The Issue This case concerns an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent. Count I to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: Penny Reid, related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on July 26, 1981, and August 22, 1981. Count II to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13 (1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: Penny Reid, related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on July 16, 1981, and July 20, 1981, and September 9, 1981. In addition, there are allegations of a sale of lysergic acid diethylamid, on July 16, 1981. 2/ Count III to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Eve" related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on August 14, 1981, and with the sale of the substance cocaine, on August 15, 1981. Count IV to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03 and 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Kitty," related to sales of the substance methaqualone, on August 15, 1981, and with the sale of the substance cocaine on September 26, 1981. Count V to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03, 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Orlando," related to sales of the substance cannabis, on July 26, 1981. Count VI to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violations of Sections 893.03, 893.13(1)(a) and 561.29, Florida Statutes, by actions of one of its agents, servants or employees, namely: "Julie," related to sales of the substance cocaine on September 26, 1981. Count VII to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent, between July 16, 1981, and October 2, 1981, of maintaining a place, namely the licensed premises, which was used for keeping or selling controlled substances, in particular methaqualone, cocaine and cannabis, in violation of Subsections 893.13(2)(a).5 and 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Count VIII contends that between July 16, 1981, and October 2, 1981, the Respondent, by actions of its agents, servants or employees and patrons, kept or maintained the building or place which was used for illegal keeping, selling or delivering of substances controlled under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, and in doing so violated Section 823.10, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Count IX accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Annie D. Bryant, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count X accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Danita Buchin, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count XI accuses the Respondent of allowing its agent, servant or employee, Barbara Jean O'Rourke, to unlawfully possess a controlled substance on the licensed premises, namely, marijuana, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count XII accuses the Respondent, on April 20, 1981, through its corporate officers, directors, stockholders, employees, agents, or servants, of failing to file a sworn declaration of the transfer of voting stock of the corporate licensee, in violation of Rule 7A-3.37, Florida Administrative Code. Count XIII accuses the Respondent, through actions of its corporate officers, directors, stockholders, employees, agents, or servants, on May 4, 1981, of failing to notify the Petitioner of a change of corporate officers within ten (10) days of that change, in particular, within ten (10) days of the resignation of George and Florrie Pappas, as corporate officers and directors of the corporate licensee, in violation of Rule 7A-2.07(2), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Effective August 18, 1980, Pappas Enterprises, Inc., which trades or does business as Foremost Liquors and Hideaway Lounge, at 1005 East 49th Street, in Hialeah, Dade County, Florida, was licensed by the Petitioner to sell alcoholic beverages. At that time, the sole officers listed for the corporation were George and Florrie Pappas. George Pappas was listed as the sole shareholder. In May, 1981, Miguel Rodriguez purchased the shares in the corporation, Pappas Enterprises, Inc. At that time, in his attorney's office, he executed a personal data sheet and certificate of incumbency for the benefit of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; however, this personal data sheet proposing Rodriguez as a new officer and shareholder of the subject corporation was not filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco until October 14, 1981. Furthermore, the first official request for change of corporate officers, owners and shareholders from the Pappases to Rodriguez was not filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco until November 4, 1981. Prior to October 14, 1981, the Respondent corporation, in the person of Miguel Rodriguez, was served with a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint containing the first eight (8) counts alluded to in the Issues statement in this Recommended Order. The date of this service was October 2, 1981. Subsequent to that time, an amendment was allowed adding the remaining counts to the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent, through actions of Miguel Rodriguez, in his effort to protect his interest in the Respondent corporation, which he had purchased, and in view of the fact that he had effective control of the licensed premises during all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, has requested a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, following service of him at the licensed premises as agent in fact for the corporation. The hearing was allowed to go forward upon the request made by Rodriguez because Rodriguez's substantial interests are at stake. The requested transfer of ownership and substitution of officers filed on November 4, 1981, is unresolved pending the outcome of the proceedings herein. See Subsection 561.32(2), Florida Statutes. On July 15, 1981, in the evening hours, Beverage Officer, Louis J. Terminello, went to the licensed premises known as the Hideaway for purposes of conducting an undercover narcotics investigation. Once he had entered the premises, he spoke with one of the employees, Penny Reid, a dancer. Upon his inquiry concerning the subject of narcotics Reid told him that she would sell him methaqualone tablets for $3.00 each and lysergic acid diethylamid (LSD) for $5.00 per dosage. In order to consummate the transaction, she explained that she would need to leave the licensed premises. Around 12:15 A.M. on July 16, 1981, Reid approached Miguel Rodriguez and asked permission to leave the licensed premises. She was granted that permission and Reid and Terminello went to a residence location off the licensed premises where a purchase was made of ten (10) methaqualone tablets and four (4) units of LSD at the unit prices as have been indicated. The Beverage Officer and dancer then returned to the licensed premises around 1:30 A.M. On July 20, 1981, at around 9:45 P.M., Officer Robert Chastain entered the licensed premises and spoke with Penny Reid. This conversation ensued when Reid approached Chastain. The subject of drugs was discussed and subsequent to that time, Reid received permission to leave the licensed