The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend, revoke, and/or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license. The primary grounds for the proposed disciplinary action are that the licensee has permitted patrons on the licensed premises to sell cocaine on numerous occasions in violation of various statutory provisions. The specific allegations are set forth in a Notice To Show Cause dated February 27, 1989. An Emergency Order Of Suspension was served on the Respondent on February 27, 1989. The Respondent requested an emergency hearing, which was conducted on March 7, 1989. Both parties offered evidence at the hearing. Following the hearing the parties requested and were allowed until March 17, 1989, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The Petitioner filed a timely proposed recommended order. The Respondent has not filed any post-hearing documents. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Ocean Drive Hotel Corporation, d/b/a/ Ocean Haven Restaurant, is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License Number 23-3568, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Ocean Haven Restaurant, which is located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. The licensed premises are located in a neighborhood which is somewhat less than wholesome; a neighborhood in which there is a substantial amount of illegal drug related activity. It is a neighborhood in which it is not uncommon for police officers to observe people who have been previously arrested for drug violations. The Respondent corporation owns the licensed premises, as well as the hotel premises of which the licensed premises are a part. The Respondent corporation is owned by Mr. Heriberto Velasco. Mr. Velasco is the president of the Respondent corporation and he is the manager of both the hotel and the restaurant businesses. Mr. Velasco lives in the hotel with his wife, his mother, and one of his sons. Mr. Velasco takes most of his meals in the restaurant which comprises the licensed premises, and usually visits the licensed premises at least three times a day for that purpose. There is no evidence that he regularly spends any other time supervising activities in the restaurant. There are four employees in the restaurant that comprises the licensed premises. Two of those employees are Gloria E. Berlioz and Antonia Rodriguez de Alcina. The latter is also known by the name of Nora. Ms. Berlioz and Ms. Alcina have both been employees on the licensed premises for a year or two. Ms. Alcina is employed as a waitress. Ms. Berlioz is employed as a cook. During the course of an undercover investigation during the months of January and February of 1989, the following transactions involving controlled substances took place within the licensed premises: On January 10, 1989, a patron known as Loraine sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 18, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 19, 1989, an unknown white Latin male patron sold cocaine to a patron named Tommy. On January 25, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 26, 1989, an unknown Latin male patron sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 6, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 7, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet in two separate transactions. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also sold cocaine to Investigator Lerra. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet, in two separate transactions. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also delivered cocaine to an unknown white male patron. On February 22, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in the preceding paragraph, the people involved in the transactions discussed the subject of drug transactions in normal conversational tones of voice. During the majority of those conversations, either Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have heard the conversations. During some of the conversations, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter, within two or three feet from the conversations. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, the drugs involved in the transactions were openly displayed on the table top or on the counter top in front of the participants to the transactions. In each of the transactions involving purchases by Investigator Huguet, the investigator attempted to be obvious about what he was doing by holding the drugs in front of his face to inspect them before putting the drugs in his pocket. During the vast majority of those transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have observed the transactions. During some of the transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter within two or three feet from the drug transactions. One of the drug transactions took place while Mr. Heriberto Velasco was standing several feet away. All of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place within the licensed premises during business hours when employees and patrons were present on the licensed premises. None of the employees ever called the police or asked any of the parties to the drug transactions to leave the licensed premises. Mr. Heriberto Velasco was aware that the licensed premises are located in a neighborhood in which there is a high level of illegal drug activity. Nevertheless, he did not take any special precautions to prevent or detect drug activity on the licensed premises other than to tell the employees to let him know if they saw any drug activity. Mr. Heriberto Velasco has never asked the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for assistance or suggestions with respect to preventing or eliminating drug activity on the licensed premises, even though the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco advises all licensees of the availability of such assistance. Mr. Heriberto Velasco did not have actual knowledge that drug transactions were taking place on the licensed premises. He is opposed to drug trafficking and he has not knowingly permitted sales of drugs in his hotel or on the licensed premises. He has instructed his employees in the hotel and in the restaurant to call him if they observe any drug related activity so that he can throw out anyone involved in such activity. He has thrown people out of the hotel when he suspected they were involved in drug related activities. The employees in the licensed premises never told him about any drug related activity on the premises. Mr. Velasco never observed any activity on the licensed premises that he thought was drug related activity. Mr. Velasco does not know what crack cocaine looks like. Mr. Eric Velasco is the 20-year-old son of Mr. Heriberto Velasco. The son lives at the hotel with his parents and helps with the management of the hotel and restaurant to the extent he can between going to college and working at another near-by job. Mr. Eric Velasco has never observed any activity in the licensed premises that appeared to him to be drug related activity. He does not know what crack cocaine looks like. In brief summary, the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place in plain view within the licensed premises. The open exchanges of drugs and money in conjunction with the open conversations about drug transactions demonstrate a persistent pattern of open and flagrant drug activity. The subject drug transactions were sufficiently open that they would have been noticed by a reasonably diligent licensee.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in this case revoking the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 23-3568, series 2-COP, for the premises located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1096 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Further, some details proposed in this paragraph are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Accepted in substance, with many subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21: Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by Respondent (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Gino P. Negretti, Esquire 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, Escandar, Inc. had a valid alcoholic beverage license, No. 23-1461 4 COP. The parties so stipulated. Rafael Escandar is president of Escandar, Inc. which owns the building in which he manages the "Apartment Lounge," a bar, featuring "female nude dancing as entertainment." (I T. 25) On August 5, 1981, petitioner formally advised respondent that solicitation by employees of alcoholic beverages from patrons was proscribed by law. The year before allegations of such offenses had resulted in a stipulated $500.00 penalty against respondent. On March 26, 1982, at about quarter past ten, Officers Louis J. Terminello, and Juanita Loud entered the Apartment Lounge, posing as customers. In a separate group, three other undercover agents, Officers Davis, Chastain and Iturralde also visited the establishment. The place was dark and noisy. Aside from illuminated exit signs, the only lights were on stage and in the girls' dressing room. Loud music but no light emanated from the juke box. People could not be heard from one table to the next and had to speak very loudly to be heard from one bar stool to the next. These conditions obtained on all subsequent visits, as well. Mr. Terminello and Ms. Loud struck up a conversation with Carol Brooks, a dancer who stopped at their table clad in a sheer negligee, between dances. They asked her for a gram of cocaine. She said she didn't think a gram was available on the premises, but took Ms. Loud back to the dressing room and gave her an amber glass vial containing a smaller amount of cocaine. On their return to the table where Mr. Terminello had stayed, he passed a ten dollar bill to Ms. Loud, who gave it to Ms. Brooks. At her request, Mr. Terminello bought Ms. Brooks a drink. At one point Terminello left the table for the bar, and another dancer, Lorrie Jobes, asked him for a drink, which he bought for her. Later, after the undercover officers brought up the subject of drugs, Ms. Jobes sold them a gram of cocaine for $70.00. The transaction took place in the women's restroom. Less than a gram may have in fact been involved, since the chemist received only two tenths of a gram of cocaine. