The Issue This case concerns the entitlement of the Petitioner, Price Candy Company, Inc., trading as St. James Place, to be granted a new Series 2-COP beverage license from the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco.
Findings Of Fact Beginning on June 13, 1978, the Petitioner, Price Candy Company, Inc., began the process of applying for a new Series 2-COP beverage license to be issued by the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. This license was to be issued for a premises located at 117 West Duval Street, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. The establishment for which this license is intended is a restaurant located in a building known as the May Cohens Building. The Petitioner leases a portion of that building from May Cohens and the balance of the building which constitutes the structure of the prospective licensed area, is controlled by May Cohens. The part of the building controlled by the Petitioner as a street entrance into the dining room area of the restaurant and an entrance from the May Cohens part of the building, which is an interior entrance to the restaurant. These entrances may be seen in examining the Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence, which is the Petitioner's sketch of the prospective licensed premises which was submitted to the Respondent as a part of the application. Within this diagram are several pencilled changes to the sketch which represent the current state of the building showing an extension of a wall, thereby closing off any direct access from May Cohens to the restrooms associated with Petitioner's restaurant. On May 30, 1979, the Director of the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco indicated his intent to deny the application stated that the reason was "Premises to be licensed is connected to other areas over which the applicant will have no dominion or control." As authority for that statement the Director referred to Subsection 561.01(11), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, Price Candy Company, Inc., trading as St. James Place, be granted a new Series 2-COP beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Bailey, Area Supervisor Price Candy Company, Inc. 117 West Duval Street Jacksonville, Florida 32204 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 14th day of May, 1976, Mary Lener Arnold, a licensed vendor, did have in her possession, permit or allow someone else to have unlawfully in their possession on Mary Lener Arnold's licensed premises, alcoholic beverages, to wit: 9 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to 562.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mary Lener Arnold, t/a Buggs' Drive Inn, held on May 14, 1976 and now holds beverage license no. 50-2 series 1-COP with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. This licensed premises is located on Main Street, Greenville, Florida. On May 14, 1976, a confidential informant with the Division of Beverage went to the licensed premise of the Respondent in Greenville, Florida and purchased a bottle of alcoholic beverage not permitted under a 1-COP license. This confidential informant was working for officer B.C. Maxwell of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. Officer Maxwell along with other officers with the Division of Beverage and officers of the Madison County, Sheriff's office returned to the licensed premises on May 14, 1976 and in looking through the licensed premises found a black bag containing 9 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka on the licensed premises. This Smirnoff Vodka was not permissible on the licensed premises under a 1-COP license. On the licensed premises at the time of the inspection was one Patsy Jackson Williams who indicated that she was in charge of the premises. The confidential informant who had purchased the bottle of alcoholic beverage indicated that his purchase had been made from the same Patsy Jackson Williams. The black bag with its contents of 9 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka is Petitioner's Exhibit #2 admitted into evidence. The alcoholic beverage purchased by the confidential informant is Petitioner's Exhibit #4 admitted into evidence.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Mary Lener Arnold have her beverage license suspended for a period of 30 days based upon the charge proven in the hearing. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Winson, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mary Lener Arnold t/a Buggs' Drive Inn Main Street Greenville, Florida
Findings Of Fact At some time prior to March 1, 1963, Randall R. Aleno, a former deputy sheriff with the Volusia County, Florida, Sheriff's Department; his brother, Mick Aleno; his father, Charles Aleno; and his wife, Patty Aleno, formed Aleno's Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, with Randall Aleno owning more than 50 percent of the corporate stock. Randall Aleno is the corporate president; Mick Aleno,the vice president; Charles Aleno, the treasurer; and Patty Aleno, the secretary. Having been a long-time resident of Volusia County, Randall Aleno saw a need for and developed a concept for a form of mobile concession stands to operate on the St. Johns River in the general area of Volusia County and the contiguous counties north and south of it. Before taking any definitive steps toward implementing this idea, Randall Aleno, on January 10, 1983, wrote letters both to the Commanding Officer of Port Operations for the U.S. Coast Guard in Jacksonville, Florida, and a representative of the Volusia County Health Department outlining in general terms the nature of his plan and seeking approval of those agencies for the project. Apparently, neither agency interposed any objection. He also contacted the local office of the Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, where he spoke with Agents Dunbar, Blanton, and Clark, outlining his proposal. On at least one occasion, Mr. Aleno told Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco representative Clark, while at the counter in the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Daytona Beach office, that he intended to make bulk sales of beer from boats tied to buoys in the St. Johns River at the time of sales, but which would, when not in operation, be moored at the Tropical Marina in DeLand, Florida. In Dir. Clark's opinion, this type of proposed operation was not covered or provided for in the statutes or in the rules of the Division and he felt the applications for licenses for these operations should he denied. According to Mr. Clark, when he advised Mr. Aleno of this on several occasions, Mr. Aleno still wanted to try and submitted the application. At some time during this period, Mr. Aleno, who had been with the sheriff's office for 14 years, retired from that employment, 1/ purchased three houseboats (one 39-foot boat and two 26-foot boats) which he thoroughly rehabilitated to be capable of storage and the sale of sandwiches and package sales of soft drinks and beer. The sandwiches to be sold were to he pre- wrapped, the beverages in cans, coffee in styrofoam cups with lids, and all condiments would be in sealed packages. No food or drink was to be opened or consumed on board the boats, floating concession stands. When the boats were completed, because he had been told by Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco agents at the Daytona Beach office that a license would not be issued to a moving establishment, he secured a boat slip for each boat at the Tropical Marina. Mr. Aleno picked up the applications for beverage licenses from the Daytona Beach office. Me also wrote to a beverage supervisor at the Jacksonville office in an effort to prepare the way for his applications. Mr. Aleno was told, at some point in the procedure, that he would need to submit copies of the plans, the boat layouts and details of the operation. All of these, in addition to the letters from the Coast Guard and the county health department, were submitted for consideration with the applications. Mr. Aleno attempted to describe his proposal to each official with whom he came into contact. The local Division of Alcoholic Beverages Supervisor, Lt. Powell, and Mr. Clark admit that Mr. Aleno told them what he planned to do with his operation and how it would work. Lt. Powell reviewed the complete application and discussed it with Mr. Clark. He, Powell, was aware that the sales of unopened packages of beer would be made out on the river and not at the Tropical Marina before the application was forwarded to Tallahassee for action, but there was nothing written in the application to indicate the sales would be made up and down the river. The applications showed the location of the premises as Tropical Marina, Slips 41, 42 and 43. The applications were forwarded to Tallahassee in the normal course of business apparently without recommendation one way or the other by the local office. The licenses were issued on April 1, 1983, showing their location as Tropical Marina, Slips 41, 42 and 43, respectively, Lakeview Road, DeLand, Florida. The 1-APS licenses were issued to Aleno's Enterprises, Inc. trading as Randv's Subs #41, 42 and 43. (License Numbers 74-1565, 74-1566, and 74-1567) Respondent does not operate its boats as a steamship line. It does not carry people, other than employees, on the boats for pay or gratis. None of the boats go more than 100 miles in either direction from the point of mooring. Respondent has not been selling beverages for consumption on the premises, but has been making package sales only of beer off the boats. Barry Schoenfeld, Chief of Licensing Records for Respondent in Tallahassee, reviewed these applications and the license files sometime during the summer of 19-83 after the licenses were issued. His review of the files led him to conclude that the Respondent's operation does not qualify for a 1-APE license because the boats are not permanently moored at their docks. Florida Beverage Laws require, generally, a fixed permanent structure. There are some exceptions for movable vehicles such as steamships, trains, and airplanes and also for pleasure boats which go more than 100 miles per outing. He believes Respondent's boats would qualify for this latter license which, however, is a COP license, not an APS license. He has thoroughly examined the Respondent's applications; and the way the total file reads, it gives him the impression the boats would be moored at the dock in a fixed permanent location. This is why the licenses were issued. Since an obvious mistake was made, and since Mr. Schoenfeld did not know of any provision in the Florida Beverage Law which covers an operation such as that of Respondent, in the summer of 1983, he called Respondent, speaking with Mrs. Patty Aleno, and advised her the operation would have to cease. Upon advice of counsel, Respondent did not stop the operation at that time.
