respondent by the Division. Approximately one year after receiving the License and commencing operations, the Stardust Lounge burned down. Some undisclosed portion of the building remained, but no business could be operated on the site. It would have been difficult to rebuild the building under the then-current building codes. Further, the City of Fort Myers expressed its opposition to the existence of an alcoholic beverage establishment at that site. Some time after the fire, Respondent asked the Division to place the License in an inactive status (also known as placing a license in escrow). The request from Respondent asked that the License be placed in escrow for up to eight months. Respondent represented that it was in negotiation with the City of Fort Myers concerning a land swap to settle certain claims Respondent had against the city. Respondent estimated the negotiations would go on for approximately two months. Respondent advised the Division that if negotiations were successful, it would allow the License to be cancelled upon transfer of the premises to the city. If the negotiations were not successful, Respondent estimated it would need at least six months to sell the property at a private sale. It was Respondent's intent that the License be "taken care of" along with the land deal. "That's what that was all about," Fox testified at final hearing. Based upon Respondent's request, the Division apparently placed the License in escrow. There was no documentation presented at final hearing to substantiate this fact. However, the Division sent Respondent a bill each year to renew the License despite there being no physical site for operating a business by the licensee. Respondent dutifully paid the renewal fee each year. Eighteen years after the License was placed in escrow, the State of Florida commenced condemnation proceedings relating to a portion of the premises where the Stardust Lounge had formerly existed.2 During this nearly two-decade hiatus, Respondent continued to renew the License each year upon notice from the Division. Respondent's counsel sent a letter to the Division dated June 27, 2000, which said in pertinent part: We send you this letter at the request of our client, Mrs. Fox. . . . She has a liquor license in escrow with the Department. Due to the condemnation taking, she will not be able to utilize the license at this location and she has agreed that if this license can be moved to another location, it would not be an issue in the condemnation case. The letter did not address the issue of Respondent's prior representation that the License would be cancelled within eight months of its May 21, 1982, letter, some 18 years earlier. The Division responded to Respondent's counsel in a letter dated the very next day which stated in pertinent part: I am responding to the request of you and the licensee wanting to know if the liquor license that is held in the name of Marianne Gunn, DBA Stardust Lounge is movable. In the case of the property being taken by the state, the license may be moved one time and only one time. Providing that we have copies of all paperwork involved with the property condemnation taking. This license is not a moveable license unless in a case like this. The only thing that the licensee needs to understand is that it is changing location only one time. The Division's letter did not mention the escrow status of the License, either. The inartfully worded request and nebulous response added to the confusion concerning the status of the License. There is no evidence indicating whether any information concerning the condemnation was ever provided to the Division. Respondent could not say at final hearing when the condemnation actually occurred, how much land was taken, or how much was paid for the land. The License apparently remained in escrow at that time pending a move to some other location. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that the reason for her negotiations with the City of Fort Myers in 1982 was partly because the city did not want the bar located at the site where it had burned down. She testified that she had received insurance proceeds from the fire and intended to rebuild the lounge, but the city objected. That was the only testimony given as to why the lounge was not rebuilt during the 18 years it remained in escrow. Glen Fox testified that the original site of the Stardust Lounge would not be acceptable for rebuilding the structure after the fire due to certain building code issues. Both Mr. and Mrs. Fox testified that there was insufficient land available to build on site after the property condemnation taking. Fox testified that she owned three lots at the corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Cranford Avenue. Those lots were 50-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep (for a presumed total lot size of 150-feet-wide by 150-feet-deep). Fox does not know the size of the lots after the condemnation proceeding. It has long been the policy of the Division, pursuant to its interpretations of the Beverage Law set forth in statute, that SR licenses could not be moved from their original location. In 2005 or 2006, a