The Issue The issue presented in whether an agent or employee of Respondent sold alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21, in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administration Action issued September 10, 1997, and if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, Respondent held alcoholic beverage license no. 74-01498, series 2APS, for an establishment known as My Super Store ("the licensed premises"), located at 701 South Martin Luther King Boulevard, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida. Daytona Beach Police Department opened an investigation of the licensed premises after it received numerous complaints of illegal activity at the licensed premises. Paris Anthony is a black female born on June 13, 1977, and was 19 years old on May 5 through May 21, 1997. On May 5, 1997, Ms. Anthony entered the licensed premises and selected a bottle marked "beer" from the store's cooler. The bottle bore the manufacturer's trade mark for "Bud Ice." Ms. Anthony brought the beer to the sales counter and tendered payment to the cashier. The cashier accepted payment for the beer, but did not ask Ms. Anthony for any identification before accepting payment and selling the beer to her. When Ms. Anthony asked for a receipt for the beer, the cashier, in a raised voice, commented to Ms. Anthony, "Well, you're not old enough, are you?" or words to that effect. Ms. Anthony answered that she was not, but was nonetheless permitted to leave the premises with the bottle of beer. During the conversation between the cashier and Ms. Anthony, Respondent was seated an arm's length away from the cashier. Respondent was not talking to anyone at the time. Although Respondent looked up at Ms. Anthony and the cashier during the exchange reported in paragraph 5, above, he took no action in response to the assertion that Ms. Anthony was not of legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages. On May 7, 1997, Ms. Anthony entered the licensed premises and selected a bottle marked "beer" from the store's cooler. The beer bore the manufacturer's trademark for "Bud Ice." Ms. Anthony brought the beer to the sales counter and tendered payment to the same cashier who was working behind the counter on May 5, 1997. The cashier did not ask Ms. Anthony for any identification before accepting payment and selling the beer to her. Ms. Anthony departed the licensed premises with the bottle of beer. The Respondent was observed on the premises by Ms. Anthony at the time of the purchase. On May 21, 1997, Ms. Anthony entered the licensed premises and selected a bottle marked "beer" from the store's cooler. The beer bore the manufacturer's trademark for "Bud Ice." Ms. Anthony brought the beer to the sales counter and tendered payment to the same cashier who was working behind the counter on May 5 and May 7, 1997. The cashier did not ask Ms. Anthony for any identification before accepting payment and selling the beer to her. Ms. Anthony departed the licensed premises with the bottle beer. The Respondent was observed on the premises by Ms. Anthony at the time of the purchase. At hearing, nine months after the incident, Ms. Anthony appeared to be a young woman of an age that a prudent person would check to determine whether she was 21 years old. Respondent testified he had no employees at the time of the violations, but allowed "volunteers" to help him on the licensed premises, including Benette Lisa Brown. According to the Respondent, he was always on site, and in charge. The "volunteers," according to Respondent, did not work the cash register; however, Respondent's testimony was not consistent with Ms. Anthony's and that of a former "volunteer." Respondent's testimony was not credible. The person at the sales counter was working under the supervision of Respondent who was present on the premises each occasion Ms. Anthony purchased beer. At the time of the violations, Respondent did not have signs posted on the licensed premises informing customers that the vendor had a policy against serving alcoholic beverages to underage persons and informing customers that the purchase of alcoholic beverages by an underage person or the illegal use of or trafficking in controlled substances will result in ejection from the licensed premises and prosecution. The training of employees or agents was inadequate and their supervision poor.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's alcoholic beverage licensee No. 74-01498, series 2APS, be suspended for a period of 30 days, and it is further recommended that Respondent be ordered to pay a $1,000 civil penalty to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas D. Winokur, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joan Lowe, Esquire 520 North Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114-2188 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue Whether "[o]n or about January 16, 2009, Respondent [the holder of an SR license] failed to maintain a restaurant . . . contrary to and in violation of [s]ection 561.20(2), Florida Statutes (1953), within [s]ection 561.20(5), Florida Statutes (2008), within [s]ection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2008),"2 as alleged in the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all material times, the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-02630, Series 4COP/SR (Subject License), which is a "Special Restaurant" or "SR" license issued by Petitioner. The location of the licensed premises is 17190 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, where Respondent operates Epicure Gourmet Market and Café (Epicure) in a structure having 34,000 square feet of interior space, 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of which is open to the consuming public. The Rascal House, an eating establishment specializing in comfort food, formerly occupied this location. The Rascal House opened in 1954 and was operated under the Subject License from December 30 of that year until March 30, 2008, when it was shuttered. For the final twelve years of its existence, the Rascal House was owned and operated by Jerry's Famous Deli, Inc., Respondent's parent corporation. Respondent acquired the Rascal House property and the Subject License from Jerry's Famous Deli in 2008. After spending $7.5 million on renovations to the property,3 Respondent reopened the venue as Epicure on October 7, 2008, and has done business under that name at the former Rascal House location since. Petitioner approved the transfer of the Subject License to Respondent on October 27, 2008, following an inspection of the premises of Epicure by one of Petitioner's Special Agents, Bradley Frank, who found that all statutory requirements for "SR" licensure were met. In the summer of 2008, prior to the opening of Epicure, Respondent, through its Chief Financial Officer, Christina Sperling, submitted a Request for Initial Inspection and Food Permit Application with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Food Safety (DACS), in which it described Epicure as a "[f]ood market with indoor/outdoor seating area; but not a service restaurant." At the time of the filing of the Food Permit Application, Respondent had no intention of using waiters or waitresses to serve Epicure's patrons, although it did intend for these patrons to be able to purchase food and beverage items for consumption on the premises. Before Epicure opened, Respondent was granted a DACS Annual Food Permit, "Supermarket"-type, for the establishment, a permit it continues to hold today. On February 11, 2009, and again on July 28, 2009, Respondent applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (H&R) for a "public food service establishment"4 license for Epicure. Both applications were denied by H&R because Epicure was licensed (properly so, in the opinion of H&R) by DACS. The DACS permit is not the only license Respondent has for Epicure. It also has a retail license, a food market license, and a restaurant-outside dining license, all issued by the City of Sunny Isles Beach. Respondent has held these City of Sunny Isles Beach-issued licenses since 2008. On January 16, 2009, the date of the violation alleged in the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint, Epicure had the necessary equipment and supplies (including those in its 4,000 to 5,000 square foot kitchen where food was prepared) to provide, and it did provide, patrons full course meals (including ready to eat appetizer items, ready to eat salad items, ready to eat entree items, ready to eat vegetable items, ready to eat dessert items, ready to eat fruit items, hot and cold beverages (non-alcoholic and alcoholic), and bread) for on- premises consumption at indoor and outdoor tables5 (Eating Tables) having a total seating capacity in excess of 200 and occupying more than 4,000 square feet of space.6 There were no waiters or waitresses, at that time, to take orders from, and to serve food and beverages to, patrons sitting at the Eating Tables.7 The patrons themselves brought to their Eating Tables the food and beverages they consumed there--food and beverages they obtained from manned counters (in