Recommendation That Respondent's licenses be revoked without prejudice so as to permit Respondent or its officers to, in the future, apply for the issuance of a beverage license, if otherwise qualified.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: Petitioner, Gainesville Golf and Country Club, Inc., is a nonprofit Florida corporation which owns, operates and manages a golf course and country club in Alachua County, Florida. Petitioner is presently licensed under Section 565.02(4), Florida Statutes, to serve alcoholic beverages to its members and nonresident guests only. The petitioner's clubhouse contains 6,000 square feet of service area which is equipped to serve 400 persons full course meals at one time. It presently serves full course meals regularly between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Tuesday through Thursday, and 11:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. Brunch is served from 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Sunday and petitioner is closed on Monday. The service of meals is discontinued at 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and at 10:00 p.m. on weekends because there is no demand for such services after these hours. During the past twelve months, petitioner has derived in excess of 51 percent of its gross income from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. As noted above the petitioner presently holds a club license and serves alcoholic beverages to its members and nonresident guests. Pursuant to an Alachua County ordinance, petitioner serves alcoholic beverages from 11:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. the following day Tuesday through Saturday, and from 11:30 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on Sunday. It continues the service of alcoholic beverages after the hours of meal service because there is a demand for such service, and substantial revenues are generated from the sale of alcoholic beverages during these hours. If petitioner were required to keep its kitchen open for the service of full course meals during the same hours it serves alcoholic beverages, the additional labor costs would amount to approximately $360.00 per week, or approximately $18,000.00 per year. Petitioner presently desires to obtain a special restaurant license (SRX) so that it may sell alcoholic beverages to nonmembers and thereby increase its gross revenues. If petitioner obtains an SRX license, it would be subject to the provisions of Rule 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code, which requires such a licensee to discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages when it discontinues the service of full course meals. The cost of an SRX license is $1,700.00 per year, as opposed to $400.00 per year for a club license. Because of the economic loss it would suffer if it were required to comply with Rule 7A- 3.15 regarding the hours of sale of alcoholic beverages under an SRX license, petitioner has not yet applied for such a license. It determined, instead, to challenge the validity of Rule 7A-3.15 prior to making application for an SRX license.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's beverage license, Series 14BC, No. 39-03729, should be disciplined because of the matters outlined in the Notice to Show Cause filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Division was the state agency responsible for the licensing of establishments for the dispensing and sale of alcoholic beverages and enforcement of the beverage laws of the State of Florida. McKown's, Inc., a corporation whose sole stockholders are Duncan and Gloria McKown, holds 14ABC license number 39-03729, located at The Cabin, an establishment situated at 8205 North Dale Mabry Highway in Tampa. This license is a license to operate a bottle club on the premises, and allows patrons to bring their own bottles into the club to drink from. Patrons may either bring their bottle each time they come, or they may leave it at the club to be used each time they visit. Patrons must drink from their own bottle or as the guest of another bottle holder, but cannot buy alcoholic drinks from the licensed establishment. The establishment may sell only ice, setups and food - no alcohol. Mr. McKown is Secretary-Treasurer of McKown's, Inc., the licensee in issue here. He has been in the restaurant and service business since 1937. He opened a large restaurant and lounge in Dunedin, Florida in the early 1960's, and opened The Cabin approximately fifteen years ago with a county bottle club license. When state licensure became required, approximately three years ago, he secured one of those as well. Mr. McKown claims he was open every day from 2 to 7 AM. His clientele was mostly made up of people in the service industry - people who work at night and get off early in the morning. These are people such as waitresses, cooks, restaurant and bar managers. Many of his patrons work at or manage high quality restaurants, and the interior of The Cabin is decorated with T-shirts from many of them. He believes that as a general rule, his clientele is of good quality and is law abiding. The Cabin is made up of one building and a patio. It has one front door, which is manned by a security guard, and there is a sign posted on the inside of the front door which indicates the facility is a private club, non- members of which must pay a service charge. Though it once was private, it is now open to anyone of legal age. If the door is closed, an individual approaching from the outside can not see the sign. Security is designed to keep out minors and to insure that persons admitted have a bottle with them or already inside. The two Messrs. Bailey are the security guards. They wear uniforms similar to those worn by law enforcement people and carry firearms. McKown claims this i s because a firearm was discharged on the premises some time ago and the guards' firearms and uniforms tend to dissuade drunks. Many companies have bottles for their employees. It is Mr. McKown's policy, which he believes is consistent with state law, that two or more people can come into a bottle club and drink from one bottle. It is also a practice of his to allow people to leave their bottles on the premises for future use. Many of his customers are repeat customers who are recognized by security and other employees. If the patron is known to the security guard, he or she might not be checked. Each entrance requires the payment of a $7.00 service fee which authorizes the patron two setup chips. When the patron comes in with a bottle, the cashier puts the patron's name on it using a role of waterproof tape on which is marked the name in color-coded pen, depending on what month it is. Bottles are discarded after three months, whether empty or not. Once a bottle is brought in and given to the bartender, it is kept on the service island behind the bar. At one time, the licensee maintained a membership list. The practice was abandoned when it was decided to seek patrons from the service industry. The inside of the bar is lighted but dark. Music is provided by a jukebox which plays continuously. If patrons do not put money in, the machine comes on automatically after twelve minutes, and the volume is loud, though Akins did not think so. There are speakers both at the jukebox and in the ceiling. The men's room has one stall and two urinals. Mr. McKown removed the door to the stall to keep illegal activity, such as drug sales or homosexual activity, from going on inside. By removing the door, he can readily check to determine that nothing improper is going on inside the stall. The ladies' room has two stalls with cafe doors. He put that type of door in at the same time he removed the men's stall door for the same reason. Both restrooms are to be checked periodically by the manager, by Mr. McKown or the cashiers, as available. The Cabin is busier on weekends than during the week and the staff is adjusted accordingly. On the weekends, there are two cashiers as opposed to one during the week. By the same token, on the weekend, three bartenders are on duty as opposed to two during the week. A maintenance man is also employed. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Special Agent Jennifer Akins was a special agent with the Division and had been since December, 1989. She was a certified law enforcement officer and, prior to May, 1994, had been involved in between fifteen and twenty undercover operations, of which at least ten involved narcotics. She was trained in the identification of narcotics and street level narcotics activities by the Drug Enforcement Agency, and has taken other professional courses in the subject. Prior to the institution of this undercover operation, Akins had been in The Cabin four or five times. S/A Murray is also an experienced agent with twenty-five to thirty undercover investigations to her credit. At least half involved narcotics. She, too, had been at The Cabin prior to the onset of this investigation. On January 12, 1994 Akins went to The Cabin where she was stopped outside the door by the security guard, Mr. Bailey. He advised her it was a bottle club and inquired if she had a bottle. When she said she had, he also told her that her name would be placed on it and it would be kept behind the bar and drunk from when she was there. She gave over the bottle of rum she had brought. She was not required to fill out an application form nor to pay a membership fee. Akins went back to The Cabin with S/A Murray at approximately 5:15 AM on May 10, 1994. They were met at the door by Mr. Bailey and paid a $7.00 per person cover charge to Mr. Sparks, an employee, who was stationed inside the door. This cover charge entitled them to two drink chips which they would exchange for setups. Additional chips could be bought at $3.50 each. Once inside, they gave their bottle of rum to Mr. Sparks who, after placing a piece of tape with Murray's name on it on the bottle, gave it to the bartender. Akins asked where the bottle of rum was she had brought in on January 12, 1994, and was told it was gone. Bottles are disposed of after ninety days if not consumed first. Consequently, the only bottle the agents had on May 10, 1994 was the bottle they brought that visit. That night, Akins and Murray sat at the bar and were served one or two drinks each from the bottle they had brought in. Later on that evening, Akins was served a drink made with vodka by Mr. Strauss, a bartender. Akins saw Strauss make the drink and knows he did not use the bottle they brought in. Besides, when she tasted it, she recognized it was vodka, not rum. She paid for the drink with one of the chips she got upon entering. She drank only a small part of the drink in order to comply with Division policy that undercover agents will not drink enough to become impaired. Akins and Murray left The Cabin about 6:50 AM without taking the rum bottle they had brought, but while there, Akins observed a white male she recognized as Victor near the women's restroom talking with a white couple. Victor received money from the male in the couple, counted it, and gave the man something in return. This procedure is consistent with what she had observed in other drug transactions. Later on that evening, she again saw Victor near the men's restroom. Victor approached a black male who, after entering and exiting the restroom, handed Victor a small package and received something in return. While this was going on, both were furtively looking around. Akins didn't see what was transferred. Even later, Akins saw Victor exchange something with a black male near the front door. Again, she could not see what it was. S/A Murray also observed this activity and it appeared to be drug activity to her as well. Akins and Murray went back to The Cabin about 5:00 AM on May 11, 1994. As they approached the door they were met by two employees who let them in, and they paid a white female cashier upon entry. On this occasion they did not have a bottle with them. When asked, they said they had a bottle there from the previous visit and were allowed in. Akins ordered two or three drinks from Mr. Sparks, who was behind the bar that evening. The first drink she had was rum, but she does not know from which bottle it was poured. She later ordered a vodka drink which Sparks poured without asking if she had a vodka bottle there. She paid for the vodka with a chip. Later that evening, Mr. Leal, also an employee of The Cabin, offered her a drink. He had called out that the police were outside and that everyone had to stay inside. He sweetened the call by saying he would buy a drink for everyone. At this time, Akins asked for a Zambuca, which they did not have, and they gave her Amaretto instead. Though she saw Mr. Sparks make the drink, she could not tell if there was a name on the bottle or not. Leal offered Murray a drink as well. All this time, Mr. McKown, whom she knew, was present in the facility, going in and out from the back office talking to people. He had done this the previous night as well. Akins left the premises at 7:00 AM and returned again at 5:00 AM the following day, May 12, 1994, accompanied by S/A Murray. They did not bring a bottle this time because they had not taken their bottle with them the previous night. They went through the usual routine of passing the guard, who asked what bottle they would be drinking from. When they said they had one inside, the guard went to check and thereafter allowed them. After paying the cover charge, they were admitted. Inside, Akins saw two black males and a white male exchanging something outside the men's restroom. They were looking around and speaking quietly, and she did not see what was exchanged. That evening, she spoke with the Bartender, Lee, and with Mr. McKown. She also spoke with a patron, Mr. LaRuso, who approached her and commented