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Both groups of undercover agents returned to the Apartment Lounge on the following Thursday, April 1, 1982. Terminello and Loud asked a third dancer, Bonnie Smith, about cocaine and purchased a small amount from her for $5.00. This transaction occurred at a table in the bar. The next night both groups showed up again. Mr. Terminello gave Lorrie Jobes $70.00 for a gram of cocaine which she delivered to him at his table shortly after midnight. At one point Ms. Loud left the table and a dancer offered to give Mr. Terminello a blow job in his car when she got off work for $20.00. Later another dancer, Jill Carpenter, offered to commit oral sex on her next break for $50.00 in the parking lot. Bonnie Smith told Terminello that Linda Vonluttichau, another dancer, had good cocaine for sale at $80.00 per gram with a two gram minimum. After speaking to Ms. Vonluttichau himself, Mr. Terminello left $160.00 inside a napkin on the bar. After she had picked up the money, she waved him over to the bar and gave him some cocaine in a Zip-Loc bag. Later Laurie Hegarty, a barmaid, asked Mr. Terminello if she could ingest some of the cocaine he had purchased because, she said, she had heard it was very good. He obliged. Still later, Mr. Terminello purchased half a gram of cocaine from Lorrie Jobes for $30.00. About twenty of eleven on the night of April 3, 1982, Officers Loud, Terminello, Chastain, Iturralde and Davis made a fourth visit to the Apartment Lounge. Bonnie Smith led Terminello to the women's restroom where he purchased half a gram of cocaine from one William Golden for $30.00. Later the same evening he bought a gram of cocaine for $80.00 from Linda Vonluttichau, which she delivered to him over the bar while Rafael Escandar was seated near the other end of the bar. Another visit by the undercover agents, on April 9, 1982, was no less eventful. Mr. Terminello purchased six Quaalude tablets from still another dancer, Ms. Chitty, a marijuana cigarette from Jill Carpenter for $2.00, and two ounces of marijuana from Sherry Mays, also a dancer at the Apartment Lounge, not to mention drinks for Ms. Chitty and Bonnie Smith. Sherry Mays asked Terminello to buy her a drink, as well. It was also Sherry Mays who, seeing that Mr. Terminello's shirt bore the legend "SUNOCO," indicated her willingness to "agree to exchange a tank full of gas for oral sex on a regular basis, two or three times a week." (II T. 8) After talking to Ms. Linda Vonluttichau about purchasing two grams of cocaine and at her direction, Mr. Terminello gave Ms. Hegarty $160.00. Ms. Vonluttichau later delivered the cocaine to Mr. Terminello at his table. Still later Mr. Terminello accompanied Ms. Hegarty to the women's rest room where she ingested some of the cocaine Mr. Terminello had just purchased. The undercover agents made a final visit to the Apartment Lounge on April 16, 1982. That night Rafael Escandar told Mr. Terminello that "an old friend of his in the North Miami Police Department . . . [advised that the bar was under investigation] for narcotics and that [Terminello] needed to be especially careful because the person who called him described [Terminello] and Loud as having bought narcotics on the premises. "So he cautioned me about being careful, that the police were going to arrest [Terminello and Loud] if they found [them] or something like that." (II T. 18-19) This was shortly before other beverage officers arrived and executed a search warrant. The search turned up about one fifth of a gram of cocaine. Petitioner's Exhibit Nob. 14. Rafael Escandar was on the licensed premises every night the undercover agents were there, except for April 1, 1982. He routinely spent time at the bar on a particular stool, in between bookkeeping chores that he performed in an office closed off from the bar's not inconsiderable distractions. As standard practice, hem and Barbara Abbott, who has worked at the Apartment Lounge for more than a decade, specifically warned the dancers, many of whom were transient, against prostitution, drug vending and solicitation of drinks. Dancers have been fired for failing to observe one or more of these prohibitions. According to Tom Mandy, formerly a police officer who visited the Apartment Lounge regularly "to make sure there was no prostitution going on in the place," II T. 223, and occasionally to evict unruly patrons, management's "rules" were strictly enforced, and Mr. Escandar, if the police "wanted people fired that [they] thought were undesirable . . . would fire them immediately. There wouldn't be any questions asked." (II T. 231) Nothing in the evidence suggested that Mr. Escandar expected any share of the money (or gasoline) solicited or obtained by the dancers in exchange for their illegal goods and services. Except for Laurie Hegarty and Linda Vonluttichau, who was employed as a barmaid for a year and a half, the offending employees had not worked long for the Apartment Lounge. Kimberly Chitty worked less than a full night, one of only 20 nights over a period of a few months. Generally, they were transients or "street girls." Lorrie Jobes worked only ten days, she was fired before the raid on April 16, 1982. The evidence did not show what extent, if any, Mr. Escandar or Escandar Inc. profitted from sales of drinks solicited by the dancers. Early on in the investigation, Mr. Escandar noticed officers Loud and Terminello. They stood out because they came together as a couple and because dancers congregated at their table. Mr. Escandar testified that he "never thought about drugs." II. T. 270 Instead, he said he "thought that they were there to have some, trying to make out, to get a party at the end of the night." II. T. 270 On April 16, 1982, Escandar testified, he decided they were undesirables and told them that the police were coming, in an effort to get them to leave the bar. He explained that he had not earlier sought to discourage their presence in the bar, "because the girls ke[pt] telling me that they were spending money." (II. T. 274) There was no evidence of drug sales to anybody other than undercover agents. Mr. Terminello and Ms. Loud developed a certain rapport with many of the dancers, one of whom propositioned Ms. Loud. In preparing the foregoing findings of fact, respondent's proposed findings of fact, to the extent they have been extricable from proposed conclusions of law, have been largely adopted, in substance. To the extent they have been rejected, they have been deemed irrelevant or unsupported by the weight of the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul R. Lipton, Esquire 1031 North Miami Beach Boulevard North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Captain John Harris Ernest R. Graham Building 1350 Northwest 12 Avenue Miami, Florida 33136 Charles A. Nuzum, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondents hold alcoholic beverage license number 60- 0122, series 2- COP, and do business at 704 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach under the name of The Brass Bull. Respondents have operated The Brass Bull for six years without any complaints from law enforcement agencies until the execution of a search warrant on the premises on November 29, 1994. On September 12, 1984 the Petitioner and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office began an investigation of The Brass Bull and met with a confidential informant, hereinafter referred to as CI, who was employed at the time as a dancer at The Brass Bull. The CI agreed to make introductions for law enforcement officers to employees on the premises and was paid $150 on November 26, 1964 for making these introductions. The CI had been placed on probation in July, 1983 and was on probation during this investigation. The CI's husband was placed on probation on September 11, 1984. On September 14, 1984 Investigator Kenneth Goodman, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, and Sergeant David R. Harris, Riviera Beach Police Department, entered the licensed premises and talked with a dancer identified as "Linda" about the purchase of some marijuana. Linda gave Investigator Goodman a single marijuana cigarette analyzed as containing 260 milligrams of cannabis, but she did not have any to sell. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris met another dancer on the premises, identified as "Sunrise," on September 19, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine. Sunrise was later identified as Dawn Birnbaum. Sgt. Harris gave Sunrise $40, she left the premises through the front door, returned in a few minutes and handed Sgt. Harris two aluminum foil packets later analyzed as containing 200 milligrams of cocaine. Investigator Goodman also purchased 100 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise on September 19, 1984. These sales took place on the premises while other patrons were present, although Sunrise left the premises to obtain the cocaine for the sales. On September 25, 1984, Sgt. Harris entered the licensed premises with Investigator Richard Walker, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Investigator Walker purchased 505 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise who left the premises to obtain the cocaine but returned to complete the sale on the premises. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were on the licensed premises on October 6, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase cocaine with a dancer identified as Christine Flynn. They each gave Flynn $45, she left the premises, returned and handed them each a plastic baggie containing a total of 590 milligrams of cocaine. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. On October 12, 1984, Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris entered the premises and met a waitress identified as April Finster. Investigator Goodman asked to buy some marijuana. She went into a back room on the premises and returned with one marijuana cigarette containing 300 milligrams of cannabis, which she gave to Investigator Goodman. On October 16, 1984, Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer identified as "Blondie" on the premises and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine from Blondie. The CI was present during this discussion, took $20 from Sgt. Harris, and then left the premises with Blondie. When Blondie and the CI returned, the CI gave Sgt. Harris a plastic bag which was heat sealed and filled with 110 milligrams of cocaine. Blondie stated that she always heat sealed her bags. Later Sgt. Harris gave Blondie $100, she brought him $70 change and then went into the dressing room. When Blondie exited the dressing room she approached the CI and they approached the table where Sgt. Harris was sitting. The CI placed a book of matches on the table and Blondie told Harris the cocaine was in the book of matches. Sgt. Harris found a heat sealed plastic bag containing 135 milligrams of cocaine in the matches. There were other patrons on the premises when these transactions took place. Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer named "Lola" on the premises on October 30, 1984. Sgt. Harris gave Lola $80, she entered the dressing room and then returned to where Sgt. Harris was seated with a white towel around her hand. Inside the towel was a bag containing 800 milligrams of cocaine. While on the premises with Sgt. Harris on October 31, 1984, Investigator Walker gave Lola $100. She left the premises and returned with a plastic bag containing 560 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Walker. On November 6, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris, and Investigator Goodman gave Lola $55. Lola approached a white male patron and then returned to Investigator Goodman and gave him a plastic bag containing 400 milligrams of cocaine. On November 20, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris. Lola approached Investigator Goodman and asked him if he wanted to buy some cocaine. He gave her $50, she left the premises and returned with a bag containing 300 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Goodman. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were also on the licensed premises on September 28, October 9 and 10, November 1 and 5. On each occasion they discussed the purchase of controlled substances as defined in Section 893.03, F.S., with Respondents' employees who were on the premises at the time of these discussions. No actual transactions took place on these dates. In brief summary of the foregoing, during the period of September 14 to November 20, 1984, transactions involving the sale of a total of 3.7 grams of cocaine and gifts of 560 milligrams of cannabis took place at The Brass Bull between Respondents' employees and Investigators Goodman and Walker, and Sgt. Harris. There were also five occasions when the purchase of controlled substances was discussed with Respondents' employees on the premises but no actual transaction took place. The CI was on the premises during most of these occasions, introducing the law enforcement officers to the various employees. The transactions usually took place while other patrons were on the premises, and included Respondents' employees passing the controlled substances on or above the table at which the officers were seated. On some occasions the employees left the premises after receiving money from the officers and returned a short time later with the controlled substance which they then gave to the officers on the premises. Respondents do not take an active role in managing The Brass Bull. They rely on a day manager and a night manager to hire, fire and discipline employees, to schedule the dancers, and to enforce the rules which are posted in the employees' dressing room. Rule 11 prohibits employees from having drugs or "liquors" on the premises, and states that anyone having these substances on the premises will be terminated immediately. Respondents never met with employees, other than their managers with whom they met or talked almost daily. Conversations and meetings with the managers were usually social, however, and generally did not involve business matters. Business meetings with the managers were held infrequently. Robert Meloche only visited the premises at 7:00 a.m. when no one else was present in order to review the prior night's receipts. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents employed various dancers on the licensed premises under the terms of an Entertainment Booking Agreement. All dancers were required to sign the booking agreement and agree to working conditions prescribed by the Respondents, including compensation arrangements, the number and color of their costumes, work hours, and the additional duties of cleaning and serving tables. Respondents also prescribed a set of seventeen (17) rules for all dancers and other employees. The above referenced individuals named Linda, Sunrise, Christine Flynn, April Finster, Blondie, Lola, and the Confidential Informant were employees of Respondents' at the licensed premises during the time relevant to this case. In making the above findings, the undersigned Hearing Officer has considered proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4., F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary or not based on competent substantial evidence. Specifically, Respondents' proposed findings as to Counts 14, 15 and 16 are rejected since they are not based on competent substantial evidence and are otherwise immaterial and irrelevant.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's license number 60-0122, series 2-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined for a violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes, a provision of the Florida Beverage Law, which prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor. At the formal hearing the Petitioner called as witnesses: Thomas L. Stout, Bernard W. Cooper, Timothy J. Culley, and Craig Brady Cooper. Mr. Antonino Sciarrino testified on behalf of respondent. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence two exhibits and the Respondent offered no exhibits into evidence. Both the Respondent and counsel for the Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the hearing officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions of law are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions contained within this order they were considered by the hearing officer and rejected as being unsupported by the evidence or unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this action the Respondent was the holder of beverage license number 21-478, Series 2COP. This license was issued for the licensed premises located at 499 Goodlette Road, Naples, Florida. The licensed premises is a convenience store that also sells various types of food and dry good items plus sandwiches and beer. The Goodlette Food Mart, Inc. is owned and managed by Antonino Sciarrino, the President of the Respondent corporation. The Goodlette Food Mart opened for business on January 1, 1982. Prior to this time Mr. Sciarrino operated a deli in New York City where he also sold beer. Sometime during October, 1982 (the specific date being unknown) , Craig Cooper, a minor, 16 years of age was stopped by a Naples police officer and found to be in the possession of a six-pack of beer. This beer had been purchased by Craig Cooper at the Goodlette Food Mart and he informed the police officer of this fact. Mr. Cooper was asked by the police officer if he would be willing to cooperate in a controlled buy at the Goodlette Food Mart. Mr. Cooper indicated that he would. Subsequent to the October stop Craig Cooper agreed to cooperate with the police in making a controlled purchase of alcoholic beverages at the Goodlette Food Mart and on November 6, 1982, Mr. Cooper was contacted by a Naples police officer and was given cash. He was asked to go to the Goodlette Food Mart and to use the cash he had been given to attempt to purchase alcoholic beverages. From the police station Craig Cooper drove to the Goodlette Food Mart and Officer Culley of the Naples Police Department followed him. While Craig Cooper went inside the Goodlette Food Mart Officer Culley observed from the parking lot, Craig Cooper entered the Goodlette Food Mart and went directly to the cooler area where soft drinks and alcoholic beverages are kept. He removed a six-pack of Heineken Beer. He then proceeded to the cash register and paid for the beer. The cashier on duty was Robert Peterson. He did not question Craig Cooper or ask him for any identification at the time that Mr. Cooper paid for the beer. Mr. Cooper then left the store and turned the beer over to Officer Culley. At the time of the purchase by Craig Cooper, the manager Antonino Sciarrino was not present in the store. Mr. Sciarrino, was in the store 10 to 12 hours a day, but was generally not present in the evenings. Robert Peterson had been hired as a part-time employee approximately two or three months prior to November 6, 1982. Mr. Sciarrino had no prior problems with Robert Peterson and was not aware of any instances where he had sold beer to minors. At the time Robert Peterson was hired, he was instructed to not sell to minors and to always ask for and check identification prior to selling alcoholic beverages. There was also a sign posted in the employees room where they clock in and clock out which warned them that they could be criminally prosecuted for failing to check identification and for selling alcoholic beverages to minors. The Goodlette Food Mart had a policy against selling to minors and all employees were instructed regarding this policy and were required to check identification prior to selling alcoholic beverages. There were signs posted on the cooler and the cash register informing customers that minors were prohibited from purchasing alcoholic beverages and that identification was required, There was also a sign next to the cash register which reminded the cashier to check the customers' I.D. when purchasing alcoholic beverages. This sign also gave the date and year which the birthdate on the identification had to predate in order for the person to purchase alcoholic beverages. The purpose of this sign was to enable employees to more efficiently and more accurately check identifications. Immediately following notification of the November 6, 1982, sale to Craig Cooper, Mr. Sciarrino terminated Robert Peterson's employment with the Goodlette Food Mart.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That thee Respondent be found not guilty of the violation charged in the Notice to Show Cause and that the charge be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of October, 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 14th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice G. Scott, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Antonino Sciarrino, President Goodlette Food Mart, Inc. 499 Goodlette Road Naples, Florida Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondents, Alejandrina Mora and Felix Aristides, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-4816, series 2-APS, and 23- 8295, series 2-COP, for the premises known as Las Tunas Market and Cafeteria, 628-30 6th Street, Miami Beach, Florida. In March 1988, Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), in conjunction with the Miami Beach Police Department (MBPD), began a narcotics investigation at the licensed premises. Previously, Sergeant Tom Hunker and Detective Walter Campbell of the MBPD had made several drug arrests at the licensed premises, and had warned the owners to stop such activities on their premises or their licenses would be subject to revocation. On March 8, 1988, DABT Investigator Oscar Santana, operating undercover, entered the licensed premises. During the course of his visit, he observed a male patron known as Junior sell what appeared to be rock cocaine to several persons both on and off the licensed premises. After observing the foregoing transactions, Investigator Santana approached Junior and asked him if he had any more to sell. In response, Junior handed Santana two crack cocaine rocks, for which Santana paid Junior $20. This transaction occurred in plan view of respondents' employee Gonzalo. 1/ On March 9, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Upon entering, Santana was approached by Junior who inquired as to whether he would be interested in purchasing some more cocaine. Santana responded affirmatively, and handed Junior $20. Junior then left the premises for a short time, and when he returned handed Santana two crack cocaine rocks. This transaction occurred at the counter, and in plain view of respondents' employee Gonzalo. After the foregoing transaction, Investigator Santana was approached by another patron known as Paul, who inquired whether he would be interested in buying some cocaine. Santana agreed to buy from Paul if he brought it to the licensed premises. Paul left the premises, returned shortly thereafter, and met Santana just outside the door. At that time, Santana paid Paul $30 in exchange for two crack cocaine rocks. During the course of this transaction, respondents' employees Ricky and Gonzalo were nearby. On March 10, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. During the course of his visit, Santana met with a patron known as Charlie, who offered to sell him some cocaine. Santana handed Charlie $20 and observed him leave the premises, walk across the street, and hand the money to another individual. Shortly thereafter, Charlie returned to the licensed premises and delivered the cocaine rocks to Santana. The exchange between Santana and Charlie took place in plain view and in the presence of respondents' employee Nene. On March 17, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Also on the premises that day were DABT Investigators Jenkins and Elkin, operating separately from Santana to provide backup for him. As he entered the premises, Santana seated himself with Junior and respondents' employee Ricky at a table by the front door. There, in front of Ricky, Santana purchased a cocaine rock from Junior for $20. Ricky, suspicious of Jenkins and Elkin, two female non-latins, warned Santana to be careful because the two females were police officers. On March 18, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Investigators Jenkins and Elkin, again operating separately from Santana, were also on the premises that day. Upon entering the premises, Santana was approached by a patron known as Reyna who inquired whether he was interested in purchasing some cocaine. Santana responded yes, handed Reyna $25, and Reyna left the premises. After Reyna left the premises, Santana seated himself at the front table. When Reyna returned, she sat down at the table with him and delivered, above the table, two cocaine rocks. This transaction took place in front of respondents' employee Ricky, who again warned Santana to beware of the police officers (Investigators Jenkins and Elkin). Later that day, Santana gave Junior $20 to purchase cocaine for him. When Junior delivered the rock cocaine to Santana it was done in plain view and in the presence of respondents' employees Gonzalo and Ricky. During the course of this visit to the premises, Investigators Jenkins and Elkin, also undercover, were seated separately from Santana. At some point they were joined by a male patron who later gave them two marijuana cigarettes. The investigators retired to the women's bathroom and burnt a marijuana cigarette to see what, if any, response it would bring. While one of respondents' employees entered the bathroom after they left, the aroma of marijuana brought no response. On March 21, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Upon