the hot food, raw meat/fresh seafood,8 deli, bakery, and bar areas); from the fresh produce area; and from the cases, shelves, and tables where packaged food and drink items were displayed for sale. Epicure employees were stationed in the areas where the Eating Tables were located to assist patrons who wanted tableware, a glass of ice water, a packaged item (such as soup) to be opened or warmed, or their table to be cleaned. Not all of the items sold at Epicure on January 16, 2009, were consumed on the premises. True to its name, Epicure had not only a bona fide "café" operation, it also operated as a "market" where patrons shopped for "gourmet" food and other items for off-premises consumption and use. Among the food and beverage items for sale were raw meat and fresh seafood; dairy products; ready to eat deli meats and cheeses, including those packaged by the manufacturer; packaged grains; packaged stocks, including vegetable, beef, seafood, and chicken stock; condiments, including jams, jellies, and caviar; sauces; spices; eggs; chips, popcorn, and nuts; packaged crackers and cookies; ingredients (other than meat and seafood) for salads, dips, and dressings; cooked and other prepared foods ready to eat; baked bread and other bakery items; candy; fruit and other fresh produce; bottles of wine, liquor, and beer, as well as non- alcoholic beverages, including water; and packaged tea. Among the non-food items for sale were flowers; glassware; candles; napkins, paper and plastic plates and cups, and eating and serving utensils; paper towels; toilet paper; toilet bowel cleaner; wine and liquor opening devices and equipment; publications relating to alcoholic beverage products; cookbooks; and personal care and over-the-counter health care items. Shopping carts were available for patrons to use in the establishment to transport items selected for purchase. These items were paid for at the same cash registers (at the front of the establishment) where food and beverages consumed on the premises were paid for. There was considerable overlap between Epicure's "café" and "market" operations in terms of space used and items sold. Both the "café" and the "market" were fundamental and substantial components of Epicure's business, and they worked together synergistically. The record evidence does not clearly and convincingly reveal that Epicure's "café" operation was merely incidental or subordinate to its "market" operation, or that its "café" was in any way operated as a subterfuge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, issue a final order dismissing the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent unlawfully obstructed and/or hindered the inspection of his licensed premises by law enforcement officers and allowed or otherwise condoned the sale of alcoholic beverages in violation of a municipal ordinance concerning the hours of sale and, if so, what disciplinary action is warranted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the state agency charged with regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages and tobacco in Florida. Respondent, El Greco, Inc., d/b/a El Greco is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 63-00458, series 4-COP. Respondent's premises is located at 1109 East Main Street in Lakeland, Florida. Respondent's president is John Houvardis (herein Respondent). Petitioner issued two official warnings to Respondent on October 19, 1992. One warning was for a violation of Section 562.41, Florida Statutes, to wit, hindering or obstructing a law enforcement officer from conducting a search of the licensed premises which included locking a law enforcement officer from the premises. The other warning was for an alleged violation of the Lakeland City Ordinance relating to the sale, serving, or consumption of alcoholic beverages after the legal hours of sale. On January 29, 1994, Officer Ed Mingus of the Lakeland Police Department was dispatched to Respondent's premises at approximately 2:29 a.m. Officer Mingus was dispatched to investigate a complaint of "loud noises and sale of alcoholic beverages after hours". When Officer Mingus arrived at Respondent's premises on January 29, 1994, he heard noise coming from the licensed premises and observed several cars in the parking lot. The front door of the licensed premises was locked and Officer Mingus knocked to gain entry. An unidentified person answered the door and Officer Mingus identified himself as a police officer and requested entrance. Within seconds after requesting entrance, Respondent opened the door and allowed Officer Mingus inside the premises. At the time, approximately five employees were cleaning the licensed premises and no alcoholic beverages were observed either being served or consumed by Officer Mingus. Officer Mingus gained entry to the premises within five minutes of first knocking on the door. Officer Mingus suspected that there were other people inside and, in this regard, he asked Respondent if there were, in fact, other people in the licensed premises. Officer Mingus told Respondent of his suspicion that he was violating the hours of sale whereupon Respondent reiterated of his awareness of the ordinance prohibiting sale of alcoholic beverages after hours and insisted that he was not violating the ordinance. Officer Mingus thereafter requested permission from Respondent to search the licensed premises and Respondent consented to a search. Officer Mingus observed approximately nine or ten patrons in the kitchen area. Officer Mingus again reiterated his suspicion that Respondent was violating the municipal laws concerning the hours of sale and gave Respondent a verbal warning that if he was caught violating the ordinance, he would face criminal and administrative sanctions. Detective Denny Phillips of the Lakeland Police Department conducted a sight investigation of Respondent's premises on January 29, 1994, both prior to and while Officer Mingus was inside the licensed premises. Detective Phillips was across the street from the licensed premises with an unobstructed view of the premises on January 29, 1994. On February 26, 1994, Detective Phillips continued his investigation of Respondent's licensed premises. Detective Phillips instructed Officer Ed Cain, also a patrol officer for the Lakeland Police Department, to enter the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Officer Cain was instructed to attempt to remain in the licensed premises after 2:00 a.m., and to purchase an alcoholic beverage. Officer Cain entered the licensed premises at approximately 12:30 a.m. on February 26, 1994, and observed a crowded lounge consisting mostly of college-aged patrons. Respondent was observed inside the premises. Officer Cain observed a large number of the patrons leaving the premises by 1:00 a.m., and Respondent's employees escorted the remaining patrons from the licensed premises at approximately 1:45 a.m. Officer Cain was not asked to leave the licensed premises and he remained along with approximately four or five other patrons. At approximately 2:10 a.m., Officer Cain ordered a shot of Sambuca, an alcoholic beverage described as a licorice liqueur, from a female employee. Officer Cain placed $2.00 for the beverage on the counter of the bar. Officer Cain observed that same employee placing the money in a bank bag containing the contents of the cash register. Officer Cain is familiar with alcoholic beverages and what they smell and taste like and has consumed alcoholic beverages prior to the evening of February 26, 1994. Officer Cain exited the licensed premises and notified Detective Phillips that he had purchased an alcoholic beverage from an employee after 2:00 a.m. Detective Phillips entered the licensed premises and met with Respondent who was still in the licensed premises. Detective Phillips advised Respondent that undercover officer Cain had purchased an alcoholic beverage from an employee after 2:00 a.m. and that Respondent and the employee would be cited for violation of the municipal ordinance respecting the sale of alcoholic beverages after hours. Respondent usually has extra food left over from functions that he has at the licensed premises from time to time and the employees and others who were in the kitchen area of the licensed premises after 2:00 a.m., on January 29, 1994, were eating some of that extra food.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order imposing a civil penalty against Respondent in the amount of one thousand ($1,000) dollars for the above-referenced violation (sale of an alcoholic beverage after hours). DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 4, rejected, unnecessary and not probative. Paragraph 10, adopted as modified, paragraph 5, Recommended Order. Paragraph 16, adopted as modified, paragraph 8, Recommended Order. Paragraph 20, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraphs 11 and 12, Recommended Order. Paragraph 27, rejected as being a recitation of testimony, and not proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Houvardas, President El Greco, Inc. 1109 East Main Street Lakeland, Florida 33801 Richard Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John J. Harris, Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Cornelia T Brown, doing business as the Oasis Restaurant Bar and Lounge, is the holder of beverage license No. 45-356, Series 2-COP. This license allows the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises, located on Douglas Road, Groveland, Florida. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is an agency of the State of Florida which has its responsibility the licensure and regulation of beverage license holders in the State of Florida. On June 12, 1980, pursuant to a search warrant, Lake County Sheriff and Groveland Police officials accompanied by Petitioner's Beverage Officer, conducted a search of the licensed premises. Respondent was present throughout the investigation. Among the items seized as suspected controlled substances were seven plastic baggies and eight small manila envelopes containing a total of 52.1 grams of cannabis. Currency in the amount of $2,273,67 was also seized. The cannabis and currency were contained in a purse belonging to Respondent. The purse was discovered in the kitchen of the licensed premises, an area not open to bar/restaurant patrons or other members of the public.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violations as alleged in Counts 1, 2 and 4. It is further RECOMMENDED that County 3, which duplicates County 2, and Count 5, be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's License No. 45-356 be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Cornelia T. Brown Route 1, Box 350-7 Groveland, Florida 32736 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the notice to show cause and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Cesar J. Reyes, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-05034, series 2-COP, for the premises known as Busy Cafeteria Bar (the "premises"), located at 4601 West Flagler Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. In November 1993, Special Agent Joe Lopez of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, together with the assistance of a confidential informant (CI), began an undercover investigation of the premises. Such investigation was predicated on information Special Agent Lopez had received from federal authorities which indicated that narcotics were being sold upon the premises. On December 1, 1993, Special Agent Lopez and the CI entered the licensed premises. While inside the premises, the CI met with respondent and purchased a small plastic package containing 1/2 gram of cocaine for $30.00. On the same occasion, Special Agent Lopez met with respondent, and he also purchased a small plastic package containing 1/2 gram of cocaine for $30.00. 1/ On December 2, 1993, Special Agent Lopez and the CI returned to the licensed premises. While inside the licensed premises, they again met with respondent and purchased a small plastic package containing 1/2 gram of cocaine for $30.00. On December 7, 1993, Special Agent Brian Weiner of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco served respondent with an emergency order suspending his alcoholic beverage license, and placed respondent under arrest for the sale of cocaine. Incident to such arrest, Special Agent Weiner searched respondent's person and discovered six small plastic packages, each containing 1/2 gram of cocaine, in a small box tucked under respondent's waist band.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing Counts 1 and 2 of the notice to show cause, finding respondent guilty of Counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the notice to show cause, and revoking respondent's alcoholic beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of December 1993. 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 28th day of December 1993.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for a special restaurant license (4COP-SRX) can be deemed incomplete for failure to obtain zoning approval from the local government.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a restaurant duly-licensed by the State of Florida to serve food and certain alcoholic beverages. It currently holds a 2COP restaurant license, which allows it to sell beer and wine along with its food products. Petitioner has held the 2COP license since opening in calendar year 2002. Petitioner derives 51 percent of its revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. It is in an area of Orange County which is zoned for commercial property and has the appropriate land use code for a restaurant chain. Petitioner's facility is presently located within 500 feet of a local school. The school was built a year or two after Petitioner began operation of its restaurant. In order for Petitioner to obtain an upgraded license so that it can serve other alcoholic beverages (i.e., liquor) it must submit an application to Respondent. Petitioner duly- submitted such an application on February 5, 2007. The application sought to upgrade Petitioner's license to a 4COP-SRX license. The 4COP license would allow for sale of all alcoholic beverages. Section 5 of the Application addresses zoning for the restaurant. Section 5 includes the following: Are there outside areas which are contiguous to the premises which are to be part of the premises sought to be licensed? [Petitioner answered, Yes.] If this application is for issuance of an alcoholic beverage license where zoning approval is required, the zoning authority must complete "A" and "B". If zoning is not required, the applicant must complete section "B". The location complies with zoning requirements for the sale of alcoholic beverages or wholesale tobacco products pursuant to this application for a Series 4COP SRX license. Signed Title Date Is the location within limits of an "Incorporated City or Town"? Yes No If yes, enter the name of the city or town: Petitioner filled in the address portion of Section 5, but did not have a zoning authority complete Section A, nor did Petitioner complete Section B. Respondent deemed the Application incomplete due to Petitioner's failure to complete Section 5. On July 25, 2007, a Final Warning Notice was sent to Petitioner, allowing Petitioner ten additional days to submit zoning approval for the Application. When no zoning approval was returned within the prescribed period, Respondent issued its Intent to Deny License. Petitioner did make an inquiry to the local zoning authority concerning its application to increase the level of its license. However, by letter dated February 22, 2007, the Orange County Zoning Division notified Petitioner as follows: We have received your request for an increase in series to the alcoholic beverage license at Hooters Lake Underhill, 11425 Underhill Road, Orlando. On February 22, 2007 we conducted a distance check to see if the proposed location satisfied the separation requirements contained in the Orange County Code. The results of our inspection reveal that the proposed location is 407 ft. from Legacy Middle School at 11398 Lake Underhill Road. Since this location cannot satisfy the 1000 ft. separation requirement from the nearest school, this office cannot issue zoning approval for the increase in series.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, denying the application filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2008, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2008.
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be suspended or revoked on charges that its licensed lounge: (1) was resorted to be persona using illicit drugs or was used for the keeping or selling of' illicit drugs; and (2) constituted a public nuisance by virtue of such illicit drug activity.
Findings Of Fact Respondent and the Licensed Premises Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license No. 27-00312 (Series 2- COP). Under this license he owns and operates a lounge known as the "Laugh Inn" at 49 Navy Boulevard, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. The lounge sells beer, wine, and food to its customers. (Testimony of W. Flynn; P-13.) The Laugh Inn ("licensed premises" or "premises") has two main rooms with a connecting passageway. The front room contains tables, chairs, pool tables, and a bar. To the rear of the bar is an enclosed storage room separating the front from the rear room. The passageway connecting to the rear room is approximately 6 feet wide. On the north aide of the passageway are three restrooms. The rear room contains additional tables and chairs, pool tables, pinball machines, and a "football" table. Because the two main rooms are separated by the storage room, a person tending bar in the front room would be unable to see the rear room area. The rear room ceilings contain three exhaust fans to remove smoke and odors. (Testimony of W. Flynn; R-1.) The licensed premises does not include any area outside the lounge. No property outside of the lounge building was included in the sketch attached to respondent's application for an alcoholic beverage license. Be owns land in back of the premises on which he has placed a small trailer. Be owns a narrow strip of land on each side of the premises and a 3-foot-wide strip of