that she was either a cop or seeking cocaine. In response, she said she wasn't a cop. The two agents both ordered rum from the bartender who poured the drinks from a bottle with their name on it. The rum ran out while the drinks were being poured, so the bartender finished pouring from another bottle which was not theirs. Mr. McKown was in and out of the back office all during this period and would stop and talk with patrons. He appeared quite normal and was not drinking at the time. They returned on May 17, 1994 at 5:20 AM. Mr. Bailey was the security guard who admitted them. On this occasion they had a bottle of rum with them and paid the cover charge. Their bottle was marked by the bartender and Akins ordered a drink from him which was made from their bottle. Later on she also ordered and was served a vodka drink by the bartender who did not inquire from whose bottle he should pour it. S/A Murray was also served a vodka. Akins paid for the vodka drink with a chip even though neither she nor Murray had ever brought a bottle of vodka to the establishment. That evening, she spoke with Mr. Sparks, Mr. Mille and Mr. McKown. Sparks and Mille were both employees. Sparks said he had been divorced because he used too much cocaine. Mille said he had been arrested for cocaine. These discussions took place at the bar or at the cashier stand and were carried on in a normal tone of voice. The agents went back to The Cabin on May 24, 1994 at 4:45 AM with a confidential informant, (CI). They were met at the door by a white male who allowed them to enter. When they did, they paid the cover charge to Mr. Sparks. They brought a bottle of scotch with them even though they had previously brought in at least two bottles of rum. At that point, Akins did not know if the last rum bottle they had brought on May 17, 1994 was still there, so they brought the scotch to be sure they would be admitted. The bottle of scotch was marked and placed behind the bar by Mr. Sparks. Mr. Strauss and a white female were tending bar. Akins approached Strauss who asked if she wanted what she had just brought in or rum instead. When she replied she preferred rum, Strauss went to look for some in the back. When he came back, he said he could find none, but would give her vodka instead. Akins agreed and Strauss made a vodka drink for her. It was, in fact, vodka, and she paid for it. She also had another vodka drink that evening, made for her by Mr. Strauss, who did not use any of the bottles the agents had brought in. Agent Akins, in a conversation with Mr. Sparks that evening, asked him if he had any more cocaine like that which she had purchased on May 17, 1994. This conversation took place near the juke box which was playing, but not loudly. Their conversation was in a normal tone. Strauss walked away after her question and she went up to the cashier's booth and was talking with some people when Sparks returned. He handed her a small package in front of Mr. Bailey and Agent Murray. It consisted of a small cellophane wrapper containing a white powder for which Sparks would not take any money. Akins put the package in her pocket and it was later analyzed at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, (FDLE), laboratory and determined to be cocaine. After that purchase was made by Akins, the CI purchased a substance from a lady known as Michelle, who Akins described as an employee of The Cabin. Mr. McKown denies this, however, and it is found that she was not an employee. Prior to the purchase, the CI had informed the agents he thought he could make a purchase and Agent Murray searched him before he approached Michelle. Determining he had no cocaine on his person, he was released to make the buy, which he did, on the premises. Michelle gave him a package of a substance, later determined to be cocaine, for which he paid with $30.00 given him previously by Murray. He then delivered the substance to Murray who in turn gave it to Akins for evaluation. It was later tested and determined to be cocaine. That same evening, Akins also saw three white males in a corner of the bar making what she considered a suspicious transaction. They were looking around and acting furtively. There was a big crowd in the bar that evening - at least 35 people. The lighting was good and Akins had no problem seeing. Mr. McKown was also in and out that evening. The two agents returned to the Cabin on June 27, 1994 at about 3:50 AM. When they arrived, they were met at the door by the security guard who asked them who they were, where they worked, and other similar questions. Akins got the impression that he did not want to let them in even though she had indicated that they had a bottle of scotch inside. While this was going on, Mr. Sparks came out and vouched for them and they were admitted. After paying the cover charge, Akins ordered a scotch. The drink was poured from her bottle by the bartender, Ms. Hart, but she noticed at the time that the bottle was almost empty even though she and Agent Murray had had few drinks from it. Akins paid for the drink with one of her chips. Because Akins did not drink the scotch, she was offered another drink by Ms. Hart and asked for a rum drink. The bottles of rum which she and Murray had brought in on May 10 and 17, 1994, had previously been used up, and she noted that there was no ownership label on the bottle from which her drink, and that for Murray, were poured. In any event, they paid for the drinks and when they tasted them, determined they were made from rum. That same morning, Akins saw a black male enter the bar without paying the cover charge. He bypassed the cashier and went toward the restrooms where he was approached by Mr. Strauss, to whom he passed something and got something in return. At this point, Akins was approximately 12 feet away, and though she could not see what was actually passed, she saw Strauss put what he had received into his pocket. Strauss then went back to the bar and the black male left. Shortly thereafter, Mr. McKown entered the bar. He seemed normal and walked around, talking with his customers. Akins left soon thereafter without taking her bottle of scotch. On July 27, 1994, Akins and Murray arrived at The Cabin at approximately 3:30 AM and were admitted by Mr. Bailey. This time they brought a bottle of rum. The scotch, which they had brought previously, was gone even though neither agent had had more than one or two drinks out of it. At this time, a female bartender asked her what she wanted and Akins ordered a peppermint schnapps. Without any questions regarding whose bottle it should be poured from, the bartender poured the requested drink from a bottle which bore a name that Akins could not see. It was not hers, however. She tasted the drink and found it was, in fact, peppermint schnapps. That same evening, Akins and Murray were approached at the bar by a white female, Ronnie, who asked them to split an 8-ball of cocaine. An 8-ball is one eighth of an ounce. No effort was made by Ronnie to hide her solicitation. In response, Akins said she didn't have any cocaine with her, but if Ronnie could find some, she, Akins, would go in with her. With that, Ronnie spoke with several customers but did not come back that evening. Mr. McKown was present but was not a participant in the conversation. When Akins left the bar that morning, she did not take the bottle of rum she brought in with her. The agents went back to The Cabin on August 9, 1994, at approximately 3:05 AM, and met three men, Beltran, Ramos and Encena, in the parking lot. As the five approached the door, they were met by Bailey and Sparks and were admitted, even though they did not have any alcohol with them. Once inside, Akins ordered from Ms. Hart a tequila drink which was poured from a bottle with no name on it. She had first asked for rum, but all that was available was spiced rum. When she tasted the drink, she found that it was tequila. Later on, she ordered a Kamikaze, which contained vodka, from Ms. Hart. Hart did not ask her whose bottle she should pour it from but poured from a bottle with no name tag on it. The drink was vodka. She paid for both drinks she ordered that evening with chips purchased at the door. During the morning, Akins spoke with Mr. Beltran, one of the men she had come in with, who was a patron at the bar. While they were still outside, however, before entering, Beltran had asked the two agents if they used cocaine. When they replied that they did, he said he would have to go inside to get it. When Akins later spoke with him at the bar, he told her to get her friend and that he had obtained the cocaine. Beltran and Ramos had the two agents follow them outside and to Beltran's car where the substance, later tested and identified as cocaine, was produced by Beltran and Ramos and given to the two agents. After Ramos ingested some of the substance, they went back inside and Akins put the substance she had received into her purse for later testing. After the parties went back inside to the bar, the men were ejected because they annoyed Ms. Hart. Mr. McKown was there at the time. After the men were ejected, Akins and Murray had a discussion with a patron named Guinta who said Akins had white stuff under her nose. Akins wiped her nose and denied the allegation. Guinta then asked Murray and Akins if they had any cocaine. Akins said she did not but would see if she could get some. She spoke with Mr. Sparks who said he had none available. All this was in a regular tone of voice, and all during this conversation, Mr. McKown was within three to five feet of them. Later on, there was a quite loud conversation between Guinta and another individual about cocaine. Afterwards, the parties went outside to Murray's car where Guinta gave them a substance later tested and identified as cocaine. Both agents went back to The Cabin on August 16, 1994 at approximately 3:30 AM. On this visit they had no alcohol with them. Mr. Bailey was on duty as the security guard and Strauss and Hart were the bartenders. Akins ordered a vodka Kamikaze from Hart. Later on, Hart asked her if she wanted another drink. When Akins agreed, Hart offered to make it with tequila instead of vodka. She made the drink from a bottle not marked with an owner's name, and when Akins tasted the drink, she found it was tequila. Murray also had two rum drinks which were poured from a bottle with no name on it. Akins spoke with Charles Bailey that evening at the bar. She asked him for some cocaine, and he said he could give her a "bump", (a small amount of cocaine), but could not sell her any. Akins and Murray went back to The Cabin on August 26, 1994. On that occasion, again, they had no alcohol with them. The bottle of scotch and the rum they had brought on two separate prior occasions was gone. They met three other patrons outside. Mr. Bailey, the security guard, let them in and after paying the cover charge, Akins spoke with Mr. Mille and thanked him for the cocaine she had received previously from Mr. Guinta. At first Mille seemed confused, but when she explained, he seemed to understand, but denied he had any more available. Akins had several drinks that evening. The first was made with tequila which she got from Ms. Hart. Neither Akins nor Murray had ever brought tequila to the bar. The tag on the bottle said "Killian's", but Akins did not know anyone by that name or where the bottle came from. Nonetheless, she paid for the drink, tasted it, and determined it was tequila. She also had a drink made with Amaretto that evening which she bought from Mr. Strauss. In this case, also, she was served a drink made with a beverage she had not brought in. Murray was served a rum drink from a bottle marked "hooters". She did not work for or know anybody from Hooters. Apparently, that same evening, Akins was looking quite tired as she sat at the bar. She was approached by Julio Pabone who said he could get her something that would wake her up. He then spoke with Mr. Leal, after which he came back to Akins and asked for money. She gave him $20.00 to add to what he already had, and he returned to Leal, gave him the money, and received a baggy with white powder in it in return. Returning to Akins, Pabone gave the baggy to her. The substance in the bag was later tested and identified as cocaine. Leal is an employee of the licensee. That same evening, Murray saw two women in the restroom use what appeared to her to be cocaine