entry, Santana, respondents' employee Gonzalo, and two black latin male patrons were the only persons present. These patrons approached Santana and inquired if he was interested in purchasing marijuana. Santana responded yes, and paid the men $20 for approximately one ounce of marijuana. This transaction occurred in plain view, and in the presence of Gonzalo. On March 24, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. During the course of his visit he met with Junior inside the bathroom, and purchased two cocaine rocks for $40. On March 25, 1988, Investigator Santana returned to the licensed premises. Santana was approached by Junior who inquired whether he was interested in purchasing some cocaine. Santana handed Junior $40, and Junior left the premises to get the cocaine. Upon his return, Junior placed the cocaine rocks on the counter in front of Santana. This transaction occurred in plain view, and in the presence of respondents' employees Gonzalo and Ricky. All of the events summarized in the proceeding paragraphs took place at the licensed premises during normal business hours. At no time did respondents' employees express concern about any of the drug transactions. In fact, the proof demonstrates that all of the employees knew that marijuana and cocaine were being sold on the licensed premises on a regular, frequent and flagrant basis. Neither respondents, who were on notice of such activities, nor any of their employees, took any action to prevent, discourage, or terminate the sale of any controlled substance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 23-4816, series 2-APS, and alcoholic beverage license number 23-8295, series 2-COP, issued to Alejandrina Mora and Felix Aristid d/b/a Las Tunas Market and Cafeteria, for the premises located at 628-30 6th Street, Miami Beach, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of April, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1988.
The Issue Whether or not on or about August 9, 1975, Martha L. Washington, a licensed vendor did have in her place of business, one (1) four-fifths brokenseal bottle of Barcardi Rum, Light, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to Section 562.02, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that a civil penalty in the amount of $200.00 be imposed against the license of Martha L. Washington for the violation established through the allegation of the subject Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Martha L. Washington 1085 Palmetto Street Bartow, Florida
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Florida corporation. Gary Popkin is its sole corporate officer and stockholder. He holds the positions of President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the holder of alcoholic beverage license #16- 03 032 2-COP issued by Petitioner. The licensed business is a bar that operates under the name of Lynda's Lounge. It is located at 8007-8009 Kimberly Boulevard in North Lauderdale, Florida. C.G. is a paid confidential informant. The North Lauderdale Police Department is among the law enforcement agencies for whom he works. On the afternoon of July 19, 1989, C.G. entered Lynda's Lounge, sat down and ordered a drink. While in the bar, C.G. was approached by Vinnie Lavarello, another of the bar's patrons. They were joined by Popkin. A conversation ensued. Popkin advised C.G. that he had some "good pot" and asked him if he wanted to buy some. He suggested that C.G. act quickly because he only had a little left. Both Popkin and Lavarello told C.G. that there was no need to worry because everyone in the bar "smoked pot" and was "cool." C.G. informed Popkin that he would "let him know." He thereupon left the bar and paged Detective Gary Harris of the North Lauderdale Police Department. Harris instructed C.G. to meet him at the North Lauderdale police station, which is a short distance from the bar. In accordance with Harris' instructions, C.G. went to the police station. He provided Harris with a description of Lavarello and Popkin, as well as their names. Harris searched C.G. and C.G.'s car for drugs and found none. He then gave C.G. $20.00 with which to purchase marijuana from Popkin. C.G. drove back to the bar. He was followed by Harris in another vehicle. They arrived at the bar at approximately 5:55 p.m.. C.G. entered the bar, while Harris waited outside. Once in the bar, C.G. walked up to Lavarello and indicated that he was interested in consummating the deal they had discussed earlier that day. Popkin apparently overheard C.G. He gave C.G. a package containing marijuana (cannabis). In return, C.G. gave Popkin the $20.00 he had been given by Harris. Following this transaction, there was a discussion concerning the possibility of C.G. purchasing additional drugs, including cocaine, from Popkin. Popkin quoted C.G. prices for various quantities of the drug and encouraged C.G. to come back and do business with him. At approximately 6:10 p.m., fifteen minutes after he entered the bar, C.G. left and drove in his vehicle to a prearranged location to meet Harris. Harris observed C.G. leave the bar and followed C.G. in his vehicle to their predetermined meeting place. After they both exited their vehicles, C.G. handed Harris the marijuana he had purchased from Popkin and told Harris what had happened in the bar. Harris field tested the marijuana. It tested positive. Harris placed the marijuana in a sealed bag and forwarded it to the crime laboratory of the Broward Sheriff's Office. Tests performed at the crime laboratory reflected that the substance that Popkin had sold C.G. was indeed marijuana. After consulting with Harris regarding the matter, C.G. returned to Lynda's Lounge on July 21, 1989, to make arrangements to purchase an ounce of cocaine. As he had been told to do by Popkin, C.G. discussed the matter with Lavarello. C.G. and Lavarello agreed on a purchase price. C.G. then left the bar to get money to make the purchase. After leaving the bar, C.G. went to the North Lauderdale police station and met with Harris. Harris searched C.G. and C.G.'s vehicle for drugs and found none. He then gave C.G. money with which to purchase an ounce of cocaine from Lavarello. Although C.G. and Lavarello had agreed upon a purchase price of $700.00, because it is a common practice of drug dealers to raise their prices immediately before the transaction is to take place, Harris gave C.G. $800.00 in the event Lavarello raised his price. C.G. then drove back to the bar, followed by Harris in another vehicle. After parking, C.G. exited his vehicle and entered the bar. Harris remained outside, across the street from the bar. C.G. approached Lavarello. It was too noisy inside the bar to talk so C.G. and Lavarello left and continued their conversation in C.G.'s vehicle, which was parked in the lot in front of the bar. Lavarello indicated to C.G. that he did not have the cocaine with him and needed to pick it up, but that C.G. would have to give him the entire purchase price before he did so. C.G. then excused himself. He thereupon contacted Harris and they both returned to the North Lauderdale police station. Harris did not want C.G. to give Lavarello that much money and have to wait for the cocaine to be delivered. He therefore decided to have C.G. purchase an eighth of an ounce, instead of an ounce, of cocaine from Lavarello, the purchase price of which, C.G. had been told, was $150.00. Accordingly, Harris took back $600.00 of the $800.00 he had given C.G. earlier that day. Harris then again searched C.G. for drugs and found none. C.G. thereupon headed directly back to the bar, with Harris following behind him in another vehicle. C.G. met with Lavarello at the bar. He told Lavarello that he wanted to purchase a eighth of an ounce, rather than an ounce, of cocaine. He gave Lavarello $200.00 and made arrangements to meet Lavarello later that day at the bar to receive delivery of the cocaine he had purchased. At Lavarello's request, C.G. drove Lavarello to Lavarello's girlfriend's house. C.G. then returned to the North Lauderdale police station. At all times during this journey, C.G. and his vehicle were under Harris' observation. At the police station, Harris again searched C.G. for contraband and found none. Later that day, C.G. and Harris went back to Lynda's Lounge in separate vehicles. Harris remained outside, as C.G. exited his vehicle and headed towards the front door of the bar, where he encountered Lavarello. C.G. and Lavarello then proceeded to C.G.'s vehicle, where Lavarello handed C.G. a package containing cocaine. Upon receiving the package, C.G. complained that it appeared that he had received less cocaine than he had been promised. Lavarello admitted that he had given his girlfriend some of the cocaine that originally had been intended for C.G. To compensate for the missing cocaine, Lavarello gave C.G. a package containing marijuana. In addition to the cocaine and marijuana, Lavarello also gave C.G. a $20.00 bill and a gas receipt reflecting the amount of money he had paid for gasoline during his trip to pick up the cocaine. Following this transaction, C.G. and Lavarello went their separate ways. As he had done after the buy he had made on July 19, 1989, C.G. met Harris at a prearranged location. He handed Harris everything that Lavarello had given him. Harris searched C.G. and found no additional contraband. Harris then field tested both the cocaine and the marijuana. The test results were positive. After conducting these field tests, Harris placed the cocaine and marijuana in a sealed bag and forwarded the bag to the crime laboratory of the Broward Sheriff's Office. Tests performed at the crime laboratory reflected that the substances in question were indeed cocaine and marijuana. Popkin and Lavarello were subsequently arrested by Harris. 