premises. (She was still employed by the Respondent.) On the date above, Reid and Chastain went to a residence and purchased ten (10) methaqualone tablets. The price for the tablets was $30.00. When they returned to the bar, while in the premises, Reid removed one methaqualone tablet from the napkins in which they were wrapped and gave Chastain nine (9) tablets. Terminello came back to the licensed premises on the evening of July 25, 1981, and spoke with the dancer Reid. During the conversation methaqualone was discussed and she indicated that she did not have that substance at the time. She said she might have some of the material available to her later that night. Reid left the licensed premises around 11:35 P.M. on July 25, 1981, to return around 11:55 P.M. While in the licensed premises she exchanged five (5) methaqualone tablets at $3.00 per tablet, in return for $15.00 on July 26, 1981. This transaction took place in the hall area near the rest rooms in the licensed premises and no effort was made on the part of Reid to disguise the transaction. On July .26, 1981, during his visit to the licensed premises, at approximately 1:30 A.M., Officer Terminello spoke to a man who identified himself as "Orlando" and who claimed to be a manager at the premises and the son of Miguel Rodriguez. In fact, "Orlando" was not a manager at the licensed premises nor the son of Rodriguez. During this conversation, Terminello asked "Orlando" where he could get coke, meaning the controlled substance cocaine. "Orlando" responded that he might get the cocaine on some occasion but not on that evening. "Orlando" did give Officer Terminello marijuana, also known as cannabis, a controlled substance. This item was given to Officer Terminello as he was departing the premises on July 26, 1981. Terminello returned to the licensed premises on August 14, 1981, around 9:45 P.M. On that evening, he spoke with a dancer identified to him as "Eve" who was later determined to be Eve Mae Carroll. Carroll was employed as a dancer in the licensed premises. While seated at a table near the front door, Carroll told Terminello that she would sell "quaaludes" meaning methaqualone at a price of $2.50 a tablet and a total of three (3) tablets. Terminello paid her the prescribed price and she delivered the substance methaqualone to him while seated at the table. She also indicated that she would sell him cocaine at a later time, in that she was expecting a delivery of that substance. At around 12:30 A.M. on August 15, 1981, a further discussion was held between Terminello and Carroll and while standing at the bar, Terminello purchased cocaine from Carroll. On August 15, 1981, at around 12:45 A.M., Terminello spoke with another dancer employed in the licensed premises who was identified as "Kitty" whose actual name is Kathleen Keddie, who explained to him that she had some "ludes," meaning methaqualone. She wanted $4.00 for each tablet and while seated at a table in the bar area, Terminello purchased two (2) methaqualone tablets from Kitty. On August 22, 1981, Terminello was back in the licensed premises at approximately 9:50 P.M. and was seated at the bar talking to Penny Reid who told him she was going to get some "ludes," methaqualone. This activity was to occur on her next break from dancing as an employee in the licensed premises. She left the licensed premises with a patron and returned at around 10:25P.M. and handed Terminello a paper towel containing five (5) methaqualone tablets for which he paid her $15.00. On September 9, 1981, Terminello was again at the licensed premises and was approached by Penny Reid. He asked her for "ludes or acid" meaning methaqualone or LSD, respectively. She told Terminello that she would have to go to a house to obtain these items. She then asked the manager to leave and Terminello and Reid went to the residence where methaqualone was purchased and suspected LSD as requested by Terminello. (She was still employed by the Respondent.) On September 16, 1981, while pursuing the investigation, Terminello again returned to the licensed premises and spoke with Reid who was still an employee at the premises. She told Terminello that she could go to a residence and obtain narcotics. At this time Terminello was accompanied by another Beverage Officer, Robert Chastain. After entering into a discussion on the evening in question, the two (2) officers went with Reid to an off-premises residence where methaqualone and suspected LSD were purchased. On this occasion, Reid took part of the methaqualone purchased as a "tip" and carried those methaqualone tablets back into the licensed premises when the officers and the dancer returned to the licensed premises. On September 19, 1981, Officer Terminello talked to Reid who remained employed at the licensed premises and the discussion concerned narcotics. Then they left the licensed premises and went to a residence where cocaine and methaqualone were purchased. Reid kept three (3) of the methaqualone tablets as a "tip" and she carried those methaqualone tablets back into the licensed premises when Terminello and the dancer returned to the bar. When they had returned to the licensed premises on September 19, 1981, Terminello was approached in the bar by a Michael Harrington who asked Terminello if he wanted to buy coke, meaning cocaine. Harrington then indicated that they should go out into the parking lot of the premises which they did and in the presence of another patron, Alexis Pagan, Terminello purchased a gram of cocaine. On September 25, 1981, Terminello returned to the licensed premises and spoke to an employee/dancer previously identified as Kathleen Keddie. Keddie told him that her "old man" could bring some cocaine into the premises and make some of it available to Terminello. This conversation took place around 9:45 P.M. on that evening. At approximately 12:05 A.M. on September 26, 1981, while seated at the bar, Terminello purchased approximately one (1) gram of cocaine from Keddie for $75.00. In the early morning hours of September 26, 1981, Terminello was also approached by a Julie Murphy who was employed as a cocktail waitress in the licensed premises and she told Terminello that she could sell him cocaine cheaper, at $55.00 a gram. She indicated she would serve as a go-between, intermediary, and told Terminello to leave the premises and come back later. Terminello left and returned at around 3:00 A.M., and while at the bar, purchased the cocaine from Murphy at the agreed upon price of $55.00. During the course of Terminello's investigation at the licensed premises, on a number of occasions he saw people sniffing what, from his expertise in law enforcement, appeared to be cocaine and, from the appearance and odor, using cigarettes thought to be marijuana. These activities occurred in the bathroom areas, halls and package store area. Augusto Garcia who was employed as a manager in the licensed premises was observed at times in the proximity of the activities referred to immediately above and Garcia was also observed by Officer Terminello in the men's room snorting what appeared to be cocaine. On one occasion Garcia was observed near the front door to the bar and package area where a marijuana type cigarette was