near the sink. On September 9, 1994, the agents again went to The Cabin and were admitted by Charles Bailey. After paying the cover charge, and while sitting at the bar, Akins saw a patron identified as Manuel pull out a wrapper containing a white substance and give it to another male who gave him money in return for it. At the time of this transaction, Mr. McKown was standing approximately five feet away. Later on, a male identified as Julio approached Akins and said he needed $30.00 for cocaine. She gave him the money and he went into the men's room followed by Leal and another individual. When Julio came out, he gave Akins a package with white powder in it which was subsequently tested and identified as cocaine. Mr. McKown was present in the bar at the time, but Akins cannot say whether he observed this transaction. On the evening of September 30, 1994, Sergeant Woodrow A. Ray, a longtime employee of the Division, was the supervisor of the raid conducted at The Cabin. When he arrived, he entered the establishment to insure that all other agents were in place. Sometime thereafter, Agent Miller, also a long time employee of the Division, arrived to serve an Emergency Order of Suspension on the licensee. Miller contacted Mr. McKown, read the Search Warrant and the Emergency Order of Suspension to him, and advised him of his rights against self-incrimination. While this was being done, Mr. McKown expressed surprise regarding the narcotics allegations but admitted he may have sold some alcohol. He stated this four times in different ways. He stated, "We may have sold some alcohol but no drugs"; "Maybe my people sold liquor, but I don't know about drugs"; "We sell a few drinks to help the guys, but no drugs"; and "If drugs were sold, I never knew it - maybe drinks but no drugs." Agent Miller helped with the ensuing search, in the course of which he went into the office to seize the license. He also searched the adjoining storage area in which he discovered a black bag. He asked McKown if the bag was his, which McKown denied. McKown indicated that only himself, Mr. Leal, and Charles Bailey had access to this room. Miller then went to get Bailey, who had been detained on the patio, advised him of his rights, and asked if the bag was his. Bailey acknowledged it was. Miller took Bailey back inside where he placed him in a chair under guard. Miller had Bailey identify the bag and when he did, Miller asked if there was anything in it he should know about. Bailey thereafter gave his permission to search the bag. Before the bag was opened, however, Miller had it taken outside to be sniffed by the narcotics detection dog on the scene who alerted on it. Miller then opened the bag, and inside, in an ammunition box, found drug paraphernalia and approximately 98.6 grams of a white powder which was subsequently tested and identified as cocaine. On or about February 4, 1993, Gene Leal, who was the manager of The Cabin, cashed a check there for Julio Pabone in the amount of $120.00 which was subsequently dishonored. When contacted about this, Pabone agreed to pay off the check in periodic cash payments, and in fact, did so, making a payment of $20.00 on August 26, 1994. The payment which Leal received on that date was not for cocaine but in repayment of a portion of the dishonored check. Company policy regarding illegal drugs is simple. If seen going on, the activity is to be stopped and the individual expelled from the facility forever. Mr. McKown recalls this as having happened at least six times in the year prior to closing. He claims he has no use for drugs and never has. He has a "no tolerance" policy for any drug activity he knew about, and his employees knew that. This policy is not in writing, however. Mr. McKown has not had any of his employees trained in drug identification, and even though he is aware of the state's responsible vendor program, neither he nor any of his employees have participated in it. Mr. Leal has worked for The Cabin for approximately eight years, as has Mr. Sparks. Both were instructed regarding the company's drug policy. Most of The Cabin employees have been on staff for between eight and fifteen years. Mr. McKown claims he would have periodic meetings with employees to inform them of his policy and to solicit reports of illegal activity. In addition to these instructions, employees are furnished with trespass warning slips which are to be issued when patrons are expelled for drug use. Two of these were introduced into evidence. Byron L. Bailey, one of the security guards, confirms this. Though usually stationed at the front door, he would make between four and five checks per night of the restrooms to be sure they were not being used for drug activity or for drinking. He did not, however, look to see what was going on in the lounge. Kathryn Katz, also formerly an employee of The Cabin, was instructed in the company's policy when hired. Not only was the use or transfer of drugs prohibited but so was the sale of alcohol. She was told that only those individuals who had a bottle with them or already inside could be admitted. It is possible that some people lied about this, but she had to take their word. If they said they had a bottle inside, she would admit them. She also checked the ladies' restroom periodically. The Cabin welcomes law enforcement officers as patrons. When deputies from the sheriff's office periodically come out and park in the lot of the neighboring Steak and Ale, they are always welcome. Approximately a year prior to the hearing, Mr. McKown was reportedly told that a van was in his lot from which drugs were being sold. He claims he called 911 and an arrest was made. However, over the fifteen years he's operated The Cabin, Mr. McKown claims there has never been an arrest made inside the club. Concerning the "admissions" he made to Agent Miller at the time of the service of the warrant and the Order of Suspension, Mr. McKown was reading a copy of the affidavit as Miller was reading it to him. As he read it, he was shocked to discover that his own people, whom he felt were family, were doing such things. He admits that perhaps his employees made a mistake in selling drinks. He does not condone it and he definitely does not condone any sales of illegal drugs. His admissions were not meant to specific dates or incidents but were rhetorical more than actual. He admitted his employees had the opportunity to sell unlawful drinks. He does not believe, in his heart, however, that they made any drug sales. He is wrong. No bottles of alcohol were seized by law enforcement officials at the time of the raid. Approximately two weeks after the closing, Mr. McKown conducted an inventory of the bottles on the premises. At that time, there were approximately one hundred fifty bottles, all of which, he insists, had patrons' names on them. Of that number, thirty to forty were establishment bottles. The balance were owned by individuals. Several prominent restaurant owners and managers who patronize The Cabin have known Mr. McKown for several years. None has ever observed any illegal drug activity inside the establishment and had they done so, would have left and not returned. Mr. Caballero, a former Tampa City Councilman, has patronized The Cabin since it was opened. Because of his public position, he was very sensitive to any possibility of illegal activity in his presence, and though he would be at the club once or twice a month, never saw any such conduct. All of these individuals claim to be friends of Mr. McKown. Dr. Poritz and Mr. Queen, a chiropractor and private investigator, respectively, have also patronized The Cabin periodically for several years. Neither has ever seen any illegal activity in there. Mr. Queen, while a member of the Tampa Police Department's Narcotics Division, would patronize the establishment periodically and was always comfortable there. Had he seen any illegal activity on the premises, he would taken appropriate action as a law enforcement officer and would have reported what he saw. A previous Administrative Complaint was filed against the Respondent in 1993 for violation of liquor sales laws. At that time, the Respondent and the Division entered into a Consent Agreement which called for Respondent to pay a civil penalty of $500.00 plus investigative costs of $14.50, and to provide a letter of corrective action. This letter, dated July 31, 1993, and signed by Mr. McKown and several of his employees, such as Mr. Bailey, Mr. Leal, Mr. Strauss and Ms. Hart, all of whom are referenced in the instant action, indicated the signatories had come up with a good system "to keep people without a bottle from coming in" which should "tighten it up and not break down as it did." From the evidence presented, it appears they were wrong and that their system did not work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's alcoholic beverage license No. 39-3729, Series 14BC, be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 31st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 94-5882 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein, except that the evidence indicates the January 12, 1994 visit occurred prior to the commencement of the instant investigation. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 9. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 10. & 11. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 12. - 14. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 15. & 16. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 17. - 21. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 22. - 24. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 25. & 26. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 27. - 29. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 30. & 31. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 32. - 34. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. - 37. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not probative of any material issue. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 45. Accepted and incorporated herein. 46. & 47. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 J. Thomas Wright, Esquire Suite A 2506 Tampa Bay Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33607 Linda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John J. Harris Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Jamestown In The Grove Apartments Club, Inc., d/b/a Suzanne's In The Grove, (hereinafter referred to as "Suzanne's") holds alcoholic beverage license number 23-1193, license series 11-C. Respondent has held the subject license since December of 1971. For a number of years the Respondent operated at its present location in much smaller premises. Several years ago the buildings where Respondent was located were demolished and a highrise condominium building was erected on the site. Respondent obtained space in the new building and embarked upon a plan to create a larger and fancier facility then it had previously operated. The new improved facility began operations in May of 1983 under the present name of Suzanne's In The Grove. The new improved facility is, in the words of one of the witnesses, "... a high fashion, beautiful people-type disco nightclub in Coconut Grove." The property and furnishings for the new improved facility required an investment in excess of two million dollars. During the planning stages for the new improved facility which opened in May of 1983, Suzanne's retained the services of a consultant who was an expert in the planning and operation of limited membership clubs. The consultant worked with the management of Suzanne's in designing the layout of the premises and in instituting operational procedures designed to maximize the ability of management to control access into the premises. The concepts employed by the consultant were modeled on the procedures used at limited access private clubs on military bases. The premises were specifically designed to facilitate the limitation of access to members and their guests. To that end, the premises had a small doorway, had a desk for checking membership just inside the doorway, and had a narrow stairway that led from the reception desk to the main area of the club. Suzanne's also issued plastic membership cards embossed with the member's name in raised letters. The operations procedures included provisions for a doorman, at least one receptionist at the