land in front, facing Navy Boulevard. The front parking area--where customers ordinarily park their cars--is neither owned nor controlled by respondent. This parking area is on publicly owned property. Several windows on the premises face the parking area, but they have curtains which are ordinarily closed during business hours. There are no other windows on the premises from which the front parking area can be seen. (Testimony of W. Flynn; R-1.) II. Illicit Drug Activities on or Adjacent to Licensed Premises In April, 1982, undercover officers from the Escambia County Sheriff's Office began an investigation to determine whether violations of the controlled substances law were occurring on the licensed premises. On April 20, 1982, Deputy Linda Dees of the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office took delivery of a controlled substance--approximately 25.6 grams of cannabis (marijuana) --from Eric Babcock, a patron of the premises. The delivery took place on the premises at the front bar, where Deputy Bees and Mr. Babcock were seated. He placed the bag of cannabis into her purse--which was on her lap below the bar--and she paid him $35. (Testimony of Dees.) On that same day, April 20, 1982, Deputy Marilyn Medlin of the Escambia County Sheriff's Office took delivery of a controlled substance--approximately 12 grams of cannabis--from Mike Milstead, another patron. Although discussions for the purchase took place in the licensed premises--in a normal tone of voice- -the drugs were delivered and paid for in a vehicle located in the parking area in front of the licensed premises--an area neither owned nor controlled by respondent. (Testimony of Medlin; Seven days later, on April 27, 1982, Deputy Medlin purchased a controlled substance--three tablets of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) --from Lydia Quinonas, another patron. The purchase and delivery took place in the rear room of the premises, where Deputy Medlin and Ms. Quinonas were seated. The three tablets were small in size--smaller than ordinary aspirin tablets; Ms. Quinonas delivered the tablets by placing the palm of her hand over the deputy's upturned palm and dropping the tablets. During this transaction, several other persons were in the rear room playing pool. The area was well lighted. (Testimony of Medlin.) On the same day--April 27, 1982--Deputy Dees purchased approximately 21.7 grams of cannabis from Steve Sweat and Kenny Crabtree, patrons of the bar. They also gave Deputy Bees the remaining portion of a marijuana cigarette. The delivery and sale of these drugs took place outside the licensed premises in a truck parked in the front parking area--an area neither owned nor controlled by respondent. Deputy Dees placed the drugs inside her purse where they remained until delivered to law enforcement authorities. (Testimony of Dees.) On May 3, 1982, Deputy Medlin purchased a bag containing approximately 18 grams of cannabis from Thurston Raines, a bar patron. The delivery took place in a private vehicle parked in a well-lighted area in front of the premises. (Neither the vehicle nor the area in which it was parked was owned or controlled by respondent.) Deputy Medlin immediately placed the cannabis into her purse where it remained until delivered to the Sheriff's Office. (Testimony of Medlin.) Later in the evening on May 3, 1982, Deputy Dees i1purchased approximately 17 grams of cannabis from Eric Babcock, a patron of the bar. Mr. Babcock removed a grocery bag concealed above the ceiling in the rear room of the premises. They then proceeded to a private vehicle parked in front of the premises where Deputy Dees selected one of what appeared to be several bags of cannabis in the grocery sack. After placing the bag and the grocery sack in her purse, they returned to the rear room of the premises, where Mr. Babcock returned the grocery bag to its hiding place. (Deputy Dees concealed the grocery bag in her purse when they reentered the premises because Mr. Babcock did not want to be seen carrying it.) The ceiling of the rear room was recently replaced and respondent was not informed of any cannabis having been stored in the ceiling. (Testimony of Dees.) On May 4, 1982, Louis Austie gave Deputy Medlin the remaining portion (.3 gram) of a marijuana cigarette. The cigarette was being smoked by several persons standing outside the front door of the licensed premises. When a sheriff's patrol car entered the lot, Mr. Austie quickly extinguished the cigarette and gave it to Deputy Medlin. This drug transaction took place on property neither owned nor controlled by respondent. (Testimony of Medlin.) During the evening of May 14, 1982, Deputy Medlin telephoned Kay Towney, the night bartender on the premises, and asked her if she knew anyone who would sell her marijuana. Ms. Towney replied that there was a customer on the premises who would sell it to her. Deputy Medlin then proceeded to the premises where Ms. Towney introduced her to Tom Suggs, a customer. After negotiating the sale of .25 ounces of marijuana, Deputy Medlin and Mr. Suggs proceeded to a private car in the front parking area; the delivery took place inside the parked vehicle. (In a subsequent statement given to police officers, Ms. Towney stated that she was aware of drug trafficking on the licensed premises; that she helped arrange drug transactions between her customers; that she knew Eric Babcock had hidden drugs in the ceiling; and that she knew Mr. Babcock, Mark Padgett, and one other person were drug dealers.) (Testimony of Medlin, Kiker.) On May 14, 1982, Mark Padgett approached Deputy Medlin on the premises and asked her if she wanted to buy some quaaludes. She responded that she did. He then delivered a drug to Deputy Medlin in the parking lot area in front of the premises. Subsequent laboratory analysis revealed that drug was not a controlled substance. (Testimony of Medlin.) On several occasions during her investigation, Deputy Medlin observed people in the rear room of the premises smoking what appeared to be marijuana. Since she is familiar with the odor of marijuana smoke, her conclusion is accepted as persuasive. (Testimony of Medlin.) On three or four separate occasions during April, 1982, Stewart Stamm- -a person familiar with the appearance and odor of burning marijuana--saw customers smoking marijuana in the rear room of the licensed premises. He also has purchased marijuana from patrons of th& bar approximately 30 times. (Testimony of Stamm.) On May 26, 1982, Deputy Medlin engaged in an open and loud conversation with Kay Towney, the night bartender. The conversation took place at the bar on the premises and concerned the use of quaaludes. Other customers were 5 to 7 feet away. Ms. Towney then sold to Deputy Medlin what she represented to be two quaalude tablets. 2/ (Testimony of Medlin.) On April 20, 1982, Deputy Medlin observed Kay Towney remove what appeared to be brushes from a compartment in the pool table in the rear room on the premises. A few minutes later, a patron returned to the pool table, opened the compartment and inserted several clear plastic bags containing what appeared to be marijuana. (The bags have not been recovered, so their contents have not been definitively identified.) (Testimony of Medlin.) III. Respondent was Unaware of Illicit Drug Activities on or Adjacent to Licensed Premises Respondent did not know that illicit drug activities had occurred and were occurring on or adjacent to the licensed premises; neither did Frances Flynn, his wife, who acted as the night manager until October, 1981, when she left for eight months to care for her terminally ill brother-in the State of Washington; neither did Doris Sheldon, the daytime bartender; neither did Carolyn Burch, the employee who closed the premises each morning at 2:30 a.m. (Testimony of W. Flynn, F. Flynn, Sheldon, Burch.) Respondent employed Larry Harrison and Pat Randolph to clean in and around the licensed premises on a daily basis. Mr. Harrison and Ms. Randolph would occasionally find in the parking area the remains of what they suspected to be marijuana cigarettes; but there is no evidence that they ever informed respondent of their suspicions. (Testimony of Harrison, Randolph.) No law enforcement officers, including agents of the DABT, have ever informed respondent that they suspected or had reason to believe that illicit drug activities were occurring on the licensed premises. Several regular customers of the bar testified that they had never sheen controlled substances being used, sold, or stored inside or outside the licensed premises. (Testimony of Saucier, Settles, Finney, Donlon.) All of the purchases of the controlled substances described in section II above were initiated by the undercover officers involved. Most of the described purchases and deliveries of controlled substances occurred in the front parking area--an area neither owned nor controlled by respondent and which is not part of the licensed premises. IV. Failure to Diligently Supervise and Maintain Surveillance of Licensed Premises During Evening Hours The illicit drug transactions described above occurred, for the most part, during the evening hours. During those hours--from 6:00 p.m. to 2:30 a.m.