The Issue Whether the Respondents purchased cigarettes and alcoholic beverages from other than licensed distributors contrary to statute.
Findings Of Fact On August 21, 2002, Cynthia Britt and Sabrina Maxwell, agents of the Petitioner, conducted a routine inspection of the Respondents’ convenience store. At the beginning of the inspection, Britt and Maxwell identified themselves as agents of the Petitioner and asked for access to the area behind the counter and to see Respondents' license. When Agent Britt moved behind the counter, she saw several packages of cigarettes in the overhead storage display that did not bear the State of Florida tax stamp. Agent Britt seized these packages of cigarettes. Agent Britt identified 55 packages of cigarettes she seized as Petitioner’s Composite Exhibit D. The trier of fact examined these cigarettes and returned the exhibit to the Petitioner to secure them as part of the record. Agent Britt asked Ms. Kemp for invoices for the purchase of their cigarettes. These receipts were produced and they were also seized. Agent Britt identified these receipts as Exhibit E, the receipts for purchases from unlicensed distributors, and Exhibit F, the receipts from licensed distributors.1 The receipts reflected that the Respondents had purchased cigarettes for resale from other retailers and from the Navy Exchange. The cigarettes that did not have tax stamps were purchased from the Navy Exchange. Ms. Kemp indicated to the agents that cigarettes were purchased from these retailers and the Navy Exchange because the wholesalers required that they purchase too many, or charged them so much for small quantities that they could buy them more cheaply at retail. In the process of reviewing the receipts for the purchase of the cigarettes, the Agent Maxwell discovered six receipts for the purchase of alcoholic beverages. She conducted a search of the premises and found beverages corresponding to the brands purchased on the receipts; however, there was no way to ascertain whether these beverages were the actual ones purchased.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner destroy the cigarettes seized and impose a fine of $250 on the Respondents for violation of Section 210.18(1), Florida Statutes; and impose a fine of $250 for violation of Section 210.15(1)(h), Florida Statutes. It is also recommended that the alleged violations of Section 561.14(3), Florida Statutes, be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should suspend or revoke Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, pursuant to Section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes (1995),1 and Florida Administrative Rule 61A-2.022,2 because Respondent operated the licensed premises in a manner that was a public nuisance and permitted others to violate state criminal laws prohibiting the possession and use of controlled substances, or both.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating alcoholic beverage licenses. Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license number 15-02695, series 2-COP for the Red Top Lounge located at 2804 Kennedy Street, Mims, Florida (the "licensed premises"). Respondent is the sole proprietor of the licensed premises. On February 13, 1997, two of Petitioner's special agents ("SAS") and other undercover law enforcement officers entered the licensed premises as part of an ongoing narcotics investigation. Several patrons of the licensed premises were consuming marijuana and rolling marijuana cigars in plain view of Respondent's employees and managers. Respondent was not present at the time. On February 28, 1997, the same SAS and law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises incident to the same investigation. The SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from a patron who identified himself as "Black." On March 14, 1997, the same SAS and law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises incident to the same investigation. After midnight on March 15, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from a patron who identified himself as "Marty." On March 15, 1997, the same SAS and law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises, incident to the same investigation. After midnight on March 16, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from an unknown patron. The disc jockey routinely encouraged patrons over the public address system to smoke marijuana inside the licensed premises. On April 25, 1997, one of the same SAS, another SAS, and other law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises incident to the same investigation. The SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from a patron who identified himself as "Kenny Harvey." On April 26, 1997, the same SAS and law enforcement officers involved in the investigation on the previous day returned to the licensed premises. After midnight on April 27, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of cocaine for $10 from Kenny Harvey. On May 2, 1997, two SAS previously involved in the investigation and other law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises. After midnight on May 3, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of cocaine for $10 from Kenny Harvey. After midnight on May 3, 1997, two SAS previously involved in the investigation and other law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises. The SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from a patron who identified himself as "Roy." After the previous transaction on May 3, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of cocaine for $10 from Kenny Harvey. After midnight on May 4, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from an unknown patron. Subsequent to each purchase of marijuana by the SAS, the items purchased were chemically analyzed in a laboratory and found to be marijuana. Subsequent to each purchase of cocaine by the SAS, the items purchased were chemically analyzed in a laboratory and found to be cocaine. The SAS involved in the investigation have extensive experience and training in narcotics investigation and detection of controlled