1/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes, charged in the January 9, 1990, Notice to Show Cause and revoking alcoholic beverage license #16-03032 2- COP held by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this & day of October, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on grounds that (1) on several occasions, cocaine was possessed, sold, or delivered on the licensed premises by Respondent's employees in violation of state law, and (2) by virtue of such Possession, sale, or delivery of cocaine by its employees, Respondent maintained a public nuisance on the licensed premises.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Provende, Inc., a general partner in a limited partnership known as Alexandre, Ltd., is responsible for and operates a nightclub under the name of Club Alexandre (the "Club") at 1601 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. In connection with its operation of Club Alexandre, Respondent holds beverage license No. 23-3953, Series No. 4-COP-SRX, which permits the sale and consumption of intoxicating beverages on the premises. (Stipulation of Parties, Testimony of Cachaldore.) Club Alexandre, located within the Omni International complex, is a large, multi-faceted club. Its premises consists of two levels totaling approximately 30,000 square feet. The first level includes a restaurant, bar area, three separate dance floors, bathroom facilities, and a stage for entertainment. Buffet lunches are served as early as 11:30 a.m., followed by a cocktail hour in late afternoon, dinner, and live entertainment which continues until 3:00 a.m. The second level is used primarily for private parties, weddings, and business meetings; it is enclosed in glass, and includes banquet rooms, bathroom facilities, storage rooms, and the Club's business offices. Ordinarily, the Club employs from 45 to 50 persons as busboys, bartenders, barmaids, waiters, maitre d's, cooks, dishwashers, office staff, promoters, and buyers. Most of the employees have been hired by Alex Cachaldora--general manager of the Club, stockholder, and president of Respondent. He either hires or approves the hiring of all Club employees and is the individual responsible for managing the Club on a daily basis. (Testimony of Cachaldora.) Club Alexandre is a semi-private club. Upon application, acceptance, and payment of a fee, persons may become members; public customers may also use the Club after screening at the entrance and payment of a cover charge. (Testimony of Cachaldora.) I. As to Count I On November 23, 1980, at approximately 12:10 a.m., D.C. Diaz--an off- duty officer of the Miami Police Department--paid a cover charge and entered the Club Alexandre. He sat at the bar counter, ordered a drink from a young barmaid dressed in a black uniform, and asked her if she could give him some "white magic", a street term referring to cocaine. She asked how much he wanted, he said "one gram"; she then informed him that the price would be $65. (Testimony of Diaz.) Diaz then gave the barmaid a $100 bill; she went to the cash register and returned with $35 in change which he gave to Diaz. She told him, "It will take between five and ten minutes." (Tr. 22-I-22.) Five to ten minutes later, a waiter--dressed in a black tuxedo-type shirt--approached from the restaurant area and gave the barmaid a folded napkin which she, in turn, gave to Diaz. He opened the napkin and found a small tinfoil packet inside containing a white powder which he suspected to be cocaine. (Testimony of Diaz.) Subsequent laboratory tests by the Metropolitan Dade County Public Safety Department confirmed that the white powder obtained by Diaz from the barmaid on November 23, 1980, was cocaine. II. As to Count 2 On January 23, 1981, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Beverage Officers Carmen Gonzalez and Joe Mato, together with Art Serig of the Miami Police Department, entered the Club Alexandre for the purpose of conducting an undercover narcotics investigation. They proceeded to the second floor area, sat at a table, and ordered drinks. (Testimony of Mato.) At approximately 12:25 am. (January 24, 1981), Officer Mato proceeded to the downstairs bar where a barmaid identified as Enid Epstein was tending bar. After ordering a drink, he asked her if she knew where he could obtain some "white magic"; she answered, "Yes, if he is still here it would be $65."(Tr. 22-I-53.) He agreed to the price and handed her $70. She took the money and proceeded to the kitchen area located in the rear of the premises. A few minutes later, he observed her running across the upstairs lounge area to the bar. After a brief delay, she proceeded toward the downstairs bathroom area. She then returned to Officer Mate, handed him a $5 bill folded into a small package, and explained, "This is the change that I owed you." (Tr. 22-I- 54.) He opened the folded $5 bill and found a small tinfoil packet containing a white powder which he suspected to be cocaine. (Testimony of Mato.) Subsequent Dade Public Safety Department laboratory tests confirmed that the white powder obtained by Officer Mato from Enid Epstein was cocaine. (P-2.) III. As to Count 3 On January 24, 1981, at approximately 9:20 p.m., undercover Beverage Officers Lou Clark end Lou Terminello entered the Club Alexandre for the purpose of continuing the Division's narcotic investigation. They seated themselves at the downstairs bar area end ordered drinks from a male bartender who introduced himself as "Bill", later identified as William Mendel. Officer Clark told "Bill" that they had picked up a couple of girls and asked if there was anything to help with the party. A conversation ensued about there being a lot of "snow" in Kansas--Clark using the term's ordinary meaning--and "Bill" answering, "That is not the kind of snow I was referring to." (Tr. 22-I-132.) In response to Clark's question about obtaining something that might help with their party, "Bill" indicated his contact wasn't there at that time, but that "they should be in later." (Tr. 22-I-133.) Officers Clark and Terminello then left the premises. (Testimony of Clark, Terminello.) About an hour later, the two beverage officers returned to the premises, and seated themselves at the downstairs bar. They ordered a drink from "Bill" and asked if his contact had arrived. He went over and talked to a young red-haired female barmaid--later identified as Enid Epstein-and returned to the officers; he then wrote "75" on a white bar napkin and placed it on the counter in front of them. Terminello said, "That is fine, we'll take two" (Tr. 22-I-136) and laid $80 on the table. Clark laid dawn a $100 bill. "Bill" took the $100, and $56 from Terminello's $80, leaving $24 in change. 4/ "Bill" then rang up a $6 sale an the register and placed the rest of the money in the right vest pocket of Enid Epstein. She then left the bar and proceeded into the kitchen area. A few minutes later she returned--via the staircase leading from the second floor--folded an unidentified object into a napkin, and handed it to Bill. He, in turn, handed the napkin to Terminello. After finding two small tinfoil packets in the napkin, the officers departed the premises. (Testimony of Terminello, Clark.) The two small packets contained a white powder. Subsequent Public Safety Department laboratory tests identified the white powder contained in one of the packets as cocaine. 