--Kay Towney served as the night bartender. Frances Flynn, wife of respondent, ordinarily served as the night-shift manager and supervised the night bartender; but Ms. Flynn was absent from October, 1981, to May, 1982, when she was caring for her ill brother in Washington. (Testimony of W. Flynn, F. Flynn.) Ms. Towney was hired by respondent toward the end of 1981--while his wife was in Washington. At the job interview, respondent asked her if she used drugs; she answered she had used marijuana in the past. During April and May, 1982--when the drug transactions already mentioned took place--Ms. Towney was the only employee regularly on the premises during the night shift. Although respondent considered her a bartender, she considered herself the night manager. (Testimony of W. Flynn.) In April and May, 1982--when the alleged violations occurred-- respondent did not normally supervise and maintain surveillance of the premises during the night shift. He would open the bar at 10:00 a.m. and work there throughout the day, until 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. Then he would go home; Ms. Towney was instructed to call him if any problems arose. During Ms. Flynn's eight- month absence, respondent employed David Saucier to periodically inspect the premises during the night shift. Mr. Saucier inspected the premises approximately ten times and did not observe any illicit drug activities on or adjacent to the premises. (Testimony of W. Flynn, Saucier.) During the time in question--April and May, 1982-- it is concluded that respondent was negligent in that he did not exercise due diligence in supervising and maintaining surveillance of the licensed premises during the evening hours. illicit drug activities occurred repeatedly on the premises-- particularly in the rear room. Such activities were open and persistent and recur- ring. Marijuana was openly smoked in the rear room. The fact that the three exhaust fans may have helped remove the smoke--thus limiting it to the rear room--does not excuse respondent's failure to monitor the rear room area. The person nominally in charge of the premises during the night shift was aware of the illicit drug activity; she not only condoned it but actively participated in it. Although respondent was normally absent from the premises during the night shift, he employed a friend to inspect the premises only about ten times during the night-shift manager's eight-month absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage' license be suspended for sixty (60) days, subtracting therefrom the number of days such license has been suspended due to the emergency suspension order served May 28, 1982. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 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 29th day of June, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent is 201 West, Inc., d/b/a Central City, who is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 11-00259, Series 4-COP, a "quota license." Respondent's licensed premises is located at 201 West University Avenue, Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. Craig Cinque is Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Joseph Cinque, Craig Cinque's father, was formerly Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Prior to becoming the owner of Central City, Craig Cinque managed the licensed premises on behalf of his father. During this period of time, the Division filed ten separate Notices to Show Cause against Respondent, alleging multiple sales to and consumption of alcoholic beverages by underaged persons. On August 29, 1989, the licensed premises was closed by an Emergency Order of Suspension. The administrative charges arising therefrom were resolved by a Stipulation and Consent Agreement, wherein the Respondent in that case admitted substantially to all of the violations. Craig Cinque individually executed the agreement, admitted responsibility for previous violations, and acknowledged that future violations of a similar nature could result in suspension or revocation of the alcoholic beverage license. The agency has issued numerous Notices to Show Cause against Respondent since the entry of the consent order. However, unproven Notices to Show Cause and unproven counts within any Notices to Show Cause are only unproven accusations, and as such are not probative herein even for purposes of showing "aggravation." Beverage Law Institute is an "approved trainer" under the Responsible Vendors Act, having been approved by the Petitioner as such. Petitioner certified Respondent Central City as a certified Responsible Vendor under the Act, on April 13, 1990. See, Subsections 561.701-561.706 F.S. Of the 483 nondistributor alcoholic beverage licensees in Alachua County, only 94 have been certified by Petitioner as Responsible Vendors. Of those 94, only 13 hold "4-COP" licenses, the category of license held by Respondent, which permits liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on premises or in a sealed container. Prior to the events of the instant Notices to Show Cause, and continuing through the 14-month period of the Notices to Show Cause and beyond, Respondent was engaged in a voluntary program designed to teach employees not to serve alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. Many of the materials therefor were provided by Beverage Law Institute. The training program and procedures involved multiple ID checkers at the front door. Also at the front door, wristbands to signify and quickly identify patrons of legal drinking age were issued. Once snapped on a customer's wrist, the band itself was stamped at a right angle across the customer's wrist to prevent or at least inhibit the wristband's transfer to an underage patron and to prevent a patron bringing in a counterfeit or "ringer" wristband. All patrons, regardless of age, received a stamp directly on the wrist to identify that they had paid their admission fee. Security personnel circulated inside the licensed premises checking drinks and wristbands, and waitresses were also instructed to check on drinks already purchased by customers. The training programs and procedures also involved Respondent's policy manual regarding IDs, extensive training and testing of employees, frequent oral reminders to employees concerning the law and concerning licensee policy, sporadic staff meetings regarding policy, videotaped instruction programs, provision of and instructions to employees to use an "ID Checking Guide" at the front door and at every internal bar within the licensed premises, confiscation of fake or questionable IDs at the door, 1/ and use of warning handbills given out to customers. Upon receipt, the handbills proclaiming the licensee's "of age only" policy were usually immediately discarded by customers. Some employees looked upon their training with more enthusiasm than others. Some employees considered the policy and training all for show. Most employees complied regularly with the requirements for training, review, and instructions. A few were lax in their compliance and had to be urged to attend staff meetings or to retest. In addition to all this, from the time the Responsible Vendor tests were available, all employees except two cashiers were tested according to the requirements of the Responsible Vendor Act and within the time frames provided therein. Every underage operative who testified admitted she or he had been "carded" at the door and that none had been issued wristbands. The parties stipulated that all of the individuals named in the four Notices to Show Cause (except for those alleged to have sold or given alcoholic beverages) were under the legal drinking age on the dates indicated by the respective Notices to Show Cause and that although each of these individuals "was actually in possession of alcoholic beverages as plead (sic), there was no evidence that any of the alcoholic beverages were obtained from Respondent's employees, agents, or servants." The stipulation listed the underage persons of the Notices to Show Cause but did not employ the term "consumption" which was specifically used only in the second Notice to Show Cause (GA11890496). Petitioner put on no witnesses as to "consumption." Likewise, Petitioner did not have admitted in evidence any confiscated alcoholic beverages alleged to have been sold by Respondent's agents/employees, nor did Petitioner present any laboratory reports to establish that any substance sold was alcohol. The only evidence of alcohol content is discussed infra. With regard to Craig Cinque's attitude and Central City's compliance with the Responsible Vendors Act, the testimony of Eileen Tenly and of William Cooter has been weighed and considered. Ms. Tenly is a totally noncredible witness whose testimony demonstrates an "axe to grind," and whose candor and demeanor is unpersuasive of anything except her animosity for Mr. Cinque. Petitioner's Investigator William Cooter, however, testified credibly that after having numerous conversations with Mr. Cinque on the subject of underage sales, Mr. Cinque stated that he was not worried