being smoked in the presence of Garcia, by an employee who worked in the package store. Reid had also told Terminello that she had been fired as an employee at the licensed premises because she was so "luded" out that she fell off the stage. Nonetheless, she had been rehired. Terminello had observed Miguel Rodriguez in the licensed premises during the course of the investigation, mostly in the package store and on occasion in the bar area. Terminello did not speak with Rodriguez during the investigation. On October 2, 1981, the petitioning agency served the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint at the licensed premises. Following this service, an inspection was conducted in the licensed premises of the lockers of several dancers, for which the dancers had the keys. These dancers were employees at the licensed premises on that date. The search of the lockers and purses of the dancers led to the discovery of marijuana. The dancers in question were Annie D. Bryant, Danita Buchin and Barbara Jean O'Rourke. (Following the October 2, 1981, service of the Administrative Complaint on Miguel Rodriguez, and with Rodriguez's knowledge of the pendency of narcotics allegations being placed against the dancers, Kathleen Keddie, Annie D. Bryant and Danita Buchin, those individuals were allowed to remain as employees in the licensed premises.) During the time in question by the Administrative Complaint, Augusto Garcia acted as a manager in the licensed premises. He had been hired by Miguel Rodriguez. His normal hours of employment were 6:00 P.M. through as late as 4:30 A.M., except for Fridays and Saturdays when he worked a couple of hours. When he was on duty, Rodriguez was ordinarily at the licensed premises. Rodriguez had instructed Garcia to be cognizant of drug problems in the licensed premises and to keep the bar quiet and peaceful. In particular, Rodriguez had instructed Garcia not to allow drugs in the bar and if someone was found with drugs to throw him out. An individual identified as Hector who is a friend of Garcia's assisted in these matters. Garcia indicated the policy of management at the licensed premises was to check the person of the dancers and their bathroom and dressing area to discover narcotics. Nevertheless, testimony by Kathleen Keddie, a person implicated in these matters for narcotics violations and an employee at the bar as a dancer established the fact that she had never been searched for narcotics. Rodriguez was not told by Garcia about people selling drugs in the licensed premises, Garcia would simply "throw them out." Garcia did tell Rodriguez about people "sniffing" what he suspected to be cocaine. At the time Garcia served as a manager in the licensed premises, one Willie Rolack also was a manager in the licensed premises. Willie Rolack's duties as manager were primarily associated with the package store, in contrast to the bar, area. He would periodically go in the bar to check to see if there were fights occurring and to determine if drugs were being used. Rolack had been instructed by Rodriguez to call the Hialeah Police Department if persons who were using drugs would not depart the premises. At times, the Hialeah Police Department has assisted in removing those patrons. Additionally, some employees at the licensed premises had been dismissed for drug involvement as observed by Rolack. Miguel Rodriguez worked sixteen (16) to eighteen (18) hours in the licensed premises, mostly in the package store; however, he did have occasion to check the bar area while at the licensed premises. Rodriguez had told the dancers that he would not tolerate their involvement with drugs and he had instructed customers who were found with drugs that they should leave and not return. He had a policy of not allowing the dancers to leave the licensed premises except on occasion to go for food at nearby restaurants; however, as has been determined in the facts found, the occasions of the departures of the dancers were fairly frequent and not always for the purposes of obtaining food. Rodriguez, through his testimony, verifies a general policy of checking dancers' lockers and pocketbooks and watching their activities. The lockers as have been indicated before were controlled by the dancers themselves who had keys. Prior to July, 1981, and in particular, in June, 1981, one Alexis Pagan had worked as the bar manager and had been dismissed for drug involvement. Nonetheless, the same Alexis Pagan had been observed in the licensed premises during the times set forth in the administrative charges, to include the instance mentioned before.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Respondent violated Section 562.12(1), Florida Statutes, by selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not authorized by law and/or maintaining a place where alcoholic beverages were sold unlawfully; (2) Whether Respondent violated Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, by failing to comply with the terms set forth in a prior Final Order of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; and (3) If so, what sanctions should be imposed against Respondent's alcoholic beverage licenses.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Easy Way of Lee County, Inc., d/b/a Hollywood Underground, holds a bottle club license number 46- 03606, issued by the Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Department/Division) and has held such license since June 1995. Under this license, Respondent operates a bottle club known as Hollywood Underground (the licensed premises/the premises or Hollywood Underground) located at 16440 South Tamiami Trail, Unit 1, Fort Myers, Florida. At all times relevant to this action, Mattheos Milonas was the director, president, secretary, and treasurer of Easy Way of Lee County, Inc., d/b/a Hollywood Underground, and the holder of the above-referenced alcoholic beverage license. On or about February 12, 1999, Peggy Duffala, a special agent with the Department, organized an undercover on-site investigation of Hollywood Underground, based on a complaint that Respondent was in violation of certain laws pertaining to the sale of alcoholic beverages without a proper license. On February 12, 1999, Agent Duffala, and two other special agents of the Department, Agent David Perez and Agent Patrick McEnroe, went to the licensed premises to further the investigation. When Agent Duffala arrived, she conducted surveillance in the parking lot of the licensed premises for approximately one and a half hours. During that time, Agent Duffala observed patrons entering and exiting the premises, but saw no patrons entering the premises carrying alcoholic beverages or containers of any kind in their hands. On February 12, 1999, at or near 2:30 a.m., acting in an undercover capacity, Agent Perez and Agent McEnroe entered the licensed premises. Upon entering the premises, Agent Perez paid a $5.00 cover charge and received a wristband. Perez brought no alcohol into the premises with him on that evening. Once inside the licensed premises, Agent Perez went to the bar where he was approached by bartender Norman Vanderbiest. After Vanderbiest asked him what he would like, Agent Perez ordered a Budweiser beer. Vanderbiest