The Issue The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco seeks by this action to suspend or revoke or otherwise discipline License No. 56-00475 belonging to the licensee Clayton E. Adams. The basis for such action is the allegation that Mr. Adams violated Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, by delivering three pounds of marijuana to an individual named Jackie Long for which Mr. Adams received $800. The Petitioner called no witnesses but relied upon the stipulation entered into by the Respondent as to the facts alleged in the count set forth in the Notice to Show Cause. Mr. Clayton E. Adams testified on behalf of the Respondent, Blueberry Grocery and Curb Market. The Respondent offered into evidence nine exhibits, all of which were admitted without objection.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Clayton E. Adams, doing business as Blueberry Grocery and Curb Market, is the licensee of Beverage License No. 56-00475, license series 1-APS. The Petitioner and Respondent stipulated to the facts alleged in the one and only count of the Notice to Show Cause and based upon said stipulation, I find as follows: On or about August 10, 1981, Clayton E. Adams, did violate Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, to wit: Clayton E. Adams did deliver three pounds of marijuana to Jackie Long and did receive $800 for same, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes within Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. The licensed premises is located on Highway 85 North in Crestview, Florida, and is a grocery store. There is no on-premises consumption of alcohol. The transfer and sale of the marijuana by Mr. Adams took place at 10:00 o'clock at night. This was some two hours after the 8:00 o'clock closing time of the Blueberry Grocery and Curb Market. The only connection between this transaction and the licensed premises was the fact that the transfer took place in the parking lot of the Blueberry Grocery and Curb Market. The Blueberry Grocery and Curb Market is operated primarily by the wife of Clayton E. Adams. Mr. Adams drives a truck full-time and works at the store only on weekends. Prior to his arrest and charge for the sale of marijuana, Mr. Adams had no prior record and has no other evidence of violation in connection with his beverage license. With regard to the drug charge, the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County withheld adjudication of guilt, placed Mr. Adams on probation for five years, and imposed a $1,000 fine. As of the date of the hearing in this matter, Mr. Adams had been on probation for approximately one year.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Beverage License No. 56-00475 be revoked but that the revocation be suspended pursuant to Section 561.29(5), Florida Statutes, for a period of four years. It is further recommended that such suspension of the revocation be conditioned upon there being no further violations of the laws of the State of Florida or the rules and regulations of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. In the event that no such violation has occurred during that four-year period, it is further recommended that the revocation be withdrawn, at the end of the suspension period. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Clayton E. Adams Blueberry Grocery and Curb Market Highway 85 North Crestview, Florida Howard M. 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 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 75 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are: (1) whether Petitioner is qualified for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license; and (2) whether Petitioner is entitled to waiver of his felony conviction in accordance with Chapter 550, Florida Statutes (2006).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner submitted an application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license as a racehorse owner on or about March 30, 2005. On his application, Petitioner accurately reported that he had been convicted on one count of Conspiracy to Transport Stolen Property and Evade Taxes, a felony. Due to Petitioner’s felony conviction, his application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license was subject to denial. Consequently, Petitioner also requested that a waiver be granted so that he could obtain the license. Petitioner's application and his request for waiver failed to include any information which would establish his rehabilitation or demonstrate that he is of good moral character. In the regular course of the Division's review of Petitioner's application and request for waiver, on or about April 11, 2005, Petitioner was interviewed by Dennis Badillo, an investigator for the Division. During the interview, Mr. Badillo completed a waiver interview form based upon the answers provided by Petitioner. Petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to present information to establish his rehabilitation and to demonstrate his present good moral character, but Petitioner did not provide such information. In light of the information regarding Petitioner’s felony conviction, which is undisputed and admitted by Petitioner on his application form and at the final hearing, Petitioner does not meet the eligibility requirements for the license he seeks. At hearing, Petitioner attempted to minimize his role in the crime of which he was convicted, and expressed the view that he "doesn't have much time" to fulfill his desire to "participate in the racing industry" in Florida, inasmuch as he has passed his 70th birthday. Petitioner failed to present any testimony from friends, relatives, associates, employers, probation officers, or other individuals to establish good conduct and reputation subsequent to the date of his felony conviction. Absent such evidence, the Division has no basis upon which to conclude that Petitioner is rehabilitated or that Petitioner is of present good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order denying Petitioner’s application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license and his request for waiver. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Thomas Peavey Hoffer Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Joseph L. Nacca 268 West Walk West Haven, Connecticut 06516 David J. Roberts, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether or not on or about September 30, 1978, the Respondent, Cesar Augustus Rodriguez, his agent, servant or employee did pay for the renewal of his alcoholic beverage license with a check which was later returned, not paid by the bank, marked "Not Sufficient Funds", contrary to Rule 7A-2.15, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On September 30, 1978, the Respondent, Cesar Augustus Rodriguez, issued or caused to be issued a check in the amount of $1,750.00 made in behalf of the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The purpose of this check was to pay for the annual renewal of Respondent's beverage license, Number 39-994, 4-COP, under which the Respondent was trading as Tom's Place. The requirement for payment of the renewal of the license is established by Section 561.27, Florida Statutes. The check for payment was drawn on the Barnett Bank of Tampa. When presented by the Petitioner for payment, the check was returned on the basis that there were insufficient funds for the check to be honored. The check number in question was check No. 407, drawn on account No. 01704386. The act of tendering payment for the license fee renewal with a check that was returned for insufficient funds constituted a violation of Rule 7A- 2.15, Florida Administrative Code. The facts as stated above were arrived at pursuant to a stipulation entered into by the parties and placed on the record during the process of a formal hearing conducted pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Cesar Augustus Rodriguez trading as Tom's Place, be fined in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) for the violation as established in this case, in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 561.29(4), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 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: Mary Jo M. Gallay, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Cesar Augustus Rodriguez t/a Tom's Place 2605 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner on November 20, 1980, be dismissed by final agency order. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: William D. Moore, Esquire Ella Jane P. Davis, Esquire 700 Barnett Bank Building Department of Transportation Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Lawrence Johnston, Esquire Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact By check dated September 17, 1974 Willie Calhoun attempted to pay the 1974-75 beverage license fee for Blount's Place and the check was returned to the Division stamped "Closed". The witness for the Division testified that the check was returned marked "NSF". Willie Calhoun is the son of Annie Lee and with his mother, owns the "6129 Corporation" known as King the Tailor. This is their primary business and the accounts from Blount's Place are co-mingled with those funds. This business is located in a section of Miami which has been the locale of numerous racial incidents and the proprietors were unable to obtain fire insurance. A fire occurred at this store in 1973 which burned the assets and records. The IRS audited the corporation and levied against the owners. When the check for the 1974-75 beverage license was written there was sufficient funds in Willie Calhoun's account to honor the check; however, before it was presented for payment the IRS had garnished the account. During the period between 1972 and December 2, 1975 Willie Calhoun and his mother paid the IRS some $42,000 in taxes and penalties. They now have returned to a solvent status and their beverage license payments are current.
Findings Of Fact Millard Futch is presently the district supervisor for District 4, Division of Beverage and formerly district supervisor for District 6, Division of Beverage, at the time the Petitioner made application for an increase in the series of his beverage license. Mr. Futch indicated the reason that the request for increase in series was disapproved, was because that a series 4-COP license is a quota license and that at present all quota licenses in Pinellas County, Florida are held by other license holders, either as active licenses or licenses under administrative restraint. Therefore, as of the date of the hearing and the date of the request for increase in series, a quota license in Pinellas County was not available. The witness further testified that the 2-COP license being held by the Petitioner enables the Petitioner to sell beer and wine on the premises in package and to sell spiritous liquor for consumption off the premises. The principal difference, according to the witness between 2-COP license and the increase series 4-COP license was that 4-COP license would allow the consumption of spiritous liquors on the premises. The witness indicated that the only available methods for the Petitioner to receive a 4-COP license was for other quota licenses to be authorized at the time of the completion of the 1980 federal census. It was stated that upon the completion of that census the Petitioner together with other applicants could apply for such additional quota licenses as would be authorized by the increase in population in Pinellas County, Florida. It was also indicated that the possibility would be available for the Petitioner to purchase an existing quota license in Pinellas County, Florida, if the Petitioner was otherwise qualified under the guidelines of the Division of Beverage. Finally the witness, Mr. Futch, did not indicate any further reason for the disapproval of the increase in series as applied for by the Petitioner. The Petitioner, after hearing the testimony offered by Mr. Futch in explanation of the Respondent's position, declined to make any presentation in his own behalf.