about losing his alcoholic beverage license because he could get another one in his mother's name. On the other hand, Mr. Cooter, by his own testimony, has been invited by Mr. Cinque to instruct and has, in fact, instructed Mr. Cinque's employees on how to prevent underage drinking. The evidence as a whole, but most particularly that of Prince Miles, Respondent's janitor, who is a credible witness, is persuasive that patrons sometimes smuggle alcoholic beverages onto the licensed premises and that each time the establishment closes, commercial alcoholic beverage containers which are not part of the inventory sold by Respondent must be swept out. Since this smuggling activity must substantially reduce Respondent's profits, it is a logical inference that such smuggling is contrary to Respondent's policy and that Respondent does not encourage or condone it, whether done by adults or minors. I. Notice to Show Cause GA11890374; September 16, 1989 through February 9, 1990; sale to Toombs, Kittles, Goldtrap, and Ormsbee by Green, Halladay, Howell, and Grimes and possession by Peters, Conf, Kelly, Garcia, Fernandez, Shiskin, Brejhanan, Benz, Yawn, and Plettner All of the violations charged in Notice to Show Cause GA11890374 arose prior to Respondent's becoming a certified Responsible Vendor on April 13, 1990. On September 16, 1989, Ryan Conf and Alejandra Peters were each under the age of 21 and in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises as pled. On September 19, 1989, Central City bartender David Green sold the Division's underaged operative, Bridgette Toombs, a liquid beverage in a long- neck, factory-produced 12-ounce bottle labelled "Michelob Dry." At that time, the licensed premises was not busy and Mr. Green noted that Ms. Toombs had no wristband. He therefore checked Ms. Toombs' underage ID and instructed her that since she was old enough to drink, she should go get a wristband. This transaction was observed by Petitioner's agent, Ms. Pendarakis, but Ms. Pendarakis did not overhear the conversation. After delivering a sample of the liquid beverage to Ms. Pendarakis in the ladies' room, Ms. Toombs crossed in front of Mr. Green's bar on her way to exit the licensed premises. Mr. Green sent word to Ms. Toombs by another Central City employee that he wanted to see her. Ms. Toombs complied with Mr. Green's request and showed him her underage ID once more. At that point, Mr. Green recognized his error in thinking that Ms. Toombs was 21 or over and called over several other Central City employees, all of whom viewed the ID showing Ms. Toombs was actually two months short of 19 years old. Mr. Green was not arrested until after the ID was passed around, so it may be inferred that his recognizing his mistake was not the result of any confrontation with Petitioner's agents or law enforcement officers or due to his perception that he had been "caught." Indeed, Petitioner's witness, Ms. Toombs, attributed Mr. Green's illegal sale to her as a mistake in subtraction. Mr. Green had previously successfully passed all tests required under the licensee's policy in existence before the Responsible Vendor tests were available. On October 20, 1989, Charlotte Kelly and Alezandro Garcia, who were under the age of 21, were each in the actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1989, Cesar Fernandez, who was under the age of 21, was in possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On the same date, underage operative Megan Kittles was inside the licensed premises. She was not wearing a wristband, and her hand was stamped indicating that she was under 21. She first approached a white male bartender who checked her and refused to serve her. She then ordered a rum and coke from Respondent's bartender, Craig Halladay. Mr. Halladay did not check Ms. Kittles' ID and served her a liquid beverage which Mr. Szabo of the Division testified that he had identified by smell as containing alcohol. No one saw the drink mixed, and Mr. Szabo admitted that he did not know what kind of alcohol the drink contained. He stated that he "would not swear it was rum." Mr. Szabo also was not aware until formal hearing that Respondent sold any nonalcoholic mixed drinks. Although the evidence is weak, it is persuasive that Ms. Kittles was served alcohol. Mr. Halladay successfully passed the licensee's policy test before this incident and the Responsible Vendor test afterwards. Also on October 21, 1989, Matthew Goldtrap, another underage operative, ordered a "Budweiser" and obtained a 12-ounce bottle labelled "beer" from a floor waitress named Shannon Howell. Mr. Goldtrap had no wristband but did have a stamp on his wrist. He gave the container to Investigator Smith. Mr. Szabo then took both of Respondent's employees into custody. Mr. Goldtrap does not drink alcohol. Investigator Smith did not testify, but it is inferred from the description of the beer bottle and the circumstances of the transaction as a whole that Mr. Goldtrap was served an alcoholic beverage. Ms. Howell successfully passed the licensee's test prior to this incident. On January 19, 1990, Scott Shiskin, Michael Brejhanan, and Carolyn Benz, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On February 9, 1990, Central City bartender Steve Grimes sold Petitioner's 19-year old operative Octavia Ormsbee a liquid beverage. Ms. Ormsbee, who had no wristband on, was first denied a sale of alcoholic beverage at the downstairs back bar after Respondent's bartender there checked her underage ID. Ms. Ormsbee then went to an upstairs bar and ordered a "Bud Light." She was told by Mr. Grimes, a bartender at that bar, that they were out of "Bud Light," and by agreement, a beer bottle labelled "Budweiser" was substituted. Ms. Ormsbee does not drink alcohol and did not testify that what she received from Mr. Grimes was alcohol. The bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee was turned over to Officer Byrd of the Gainesville Police Department. Officer Byrd, who is familiar with alcoholic beverages through his own education, training, practice, and experience, identified the contents of the bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee as being "beer." Officer Byrd turned the bottle over to Petitioner's agent Cooter. Also on this occasion, Preston Yawn and Eric Plettner, who were under the age of 21, were each actually in possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Mr. Grimes had successfully passed the licensee's policy test prior to this incident. All of the underaged operatives who testified concerning this Notice to Show Cause testified that Petitioner's adult operatives forbade them to drink (consume) what they were sold and that they did not consume any. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constituted their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, mere possession does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 2/ Therefore, Petitioner has only established that on September 19, 1989 Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to Petitioner's underage operative Bridgette Toombs; that on October 21, 1989, Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Megan Kittles; that also on October 21, 1989, Respondent's floor waitress sold Petitioner's underage operative Matthew Goldtrap an alcoholic beverage; and that on February 9, 1990, Respondent's bartender sold the Division's underage operative Octavia Ormsbee an alcoholic beverage. One of these sales was clearly a mistake and two other operatives had to go to two bartenders each before an illegal sale was made. II. Notice to Show Cause GA11890496; June 8, 1990 through June 16, 1990; sale to Wearner by Edge and to Seligman by Lemberger and Bergine and possession by Tetstone, Lockey, Klug, Skipper, and Bissell On June 8, 1990, Jennifer Tetstone and Amy Lockey, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. On June 16, 1990, Ann Klug, Shana Skipper, and Michael Bissell were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Also on June 16, 1990, Central City bartenders Michael Edge, Michael Bergine, and Robert Lemberger, respectively, sold each of the Division's underage operatives Kathy Wearner (who did not testify but who was stipulated to be underage) and Charles Seligman an alcoholic beverage. Neither underaged operative wore a wristband or was requested to produce an ID for purposes of the respective sales. As of date of formal hearing, the Respondent continued to employ these same bartenders. All of these bartenders had successfully completed the Responsible Vendor test before these incidents. Mr. Edge also had passed the licensee's earlier policy test. The underaged operative, Kathy Wearner, asked Michael Edge for "a Budweiser" and was sold liquid in a "Budweiser" beer bottle inverted in a drinking glass. Officer Rockey of the Gainesville Police Department convincingly described the liquid that came out of the bottle as beer, an alcoholic beverage. He turned the materials confiscated over to an unnamed agent of Respondent and has not seen them since. On the same date, Central City bartender Robert Lemberger sold a 12-ounce bottle labelled "Budweiser" to 18- year-old operative Charles Seligman. Mr. Seligman was at all times without a wristband and bearing a stamp on his hand. Mr. Seligman delivered the bottle he received from Mr. Lemberger to Officer Posey of the Gainesville Police Department who had watched the entire transaction. Mr. Seligman later purchased a 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to Officer Posey. Mr. Seligman purchased a third 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to one of Petitioner's agents, Ernest Wilson. Mr. Seligman does not drink alcohol. Agent Wilson does drink alcohol and testified that the bottle Charles Seligman handed him was, in fact, beer. Although Agent Wilson also testified that Mr. Seligman's first name was "Tom" and that Mr. Seligman had purchased a rum drink, nonetheless, Mr. Wilson was convincing that the bottle handed him by Mr. Seligman did, in fact, contain beer, an alcoholic beverage. Officer Posey convincingly described the first bottle he received from Mr. Seligman as containing beer, an alcoholic beverage, and upon all the circumstances, the undersigned infers that the second bottle given Officer Posey also contained beer. All the underaged operatives who testified on this Notice to Show Cause testified that they were forbidden to drink (consume) what they were sold and did not do so. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the other minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constitutes their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 3/ Therefore, Petitioner has established only that on June 16, 1990 Respondent's personnel sold one alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Wearner and three alcoholic beverages to the Petitioner's underage operative Seligman. III. Notice to Show Cause GA11900209; September 22, 1990 through September 29, 1990; service to, or consumption by Stanton, Coody, Willis, and, Torres On September 22, 1990, Amy Stanton and Janet Coody, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. On September 29, 1990, Betty Willis and Jose Torres, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 4/ IV. Notice to Show Cause GA11900254 October 19, 1990 through November 16, 1990; 9 counts possession by Harriett, Ortega, McKinney, Nelson, Smith, Winter, Joyner, Cooke, Sammon; "giving" by Blackwell and Strawser On October 19, 1990, Steven Harriett, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1990, Jamie Ortega, who was under the age of 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 20, 1990, Brian McKinney, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 15, 1990, Karen Nelson, Hollie Smith, Michael Winter, and Julia Joyner, all underage, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 16, 1990, Denise Cooke and Teresa Sammon, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 5/ No evidence was introduced to establish the allegations of Counts 4 and 6 of Notice to Show Cause GA11900254, alleging "giving."
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic and Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order dismissing Notices to Show Cause GA11900209 and GA11900254; finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890374, imposing a total of $1750 in civil fines therefor; and finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890496, imposing a total of $2000 in civil fines therefor. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1991.
The Issue Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance; cocaine, and whether said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 in U.S. currency, and whether said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage license premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine contrary to Section 893.13, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc. d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $2,200, U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. A count seven was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. A count eight was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. Whether or not on or about November 20, 1976, a bottle of non-tax paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered on the licensed premises, and whether or not said bottle bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid, contrary to Section 562.16, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 1, 1976, and continuing until on or about November 24, 1976, the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did maintain a public nuisance, to wit; maintain a place where controlled substances were illegally sold, kept or used, contrary to Section 823.10, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not investigation revealed that on or about November 20, 1976, the Respondent, its agent, servant, or employee, did remove, deposit, or conceal a beverage, to wit, one (1) 2,000 cc bottle of Ron Medeliin Rum, with the intent to defraud the state of tax, contrary to Section 562.32, F.S. and Section 562.30, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this complaint the Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, was the holder of a license no. 23-1901, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, and that license was for the premises located at 1601 Collins Avenue Miami Beach, Florida. The management of the licensed premises makes arrangements to hire entertainment in the form of musicians. This arrangement is made through agreement with the band leader. One of these agreements was made with a band leader who had as his band member Leouigildo Hernandez. On September 28, 1976, Officer E. Santiago, of the Miami Beach, Florida, Police Department entered the licensed premises and while in the licensed premises entered into discussion with Hernandez. Hernandez left the bar proper and came back with an amount of a substance known as cocaine. Santiago paid Hernandez $100 for the quantity of cocaine and the sale was consummated in the licensed premises. On October 30, 1976, Officer Santiago returned to the licensed premises. Santiago had been in the licensed premises many times prior to that occasion. Among the persons he had seen in the bar was Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales. Morales was the girlfriend of Anthony Bilbao, one of the principals in the ownership of the licensed premises. Morales had also served Santiago drinks in the bar on more than 50 occasions. On the evening in question, October 30, 1976, discussion was entered into between Santiago and Morales about the purchase of a substance known as cocaine. Morales produced a quantity of the cocaine and reached across the bar that she was standing behind and handed the quantity of the substance cocaine to Santiago, who was in the area where customers were served at the bar. Santiago paid her $100 for the cocaine. In the late hours of November 4 and early hours of November 5, 1976, Santiago again entered the licensed premises, his purpose for going to the licensed premises was to purchase a large quantity of cocaine from Morales. This arrangement had been entered into based upon the sample of cocaine that had been provided him on October 30, 1976. Morales left the licensed premises and returned 3 to 5 minutes later with a quantity of cocaine, for which Santiago paid her $2,200. On one of the above occasions of a purchase of cocaine from Morales, while in the licensed premises, Morales had conferred with Anthony Bilbao. In the course of that conference, Bilbao told Morales to be careful to whom she sold because "you don't know him", meaning Santiago. In the course of an investigation in the license premises on November 28, 1976, a bottle of non-tax-paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered in the licensed premises, which bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid. The size of the bottle was 2,000 cc.
Recommendation Based upon the violations as established in the hearing on the notice to show cause, it is recommended that the license no. 23-1901 held by Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee ,Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Michael B. Solomon, Esquire Division of Beverage Theodore M. Trushin, Law Office The Johns Building 420 Lincoln Road, Number 600 725 Bronough Street Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Nathaniel Barone, Esquire 777 N.E. 79th Street Miami, Florida 33138