retrieved the beer from the cooler behind the bar and gave Agent Perez the beer. After Perez asked how much the Budweiser cost, Vanderbiest responded, "$3.00." Agent Perez then gave $3.00 to Vanderbiest, who subsequently rang up the sale and placed the money in the cash register. At no time during the transaction described in paragraph 6 did Vanderbiest ask Agent Perez if he had brought any alcoholic beverages with him to the licensed premises. In fact, Agent Perez had not brought any alcoholic beverages into the licensed premises on August 12, 1999. Furthermore, prior to February 12, 1999, Agent Perez had never visited the licensed premises, and thus, had never taken any alcoholic beverages there. After Agent Perez purchased the Budweiser beer, he moved from the main bar area to the west end of the bar where he remained for about ten minutes. While situated at the west end of the bar, Agent Perez observed several patrons approach the bar and speak with Vanderbiest. Agent Perez was unable to hear what was being said but he observed Vanderbiest serve each patron an alcoholic beverage. After receiving the alcoholic beverages, each patron would then give Vanderbiest money. At no time during these transactions did Agent Perez observe patrons present cards to Vanderbiest to punch. Furthermore, Agent Perez did not see Vanderbiest check a logbook before he served alcoholic beverages to those patrons. From the west end of the bar, Agent Perez saw 10 to 15 patrons entering the licensed premises. During that time, Agent Perez observed that none of the patrons entering the premises brought alcoholic beverages with them. Agent Patrick McEnroe entered the premises on February 12, 1999, at about 2:30 a.m. Upon entering the premises, Agent McEnroe paid a $5.00 cover charge. Agent McEnroe brought no alcoholic beverages into the licensed premises with him nor did he receive a ticket or card to be punched. Once inside the premises, Agent McEnroe went to the bar and ordered a Bud Light beer from bartender, Norman Vanderbiest. Vanderbiest informed Agent McEnroe that the cost was $3.00, then retrieved a Bud Light beer from the cooler and handed it to Agent McEnroe. Agent McEnroe gave the bartender $3.00 for the beer. Agent McEnroe purchased three bottles of beer that evening. In none of these transactions did Vanderbiest ask Agent McEnroe if he brought any beer with him nor did he ask Agent McEnroe for a card to be punched. Later that evening, after Agents Perez and McEnroe exited the premises, Division agents, assisted by the Lee County Sheriff's Office, entered and raided the premises. During the raid, agents seized 571 containers of alcoholic beverages, $315.00 in cash from the cash register, and two notebooks. One of the notebooks seized was a log book containing entries listing alleged patrons' names along with an alcoholic beverage type, a number assigned to the beverage, and a date. The last entry in the log book was made on February 6, 1999, six days prior to the raid. Neither Agent Perez nor Agent McEnroe was listed in the logbooks. During the raid, Division agents entered the premises and arrested the manager of the club. Subsequently, the manager pled guilty in the Lee County Circuit Court to the criminal charge of keeping or maintaining a place, the licensed premises, that sold alcoholic beverages without a proper license on February 12, 1999. The licensed premises had procedures that governed how employees of Hollywood Underground were to accept and distribute beer and liquor brought into the premises by patrons. When a patron brought beer into the licensed premises, an employee of the club was to write on a card the number and kind of beer that the patron brought to the premises. Once this information was recorded on the card, the employee would give the card to the patron. After the club employee accepted the beer from and issued the card to the patron, in order for the patron to retrieve one or more of the beers, the patron was to present the card to the bartender. The bartender was to then give the patron the requested number of beers and punch the card the corresponding number of times, thereby indicating to both the bartender and patron the number of beers the patron had been given and how many remained. To facilitate ease in the dispensing of the beer, like brands of beer were commingled and placed in a cooler with other containers of identical brands. No attempt was made to designate or label containers of beer by the patrons who brought them into the premises. With regard to liquor, the policy of Hollywood Underground was that bottles of liquor brought in by patrons were to be identified in a manner to ensure that patrons were served liquor only from the bottles that they brought to the premises. In accordance with this policy, when a patron brought a bottle of liquor into the licensed premises, an employee of the club was to put a label on each bottle and write a number on the label. Next, in a log book, the employee was to write the number designated on the club's label, the kind of liquor, and the name of the patron who brought in that bottle of liquor. On February 12, 1999, these policies were not implemented by employees of the licensed premises as evidenced by the transactions involving Agents Perez and McEnroe. In the fall of 1998, Tom Lloyd, a videographer for Channel 6 television, followed Division agents into the licensed premises for purposes of an undercover television news story regarding illegal sale of alcoholic beverages by Respondent. Lloyd did not bring any alcoholic beverages with him to the licensed premises. Nevertheless, while sitting at the bar, Lloyd was approached by a bartender who solicited an order from Lloyd for an alcoholic beverage. Lloyd requested a rum and coke and was sold a rum and coke for $4.00 by the bartender. Prior to the Administrative Action which is the subject of this proceeding, three other administrative actions have been filed against Hollywood Underground for violations of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. All of the three previously filed administrative actions resulted in disciplinary action against Respondent's license. Respondent was charged in two separate administrative actions (DBPR Case Nos. 46-95-0582 and 46-95-0089) with selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not permitted by license, in violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. These two cases were resolved by combined Consent Order (Final Order No. BPR-96-02540), wherein Respondent paid a $5,000 civil penalty and agreed that its "agents, servants, or employees would not sell or supply alcoholic beverages to any person other than the patron who brought such alcoholic beverages onto the premises." Respondent also agreed to diligently "ensure that no alcoholic beverage would be dispensed to any person that did not bring such alcoholic beverage onto the premises." In DBPR Case No. 46-97-0890, Respondent was charged for the third time with selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not permitted by license, a violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. This case was resolved by Consent Order (Final Order No. BPR-98-06888), wherein Respondent paid a $7,500 civil penalty and agreed to take corrective action regarding the unlawful sale of alcohol on the premises. Respondent agreed to prevent further occurrences of violations of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. In paragraph 6 of the Consent Order, Respondent agreed and acknowledged that revocation of its alcoholic beverage license would be the appropriate sanction for any subsequent administrative action against the Respondent's license alleging failure of the Respondent to comply with the beverage laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Action; that Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 39-01181 be revoked; and that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $1,000 per count for a total of $2,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 16th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Julius F. Parker, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkerson, Bell and Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverage license should be granted or denied on the grounds stated in Respondent's letter of denial dated November 18, 1982.
Findings Of Fact During September, 1979, Del Percio was asked by an acquaintance of his in Orlando, Florida, Kenneth McCall, to assist in the running of a lounge which McCall owned there called "The Foxy Lady." Del Percio agreed to do this, and a written agreement was signed by the parties whereby Del Percio bought into a newly formed corporation, Success and Prosperity, Inc., with both Del Percio and McCall to each receive 50 percent of the corporate stock and with Del Percio to be president and McCall, vice president. Leonard P. Del Percio was a 50 percent owner of Success and Prosperity, Inc., and had the right and duty to manage the business operated by it called "The Shingle Shack." McCall was to have no management responsibilities. The Shingle Shack was the new name of the lounge owned previous to September, 1979, by Kenneth McCall known as "The Foxy Lady," which operated under license numbered 58-1076, at 3135 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida. Notwithstanding Del Percio's allegation that his 50 percent ownership of the corporate stock was for his protection in managing the business, the stockholders' agreement signed on August 13, 1979, by both McCall and Petitioner reflects that Del Percio loaned McCall a certain amount of money and McCall sold Del Percio one-half of all the shares of the corporation for an amount equal to the loan. On September 13, 1979, Del Percio, as corporate president, filled out and signed various papers requesting that 2-COP license numbered 58-1076, issued in the name of Kenneth McCall, be transferred to Success and Prosperity, Inc., for a lounge called "The Shingle Shack" doing business at the same location as its predecessor business, The Foxy Lady, which was utilizing the license at that time. These application forms were never submitted to the appropriate authorities for transfer, and the license was never issued in Del Percio's name or the name of Success and Prosperity, Inc., although the business was formed and the lounge name was changed from The Foxy Lady to The Shingle Shack. Del Percio became actively engaged in management of the business during September, 1979. The license was to be the only asset of any major value to the corporation, but it never became an asset of the corporation. On April 20, 1980, Kenneth McCall signed a stipulation calling for the revocation of license numbered 58-1076 because of repeated violations of Florida Statutes taking place at the lounge in question during the month of November, 1979, and because of the failure to file the application for the transfer of the license after a bona fide sale of the business in whose name the license was issued.
Recommendation On the basis of the facts and conclusions above, it is RECOMMENDED: That Leonard P. Del Percio, doing business as the Yum Yum Tree, be issued a license as applied for. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 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: Mr. Leonard P. Del Percio Post Office Box 6202, Station A Daytona Beach, Florida 32022 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Executive Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary R. Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the entitlement of the Petitioner to be granted a new Series 2-COP beverage license from the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Dorothy Risby, filed an application to be issued a new Series 2-COP alcoholic beverage license. The application was filed on January 28, 1980, and if the license were issued, it would allow for the sale of beer and wine to be consumed at the Petitioner's premises known as the V I P Night Club, located at 922 East Brownlee Street, Starke, Florida. After the Respondent, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, had received and reviewed the application, it was denied. The basis of the denial was, quoting from the license application denial, "undisclosed interest" and reference was made to Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, as the authority for such denial. Specifically, the Respondent is persuaded that Albert Parrish has an "undisclosed interest" in the prospective licensed premises and that in view of this interest the Petitioner is not entitled to receive the beverage license. Albert Parrish was the former holder of an alcoholic beverage license issued by the Respondent, and the licensed premises to which the license pertained was the same premises as contemplated by the present Petitioner. Parrish did business at that location under the name Red Honey until his license was revoked on December 31, 1979. The current Petitioner has known Albert Parrish for a period of ten to twelve years and in the course of that time, Parrish has helped support the children of the Petitioner who presently live at home with her. This support spoken to is financial support. The Petitioner and Albert Parrish have also lived together in that period of time and as recently as February, 1980. The latter statement concerning the living arrangements between the Petitioner and Parrish was ascertained when Beverage Officer Robert W. Cunningham went to the licensed premises in making a pre-licensure inspection in February, 1980, and encountered Albert Parrish on the proposed licensed premises. Parrish indicated that he was just at the licensed premises sleeping following a break-in that had occurred at that location. At the same time he indicated that he was living at Apartment 51 on Brownlee Street, Starke, Florida, which is the residence address given by the Petitioner in her application for licensure. This also was the same residence address that Albert Parrish had put on his beverage license application when he had applied for the beverage license issued to him in the past. In the course of the meeting referred to above, Parrish stated that the utilities for the licensed premises were being paid for by him and that the phone in the licensed premises was primarily for the benefit of the ABC Junk Yard, a business operated by Parrish, which was located at that time behind the prospective licensed premises. The