desk, and at least one employee at the top of the stairs. Often they had more than one employee at the desk and at the top of the stairs. Due to unexpected extremely large crowds of patrons when Suzanne's first opened, they also contracted for additional security personnel to assist their regular employees with access control. As part of the preparation for the opening of Suzanne's the management of the club formulated a set of written policies for employees. Included in these written policies were specific prohibitions against any conduct which would constitute a violation of the alcoholic beverage laws. Each employee was given a copy of these written policies and was required to read the policies and then sign a statement agreeing to comply with the policies and acknowledging that he or she would be fired for any violation of the policies. These policies included a specific prohibition against admitting anyone who was not a member or a bona fide guest of a member. Between the opening of Suzanne's and the dates of the violations charged in this case, Suzanne's had fired employees for admitting people who were not members. Prior to opening in May of 1983, Suzanne's also instituted a policy of requiring periodic polygraph examinations of all employees. The consultant helped them formulate the questions to be asked during the polygraph examinations. The polygraph examinations specifically covered questions as to whether the employee was aware of the members-only regulations, whether the employee had ever distributed a membership card without collecting a membership fee and turning the fee over to the club, and whether the employee had ever let anyone into the club who was not a member or a bona fide guest of a member. If the results of the polygraph examination indicated that an employee was being deceptive about whether he or she had admitted non-members to the club, the employee was terminated. The consultant also assisted the management of Suzanne's in the selection of key employees and participated in the interviews of those employees. From the date of opening through August 28, 1983, Suzanne's sold 3,025 memberships at $50.00 each. Since August 28, 1983, Suzanne's has taken in an additional $198,000.00 in membership fees. Because of the large amount of revenue generated by the sale of memberships, Suzanne's has always been very interested in strict enforcement of the members-only policy. It is in Suzanne's best economic interests to maintain strict enforcement because without such enforcement there would be no reason for anyone to buy a membership and Suzanne's would in all likelihood lose substantial membership revenues. Suzanne's entire marketing concept would have been ruined if people could get in easily without having a membership card. When Suzanne's first opened in May of 1983, all employees were required to attend a meeting at which an attorney specializing in alcoholic beverage law told them about the requirements of the liquor laws in general and about the special provisions of the liquor laws relating to 11-C licenses. All of the employees were specifically told that the sale of alcoholic beverages was restricted to members and their guests. The consultant employed by Suzanne's recommended an emphasis on access control at the door rather than a system of point of sale control because Suzanne's did not have an in-house credit or charge system, which is the best system to use for a point of sale control system. An in-house credit system was prohibitively expensive where membership dues were only $50.00 per person. A typical Dade County club with an in-house credit system has an annual membership fee of $460.00 in addition to an initial fee of $1,000.00 to join. Since the dates of the violations charged in this case Suzanne's has maintained its access control procedure at the door and has added a point of sale control system as well. The point of sale control includes imprinting the membership card on all sales slips. On August 28, 1983, two investigators of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco went to Suzanne's at about 2:20 a.m. They told the doorman ("Robert") that they were not members but that they wanted to go in and look around. The doorman let them in, but told them that if anyone asked they should say they came in with a member. Once inside the premises, each of the DABT investigators ordered and were served an alcoholic beverage. None of the bartenders or barmaids asked if they were members. On September 7, 1983, the same two investigators returned to Suzanne's at approximately 11:40 p.m. They walked past the doorman and other employees and entered the premises. No one tried to determine if they were members. Both investigators ordered and were served an alcoholic beverage. On September 10, 1983, two DABT investigators (one who had been on both prior occasions and one who had not been there before) went to Suzanne's. A line of approximately 300 people were waiting outside to enter Suzanne's. To avoid waiting in the line, the two investigators went near the front of the line and waited until the one who had been there before could get the attention of Robert, the doorman. When he got Robert's attention, he asked Robert if Robert could do them a favor about the line and gave Robert $5.00. Robert took the money and admitted the two investigators without asking whether they were members. One of the investigators was able to order and be served an alcoholic beverage. It was so crowded inside that the other investigator was not able to place an order for an alcoholic beverage. On September 21, 1983, the two DABT investigators who had visited Suzanne's on the first occasions described above returned to the premises. Again they were able to enter without being asked about their membership status and both ordered and were served an alcoholic beverage. None of the DABT investigators who went to Suzanne's on the four occasions described above were members of the Suzanne's, nor were they bona fide guests of anyone who was a member. On each occasion when they were served alcoholic beverages, they paid the regular price for the beverages, approximately $3.50 each. On all four of the occasions described above when the DABT investigators entered Suzanne's and purchased alcoholic beverages, the club was very crowded. The extent of the crowds on those nights is reflected by the gross receipts for those four nights which were, respectively, $10,099.35, $5,125.60, $9,973.25, and $5,034.15. On all four of the occasions described above when DABT investigators entered Suzanne's, there were several employees of Suzanne's both in the area of the reception desk at the bottom of the stairs as well as at the top of the stairs attempting to control access to the premises and maintain control over the crowds. During 1983 Suzanne's was obtaining security services from Dade Federal Security. The security company would provide plainclothes guards to assist Suzanne's employees check membership, to help maintain order, and to help control the line outside when it was especially crowded. Sometime during 1983 the management at Suzanne's complained to Dade Federal Security that they suspected that some of the guards provided by Dade Federal Security had been taking money to admit non-members into the premises. Dade Federal Security confronted its employees with this complaint and one of the employees confessed to having taken money to admit non-members to Suzanne's. The employee was fired. The foregoing findings of fact contain the substance of the vast majority of the findings proposed by both parties. Proposed findings which are not incorporated in the foregoing findings are specifically rejected as irrelevant, as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, or as unsupported by persuasive competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, I recommend that the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order in this case dismissing all charges against the licensee. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 3rd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sy Chadroff, Esquire 2700 Southwest 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Action and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner, having been issued license number 60-01280, Series 1- APS. No dispute exists that such license permits Respondent to make packaged sales of beer and wine at its establishment. Respondent's last known address is 148 West Avenue A, Belle Glade, Florida. Respondent's establishment is a convenience store. On or about April 17, 2002, Jeremiah Alexander Maxie went to Respondent's establishment for the specific purpose of attempting to purchase beer. Mr. Maxie is employed as an investigative aide for Petitioner. At the time that he visited Respondent's establishment, Mr. Maxie was under 21 years of age; he was 17 years of age, having been born on August 10, 1984. Mr. Maxie did nothing to alter his appearance in an attempt to affect his age. Mr. Maxie attempted to purchase beer at twelve other locations on April 17, 2002. He was paid $35 by Petitioner for that day. Mr. Maxie entered Respondent's establishment at approximately 4:50 p.m. Shortly thereafter, approximately 20 seconds later, Petitioner's Special Agent Danny Stoops, who was undercover, entered Respondent's establishment. Agent Stoops observed the actions of Mr. Maxie. Agent Stoops is a 24-year veteran with Petitioner. He gave Mr. Maxie instructions as to what to do. Agent Stoops instructed Mr. Maxie to attempt to purchase a Budweiser product and, if the clerk requested identification, for Mr. Maxie to politely set the beer down and leave. Mr. Maxie proceeded to the rear of Respondent's establishment to the coolers. He removed a can of beer, a Budweiser product, and proceeded to the cash register. At the time of hearing, Mr. Maxie could not recall the particular type of Budweiser product. Agent Stoops observed Mr. Maxie proceed from the coolers to the cash register although he did not observe the product that Mr. Maxie had obtained. Mr. Maxie gave the cashier/clerk, Armando Rodriguez, who is Respondent's owner, U.S. Currency as payment for the beer. Mr. Rodriguez placed the Budweiser product in a paper bag and gave Mr. Maxie a receipt, but Mr. Maxie did not look at the receipt. Mr. Maxie departed Respondent's establishment. At the time of hearing, Mr. Maxie could not recall the denomination of currency that he gave to Mr. Rodriguez or the amount that he had paid for the beer. Agent Stoops observed Mr. Maxie give Mr. Rodriguez the currency but did not observe the denomination. Agent Stoops departed Respondent's establishment approximately 15 to 20 feet behind Mr. Maxie. When they were outside, the purchased Budweiser product was given to Agent Stoops by Mr. Maxie. Both Agent Stoops and Mr. Maxie initialed the paper bag into which Mr. Rodriguez had placed the Budweiser product. Agent Stoops placed the Budweiser product in an evidence bag, tagged it with an evidence receipt bearing a control number, and secured the bagged evidence in the trunk of his vehicle. Agent Stoops removed the bagged evidence from the trunk of his vehicle and placed it in Petitioner's evidence vault. For hearing, Agent Stoops retrieved the bagged evidence from the evidence vault. The Budweiser product presented at hearing was a can of Bud Light Beer, which was still in the paper bag in which the beer was placed at the time of purchase. No challenge to the chain of custody of the can of beer was made and no problem exists as to the chain of custody of the can of beer. No receipt for the purchase of the Budweiser product was included in the bagged evidence. Agent Stoops could not independently recall that a receipt was presented to him by Mr. Maxie. Respondent entered into evidence cash register receipts for April 17, 2002, which do not reflect the purchase of any alcoholic beverage. However, the cash register receipts reflect, among other things, "taxable" and "grocery" items, not the particular items themselves, and "meat"; thereby, the cash register receipts differentiate only between "grocery" and "taxable" and "meat" items. Further, the cash register receipts are numbered 058616 through 058619, with times of day reflecting 16:05 through 16:09, and 058624 through 058627, with times of day reflecting 16:46 through 16:52. Not included in the cash register receipts are receipts