licensee who was operating a business in American Beach filed a lawsuit against the Division seeking to move his SR license to a different location. As a result of the lawsuit, the Division changed its existing policy to allow for such a change. The new policy was posted on the Division's website for review by SR license holders. There is no evidence that SR license holders were notified about the change in policy by any other means. Respondent does not remember receiving any notice whatsoever regarding the change in policy. Within four to six months, and as a result of further legal research by Division attorneys, the Division once again altered its policy concerning the transfer of SR licenses. The newly-revised policy established the current Division position, i.e., that no SR license could be moved for any reason. Further, the policy states that all licensed premises must be in continuous operation or else the license would be forfeited. Again, the Division posted the new policy on its website and notified all SR license holders by way of letters to their establishments (or, in the case of Respondent, to the last known address). It is unclear from the record whether the letter was ever sent to or received by Respondent, although the Division obviously had Respondent's address because it sent renewal notices there each year. Some time after the change in policy, the Division determined that Respondent's license must be terminated or revoked. At that time, there were no premises associated with the License. The last time the License was in operation was 1979 or 1980, some 28 years prior to the Administrative Action being filed. The official address of the premises on the License during each of the renewal periods since 1980 had been "Escrow." That is, there was no site address associated with the License. There was obviously some address associated with the License, however, since Fox received annual billing statements from the Division. In November 2007, the Division issued an Administrative Action against Respondent concerning the License. The Administrative Action alleged that Respondent had not complied with the requirements of the License, i.e., size of premises and on-going operations. The Division indicated that it would sanction the License, including, but not limited to, revocation. Respondent does not dispute the fact that it is not complying with the requirements for an active license, but maintains that its escrowed license is exempt from those requirements. The License, despite being inactive for 28 years, is still apparently valid at this point in time (based on the Division's acceptance of Respondent's renewal payments each year). The License may have some monetary value, but there was no competent, substantial evidence presented at final hearing as to what the value might actually be. Marianne Gunn Fox testified that she did not know how much the License was worth, only that "nothing is worth as much as it used to be." Fox cannot remember how much she paid for the License when it was transferred to her. She cannot remember how much she asked for the License when she offered it for sale. She cannot remember how much was offered for the License as part of the condemnation sale. Fox does know that she paid an annual fee each year for renewal of the License. She does not know what the fee was each year, but "I paid whatever the state told me was due." (The Division testified that the annual fee was $1,820.00. Presuming 28 years of payments, the total paid to-date would be approximately $50,960.) When suggested to Fox by her counsel that the License was worth $300,000, she agreed with that amount, but could not substantiate why that amount was valid. Fox testified that she would like a "reasonable time" to market the License for sale. She did not express what a reasonable time might be, but has not been able (or willing) to sell the License for over 28 years. Respondent put the License "out for feelers" three or four years ago, but did not include an asking price for the License. About seven months ago, someone told Fox that the License was worth approximately $326,000, but there is no support for that estimate. Patrick Roberts, former law enforcement major with the Division, opined that he would have handled Respondent's case differently had it come across his desk. He opined that the requirement for 4,000 square feet and seating for 200 people should only apply to an existing business, not one in escrow. Roberts agreed that only quota licenses are allowed escrow status by statute. Roberts did not express any opinion as to the requirement that a business be on-going at all times. Roberts agreed that an SR license should not be placed in escrow, but said he'd try to negotiate a settlement, rather than file an Administrative Action. He did concur that an Administrative Action might be necessary if all else failed. Roberts did not opine that an Administrative Action was improper, only that it wasn't his first choice of action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, revoking Respondent, Fox Marianne Gunn, d/b/a Stardust Lounge's, License No. BEV46-261 Series 4-COP/SR. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Eugene Willner is the corporate officer and sole stockholder of G.W. Liquors of Broward, Inc., d/b/a Case Deliveries, and G.W. Liquors of Collier, Inc., d/b/a Discounted by the Case. On August 27, 1980, Eugene Willner entered a plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to a violation of Title 21, United States Code s. 963, Conspiracy to Import Marijuana. Based upon his plea he was convicted and sentenced to two years of imprisonment, and a fine of $5000 was imposed. Willner had never before been convicted of any offense, nor has he been convicted of any offense subsequent to the 1980 conviction. Other than the 1980 conviction, Willner has a reputation of good moral character in his community. On July 8, 1983 Willner received a Certificate of Restoration of Civil Rights which provided, in relevant part, that he ... is restored to all civil rights in this State, except the specific authority to possess or own a firearm, lost by reason of any and all felonies this person may have been convicted of in another state, federal, or military court . In early 1987, the Petitioner corporate entities controlled by Willner applied for new quota alcoholic beverage licenses. Those applications disclosed Willner's 1980 conviction and his 1983 restoration of civil rights. On October 28, 1987, Respondent denied the applications. Of the 8500 licensed alcoholic beverage premises in Dade and Monroe Counties, only approximately 20 to 25 (or approximately one-quarter of one percent) are experiencing a problem with narcotics.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving Petitioners' applications for alcoholic beverage licenses. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-5565 & 87-5566 Petitioners' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-5 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-4 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's unnumbered proposed finding of fact has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein for the reasons set forth in this Recommended Order. Additionally, that proposed finding of fact contains phrases which are not supported by the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting background information forming the basis for Respondent's proposed agency action in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 7 and 6, respectively, have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel and recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: C. I. Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Bruce Rogow, Esquire 2097 S.W. 27th Terrace Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 W. Douglas Moody, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Sy Chadroff, Esquire 2700 S.W. 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Florida corporation. Gary Popkin is its sole corporate officer and stockholder. He holds the positions of President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the holder of alcoholic beverage license #16- 03 032 2-COP issued by Petitioner. The licensed business is a bar that operates under the name of Lynda's Lounge. It is located at 8007-8009 Kimberly Boulevard in North Lauderdale, Florida. C.G. is a paid confidential informant. The North Lauderdale Police Department is among the law enforcement agencies for whom he works. On the afternoon of July 19, 1989, C.G. entered Lynda's Lounge, sat down and ordered a drink. While in the bar, C.G. was approached by Vinnie Lavarello, another of the bar's patrons. They were joined by Popkin. A conversation ensued. Popkin advised C.G. that he had some "good pot" and asked him if he wanted to buy some. He suggested that C.G. act quickly because he only had a little left. Both Popkin and Lavarello told C.G. that there was no need to worry because everyone in the bar "smoked pot" and was "cool." C.G. informed Popkin that he would "let him know." He thereupon left the bar and paged Detective Gary Harris of the North Lauderdale Police Department. Harris instructed C.G. to meet him at the North Lauderdale police station, which is a short distance from the bar. In accordance with Harris' instructions, C.G. went to the police station. He provided Harris with a description of Lavarello and Popkin, as well as their names. Harris searched C.G. and C.G.'s car for drugs and found none. He then gave C.G. $20.00 with which to purchase marijuana from Popkin. C.G. drove back to the bar. He was followed by Harris in another vehicle. They arrived at the bar at approximately 5:55 p.m.. C.G. entered the bar, while Harris waited outside. Once in the bar, C.G. walked up to Lavarello and indicated that he was interested in consummating the deal they had discussed earlier that day. Popkin apparently overheard C.G. He gave C.G. a package containing marijuana (cannabis). In return, C.G. gave Popkin the $20.00 he had been given by Harris. Following this transaction, there was a discussion concerning the possibility of C.G. purchasing additional drugs, including cocaine, from Popkin. Popkin quoted C.G. prices for various quantities of the drug and encouraged C.G. to come back and do business with him. At approximately 