phone located at the licensed premises also rang at the Apartment 51 when calls were made in. At the time of Cunningham's conversation with Parrish, the rent for the licensed premises was being paid month to month and was paid at times by the Petitioner and at other times by Parrish. The most recent rent of August, 1980, was paid by the Petitioner. At the time of the hearing, the utilities for the licensed premises still remained in the name of Albert Parrish, although payment for those utilities was being made by the Petitioner. The telephone remained in the name of Albert Parrish because in the words of the Petitioner, it cost $200.00 to change over the phone from Parrish's name to the Petitioner's name and the Petitioner could not afford to make that change. In the interim, the Petitioner intends to pay for the telephone until such time as she cannot afford to pay and the service charges and at that time she would expect the telephone to be removed for nonpayment. At the time of the hearing, Albert Parrish was no longer in the junk yard business at the licensed premises and was not living with the Petitioner at the Apartment 51 due to the fact that the welfare officials had instructed the Petitioner that if Parrish lived there, the Petitioner could not receive help for her children. At present, the Petitioner does not know the exact residence address of Parrish nor of his future intentions regarding their relationship in which she had been his "girlfriend" in the past. Parrish still gives her $10.00 or $15.00 when he can afford it and when she asks him for the money. The Petitioner presently sells sandwiches and soft drinks at the licensed premises and has an occupational license from Bradford County, Florida, which allows her to do this. This license is in her sole name. Albert Parrish is not involved in the daily operation of this business. It is the intention of the Petitioner to expand the base of her operations to include the sales of alcoholic beverages. In taking over the licensed premises, she intends to continue to pay the month-to-month rent due at the licensed premises. In pursuit of the expansion of her business, Parrish gave the Petitioner certain tables and chairs in the licensed premises to use for her purposes. Parrish was not paid any amount of money for his good will or inventory and no inventory remained to be used by the current Petitioner. The Petitioner receives other income from the licensed premises in the form of a concessions for a "piccolo and pool tables". The average amount of income from those concessions being $65.00 for the piccolo and $80.00 for the pool table, on a weekly basis, of which one-half of the money is paid to the concessionaire of those items in lieu of rentals. Presently, the apartment rent of the Petitioner is paid primarily from funds received from the business, from money provided by the Petitioner's elder sons, and from welfare payments to the Petitioner.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Dorothy Risby's application for a new Series 2-COP alcoholic beverage license be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Risby 922 East Brownlee Street Starke, Florida 32091 William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent sold alcoholic beverages in violation of a municipal ordinance concerning the hours of sale of such beverages and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the state agency charged with regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages and tobacco in Florida. Respondent, Ferrell A. Melton and Nora J. Melton, d/b/a Prince Grocery (Respondent), is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 30-00004, Series 2APS. This license authorizes the Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of Prince Grocery, located at 705 West Columbus Drive, Tampa, Florida (licensed premises). Prince Grocery is a neighborhood store. The City of Tampa Code, Article I, Section 3-3, prohibits places within its city limits and licensed by the State of Florida to sell alcoholic beverages after 3:00 a.m. and before 1:00 p.m. on Sunday. On September 21, 1997, Officer Anthony Pullara of the Tampa Police Department was dispatched to Respondent's licensed premises at approximately 3:00 a.m. Officer Pullara was dispatched to investigate complaints that Respondent was selling alcoholic beverages after hours. When Officer Pullara began the investigation of Respondent, he did not immediately go on the licensed premises, but rather positioned himself directly across the street from and facing the licensed premises. This location placed Officer Pullara about 200 feet from the licensed premises and gave him a clear view of the outside of the store and the parking lot. To aid his vision from this distance and to get a view of what was occurring inside the licensed premises, Officer Pullara used binoculars. On Sunday, September 21, 1997, between 3:00 a.m. and 3:55 a.m., Officer Pullara observed several persons enter the licensed premises. In each instance, the person would go to the front door of the premises and then knock on the door. Respondent, Nora Melton, who was inside the premises, would unlock the door and allow the person to come inside. After a short time inside, the patron would leave the premises carrying a brown paper bag that appeared to contain something. Officer Pullara could not see the contents of the bags. However, from the size and shape of the bags, the bags appeared to contain objects about the size of either bottles of beer or a quart of beer. Although Officer Pullara never verified the contents of any of the bags, he suspected that the bags contained beer. At approximately 3:55 a.m. on Sunday, September 21, 1997, George Munoz went to the front door of the licensed premises and appeared to knock on the door. Thereafter, George Munoz entered the premises. From Officer Pullara's vantage point, he observed Respondent and Munoz in the licensed premises appearing to engage in a friendly conversation. Officer Pullara also observed Respondent gather some bags from the front register area and then escort Munoz to the rear of the store. For the brief time Respondent and Munoz were in the rear of the store, they were out of Officer Pullara's view. When they returned to the front area of the licensed premises to the area where the cash register was located, Officer Pullara observed Munoz give something to Respondent. It then appeared to Officer Pullara that Respondent escorted Munoz to the front door and unlocked it so that he could leave. Munoz then exited the licensed premises carrying a brown paper bag. From Officer Pullara's observation's, the transaction with Munoz appeared to be similar to the transactions that Officer Pullara had observed between Respondent and other individuals who had come to the licensed premises between 3:00 a.m. and 3:55 a.m. on this same day. As Munoz was leaving the licensed premises, Respondent came to the front door and she and Munoz continued to engage in a conversation. Due to his position, Officer could not hear what the Respondent and Munoz were saying to each other, but it appeared to him to be a friendly conversation. After Munoz left the licensed premises, he went toward the car from which