numbered 058620 through 058623, with times of day reflecting 16:10 through 16:45. With the missing numbered-cash register receipts included, a total of 12 transactions were completed, but only eight transactions were offered and admitted into evidence. No explanation was presented for the missing eight transactions. Taking into consideration the overwhelming evidence of the purchase of the Budweiser product by Mr. Maxie, not having a receipt is insufficient to show that the beer-purchase transaction did not occur. Moreover, the evidence is clear and convincing that the beer-purchase transaction did occur. The product purchased at Respondent's establishment by Mr. Maxie was a can of beer, a Budweiser product, a Bud Light. At the time of hearing, Mr. Rodriguez was 76 years of age and had owned Respondent's establishment for 36 years. He is Respondent's agent. Mr. Rodriguez speaks Spanish. At the time of hearing, an interpreter was provided for him. Mr. Rodriguez denies that he saw Mr. Maxie in Respondent's establishment and denies that he sold any beer to Mr. Maxie. Mr. Rodriguez failed to realize to whom he sold the can of beer. At the time Mr. Maxie purchased the can of beer from Respondent's establishment, Mr. Rodriguez was engaged in a conversation with another gentleman. Mr. Rodriguez did not ask Mr. Maxie any questions or ask for his identification. Mr. Maxie said nothing to suggest that he was 21 years of age or older. As a matter of fact, no evidence was presented that any conversation took place between Mr. Maxie and Mr. Rodriguez. The evidence further suggests that Mr. Rodriguez paid very little attention to Mr. Maxie even at the time of the purchase of the beer. Mr. Rodriguez did not knowingly and willfully sell the can of beer to a minor, i.e., Mr. Maxie. Mr. Rodriguez was negligent and failed to exercise reasonable diligence in preventing the sale of the can of beer to Mr. Maxie. No prior disciplinary action has been taken against Respondent by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order: Finding that Lake Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Lake Supermarket, violated Subsection 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes; Imposing a fine of $1,000.00 payable within a time deemed appropriate; and Suspending the license of Lake Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Lake Supermarket, for seven days. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 31st day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Chad D. Heckman, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Valentin Rodriguez, Jr., Esquire Valentin Rodriguez, P.A. 318 Ninth Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Peter Williams, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Danny Stoops, Agent Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 North Congress Avenue, No. 150 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue This case concerns an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent. Count I to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: Penny Reid, related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on July 26, 1981, and August 22, 1981. Count II to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: Penny Reid, related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on July 16, 1981, and July 20, 1981, and September 9, 1981. In addition, there are allegations of a sale of lysergic acid diethylamid, on July 16, 1981. 2/ Count III to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Eve" related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on August 14, 1981, and with the sale of the substance cocaine, on August 15, 1981. Count IV to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Kitty," related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on August 15, 1981, and with the sale of the substance cocaine on September 26, 1981. Count V to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03, 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Orlando," related to sales of the substance cannabis, on July 26, 1981. Count VI to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03, 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Julie," related to sales of the substance cocaine on September 26, 1981. Count VII to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent, between July 16, 1981, and October 2, 1981, of maintaining a place, namely the licensed premises, which was used for keeping or selling controlled substances, in particular methaqualone, cocaine and cannabis, in violation of Subsections 893.13(2)(a).5 and 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Count VIII contends that between July 16, 1981, and October 2, 1981, the Respondent, by actions of its agents, servants or employees and patrons, kept or maintained the building or place which was used for illegal keeping, selling or delivering of substances controlled under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, and in doing so violated Section 823.10, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Count IX accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Annie D. Bryant, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count X accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Danita Buchin, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count XI accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Barbara Jean O'Rourke, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count XII accuses the Respondent, on April 20, 1981, through its corporate officers, directors, stockholders, employees, agents, or servants, of failing to file a sworn declaration of the transfer of voting stock of the corporate licensee, in violation of Rule 7A-3.37, Florida Administrative Code. Count XIII accuses the Respondent, through actions of its corporate officers, directors, stockholders, employees, agents, or servants, on May 4, 1981, of failing to notify the Petitioner of a change of corporate officers within ten (10) days of that change, in particular, within ten (10) days of the resignation of George and Florrie Pappas, as corporate officers and directors of the corporate licensee, in violation of Rule 7A-2.07(2), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Effective August 18, 1980, Pappas Enterprises, Inc., which trades or does business as Foremost Liquors and Hideaway Lounge, at 1005 East 49th Street, in Hialeah, Dade County, Florida, was licensed by the Petitioner to sell alcoholic beverages. At that time, the sole officers listed for the corporation were George and Florrie Pappas. George Pappas was listed as the sole shareholder. In May, 1981, Miguel Rodriguez purchased the shares in the corporation, Pappas Enterprises, Inc. At that time, in his attorney's office, he executed a personal data sheet and certificate of incumbency for the benefit of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; however, this personal data sheet proposing Rodriguez as a new officer and shareholder of the subject corporation was not filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco until October 14, 1981. Furthermore, the first official request for change of corporate officers, owners and shareholders from the Pappases to Rodriguez was not filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco until November 4, 1981. Prior to October 14, 1981, the Respondent corporation, in the person of Miguel Rodriguez, was served with a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint containing the first eight (8) counts alluded to in the Issues statement in this Recommended Order. The date of this service was October 2, 1981. Subsequent to that time, an amendment was allowed adding the remaining counts to the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent, through actions of Miguel Rodriguez, in his effort to protect his interest in the Respondent corporation, which he had purchased, and in view of the fact that he had effective control of the licensed premises during all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, has requested a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, following service of him at the licensed premises as agent in fact for the corporation. The hearing was allowed to go forward upon the request made by Rodriguez because Rodriguez's substantial interests are at stake. The requested transfer of ownership and substitution of officers filed on November 4, 1981, is unresolved pending the outcome of the proceedings herein. See Subsection 561.32(2), Florida Statutes. On July 15, 1981, in the evening hours, Beverage Officer, Louis J. Terminello, went to the licensed premises known as the Hideaway for purposes of conducting an undercover narcotics investigation. Once he had entered the premises, he spoke with one of the employees, Penny Reid, a dancer. Upon his inquiry concerning the subject of narcotics Reid told him that she would sell him methaqualone tablets for $3.00 each and lysergic acid diethylamid (LSD) for $5.00 per dosage. In order to consummate the transaction, she explained that she would need to leave the licensed premises. Around 12:15 A.M. on July 16, 1981, Reid approached Miguel Rodriguez and asked permission to leave the licensed premises. She was granted that permission and Reid and Terminello went to a residence location off the licensed premises where a purchase was made of ten (10) methaqualone tablets and four (4) units of LSD at the unit prices as have been indicated. The Beverage Officer and dancer then returned to the licensed premises around 1:30 A.M. On July 20, 1981, at around 9:45 P.M., Officer Robert Chastain entered the licensed premises and spoke with Penny Reid. This conversation ensued when Reid approached Chastain. The subject of drugs was discussed and subsequent to that time, Reid received permission to leave the licensed premises. (She was still employed by the Respondent.) On the date above, Reid and Chastain went to a residence and purchased ten (10) methaqualone tablets. The price for the tablets was $30.00. When they returned to the bar, while in the premises, Reid removed one methaqualone tablet from the napkins in which they were wrapped and gave Chastain nine (9) tablets. Terminello came back to the licensed premises on the evening of July 25, 1981, and spoke with the dancer Reid. During the conversation methaqualone was discussed and she indicated that she did not have that substance at the time. She said she might have some of the material available to her later that night. Reid left the licensed premises around 11:35 P.M. on July 25, 1981, to return around 11:55 P.M. While in the licensed premises she exchanged five (5) methaqualone tablets at $3.00 per tablet, in return for $15.00 on July 26, 1981. This transaction took place in the hall area near the rest rooms in the licensed premises and no effort was made on the part of Reid to disguise the transaction. On July .26, 1981, during his visit to the licensed premises, at approximately 1:30 A.M., Officer Terminello spoke to a man who identified himself as "Orlando" and who claimed to be a manager at the premises and the son of Miguel Rodriguez. In fact, "Orlando" was not a manager at the licensed premises nor the son of Rodriguez. During this conversation, Terminello asked "Orlando" where he could get coke, meaning the controlled substance cocaine. "Orlando" responded that he might get the cocaine on some occasion but not on that evening. "Orlando" did give Officer Terminello marijuana, also known as cannabis, a controlled substance. This item was given to Officer Terminello as he was departing the premises on July 26, 1981. Terminello returned to the licensed premises on August 14, 1981, around 9:45 P.M. On that evening, he spoke with a dancer identified to him as "Eve" who was later determined to be Eve Mae Carroll. Carroll was employed as a dancer in the licensed premises. While seated at a table near the front door, Carroll told Terminello that she would sell "quaaludes" meaning methaqualone at a price of $2.50 a tablet and a total of three (3) tablets. Terminello paid her the prescribed price and she delivered the substance methaqualone to him while seated at the table. She also indicated that she would sell him cocaine at a later time, in that she was expecting a delivery of that substance. At around 12:30 A.M. on August 15, 1981, a further discussion was held between Terminello and Carroll