5/ IV. As to Count 4 After his initial drug transaction with barmaid Enid Epstein during the early morning hours of January 24, 1981, (Paragraph 7 through 9, Count 2, above) Officer Mato returned to the Club Alexandre with Beverage Officer Emil Marrero. They arrived shortly before midnight on January 24, 1981, and seated themselves on opposite ends of the downstairs bar. After ordering drinks, Officer Mato called over barmaid Enid Epstein--who was tending bar--placed $70 on the bar and told her he would like to purchase some "white magic", another street name referring to cocaine. She took the money and proceeded to the kitchen area, then returned and handed Mato a folded $5 bill containing a small tinfoil packet. A few minutes later, the beverage officers departed the premises. (Testimony of Mato, Merrero.) The small tinfoil packet contained white powder which subsequent Public Safety Department laboratory tests identified as cocaine. (P-2.) V As to Count 5 At 11:00 p.m., on January 27, 1981, Beverage Officers Marrero and Delmonte entered the Club Alexandre and seated themselves at the downstairs bar. They ordered drinks from barmaid Enid Epstein. Shortly after midnight Merrero folded $70 in a small packet and placed it on the bar; he then asked Epstein if he could buy some "white magic", meaning cocaine. Taking the money, she went to the kitchen area and returned, placing a folded $5 bill in front of Marrero. Inside the folded bill was a small tinfoil packet. The officers then left the premises. (Testimony of Marrero, Delmonte.) Subsequent Public Safety Department laboratory analysis identified the contents of the tinfoil packet as cocaine. (P-3.) VI. As to Count 6 On January 28, 1981, at 12:45 a.m., Officers Clark and Terminello returned to the Club Alexandre in furtherance of their narcotics investigation. Seated at the lower level bar, they ordered drinks from Enid Epstein, the barmaid. Shortly thereafter, Terminello called her over end asked her if there was any chance of their getting some more "toot", another slang ward for cocaine. She replied that she would have to check to "see if any of my people are here." (Tr. 22-I-104.) She then left the bar, walked to the rear kitchen area and returned several minutes later saying, "Yeah, no problem. There is somebody here." Id. Each officer then placed $75 on the bar; she retrieved the money, left for the kitchen area and returned with a folded napkin which contained two small tinfoil packets. (Testimony of Clark, Terminello.) Subsequent Public Safety Department laboratory analysis identified the contents of one of the packets as cocaine. 6/ (P-5.) VII. As to Count 7 On January 29, 1981, at approximately 11:40 p.m. beverage officers, assisted by officers of the Miami Police Department, executed a search warrant on the premises of the Club Alexandre. During the search, Beverage Officer Joseph Maggio found a brown leather purse on a shelf in a locked storage room on the second floor. The outside pocket of the purse contained ten small tinfoil packets containing a white powder suspected to be cocaine. A further search of the purse revealed small baggies and six additional tinfoil packets--all containing suspected cocaine. (Testimony of Maggio, McEwan.) The purse also contained a checkbook and a Florida driver's license issued in the name of Luis A. Vargas. Vargas, the head chef for Club Alexandre, was subsequently located downstairs. After being advised of his rights, Vargas identified the purse as his own. Of the numerous packets of white powder found within the purse, only one was subjected to Public Safety Department laboratory analysis; the contents of that packet were identified as cocaine. (P-7.) VIII. Licensee's Duty to Exercise Reasonable Care end Diligence Before a beverage license can be suspended or revoked for a violation of law on the licensee's premises, the licensee must be found culpably responsible for the violation through his own negligence, intentional wrongdoing, or lack of diligence. 7/ In the instant case, no intentional wrongdoing by Respondent has been alleged or proved. Rather, the Division contends that the violations of state narcotics laws described above resulted from Respondent's failure to exercise reasonable skill and diligence in managing and supervising its operations. Respondent does not dispute that on seven occasions, as alleged, violations of state narcotics laws occurred on the premises; however, it denys negligence or lack of diligence. It affirmatively contends that it took every reasonable precaution to guard against the illegal sale or use of narcotics on the licensed premises. (Testimony of Cachaldora, Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, Respondent's Suggested Findings of Fact.) Respondent's contention is unavailing; the evidence establishes that Respondent failed to take reasonable precautions to guard against violations of narcotics laws on its premises--that Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care end diligence in managing its operations and supervising its employees. The following facts justify this conclusion: The alleged violations of narcotics laws occurred on the premises in a recurring, persistent, and practiced manner. They occurred at least seven times--over a 2 1/2- month period--and involved at least three separate employees of the Respondent. Despite the licensee's knowledge or suspicion, through its operators and managers, that violations of state narcotics laws occasionally occurred on it premises, the licensee never expressly enunciated--either to its employees or patrons--a policy forbidding the possession, sale, or use of narcotics. Employees were not admonished against involving themselves in such violations; neither were penalties for such violations announced in advance. Neither was information concerning possible narcotics law violations or convictions elicited from prospective employees. Given the nature and size of the Club, the number of its employees end patrons, and management's knowledge, or suspicion, that narcotics violations had occurred on the premises--the licensee took inadequate steps to (1) monitor activities on the premises, and (2) detect narcotics violations and prevent their occurrence. It employed off-duty Omni security guards only during times when business activity was greatest. At all other times, it relied on its employees for surveillance and security. The place where narcotics violations were most likely to occur--the bathroom facilities on two floors--were monitored by a single valet with minimal security training and who could neither speak nor understand English. The security efforts by the licensee were directed more to controlling disturbing or offensive behavior by patrons than pretending violations of law from occurring on the premises, or taking forceful action when such violations were detected. The quality of the licensee's surveillance program is illustrated by an experiment conducted by Beverage Officer Delmonte. On January 14, 1981--while at the Club with Beverage Officer Marrero--he observed several persons in the men's bathroom with running eyes and noses. During that same visit, Officer Marrero observed several waiters and a patron in the bathroom "sniffing something through their nostrils." (Tr. 22-I-78.) The Respondent's valet was also present in the bathroom at the time. On Officer Delmonte's next visit to the Club--January 27, 1981--he decided to conduct an experiment because of the suspicious activities observed on January 14, 1981. He went to the bathroom with a dollar bill rolled into a small tube; he placed it to his nostril and pretended to inhale something. The valet came in, observed this behavior, and acted surprised. Delmonte then acted embarrassed, smiled, and placed the dollar back in his pocket. After the valet handed him a kleenex, Delmonte exited the bathroom with the valet following him. At the foyer, the valet spoke with an older lady wearing a dark dress; the lady then engaged in a casual conversation with Delmonte and Enid Epstein--who was tending bar. Nothing further occurred in response to Officer Delmonte's experiment. (Testimony of Delmonte, Mendel, McEwen, Maggie, Mato, Clerk, Terminello, Marrero, Guerre, Robertson, Cachaldora, Puig; R-3, R-7.) Respondent's suggested findings of fact are adopted to the extent they establish: (1) Between November 23, 1980, and January 28, 1981, law enforcement officers made numerous undercover visits to the Club when they did not, or were unable to purchase illicit narcotics on the premises; (2) During undercover visits during the period in question--except for the January 14, 1881, incident in the men's bathroom end the incidents alleged in Counts 1 through 7--the officers did not observe anyone using or selling illicit narcotics or marijuana. Moreover, two off-duty police officers who sometimes socially visited the Club-- and were encouraged to do so by Respondent--did not observe any narcotics violations taking place; (3) Each sale of cocaine, as alleged, was preceded by a law enforcement officer's solicitation to purchase; and (4) Unless observed in the act, it is difficult to ascertain--with certainty--whether a person uses, sells, or is inclined to use or sell narcotics. (Testimony of Stillman, Diaz, Sokolowski, Delmonte, Mandel, McEwen, Maggie, Mato, Clark, Terminello, Marrero, Guerra, Robertson.) IX. Appropriate Disciplinary Penalty No aggravating evidence was offered by the Division to justify permanent license revocation; no intentional wrongdoing by Respondent, or its manager, has been shown. Respondent has no record of prior infractions of the Beverage Law. There is no evidence which indicates that Respondent's operator, Alex Cachaldora, was aware that several of his employees were involved with illicit narcotics. In light of the facts of this case, permanent revocation of Respondent's beverage license is unwarranted; rather, a 90-day suspension is appropriate, less any days during which Respondent's beverage license has been effectively suspended by emergency order of the Division. (Testimony of Cachaldora.) Both parties have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration in this proceeding. To the extent such findings have not been adopted or incorporated in this Recommended Order, they are rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to resolution of the issues presented or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, It is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter a final order suspending Respondent's beverage license No. 23-3953, Series No. 4-COP-SRX, for 90 days; provided, however, to the extent Respondent's license may have been effectively suspended by prior emergency order of the Division, the period of such emergency suspension should be subtracted from the 90-day period. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 56-526, Series 2-COP. The licensed premises is known as the "Green Frog" and is located at 1216 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The corporate officers of Respondent are Charles J. Schoener, Marlene D. Schoener, Mitch M. Smith and Charles M. Hall. On September 27, 1983, Investigator Robert Randle of the Gulf Breeze Police Department was approached by two individuals as he exited the licensed premises of the Green Frog and was asked if he wanted to purchase some marijuana. While discussing the marijuana purchase, Randle was approached by the Green Frog doorman who was working on the premises that night. The doorman, known as "Animal," inquired of Randle if he wanted to buy a small quantity of cocaine and displayed a small plastic baggie containing a white substance which he offered to sell for $30. After paying the doorman $30 for the small package represented to be cocaine, Randle submitted the contents for chemical analysis. Subsequent analysis revealed the presence of no controlled substance. On or about February 18, 1984, Officer Randle again entered the licensed premises of the Green Frog in an undercover capacity. While on the licensed premises, Randle contacted a dancer known as "Angel." Randle asked Angel where he could obtain some narcotics and she directed him to her apartment. Randle went to the apartment but was unable to purchase any drugs. He returned to the Green Frog and told Angel that he had been unsuccessful. She left Randle's presence but later delivered a partial marijuana cigarette to him on the licensed premises. Subsequent analysis of the partial cigarette showed the contents to be cannabis/marijuana. On or about February 28, 1984, Officer Randle again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. On this date, he made contact with a dancer known as "Sugar" and asked her if he could obtain some marijuana or cocaine. Sugar directed Randle to the dancer Angel's apartment where he was told he could purchase a baggie of marijuana. Upon reaching the apartment Officer Randle informed Angel that Sugar had told him he could buy a bag of marijuana from her. At this time Angel sold a baggie of marijuana to Officer Randle for $25. Subsequent analysis of the baggie's contents revealed that it contained cannabis/marijuana. On or about March 6, 1984, Officer Randle returned to the licensed premises as part of this investigation. Upon entering, Randle engaged the dancer Sugar in conversation and advised her he was looking for narcotics. Shortly thereafter, Sugar told Randle he could purchase one-quarter gram of cocaine for $25. Later, she informed him that she was obtaining the cocaine from another dancer who would only sell half-gram amounts for $50. Randle then gave Sugar $50 and observed Sugar leave his table, speak to an unidentified dancer and return to his table. Sugar then handed Randle a plastic baggie containing a white powdery substance. Subsequent analysis of the contents of the bag showed that it contained cocaine. On or about March 17, 1984, Officer Randle again entered the licensed premises as part of the ongoing investigation. Randle made contact with the dancer "Kelly" and the dancer "Lisa." Randle told Kelly that he had "scored" some good cocaine previously from the dancer Sugar and that he was looking for her. In response to this statement, Kelly informed Randle that she had supplied Sugar with the cocaine and that she could sell him a half-gram of cocaine for $50 that evening. Later, Randle was approached by the dancer Lisa who asked him if he was holding some cocaine. Randle informed her that he was looking for cocaine and asked her if she could sell him some. Lisa also told him that she was waiting for her supplier and that she would sell him a $50 package when the supplier arrived. While waiting for the supplier to arrive on the premises, Randle was again approached by Lisa who gave him the phone number of her supplier and suggested he call the supplier and tell him to come to the licensed premises with the cocaine. Later, a male patron arrived at the premises and was observed talking to Lisa by Randle. Shortly thereafter, both Lisa and Kelly delivered small plastic baggies containing white substances to Randle who was seated at a table. Both deliveries were made inside the lounge in plain view. Subsequent analysis confirmed that both packages contained cocaine. Beginning around late February 1984, Mr. Tim Forehand regularly sold and supplied cocaine on the licensed premises. His sales were generally in one- half gram packages and the dollar amount of such sales on the licensed premises ranged from $200 to $1800 per night. Forehand supplied the cocaine on March 17, 1984, to the dancers Lisa and Kelly who then sold this substance to Officer Randle. Forehand also sold cocaine six or eight times to a corporate officer's son, David Schoener, who worked as a bartender on the licensed premises. On one occasion, Charles Schoener barred Forehand from the licensed premises for dealing drugs. He was, however, allowed back onto the premises within one week, The testimony of Lisa Dixon, Melissa Crawford (a/k/a Sugar) and Tim Forehand indicated that drug use and sales in the licensed premises were open and extensive. Sugar testified that see had used cocaine with Charles Hall, an officer-owner, on the licensed premises. Similarly, Lisa Dixon testified that she was in the presence of Charles Schoener on an occasion when he used cocaine in the licensed premises. In their testimony, Charles Schoener and Charles Hall denied using drugs on the licensed premises. Their testimony and that of a third owner- manager, Mitch Smith, a bartender, Jim Ellis, and a dancer, Evangeline Potts, indicated that drug use and sales were rarely observed and that action was taken to bar customers or warn employees when such incidents occurred. The documentary evidence and testimony of both Petitioner's and Respondent's witnesses established that Respondent had a stated policy against drug use or possession on the premises. Employee rules to this effect had been adopted and posted for over a year and periodic employee meetings were held at which the no drug policy was discussed. However, enforcement was not vigorous as indicated by the fact that Forehand was allowed to return to the Green Frog even though he had earlier been barred for drug activity. Further, Charles Schoener, the corporation president, did not discharge the dancer Kelly, even when he suspected her of illegal drug activity on the licensed premises. Much of the testimony of the witnesses with the exception of Officer Randle and Officer Kiker (who was not directly involved), was self-serving and lacking in credibility. Forehand, Dixon and Crawford have all been arrested and charged with criminal offenses. They were advised that their cooperation in this proceeding could favorably effect their sentences if convicted. Respondent's witnesses are owners and employees of the licensed premises, and thus have a stake in preserving the beverage license. In addition to their denials, the purported use of cocaine by Charles Schoener and Charles Hall on the licensed premises in the presence of their employees is inconsistent with their efforts to prohibit or at least discourage drug use. Further, the testimony of Officer Randle indicates that drug sales and use were not "wide open" as claimed by Petitioner's other witnesses. Randle visited the licensed premises in an undercover capacity on numerous occasions beginning September 27, 1983, but was not able to obtain a delivery of a controlled substance until February 18, 1984.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of 90 days, including the emergency suspension now in effect. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 17th day of April, 1984.
The Issue Whether the respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined on charges of violating Chapters 561 and 562, Fla. Stat. (1981), the Florida Beverage Law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked for multiple violations of the Beverage Law. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1983.