he had earlier exited. However, prior to getting into the vehicle Munoz pulled down the brown bag and a plastic bag contained therein, revealing two quarts bottles bearing the name "Schlitz Malt Liquor." In describing this event, Officer Pullara testified that "[Munoz] held them up in the air in front of his face, as if showing the other occupant of the vehicle that he had in fact purchased the beer." Officer Pullara then drove his police car into the parking lot of the licensed premises and observed Munoz get into his vehicle with the two quarts of Schlitz Malt Liquor. After Munoz pulled out of the parking lot, Officer Pullara stopped him. Officer Pullara then confiscated the two quarts of malt liquor. After he confiscated the malt liquor from Munoz, Officer Pullara returned to the licensed premises and arrested Respondent Nora Melton for after-hour sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent was charged with the after-hour sale of alcoholic beverages and resisting an officer. Munoz did not testify at trial and Respondent Nora Melton was subsequently acquitted of the charge related to after-hour sale of alcoholic beverages. As a result of the events of September 21, 1997, Respondent was convicted of resisting arrest although adjudication was withheld on this charge. There is no dispute that, on September 21, 1997, Munoz got two quarts of Schlitz Malt Liquor from the licensed premises. However, Respondent's version of how Munoz came in possession of the malt liquor is at odds with that of Officer Pullara. According to Respondent, a female customer who had been in the licensed premises earlier telephoned Respondent and indicated that Respondent had forgotten to give the customer the cigarettes which she had purchased. Respondent knew this customer. However, when the customer called, Respondent did not recall whether she had given the customer the cigarettes. Nonetheless, Respondent gave the customer the benefit of the doubt and told her that if she came "right now . . . I'll give them to you." After the telephone conversation, the customer arrived at the licensed premises to retrieve the cigarettes. Respondent went to the front door and unlocked it to let the customer in, but did not relock the front door once the customer was inside. After Respondent gave the customer the cigarettes, the customer decided to purchase lottery tickets, which were located on the front counter area of the licensed premises. During the course of these transactions, Respondent and the customer engaged in a casual conversation in the front counter area of the licensed premises. While Respondent and the customer were engaged in conversation, Munoz, who appeared to be drunk, entered the premises through the unlocked front door and then reached around the customer for a bag. Respondent had known Munoz for several years and warned the customer that Munoz was a "dangerous person." As Munoz proceeded to the back of the store where the beer was located, Respondent told him that he could not purchase any beer because it was after 3:00 a.m. Munoz told Respondent, "Wait and see what I do." Munoz continued to the back of the store, moved a barricade that was in front of the beer, and removed two quarts of malt liquor. When Munoz returned to the front of the licensed premises, Respondent ordered him to give her the beer because he was not going to "[take] it outside." Respondent came from behind the counter where she had been standing, got between the customer and Munoz, and tried to grab the beer from Munoz. Munoz refused to give Respondent the beer and began "turning around and swinging the beer at [Respondent]." While Respondent was attempting to take the beer from Munoz, she thought of using a bat to break the beer bottles but decided against doing that for fear that he would hurt her. Respondent's concern for her own safety was based on her knowledge or belief that on an earlier occasion Munoz had broken his girlfriend's arm and "knocked her eye out." Respondent told Munoz that if he left the premises with the beer, she would "charge" him with shoplifting. Despite Respondent's threats and attempts to grab the malt liquor from Munoz, he left the licensed premises with the two quarts of malt liquor. While in the parking lot, Munoz removed or lowered the bag and displayed the two quarts of Schlitz Malt Liquor, by waving it in front of his face. At the time of the investigation which is the subject of these proceedings, Respondent had known Munoz for many years. Although Munoz had been a customer of the licensed premises, Respondent has had problems with him. About six years ago, Munoz gave Respondent a "bad check" which he never paid. Respondent believes that her problems with Munoz are due to his anger toward her because she always asks him about paying the check. On Monday morning, at about 11:00 a.m., September 22, 1997, Respondent went to the police department to file an incident report regarding Munoz taking the malt liquor from the licensed premises. Immediately after filing that incident report, Respondent went to the Internal Affairs Office and filed a complaint against Officer Pullara. The basis of Respondent's complaint against Officer Pullara was that he had mistreated her when he arrested her on September 21, 1997. Petitioner filed the subject Administrative Action against Respondent based on a complaint and report from the Tampa Police Department regarding an alleged violation of a City of Tampa Code provision relating to the hours that alcoholic beverages may be sold. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent Nora Melton stayed at the licensed premises. She began staying there because of the increased number of burglaries occurring on the licensed premises. Respondent usually locked the front door to the premises at about 10:00 p.m., but the business did not close at this time. If someone who Respondent knew came to the front door of the licensed premises after 10:00 p.m., she would open it and let that person come inside to make a purchase. Since the September 21, 1997, incident, however, the shutters to the licensed premises are put down no later than 2:30 a.m. and no customers are allowed into the premises. The testimony of Respondent was credible and was unrebutted by Petitioner. Petitioner acknowledged that George Munoz has a long criminal record dating back to July 10, 1979, with his last arrest listed as July 23, 1997, about two months before the subject incident. The records reviewed at hearing by Agent Thompson reflected only arrests and not the disposition of the arrests. According to the records, Munoz has been arrested for: unlawful use of a weapon; theft; at least three incidents involving the purchase of cocaine; delivery and control of cocaine; disorderly conduct; petty theft; criminal mischief; burglary of a structure; burglary of a dwelling; at least two incidents involving probation violations; escape; domestic assault; domestic battery; at least two incidents of trespass; battery; and trespass of a structure. The record also revealed that a warrant had been recently issued against Munoz for domestic violence, aggravated battery, and driving under the influence. In an Administrative Action signed on June 2, 1998, Respondent was charged with violating a city ordinance relating to the hours that alcoholic beverages may be sold. The matter was disposed of by an informal hearing and Respondent was fined $250.