and while standing at the bar, Terminello purchased cocaine from Carroll. On August 15, 1981, at around 12:45 A.M., Terminello spoke with another dancer employed in the licensed premises who was identified as "Kitty" whose actual name is Kathleen Keddie, who explained to him that she had some "ludes," meaning methaqualone. She wanted $4.00 for each tablet and while seated at a table in the bar area, Terminello purchased two (2) methaqualone tablets from Kitty. On August 22, 1981, Terminello was back in the licensed premises at approximately 9:50 P.M. and was seated at the bar talking to Penny Reid who told him she was going to get some "ludes," methaqualone. This activity was to occur on her next break from dancing as an employee in the licensed premises. She left the licensed premises with a patron and returned at around 10:25P.M. and handed Terminello a paper towel containing five (5) methaqualone tablets for which he paid her $15.00. On September 9, 1981, Terminello was again at the licensed premises and was approached by Penny Reid. He asked her for "ludes or acid" meaning methaqualone or LSD, respectively. She told Terminello that she would have to go to a house to obtain these items. She then asked the manager to leave and Terminello and Reid went to the residence where methaqualone was purchased and suspected LSD as requested by Terminello. (She was still employed by the Respondent.) On September 16, 1981, while pursuing the investigation, Terminello again returned to the licensed premises and spoke with Reid who was still an employee at the premises. She told Terminello that she could go to a residence and obtain narcotics. At this time Terminello was accompanied by another Beverage Officer, Robert Chastain. After entering into a discussion on the evening in question, the two (2) officers went with Reid to an off-premises residence where methaqualone and suspected LSD were purchased. On this occasion, Reid took part of the methaqualone purchased as a "tip" and carried those methaqualone tablets back into the licensed premises when the officers and the dancer returned to the licensed premises. On September 19, 1981, Officer Terminello talked to Reid who remained employed at the licensed premises and the discussion concerned narcotics. Then they left the licensed premises and went to a residence where cocaine and methaqualone were purchased. Reid kept three (3) of the methaqualone tablets as a "tip" and she carried those methaqualone tablets back into the licensed premises when Terminello and the dancer returned to the bar. When they had returned to the licensed premises on September 19, 1981, Terminello was approached in the bar by a Michael Harrington who asked Terminello if he wanted to buy coke, meaning cocaine. Harrington then indicated that they should go out into the parking lot of the premises which they did and in the presence of another patron, Alexis Pagan, Terminello purchased a gram of cocaine. On September 25, 1981, Terminello returned to the licensed premises and spoke to an employee/dancer previously identified as Kathleen Keddie. Keddie told him that her "old man" could bring some cocaine into the premises and make some of it available to Terminello. This conversation took place around 9:45 P.M. on that evening. At approximately 12:05 A.M. on September 26, 1981, while seated at the bar, Terminello purchased approximately one (1) gram of cocaine from Keddie for $75.00. In the early morning hours of September 26, 1981, Terminello was also approached by a Julie Murphy who was employed as a cocktail waitress in the licensed premises and she told Terminello that she could sell him cocaine cheaper, at $55.00 a gram. She indicated she would serve as a go-between, intermediary, and told Terminello to leave the premises and come back later. Terminello left and returned at around 3:00 A.M., and while at the bar, purchased the cocaine from Murphy at the agreed upon price of $55.00. During the course of Terminello's investigation at the licensed premises, on a number of occasions he saw people sniffing what, from his expertise in law enforcement, appeared to be cocaine and, from the appearance and odor, using cigarettes thought to be marijuana. These activities occurred in the bathroom areas, halls and package store area. Augusto Garcia who was employed as a manager in the licensed premises was observed at times in the proximity of the activities referred to immediately above and Garcia was also observed by Officer Terminello in the men's room snorting what appeared to be cocaine. On one occasion Garcia was observed near the front door to the bar and package area where a marijuana type cigarette was being smoked in the presence of Garcia, by an employee who worked in the package store. Reid had also told Terminello that she had been fired as an employee at the licensed premises because she was so "luded" out that she fell off the stage. Nonetheless, she had been rehired. Terminello had observed Miguel Rodriguez in the licensed premises during the course of the investigation, mostly in the package store and on occasion in the bar area. Terminello did not speak with Rodriguez during the investigation. On October 2, 1981, the petitioning agency served the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint at the licensed premises. Following this service, an inspection was conducted in the licensed premises of the lockers of several dancers, for which the dancers had the keys. These dancers were employees at the licensed premises on that date. The search of the lockers and purses of the dancers led to the discovery of marijuana. The dancers in question were Annie D. Bryant, Danita Buchin and Barbara Jean O'Rourke. (Following the October 2, 1981, service of the Administrative Complaint on Miguel Rodriguez, and with Rodriguez's knowledge of the pendency of narcotics allegations being placed against the dancers, Kathleen Keddie, Annie D. Bryant and Danita Buchin, those individuals were allowed to remain as employees in the licensed premises.) During the time in question by the Administrative Complaint, Augusto Garcia acted as a manager in the licensed premises. He had been hired by Miguel Rodriguez. His normal hours of employment were 6:00 P.M. through as late as 4:30 A.M., except for Fridays and Saturdays when he worked a couple of hours. When he was on duty, Rodriguez was ordinarily at the licensed premises. Rodriguez had instructed Garcia to be cognizant of drug problems in the licensed premises and to keep the bar quiet and peaceful. In particular, Rodriguez had instructed Garcia not to allow drugs in the bar and if someone was found with drugs to throw him out. An individual identified as Hector who is a friend of Garcia's assisted in these matters. Garcia indicated the policy of management at the licensed premises was to check the person of the dancers and their bathroom and dressing area to discover narcotics. Nevertheless, testimony by Kathleen Keddie, a person implicated in these matters for narcotics violations and an employee at the bar as a dancer established the fact that she had never been searched for narcotics. Rodriguez was not told by Garcia about people selling drugs in the licensed premises, Garcia would simply "throw them out." Garcia did tell Rodriguez about people "sniffing" what he suspected to be cocaine. At the time Garcia served as a manager in the licensed premises, one Willie Rolack also was a manager in the licensed premises. Willie Rolack's duties as manager were primarily associated with the package store, in contrast to the bar, area. He would periodically go in the bar to check to see if there were fights occurring and to determine if drugs were being used. Rolack had been instructed by Rodriguez to call the Hialeah Police Department if persons who were using drugs would not depart the premises. At times, the Hialeah Police Department has assisted in removing those patrons. Additionally, some employees at the licensed premises had been dismissed for drug involvement as observed by Rolack. Miguel Rodriguez worked sixteen (16) to eighteen (18) hours in the licensed premises, mostly in the package store; however, he did have occasion to check the bar area while at the licensed premises. Rodriguez had told the dancers that he would not tolerate their involvement with drugs and he had instructed customers who were found with drugs that they should leave and not return. He had a policy of not allowing the dancers to leave the licensed premises except on occasion to go for food at nearby restaurants; however, as has been determined in the facts found, the occasions of the departures of the dancers were fairly frequent and not always for the purposes of obtaining food. Rodriguez, through his testimony, verifies a general policy of checking dancers' lockers and pocketbooks and watching their activities. The lockers as have been indicated before were controlled by the dancers themselves who had keys. Prior to July, 1981, and in particular, in June, 1981, one Alexis Pagan had worked as the bar manager and had been dismissed for drug involvement. Nonetheless, the same Alexis Pagan had been observed in the licensed premises during the times set forth in the administrative charges, to include the instance mentioned before.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent, doing business as The Knight Out, was the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 72-79, series 1-COP. Prior to the hearing . . . in this cause, Respondent had turned in his license to the Petitioner. To the rear of the licensed premises, Respondent operated a bottle club known as The Knight Club. The Knight Club is attached to and shares restroom facilities with The Knight Out. On March 27, 1975, Respondent was served with a "Notice to show cause why beverage license should not have civil penalty assessed against it or be suspended or revoked" on the grounds that on Sunday, January 26, 1975: his employee, Vicki Lynn Williamson, at approximately 2:00 am., did sell at the licensed premises, an alcoholic beverage, a can of Budweiser beer, to beverage officer L. E. Williams during the time that the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited, in violation of City of Perry Ordinance 394 enacted pursuant to F.S. s. 562.14; at approximately 4:00 a.m., he sold at the licensed premises an alcoholic beverage, one can of Budweiser beer, to beverage officer Williams in violation of City of Perry Ordinance 394; at approximately 5:00 a.m., he sold at the licensed premises an alcoholic beverage, one can of Budweiser beer, to beverage officer Williams in violation of City of Perry Ordinance 394; at approximately 6:05 a.m., he refused to admit to the licensed premises beverage officer Jack Garrett, while in the performance of his official duties, contrary to F.S. s. 562.41; and at approximately 6:05 a.m., he had in his possession, custody and control, at the licensed premises a partially full 4/5 quart of Smirnoff Vodka, an alcoholic beverage not authorized to be sold by him, in violation of F.S. s. 562.02. Beverage officer L. E. Williams went to The Knight Out the weekend of January 24, 1975, in order to conduct an undercover investigation of the licensed premises. He observed the Respondent, between 11:30 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. on January 24th, remove four cases of beer from The Knight Out and place them into a small room in The Knight Club portion of the premises. At about 1:00 a.m. on January 25th, Williams paid a $2.00 cover charge, entered The Knight Club and remained there until 6:00 a.m. On Saturday night, January 25th, beverage officer Williams again went to The Knight Out and, at about 11:30 p.m., again observed Respondent moving five cases of beer from The Knight Out to the rear portion, The Knight Club. Williams entered The Knight Club during the early hours of January 26, 1975, carrying a can of beer with him. He left at approximately 2:30 a.m., met with other beverage agents, and returned to The Knight Club at about 3:45 a.m., paying the cover charge of $2.00. At 4:00 a.m. and again at 5:00 a.m. on January 26, 1975, Williams purchased from Respondent Poppell cans of Budweiser beer at seventy-five cents per can. Williams retained control of the two beer cans and at about 6:30 a.m. he tagged them as evidence. They were admitted into evidence at the hearing as Exhibits 4 and 5. At approximately 6:05 