substances. They have conducted numerous undercover investigations. Each agent has personal knowledge of the appearance and smell of marijuana. The open, flagrant, and notorious drug activity on the licensed premises was the worst each agent had observed in his career. Each time the SAS entered the licensed premises, underage patrons consumed alcoholic beverages. More than half of the patrons present on each occasion consumed and rolled marijuana cigars. The second-hand marijuana smoke inside the premises was so great that the SAS were concerned for their personal health and the affect the second-hand smoke could have on each agent if subjected to a random drug test, pursuant to agency policy. The purchase, consumption, and use of marijuana occurred in plain view of Respondent's employees and managers. Respondent's managers and employees never attempted to prohibit the illegal drug activity. Respondent was never present on the licensed premises. She was caring for her daughter who died on April 2, 1997. During the time she was caring for daughter, Respondent relinquished management and control of the licensed premises to her granddaughter and her boyfriend.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's alcohol and tobacco license. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated Sections 569.006 and 569.007, Florida Statutes (1995), by selling cigarettes to a person under 18 years of age and by failing to have the cigarette vending machine in the line of sight, and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed pursuant to Florida Administrative Rule 61A-2.022, 2/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the sale of retail tobacco products. Respondent holds retail tobacco products permit number 58-05704T. The licensed premises are located at 8445 International Drive, Orlando, Florida (the "licensed premises"). Respondent operates the licensed premises for the sale of liquor at tables and a bar. On August 7, 1996, special agents Walter Russell and Linda Greenlee initiated a routine tobacco compliance investigation of the licensed premises. Agents Russell and Greenlee directed investigative aide Megan Holbrook, age 15, to enter the licensed premises and attempt to buy cigarettes from the vending machine. Ms. Holbrook and agents Russell and Greenlee entered the licensed premises at approximately 3:30 p.m. The cigarette vending machine was located just inside the doorway of the licensed premises. Agents Russell and Greenlee sat at the bar. Ms. Holbrook inserted the necessary amounts into the vending machine and purchased one package of Winston cigarettes. None of Respondent's employees questioned Ms. Holbrook concerning her age or identification. Approximately three employees were engaged in a conversation behind the bar during the time that Ms. Holbrook purchased the cigarettes. No patrons were present at the time except Ms. Holbrook and agents Russell and Greenlee. The cigarette vending machine was positioned so that a person standing behind the bar could not see the face of anyone purchasing cigarettes unless the purchaser was at least six feet tall. A view of the purchaser is obstructed by beams and shelves. The vending machine is approximately five feet tall. It is not in the direct line of sight of an employee who is responsible for monitoring the purchase of cigarettes. Ms. Holbrook and agents Russell and Greenlee exited the premises after the purchase. Ms. Holbrook turned over the cigarettes to agents Russell and Greenlee. Agents Russell and Greenlee returned inside the premises. They advised the employees inside that an unlawful sale of cigarettes had occurred and served the required documents.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 569.06 and 569.07 and imposing a fine of $750. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1997.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent and his license, including suspension or revocation of the license, on the basis of allegations that the Respondent interfered with a DABT law enforcement sergeant who was inspecting his licensed premises, committed battery on the sergeant, and resisted arrest with violence.
Findings Of Fact Since June 27, 1990, the Respondent, Heck Prowse, has continuously held license number 23-11121, series 2-APS, issued by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. That license authorizes him to sell alcoholic beverages on the business premises known as Five Boros Food Mart, Inc., located at 19817 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. At approximately 4:45 p.m. on July 1, 1990, Sergeant Carol Houston entered the licensed premises described above. Sergeant Houston's purpose for visiting the licensed premises was to inspect the premises for compliance with a new cigarette floor tax and to make sure that licensees were aware of the new tax. On that day Sergeant Houston was acting in her capacity as a sworn law enforcement officer of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco and was in the course of performing her official duties as a sworn law enforcement officer. Upon entering the licensed premises described above, Sergeant Houston approached the Respondent, who was inside the licensed premises, identified herself to the Respondent, and explained to the Respondent her reason for being there. In the course of identifying herself to the Respondent, Sergeant Houston displayed to him her law enforcement credentials which contained both a photo identification card and a badge, both of which identified her as a law enforcement officer of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. At Sergeant Houston's request, the Respondent counted all of his visible cigarette inventory and reported a total of 176 packages of cigarettes. Based on her experience with similar size stores, Sergeant Houston was of the opinion that the reported inventory was unusually low, and she asked to see the Respondent's invoices for cigarette purchases. Shortly after the request for the invoices, the Respondent became very uncooperative. Along with trying to prevent Sergeant Houston from seeing the invoices, the