Recommendation Based upon the facts as presented in the course of the hearing, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Walter Booze, t/a HobNob Tavern be denied his request for an increase in series of his beverage license from one of 2-COP to 4-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Walter Booze 318 North Garden Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33515 William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue This case concerns action by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, through a Notice to Show Cause (Administrative Complaint) to assess a civil penalty, suspend or revoke or deny the renewal of the beverage license of the Respondent, Keith Nothnagel. This action is promoted on the allegation that the Respondent was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan of the offense of conspiracy to possess marijuana in violation of the United States Code, Title 21, Section 846, on May 25, 1978, in that this conviction constituted a violation of Subsections 561.15(2) and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and thereby subjects the Respondent to penalties found in Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Keith Nothnagel, holds license No. 62-1311, series 2- COP, issued by the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. This license allows the Respondent to sell beer and wine to be consumed on his premises located at 606-608 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. The beverage license was issued on January 17, 1977, at a time subsequent to the commission of an offense for which the Respondent pled guilty to conspiracy to possess marijuana in violation of the United States Code, Title 21, Section 846, and this plea was made on March 15, 1978. On May 24, 1978, the Respondent was found guilty of the offense and convicted and sentenced to serve one (1) year. The Respondent did serve seven (7) months of that sentence. A copy of the Judgment and Commitment Order may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. It is on the strength of this plea and adjudication of guilty and sentence that the Petitioner has charged the Respondent with violations of Subsections 561.15(2)(a) and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that the action through this Notice to Show Cause filed against the Respondent, Keith Nothnagel, be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 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: Mary Jo M. Gallay, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Waldense D. Malouf, Esquire 325 South Garden Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, Petitioner, v. DOAH NO. 79-1287 DABT NO. 33234A THE INN BETWEEN/KEITH NOTHNAGEL, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Victor Ingargiola is the sole shareholder, director and officer of Petitioner, I & H Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Basin Street East (Petitioner), a Florida corporation. The State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the Respondent. Both Mr. Victor Ingargiola and his wife, Mrs. Barbara Ingargiola, entered the Division's double random selection drawing for eligibility to apply for a new quota alcoholic beverage license. Mr. Ingargiola was selected in the drawing, and Mrs. Ingargiola was not. After receiving notice of his selection in the drawing, Mr. Ingargiola formed the Petitioner and applied for licensure on or about November 1, 1984. In his application, Mr. Ingargiola did not identify his wife as a person having an interest in Petitioner or its business, either directly or indirectly. The application also represented that Petitioner had a right to occupancy of the premises to be licensed at 4513 Causeway Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner's application carries with it an application fee of $6,750. Mr. Ingargiola obtained a portion of the funds necessary to pay the application fee from funds held jointly by him and his wife and by loans to him and his wife secured by property jointly held by him and his wife. Virtually all money and property of the Ingargiolas is held in their joint names. Both Mr. and Mrs. Ingargiola conferred with the Division's Investigator Miller concerning the application. Miller initially requested that Mrs. Ingargiola be finger printed as a person having an interest in the license to be issued. Mrs. Ingargiola understood that she was not permitted to have an interest since she herself had entered the double random selection drawing. She therefore declined to be fingerprinted or to be made to appear on the application as a party having an interest in the license to be issued. Investigator Miller also discussed with the Ingargiolas the question of Mrs. Ingargiola's involvement and the financing of Petitioner. Investigator Miller led the Ingargiolas to believe that the only possible legal financing