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, N.K., Inc., d/b/a Tobacco Road, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-733:4-COP authorizing it to sell alcoholic beverages at 628 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. The establishment in question is located in the downtown area of Miami, Florida. It provides both a food and beverage service to its patrons. The bar's hours of service are from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 a.m. daily. The kitchen is generally open from late in the morning until 3:00 p.m. and from between 5:00 and 8:00 p.m. until 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. each day. The lounge has two floors. The first floor has a bar, restaurant and outdoor patio. Entertainment is provided primarily by a disc jockey. The second floor is accessed by an interior stairway from the first floor and contains a bar and stage. The upstairs is patterned after a speakeasy from prohibition days, and features live theater performances and entertainment provided by a live jazz band. The clientele of Tobacco Road may be characterized as "mixed". During the daytime hours, it is frequented by many business and professional persons from the downtown area who partake of both meals and drinks. At night the crowd tends to be more younger and middle class although it is still an admixture of all ages, occupations and classes. The bar is located four blocks from the "tent city" where the City of Miami housed large numbers of Cuban refugees in 1980. Some refugees have frequented the Tobacco Road on occasion. The Petitioner received unidentified complaints regarding the possible sale or use of drugs in a number of Miami area lounges, including Tobacco Road. This prompted visits by undercover beverage agents to the licensed premises in January, 1981, to ascertain whether such complaints were true. On or about January 13, 1981, at approximately 10:20 p.m., Officers Mignolet and Gonzalez, two female beverage agents, visited the Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity to investigate whether narcotics were being sold on the premises. In the parking lot, they met two white male patrons named Carlos and Mark who were just leaving in their automobile and engaged them in a brief casual conversation. The officers then entered the lounge and seated themselves at the bar on the first floor. Carlos and Mark returned to the bar shortly thereafter and sat next to Mignolet and Gonzalez. The conversation turned to narcotics and after a period of time, Mark reached into his pocket and pulled out two tablets which he handed to Gonzalez. A laboratory analysis later established these tablets to be methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). When the delivery occurred, Chris (Christopher Najdul), a bartender, was in the bar well directly in front of the beverage officers. Seated nearby were "a few other" patrons. The lighting in the area was described as "dim". After being handed the tablets, Gonzalez showed Chris the tablets in her hand. However, Chris did not say anything to acknowledge that he had seen the transaction. This was the fourth visit to the licensed premises by the two agents but represented the first time they were successful in obtaining a controlled substance despite repeated efforts to do so. On or about January 23, 1981, at approximately 12:40 a.m., Officers Brock and Thompson, two female beverage agents, visited the premises of Respondent in an undercover capacity to ascertain whether narcotics were being sold. After seating themselves at the center of the bar on the first floor, they engaged in a conversation with a white male patron named Armando Garcia. The agents asked it they could obtain some "ludes" (methaqualones). Garcia said he could obtain some "grass" (marijuana) from upstairs and temporarily left the bar. He later returned without any drugs. He then went outside the premises to his car, obtained two tablets, returned to the bar, seated himself between Brock and Thompson, and passed one each into their hands. The officers briefly examined the tablets and then placed them into their pocketbooks. Subsequent laboratory tests revealed the tablets were methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). On or about January 24, 1981, Officers Brock and Thompson again visited the licensed premises of Tobacco Read at about 1:00 a.m. After seating themselves at the bar they were immediately approached by Armando Garcia, the same patron who had given them two methaqualones the previous evening. After approximately 15 minutes, Brock and Garcia moved to a booth away from the bar where Garcia gave her a tablet. Thompson then joined them at the booth, and Garcia set a tablet on the table for Thompson. The transaction was not observed by any employee or patron. Shortly afterwards, the agents returned to the bar where Garcia joined them. At approximately 2:10 a.m., Garcia passed a tablet hand to hand to Thompson, and swallowed another himself. When the latter delivery occurred, the bartender, Peter Aitken, was working behind the bar well but did not verbally acknowledge seeing the transaction. A laboratory analysis subsequently revealed the three tablets were methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). On January 25, 1981, at approximately 12:15 a.m. Officers Roberts and Jones, two male beverage agents, visited the Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity to ascertain whether controlled substances could be obtained. After seating themselves at the bar, they began a casual conversation with a male patron at the bar named Lance concerning the possible purchase of drugs. They left the bar and went to the stairway between the first and second floors were Roberts asked Lance if there were any "ludes" around. Lance replied he had one for $3.00. Roberts handed Lance $3.00 and received a tablet. Laboratory tests subsequently revealed the tablet given to Officer Roberts was a methaqualone (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). When the transaction occurred, several other patrons were ahead of Roberts on the stairway. Prior to this delivery, Roberts and Jones had visited the premises on at least two other occasions but were unsuccessful in obtaining a controlled substance. On or about April 25, 1981, at approximately 12:30 a.m., while on the licensed premises, Officer Marrero, a male beverage agent, met a Latin male patron who offered to sell some marijuana. Officer Jones accompanied Marrero and the patron to the men's restroom where, in a bathroom stall, Marrero bought five suspected marijuana cigarettes from the patron for $5.00. No other patrons or employees were present when the sale occurred. Subsequent tests performed by the laboratory confirmed the cigarettes were in fact marijuana (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). On or about January 28, 1981, Officers Brock and Thompson visited the licensed premises of Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity and seated themselves next to Peter Aitken, who was off-duty that evening, and who appeared to be in an intoxicated state. Peter left the premises with Thompson to go to his automobile to smoke a marijuana joint. The automobile was parked on a public street in front of the lounge. Although Thompson was ultimately able to purchase a bag of marijuana from Peter for $35, the transaction occurred off the licensed premises and was beyond the dominion and control of the licensee. The corporate owner of Tobacco Road is Neil Katzman, a former police officer with the City of Miami. Prior to purchasing Tobacco Road, he owned and operated a licensed lounge and package store. Katzman takes an active role in the management of the lounge, including such diverse activities as maintenance work, greeting customers, occasionally tending bar and taking inventory. However, because of the long hours of operation (9:00 a.m. - 5:00 a.m. daily) it is impossible for him to be on the premises at all times. For this reason, he has hired a manager to whom he recently delegated authority to hire and fire employees. Katzman has a strict policy of employees not using or distributing illegal drugs. Violation of this rule results in immediate dismissal of the errant employee. Prospective employees are personally counseled on the no-drug policy of the management before they are hired and are reminded of this policy periodically. Polygraph tests have been given since 1978 to employees, including the manager, to determine whether they use or sell drugs, have stolen money, given away free drinks or engaged in any other prohibited activities. They are specifically asked if they have sold or delivered drugs on the premises, and whether they have seen other employees do so. "Numerous" employees have been fired as a result of taking such tests. Indeed, Chris Najdul, a bartender, was fired a week before the undercover operations were made known to Katzman for admitting to the use of narcotics on the premises. The no-drug policy of management has been effective. This is evidenced by the fact that no drugs were obtained from employees during the period in question despite numerous efforts by undercover agents to purchase narcotics from them. It is also a strict policy of the Respondent that if patrons are seen with narcotics on the premises, they are asked to leave. Katzman himself periodically checks the restrooms and patio to see if patrons are using illegal drugs. Other than the deliveries and sales described above, the undercover agents did not witness any employee or patron using, selling or in possession of any suspected narcotic on the licensed premises. Respondent has never been cited or warned about any beverage law violation in this or any previous establishment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Counts I and II of the Notice to Show Cause be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 6th day of July, 1981.