Respondent began to speak to Sergeant Houston in a very vulgar and abusive manner. Once things had calmed down, Sergeant Houston again showed her credentials to the Respondent and explained to him that she was authorized by law to inspect everything in the premises. Eventually the Respondent provided the invoices. After reviewing the invoices, Sergeant Houston asked if there were any more cigarettes on the licensed premises. The Respondent replied that there were not. Thereupon, Sergeant Houston began to inspect storage cabinets on the licensed premises, but was unable to inspect one cabinet because the Respondent was standing in front of it blocking access to the cabinet. Once again the Respondent became angry and spoke to Sergeant Houston in a very vulgar and abusive manner. Sergeant Houston eventually prevailed upon the Respondent to move out of the way. Inside the cabinet that had been blocked by the Respondent, Sergeant Houston found approximately 40 additional cartons of cigarettes. At that point Sergeant Houston orally advised the Respondent that he was under arrest for interfering with the performance of her official duties. Sergeant Houston then told the Respondent to sit down, which he did, and to provide identification, which the Respondent refused to do. Sergeant Houston then proceeded to call her office to report the situation and while she was talking on the telephone the Respondent attempted to leave the premises. Sergeant Houston dropped the telephone, chased after the Respondent, and put an arm around his neck to keep him from leaving the building. The Respondent thereupon shoved and hit Sergeant Houston several times, including hitting her in the chest with his fist, in an effort to get away. Once Sergeant Houston succeeded in restraining the Respondent, she returned to the telephone and advised her supervisor of her location. The supervisor, who had heard the struggle over the telephone, was concerned for Sergeant Houston's safety. The supervisor called the Metro Dade Police and asked them to send assistance to Sergeant Houston, which they did. In cases involving battery on a law enforcement officer, obstruction of a law enforcement officer, or resisting arrest with violence, if the violation is committed by the licensee, it is the established policy of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to revoke the license. The sale of cigarettes, beer, and wine account for more than half of the sales volume at the Respondent's store on the licensed premises. Revocation of the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license would have a devastating impact on the economic viability of the Respondent's business.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a Final Order in this case finding that the Respondent is guilty of the violations charged in the first three counts of the Amended Notice To Show Cause and concluding that the appropriate penalty is the revocation of Respondent's license number 23-11121, series 2-APS, for the premises located at 19817 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of March 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March 1992.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is 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, Ramesh Gordon Kowlessar, held license number 16-12937, series 2APS, authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) for consumption off the premises known as K's American & West Indian Grocery & Food, located at 4486 West Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Pembroke Park, Florida (hereinafter "the licensed premises"). On March 25, 1997, Sergeant Carol Owsiany, an agent with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, and Michael Kaufman, a special agent with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, operating undercover, visited the licensed premises to investigate a complaint that Respondent was selling alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises (a practice not permitted by Respondent's license). Sergeant Owsiany and Agent Kaufman entered the premises at or about 10:15 a.m., and were greeted by Respondent who, after assuring the agents that they could dine on the premises, seated them at the counter. Sergeant Owsiany ordered a meal of curry and rice, and Agent Kaufman requested beer with the meal. The Respondent directed Agent Kaufman to the beer cooler. Agent Kaufman selected two cans of "Budweiser" beer (an alcoholic beverage) from the cooler and returned to the counter, where he handed one beer to Sergeant Owsiany. The agents opened their respective beers, and consumed a portion of the beer while seated at the counter in the presence of Respondent. Following service of her meal, Sergeant Owsiany consumed a small portion of food, and requested that the remainder be packaged to go. The agents then proceeded to the check-out counter with the two open and partially consumed beers, as well as the packaged meal. At the counter, the agents observed 52 packages of unstamped, non-Florida-tax-paid cigarettes offered for sale. Sergeant Owsiany paid for her meal and the two beers, and the agents exited the building.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the charges set forth in the Administrative Action; imposing a civil penalty in the total sum of $1,000 for such violations, subject to Respondent's option to substitute a period of suspension in lieu of all or a portion of the civil penalty; and, requiring Respondent to pay to the Department excise taxes in the sum of $17.63. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1998.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco (the “Department”), is operating under an unadopted rule in its application of sections 210.276 and 210.30, Florida Statutes, which impose a surcharge and an excise tax, respectively, on tobacco products other than cigarettes or cigars, commonly known as other tobacco products (“OTP”), by calculating “wholesale sales price” as the full invoice price charged by OTP manufacturers to distributors, including any federal excise taxes (“FET”) and shipping charges reflected in the invoice price.