6:10 p.m., fifteen minutes after he entered the bar, C.G. left and drove in his vehicle to a prearranged location to meet Harris. Harris observed C.G. leave the bar and followed C.G. in his vehicle to their predetermined meeting place. After they both exited their vehicles, C.G. handed Harris the marijuana he had purchased from Popkin and told Harris what had happened in the bar. Harris field tested the marijuana. It tested positive. Harris placed the marijuana in a sealed bag and forwarded it to the crime laboratory of the Broward Sheriff's Office. Tests performed at the crime laboratory reflected that the substance that Popkin had sold C.G. was indeed marijuana. After consulting with Harris regarding the matter, C.G. returned to Lynda's Lounge on July 21, 1989, to make arrangements to purchase an ounce of cocaine. As he had been told to do by Popkin, C.G. discussed the matter with Lavarello. C.G. and Lavarello agreed on a purchase price. C.G. then left the bar to get money to make the purchase. After leaving the bar, C.G. went to the North Lauderdale police station and met with Harris. Harris searched C.G. and C.G.'s vehicle for drugs and found none. He then gave C.G. money with which to purchase an ounce of cocaine from Lavarello. Although C.G. and Lavarello had agreed upon a purchase price of $700.00, because it is a common practice of drug dealers to raise their prices immediately before the transaction is to take place, Harris gave C.G. $800.00 in the event Lavarello raised his price. C.G. then drove back to the bar, followed by Harris in another vehicle. After parking, C.G. exited his vehicle and entered the bar. Harris remained outside, across the street from the bar. C.G. approached Lavarello. It was too noisy inside the bar to talk so C.G. and Lavarello left and continued their conversation in C.G.'s vehicle, which was parked in the lot in front of the bar. Lavarello indicated to C.G. that he did not have the cocaine with him and needed to pick it up, but that C.G. would have to give him the entire purchase price before he did so. C.G. then excused himself. He thereupon contacted Harris and they both returned to the North Lauderdale police station. Harris did not want C.G. to give Lavarello that much money and have to wait for the cocaine to be delivered. He therefore decided to have C.G. purchase an eighth of an ounce, instead of an ounce, of cocaine from Lavarello, the purchase price of which, C.G. had been told, was $150.00. Accordingly, Harris took back $600.00 of the $800.00 he had given C.G. earlier that day. Harris then again searched C.G. for drugs and found none. C.G. thereupon headed directly back to the bar, with Harris following behind him in another vehicle. C.G. met with Lavarello at the bar. He told Lavarello that he wanted to purchase a eighth of an ounce, rather than an ounce, of cocaine. He gave Lavarello $200.00 and made arrangements to meet Lavarello later that day at the bar to receive delivery of the cocaine he had purchased. At Lavarello's request, C.G. drove Lavarello to Lavarello's girlfriend's house. C.G. then returned to the North Lauderdale police station. At all times during this journey, C.G. and his vehicle were under Harris' observation. At the police station, Harris again searched C.G. for contraband and found none. Later that day, C.G. and Harris went back to Lynda's Lounge in separate vehicles. Harris remained outside, as C.G. exited his vehicle and headed towards the front door of the bar, where he encountered Lavarello. C.G. and Lavarello then proceeded to C.G.'s vehicle, where Lavarello handed C.G. a package containing cocaine. Upon receiving the package, C.G. complained that it appeared that he had received less cocaine than he had been promised. Lavarello admitted that he had given his girlfriend some of the cocaine that originally had been intended for C.G. To compensate for the missing cocaine, Lavarello gave C.G. a package containing marijuana. In addition to the cocaine and marijuana, Lavarello also gave C.G. a $20.00 bill and a gas receipt reflecting the amount of money he had paid for gasoline during his trip to pick up the cocaine. Following this transaction, C.G. and Lavarello went their separate ways. As he had done after the buy he had made on July 19, 1989, C.G. met Harris at a prearranged location. He handed Harris everything that Lavarello had given him. Harris searched C.G. and found no additional contraband. Harris then field tested both the cocaine and the marijuana. The test results were positive. After conducting these field tests, Harris placed the cocaine and marijuana in a sealed bag and forwarded the bag to the crime laboratory of the Broward Sheriff's Office. Tests performed at the crime laboratory reflected that the substances in question were indeed cocaine and marijuana. Popkin and Lavarello were subsequently arrested by Harris. 1/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes, charged in the January 9, 1990, Notice to Show Cause and revoking alcoholic beverage license #16-03032 2- COP held by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this & day of October, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675