arrangement would be for Mrs. Ingargiola to give the funds to her husband outright. He led them to believe that this could be done by affidavit, and Mrs. Ingargiola signed and filed an affidavit which Investigator Miller approved as to form. The affidavit listed the financing in question and stated: "I swear that the following funds obtained are to be used by Victor A. Ingargiola and I will have no interest or control over these funds." Barbara Ingargiola also testified at final hearing that she claims no interest whatsoever in Petitioner, any license to be issued to it, or the funds she gave outright to her husband to finance Petitioner. Essentially, Mrs. Ingargiola gave her half of the joint funds and proceeds of joint loans used by Victor Ingargiola to finance Petitioner's application fee. If necessary, she was prepared to do the same with the proceeds from the sale of joint real property or loans secured by the Ingargiolas' joint real property. However, no mention was made or consideration given to Mrs. Ingargiola's liability for her husband's share of the joint borrowing in addition to hers. Mrs. Ingargiola did have an interest in the successful operation of Petitioner so as to enable her husband to pay at least half, if not all, of the joint borrowing used in part to finance Petitioner. On or about October 12, 1984, Mr. Ingargiola obtained a written lease to the premises to be licensed. However, the lease does not contain a commencement date. At the time the application was filed, the premises were occupied by another tenant, and, as of December 20, 1984, this tenant had a legal right to occupy the premises and had not been notified of the pending liquor license application or the lease. In addition, the purported lease contains a provision requiring Petitioner to secure its duties and obligations under the lease by depositing with the landlord the sum of $60,000 in cash or irrevocable letter of credit. There was no evidence that Petitioner had complied with or could comply with this requirement of the lease. Although Mr. Ingargiola testified to his understanding of his right to occupancy of the premises under the lease upon granting of Petitioner's application and issuance of the license, there was no testimony from the landlord on the ambiguities surrounding the lease and the rights of the tenant in possession. As a result, the evidence as a whole was insufficient to prove Petitioner's right to occupancy of the premises to be licensed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, deny the application of Petitioner, I & H Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Basin Street East, for a quota alcoholic beverage license RECOMMENDED this 17th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Diaz, Esquire 2522 W. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, FL 33609 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1927 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue Whether or not on or about October 31, 1978, the Respondent, Cesar Augustus Rodriguez, a licensed vendor or distributor, or his authorized agent, did sell alcoholic beverages with an improper license, to-wit: Selling under authority of a license when the license fee required for renewal had not been properly paid, contrary to Section 562.12, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On September 30, 1978, the Respondent, Cesar Augustus Rodriguez, issued or caused to be issued a check in the amount of $1,750.00 made in behalf of the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The purpose of this check was to pay for the annual renewal of Respondent's beverage license, Number 39-994, 4-COP, under which the Respondent was trading as Tom's Place. The requirement for payment of the renewal of the license is established by Section 561.27, Florida Statutes. The check for payment was drawn on the Barnett Bank of Tampa. When presented by the Petitioner for payment, the check was returned on the basis that there were insufficient funds for the check to be honored. The check number in question was check No. 407, drawn on account No. 01704386. (The facts as stated above were arrived at pursuant to a stipulation entered into by the parties and placed on the record during the process of a formal hearing conducted pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.) Representatives of the Petitioner tried on a number of occasions to get the Respondent to pay the required license fee by an instrument that was negotiable. Those representatives were unsuccessful in their attempts, and on October 30, 1978, Captain R. Caplano, District VI Supervisor, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco dispatched officers to retrieve the aforementioned beverage license from the premises known as Tom's Place. The license was brought back to the District headquarters. Around 4:55 p.m. on October 30, 1978, the Respondent came to the District office of the Petitioner with the intention of redeeming the license to Tom's Place and two other licensed premises owned and operated by him, namely, Port Tampa Bar and Rene's Lounge. Rodriguez offered to pay the licensing fee in cash; however, there was insufficient cash to pay the entire fee required and the necessary penalty established under Section 561.27, Florida Statutes. Moreover, the language of of Rule 7A-2.15, Florida Administrative Code, establishes that the Petitioner shall accept only a cashier's check, money order or certified check in payment for the license fee once an insufficient funds check has been tendered for that payment initially. During the course of the meeting between the Respondent and Captain Caplano on the afternoon