Findings Of Fact Each of the Petitioners is a licensed business in the State of Florida engaged in the business of distributing tobacco products. The Department is the government agency responsible for, inter alia, administering and enforcing chapter 210, Florida Statutes, related to the taxation of tobacco products other than cigarettes and cigars. By way of general background, tobacco products are taxed at both the federal and state levels. The first company to produce or import the tobacco products into the United States must pay the federal government a federal excise tax which is based on weight. 26 U.S.C. § 5702. Similarly, when the tobacco is produced or brought into Florida, Florida OTP tax applies at the rate of 85 percent of the “wholesale sales price.” Technically, Florida OTP tax has two components: an excise tax and surcharge as defined by sections 210.30 and 210.276. Section 210.30 was first enacted in 1985; it imposes a 25-percent tax on OTP. Section 210.276 was enacted in 2009; it levies a 60-percent surcharge on OTP. For convenience, the excise tax and surcharge will be referred to collectively as the OTP tax. The phrase “wholesale sales price” is defined as “the established price for which a manufacturer sells a tobacco product to a distributor, exclusive of any diminution by volume or other discounts.” § 210.25, Fla. Stat. Section 210.25(11) defines "tobacco products" as follows: [L]oose tobacco suitable for smoking; snuff; snuff flour; cavendish; plug and twist tobacco; fine cuts and other chewing tobaccos; shorts; refuse scraps; clippings, cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco, and other kinds and forms of tobacco prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing, but ‘tobacco products’ does not include cigarettes . . . or cigars. In 2012, the Second DCA interpreted “wholesale sales price” to apply to the price at which the manufacturer sells tobacco products to the distributor. Micjo, 78 So. 3d at 127. In that case, in which the Second DCA described the dispute as “not complicated,” the Court determined that OTP tax applies only to the charge for tobacco and not to other charges to bring the tobacco to market, such as FET and shipping charges. Id. at 126-127. There are no relevant adopted rules in which the Department has interpreted “wholesale sales price.” State agencies are required to follow the Courts’ interpretations of statutes. See Costarell v. Fla. Unemplmt. App. Comm’n, 916 So. 2d 778, 782 (Fla. 2005). Subsequent to the ruling in Micjo, the Department followed the ruling set forth by the Second DCA and stopped imposing a tax on distributors based upon on FET or shipping charges. Beginning in 2013, the Department commenced enforcing a new “policy” interpreting Micjo to exclude FET and shipping charges only when such charges were separately stated. As a result of this policy, the Department paid some refunds and did not assess OTP tax if the FET and shipping charges were separately stated. The Department began relying upon a new policy in mid- 2013 to the effect that if the domestic manufacturer of the tobacco paid FET when it produced the product, Micjo did not apply and the phrase “wholesale sales price” included non- tobacco charges, such as FET and shipping charges. This was due to the fact that the manufacturer would pass down the cost of the FET and shipping charges to the distributor as part of the “wholesale sales price.” As for foreign manufacturers who did not pay FET, Micjo operated to exclude FET and shipping charges from the taxable base. That is because the distributor who purchased the tobacco products would be responsible for paying the FET separately; it would not be part of the “wholesale sales price.” In other words, the Department’s policy was that “wholesale sales price,” as interpreted by Micjo, applies differently depending on whether the tobacco is manufactured foreign or domestically. The Petitioners seek to invalidate this non-rule policy. The Department confuses wholesale sales price (i.e., “the established price for which a manufacturer sells a tobacco product to a distributor”) with the invoice amount, which may or may not include something other than the price for the tobacco product. The Micjo decision clearly delineates the cost of the tobacco from “the various other distributor invoice costs for reimbursement of FET, shipping costs, and other charges [which are] not part of tobacco.” Micjo, 78 So. 3d at 127. After the Micjo ruling, the Department determined that it would not include FET and shipping charges in its determination of “wholesale sales price” for purposes of calculating OTP taxes. It did not promulgate a rule to that effect, but began nonetheless using the policy uniformly. In early October 2013, when the Department decided to rescind its policy in favor of a new statement of general applicability, it again failed to promulgate the policy as a rule. Instead, it unilaterally began to impose the new policy on all distributors of OTP in the state. It is clear from the record that the current policy is applicable to all distributors and that the policy delineates which distributors must pay taxes based on total invoice amounts, including FET and shipping charges, and which distributors do not have to pay taxes based on those items. It is not clear from the record how the domestic versus foreign manufacturer dynamic was argued to the Micjo Court or in the case from which the appeal arose. Micjo specifically addressed the domestic distributors, but did not make a distinction between domestic and foreign manufacturers. To the extent the Department’s position in the instant case seeks to revise the facts of Micjo, that argument is rejected.