a.m. on January 26, 1975, beverage officer Jack Garrett, along with several other law enforcement agents, knocked on the front door of The Knight Club seeking entrance thereto. Respondent told Garrett to get in front of the peephole on the door so that he could see who was there. Garrett, who had known Respondent for some fifteen years, testified that he showed his identification card to Respondent through the peephole, whereupon Respondent replied that he would not let him in. Beverage officer T. A. Hicks, present with Garrett at the time, confirmed these events. Respondent and two other witnesses present at the scene testified that Respondent asked the persons at the front door to identify themselves, but that no response was received. Shortly thereafter, Officer Garrett, along with other law enforcement officers, went around to the other side of The Knight Club and entered, without knocking, the ladies rest room which led to the inside of The Knight Club. Once inside, they met Respondent leaving a small room with a handful of liquor bottles. One such bottle was seized - - a partially filled bottle of Smirnoff Vodka - - and was received into evidence at the hearing as Exhibit 6. Shirrell Woodalf testified that she had come to The Knight Out on the morning in question with another couple. When the other couple left, they gave her their bottle of Smirnoff Vodka. She then gave the bottle to Respondent to keep for her in his office. Woodalf identified Exhibit 6 as being the same bottle as that left with her and given to Respondent. Four witnesses who often frequented The Knight Club testified that patrons of the Club always brought their own beer or other alcoholic beverages into the Club. Respondent would cool their beer for them and keep their bottles in his office if they so desired. Respondent sometimes charged a small fee for cooling the beer and he sold setups for mixed drinks. These four witnesses never saw Respondent sell either beer or other alcoholic beverages in The Knight Club.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that: Paragraphs 1 and 5 of the notice to show cause be dismissed; Respondent be found guilty of violating F.S. ss. 562.14 and 562.41, as set forth in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the notice to show cause; and Respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked. Respectfully submitted and entered 26th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Charles Nuzum Director Division of Beverage 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street, Room 210 Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Conrad C. Bishop, Jr., Esquire Weed & Bishop P.O. Box 1090 Perry, Florida 32347
The Issue The issues presented are those set forth in a notice to show cause filed by Petitioner against Respondents in Case No. AY-74-87-0201. In particular, it is alleged that on March 16, 1988, October 21, 1988 and February 24, 1989, that the Respondents or their agents, servants or employees sold alcoholic beverages to minors in violation of Sections 561.29, Florida Statutes and 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times which pertain to this Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint, Respondents were doing business at 238-240 Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida under the business name Speidi Shack and pursuant to a beverage license issued by Petitioner. That license number was and continues to be number 74-01802, Series 2-COP. On March 16, 1988, and again on October 21, 1988, Michael Vanorder, whose birthday is March 27, 1969, purchased a Light beer from employees of the Respondents in the licensed premises. On February 24, 1989, Tina May purchased a Light beer from an employee of the Respondents in the licensed premises. Her date of birth is August 4, 1968. The Light beers that were purchased by those two individuals are alcoholic beverages. In the incident of March 16, 1988, Vanorder entered the licensed premises as an underage operative of the Petitioner. The purpose of underage operatives is to assist the Petitioner in investigations to ascertain whether suspected alcoholic beverage license holders will sell alcoholic beverages to minors. Vanorder was provided money from the Petitioner to purchase the alcoholic beverage if the licensees, their agents or employees would sell. Betty Warner and Tanya Pandarakis, who are Alcoholic Beverage Agents for Petitioner were in the bar and watched as Vanorder was asked by the bartender what Vanorder wanted. Vanorder indicated that he wanted a Light beer. Mark Barker, the bartender, brought a Light beer to Vanorder and accepted payment for that beer. In this purchase, Vanorder was not asked to produce any identification nor was he asked how old he was. Vanorder was under instructions from Petitioner's agents to validly respond to any questions about his age and to provide accurate identification in support of his remarks. The beer that he was given had been opened by the bartender. These events occurred around 8:35 p.m. The beer that was purchased was then given from Vanorder to Warner. Barker was then arrested by Warner and another Alcoholic Beverage Agent, Fred Dunbar, for selling alcoholic beverages to a minor. The arrest occurred when Dunbar entered the licensed premises following the sale and identified himself as an Alcoholic Beverage Agent. Prior to leaving the premises on that occasion, Respondent John M. Macker was told of the arrest and why an investigation had been made in the first place about suspected sales to minors in the licensed premises. Macker came the next day to meet with Dunbar at the invitation of Dunbar. Macker was told that a complaint file would remain open and that underage operatives would continue to be sent into the licensed premises to see if Macker had corrected the problem of selling to underage patrons. Respondent Macker promised that he would have closer supervision and would give training to his employees about proper identification techniques for sales of alcoholic beverages in the licensed premises. An official notice was given to the Respondents, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 which was admitted into evidence. That notice is dated March 17, 1988 and is issued from Dunbar and is acknowledged as having been received by Respondent Macker. It identifies the facts of the sale to a minor and the arrest of Mark Barker and warns Respondents that if the violation occurs again, that Respondents could be charged with the violation of March 16, 1988 and any future violations. Throughout this warning phase associated with the sale of March 16, 1988 Respondent Macker was cooperative in his attitude. As forecast, Petitioner sent Vanorder back into the licensed premises on October 21, 1988 to see if Respondents, their agents, servants or employees would sell him alcoholic beverages. Beverage Agent John Szabo, Agent Dunbar, Lt. Powell and Vanorder went to the licensed premises on that evening. Their activities at the licensed premises commenced around 8:55 p.m. At this time, there were around 10-20 patrons in the bar. Szabo went in first and sat down at the bar and ordered a beer. Vanorder came in some 2-3 minutes later and sat down at the bar. A white female bartender who was identified later as Beth Ann Marsden approached Vanorder and asked him what she could get for him. He asked for a Bud Light. The bartender went to the cooler and came back with an open can of Bud Light and said that the cost of that beer would be $1.25. Vanorder paid her and she gave him back change. Vanorder then went outside the licensed premises and gave the beer to Dunbar. During the course of this purchase, Vanorder was not asked his age or asked for any form of identification which would demonstrate his age. As before, Vanorder was prepared to show a valid identification and give his correct age. After Dunbar was given the beer, he came into the licensed premises and he and Szabo confronted the bartender with the fact that she had sold beer to an underaged patron. They asked if the owner was on the premises and she said that he was not. The bartender was then charged with selling to a minor. She was given a Notice of Appearance for October 25, 1988 which constituted of a letter of final warning to the licensee. A third phase of the investigation occurred on February 24, 1989 when Tina May, an underaged operative for the Petitioner assisted in the investigation of sales to minors. Around 10:50 p.m., Officer Szabo, Beverage Officer Sullivan and Tina May went to the licensed premises. Szabo went in the bar first. One customer was in the bar. Szabo asked for a beer and was asked for his identification and showed his license and was served a beer. Before Tina May entered the license premises, she had been instructed to dress in normal attire and to carry her drivers license and to tell the truth about her age and to give the correct identification. Once inside the licensed premises, May sat where she could be seen by Officer Szabo. The other patron left the bar. Around 11:00 p.m., May was approached by Beth Ann Marsden who asked May what she wanted. May replied that she wanted a Bud Light. The bartender asked for identification and a driver's license was produced which showed May to be underage. Marsden was seen to count on her fingers when shown the identification. She opened up a Bud Light beer for May and gave it to her and said that the price of the beer was $1.25. May gave her $5.00 and received change. She then gave the beer to Szabo. Szabo then told the bartender that he was a Beverage Officer. Marsden recognized Szabo from the prior incident with Vanorder on October 21, 1988. Marsden told Szabo that May was 21 years old. Szabo got the driver's license from May and showed it to the bartender who admitted that she had made a mistake and that she didn't look at the month of the birth. She had only looked at the year, 1968. Out of this incident, an Official Notice was prepared, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. It sets out the violations of March 16, 1988, October 21, 1988 and February 24, 1989 and the intention of the Petitioner to file administrative charges against the Respondents for sales to minors. Since the Respondents were not there, the list was left with a Rosemarie Savini. That notice was served on November 2, 1989. Before the time of the final hearing in this case, the sole ownership of the licensed premises had been left with John M. Macker. Linda F. Williams no longer is involved with the license in question. Respondent Macker's principle business is that of a commercial fisherman. During the pendency of this investigation, he was gone a lot from his licensed premises because of his other work and relied on his employees to act appropriately concerning sales to minors. In the period 1985 until January, 1989, he had not experienced problems with this. He had posted notices around the bar about sales to minors and had instructed his employees about being careful not to sell to minors. He has calendars from beer distributors which assist in ascertaining the age of minors. March 16, 1988 was Barker's first day on the job, as was October 21, 1988 the first day on the job for Beth Ann Marsden. His instructions to his employees was to check identification if people did not look at least in their fifties or older than Respondent. Since these events, Respondent has taken more detailed steps and placed other signs to avoid sales to minors. He doesn't wish these problems to occur again and regrets that they happened on this occasion. On the other hand, he did not ask for help from the Petitioner after the October 21, 1988 incident as was offered. Following the third sale, he has moved into the licensed premises to maintain better control of the circumstance. No other incidents were reported to have occurred beyond that adjustment concerning sales to minors.
Recommendation Having considered the facts, and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which fines the Respondents in the amount of $500 for these violations. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2457 Those facts as suggested by the Petitioner are subordinate to facts found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John B. Fretwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John M. Macker 238-240 North Atlantic Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