of October 30, 1978, held in the District office, Mr. Rodriguez indicated his concern that he not be able to operate during the interim period necessary to obtain the proper form of payment for the license fee and penalty. After that discussion, the license to Tom's Place and the other licenses discussed were returned to the Respondent with the understanding that the Respondent was to bring in the proper license fees and penalty payments on the following morning, October 31, 1978; immediately after the banking institutions had opened, to allow the Respondent to obtain the necessary cashier's checks. The Respondent was under the impression that between the hours that his licenses had been returned to him and the time on the morning of October 31, 1978, to make the proper payment, he was at liberty to operate the licensed premises to the extent of selling alcoholic beverages. Captain Caplano, through his testimony in the course of the hearing, established that the act of returning the license on the evening of October 30, 1978, was tantamount to allowing the Respondent to operate, conditioned upon the immediate payment of the license fees on the following morning of October 31, 1978. The licensed premises, Tom's Place, was opened the next morning at 7:05 a.m. It opened after the license had been seized on the prior afternoon of October 30, 1978, at 4:31 p.m. and after advising the employee on duty for the Respondent that no more alcoholic beverages could be sold following the seizure. This arrangement was superseded by the arrangement between the Respondent and Captain Caplano, which was made in the late afternoon of October 30, 1978. Turning back to a consideration of the situation on October 31, 1978, at the time Tom's Place was opened, a different employee was on duty than that person who was there on the afternoon of October 30, 1978. This new employee was one Corine Lewis. At about the time the premises opened, she called the stepson of the Respondent to ascertain whether or not alcoholic beverages could be sold. The response of the stepson, who was acting under the authority of the Respondent, was to the effect that the "boss" was on the way with the license, creating the belief in the mind of Ms. Lewis that she could sell alcoholic beverages. At around 8:30 a.m., the same Ms. Lewis called the Petitioner's office and spoke to Beverage Officer John Allen, the same officer who had removed the license from the premises on the afternoon of October 30, 1978. Officer Allen instructed Ms. Lewis not to sell any alcoholic beverages without the license being available. Following the conversation between Ms. Lewis and Officer Allen, the Respondent came to the District headquarters around 10:00 a.m. on October 31, 1978, with the necessary funds to pay for the renewal of the licenses pertaining to Port Tampa Bar and Rene's Lounge. He did not have the necessary funds to pay for the renewal of the license for Tom's Place. He indicated to officials at the District office of the Petitioner, that it would be necessary for him to obtain a cashier's check from a separate bank for the payment of the license for Tom's Place, meaning by that a separate bank than the one from which the cashier's checks were issued for the purpose of paying the licenses for Port Tampa Bar and Rene's Lounge. Rodriguez indicated that he would leave the license for Tom's Place until he could obtain the money for the license fee. He did in fact leave that license with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco and the fee was paid sometime in the early afternoon of October 31, 1978. At around the time the conversation was occurring between the Respondent and Captain Caplano, the representative of the Petitioner, Officer Allen had returned to Tom's Place. When he entered the licensed premises, he discovered a number of patrons in the premises and opened beer bottles in evidence. Officer Allen inquired of Ms. Lewis about the license and Ms. Lewis informed him that she did not have the license. Officer Allen then left the licensed premises and called Captain Caplano to ascertain the whereabouts of the license. He also advised Captain Caplano that alcoholic beverages had been sold in the licensed premises on the morning of October 31, 1978. Captain Caplano indicated that he had the license and that the license fee had not been paid and that Officer Allen should write a citation for selling alcohol without a license if in fact that had occurred at a time when the premises was not operating under an authorized beverage license. Officer Allen followed those instructions, and cited the licensee for a violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes, which pertains to selling alcoholic beverages with an improper license. While Officer Allen was still at the licensed premises the morning of October 31, 1978, the stepson of the Respondent arrived at that location to close the bar, and did close it. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was of the persuasion that he could operate the bar until such time as the license fee had been properly paid after the bank had been opened on the morning of October 31, 1978. He did not feel that he had the opportunity to visit two banks to get the necessary cashier's checks, prior to reporting to the District office of the Petitioner to pay the license fees and penalties. Captain Caplano was of the belief that the licensee could operate on the evening of October 30, 1978, but did not envision the right of the licensee to operate on the morning of October 31, 1978, if the licensee did not immediately tender payment for the license fees on the morning of October 31, 1978. In the mind of Captain Caplano, the idea of selling any form of alcoholic beverages on the morning of October 31, 1978, without first paying the license fee for Tom's Place constituted the sale of alcoholic beverages under an improper license. It is unclear exactly when the alcoholic beverage was sold on the morning of October 31, 1978, in Tom's Place. Ms. Lewis' testimony is to the effect that one beer was sold sometime between 7:05 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., with 8:30 a.m. being the time at which Officer Allen advised Ms. Lewis that no alcoholic beverages should be sold on that morning without the license being on the premises and this testimony is unrefuted by the Petitioner. In view of the totality of the facts, it has not been demonstrated by the Petitioner that the Respondent was acting in derivation of the inherent authority to sell alcoholic beverages extended to him when the licenses were returned to him on the afternoon of October 30, 1978, through the person of Captain Caplano. Therefore, there has been no showing of a violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that the case before the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Number 33276- A, be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jo M. Gallay, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Cesar Augustus Rodriguez t/a Tom's Place 2605 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Rajenor Bajrangi held a valid Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (hereinafter Division), license for the premises known as the Quick Stop Center (hereinafter licensed premises), license number 6k9-305, series 2-APS, located at 1201 Airport Boulevard, Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. Underage operative Robert Scott assists the Sanford Police Department in determining whether or not licensed premises will sell alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21 years of age. Mr. Scott was born on April 17, 1969, and on Monday, May 23, 1988, he was nineteen years old. On May 23, 1988, Robert Scott entered the licensed premise, walked to the back of the store, removed a 12 oz. can of Miller beer from the cooler, and proceeded to the check-out counter. He presented the beer to a man that he identified at the hearing as being Rajenor Bajrangi. Mr. Bajrangi, without requesting any identification, rang up the beer on the cash register and received from Mr. Scott the requested price for the beer. Mr. Scott departed the premise with the beer and met Officer Collison outside where Mr. Scott gave Officer Collison the Miller beer. At no time during this transaction did Mr. Bajrangi inquire as to Mr. Scott's age. Officer Chris A. Collison of the Sanford, Florida, Police Department has been a police officer for over eight years. On May 23, 1988, about 10:00 p.m., he went in an unmarked car with another officer and Robert Scott to the licensed premises. He was able to observe Mr. Scott enter the licensed premises purchase the aforementioned beer and then depart the premises. The funds that Mr. Scott used to purchase the beer were provided by Mr. Collison. Mr. Collison received the Miller beer purchased by Mr. Scott from the hands of Mr. Scott. He identified the beer that was offered as Petitioner's Exhibit 2 as being the beer that was given to him by Robert Scott. David E. Ramey is a law enforcement investigator for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco and he has been so employed for over eleven years. He inspected the can of Miller beer that was entered into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and knows that the evidence was labeled as beer, that it was contained in an unopened can, that it had lithographed on the lid of the can the word "Florida," and that it bore the manufacturer's trademark. Investigator Ramey had the opinion that the substance in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 is beer. The usual penalty for a licensee selling to an underage person is a $1,000.00 civil penalty accompanied by a 20-day license suspension. Mr. Rajenor Bajrangi testified that, on May 23, 1988, when Mr. Scott purchased the beer, there was a large group of rowdy people loitering in the vicinity of the licensed premise and that the police officers should have arrested these rowdy persons instead of trying to make an underage case against him. Neither the testimony of Officer Collison or that of Mr. Scott served to bolster Mr. Bajrangi's claim that he was diverted by the so-called rowdy persons and Officer Collison specifically stated that there were no distractions occurring in the vicinity of the licensed premise at the time the beverage was purchased. Considering the evidence as a whole, there was no credible evidence that Respondent was distracted at the time the beverage was purchased.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the licensee guilty of a violation of Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and imposing a civil penalty of $1,000.00 and a three (3) day license suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. MANRY 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 12th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Recommended Order Paragraph 1-6. Accepted Respondent's letter dated July 4, 1989. Did not dispute Petitioner's finding of fact but was in the nature of mitigation. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Rajenor Bajrangi c/o Quick Stop Center 1201 Airport Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32771 Leonard Ivey Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Stephen R. McNamara Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