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Action dated June 22, 2004, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is the state agency charged with administering Florida's alcoholic beverage and tobacco law. § 561.02, Fla. Stat. (2004). The Food Mart holds a Series 2-APS license, numbered 16-13705. On June 2, 2004, the Division conducted an inspection of the premises of the Food Mart. The inspector found six bottles filled with a cream-colored liquid. One bottle was on the counter, next to the cash register, and the other five bottles were inside a cabinet behind the cash register, wrapped in newspaper. The bottles contained a homemade Haitian beverage called cremasse. A friend made the beverage for Mr. Cebatien Dierestil, who intended to serve the beverage at a party at his home. The person who made the beverage took the six bottles to the Food Mart to give it to Mr. Dierestil, but Mr. Dierestil was not in the store at the time. A Food Mart employee placed the bottle of cremasse on the counter, even though it was for Mr. Dierestil's personal use. Cremasse contains a small amount of alcohol, but Mr. Dierestil did not know the exact amount. During the inspection of Food Mart on June 2, 2004, the Division found 97 packages of cigarettes offered for sale that did not carry the stamps indicating that the applicable taxes had been paid on the cigarettes. Some of the 79 unstamped packages of Newport cigarettes and of the 18 unstamped packages of Marlboro cigarettes were commingled with other packages of cigarettes displayed over the cash register, and others were in full cartons placed in the area where the extra inventory of cigarettes was kept. The cigarettes were purchased from a person that came by the Food Mart, and the invoice for the cigarettes was not among the invoices Mr. Dierestil provided to the Division's inspectors. Mr. Dierestil was not aware that the cigarette packages were supposed to carry tax stamps. The Division failed to present evidence establishing the alcoholic content of the liquid inside the bottles found at the Food Mart.
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 Dismissing Count 1 of the Administrative Action against Cebatien and Marc Dierestil; Finding that Cebatien and Marc Dierestil violated Sections 210.18(1) and 210.15(1)(h), Florida Statutes; Finding that, because of these statutory violations, the Division is authorized to impose administrative penalties on Cebatien and Marc Dierestil pursuant to Section 561.29(1) and (3), Florida Statutes; Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 and ordering payment of the excise tax owing on the unstamped packages of cigarettes for the violation of Section 210.18(1), Florida Statutes; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 for the violation of Section 210.15(1)(h), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 27th day of January, 2005.
The Issue At issue is the appropriate penalty to be imposed for respondent's violation of the provisions of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The offense At all times pertinent hereto, respondent, Jabal, Inc. d/b/a Gus Food Store, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-1219, series 2-APS, for the premises located at 1490 N.W. 71st Street, Miami, Florida. Ghazi Farraj is the president and owner of respondent. On or about December 3, 1993, respondent, through its president and owner Ghazi Farraj, did unlawfully possess marijuana, specifically two marijuana cigarettes in a cigarette pack on his person while on the licensed premises. Mitigation Respondent submits the following information to be considered as "mitigating factors" in assessing the appropriate penalty to be imposed for its violation of the beverage laws: The Defendant Ghazi Farraj, entered a No Contest Plea on March 28th, 1994 before the Honorable Judge Leesfield to the charge of the possession of marijuana; to wit two marijuana cigarettes's [sic] and was found Quilty [sic] of said charge. The Respondent Ghazi Farraj, is a married man who has six children ranging in years as follows: eight thru nineteen who are living with the Respondent Ghazi Farraj, here in Miami, Dade County, Florida and he's the sole provider of his children and his wife. The Respondent Ghazi Farraj, here in [sic] has no prior Criminal Record prior to the incident described in Paragraph A. The Respondent Ghazi Farraj, fully recognizes the errors of his ways as stated in Paragraph A and he no longer will participate or get involved in any Criminal Act or Violation of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages And Tobacco Rules. The Respondent Ghazi Farraj, is a United States Citizen in good standing and if this Board suspends his beverage license it would not only put him out of business but will deprive the Respondent Ghazi Farraj, to fully support his family that was stated in Paragraph A.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding respondent guilty of Count 4 as charged, and suspending respondent's license for a period of sixty (60) days. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of January 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Mr. Ghazi Farraj 1490 NW 71st Street Miami, Florida 33127 Mr. Ghazi Farraj 1490 NW 71st Street Miami, Florida 33147 Mr. Paul Pollack, Esquire 1704 Northwest 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 John J. Harris, Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