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order (1) finding that Respondent did not violate Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by selling alcoholic beverages after hours in violation the Tampa City Code; and (2) dismissing the charge in the Administrative Action. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas D. Winokur Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Nora J. Melton, pro se 705 West Columbus Drive Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether "[o]n or about January 16, 2009, Respondent [the holder of an SR license] failed to maintain a restaurant . . . contrary to and in violation of [s]ection 561.20(2), Florida Statutes (1953), within [s]ection 561.20(5), Florida Statutes (2008), within [s]ection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2008),"2 as alleged in the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all material times, the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-02630, Series 4COP/SR (Subject License), which is a "Special Restaurant" or "SR" license issued by Petitioner. The location of the licensed premises is 17190 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, where Respondent operates Epicure Gourmet Market and Café (Epicure) in a structure having 34,000 square feet of interior space, 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of which is open to the consuming public. The Rascal House, an eating establishment specializing in comfort food, formerly occupied this location. The Rascal House opened in 1954 and was operated under the Subject License from December 30 of that year until March 30, 2008, when it was shuttered. For the final twelve years of its existence, the Rascal House was owned and operated by Jerry's Famous Deli, Inc., Respondent's parent corporation. Respondent acquired the Rascal House property and the Subject License from Jerry's Famous Deli in 2008. After spending $7.5 million on renovations to the property,3 Respondent reopened the venue as Epicure on October 7, 2008, and has done business under that name at the former Rascal House location since. Petitioner approved the transfer of the Subject License to Respondent on October 27, 2008, following an inspection of the premises of Epicure by one of Petitioner's Special Agents, Bradley Frank, who found that all statutory requirements for "SR" licensure were met. In the summer of 2008, prior to the opening of Epicure, Respondent, through its Chief Financial Officer, Christina Sperling, submitted a Request for Initial Inspection and Food Permit Application with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Food Safety (DACS), in which it described Epicure as a "[f]ood market with indoor/outdoor seating area; but not a service restaurant." At the time of the filing of the Food Permit Application, Respondent had no intention of using waiters or waitresses to serve Epicure's patrons, although it did intend for these patrons to be able to purchase food and beverage items for consumption on the premises. Before Epicure opened, Respondent was granted a DACS Annual Food Permit, "Supermarket"-type, for the establishment, a permit it continues to hold today. On February 11, 2009, and again on July 28, 2009, Respondent applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (H&R) for a "public food service establishment"4 license for Epicure. Both applications were denied by H&R because Epicure was licensed (properly so, in the opinion of H&R) by DACS. The DACS permit is not the only license Respondent has for Epicure. It also has a retail license, a food market license, and a restaurant-outside dining license, all issued by the City of Sunny Isles Beach. Respondent has held these City of Sunny Isles Beach-issued licenses since 2008. On January 16, 2009, the date of the violation alleged in the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint, Epicure had the necessary equipment and supplies (including those in its 4,000 to 5,000 square foot kitchen where food was prepared) to provide, and it did provide, patrons full course meals (including ready to eat appetizer items, ready to eat salad items, ready to eat entree items, ready to eat vegetable items, ready to eat dessert items, ready to eat fruit items, hot and cold beverages (non-alcoholic and alcoholic), and bread) for on- premises consumption at indoor and outdoor tables5 (Eating Tables) having a total seating capacity in excess of 200 and occupying more than 4,000 square feet of space.6 There were no waiters or waitresses, at that time, to take orders from, and to serve food and beverages to, patrons sitting at the Eating Tables.7 The patrons themselves brought to their Eating Tables the food and beverages they consumed there--food and beverages they obtained from manned counters (in the hot food, raw meat/fresh seafood,8 deli, bakery, and bar areas); from the fresh produce area; and from the cases, shelves, and tables where packaged food and drink items were displayed for sale. Epicure employees were stationed in the areas where the Eating Tables were located to assist patrons who wanted tableware, a glass of ice water, a packaged item (such as soup) to be opened or warmed, or their table to be cleaned. Not all of the items sold at Epicure on January 16, 2009, were consumed on the premises. True to its name, Epicure had not only a bona fide "café" operation, it also operated as a "market" where patrons shopped for "gourmet" food and other items for off-premises consumption and use. Among the food and beverage items for sale were raw meat and fresh seafood; dairy products; ready to eat deli meats and cheeses, including those packaged by the manufacturer; packaged grains; packaged stocks, including vegetable, beef, seafood, and chicken stock; condiments, including jams, jellies, and caviar; sauces; spices; eggs; chips, popcorn, and nuts; packaged crackers and cookies; ingredients (other than meat and seafood) for salads, dips, and dressings; cooked and other prepared foods ready to eat; baked bread and other bakery items; candy; fruit and other fresh produce; bottles of wine, liquor, and beer, as well as non- alcoholic beverages, including water; and packaged tea. Among the non-food items for sale were flowers; glassware; candles; napkins, paper and plastic plates and cups, and eating and serving utensils; paper towels; toilet paper; toilet bowel cleaner; wine and liquor opening devices and equipment; publications relating to alcoholic beverage products; cookbooks; and personal care and over-the-counter health care items. Shopping carts were available for patrons to use in the establishment to transport items selected for purchase. These items were paid for at the same cash registers (at the front of the establishment) where food and beverages consumed on the premises were paid for. There was considerable overlap between Epicure's "café" and "market" operations in terms of space used and items sold. Both the "café" and the "market" were fundamental and substantial components of Epicure's business, and they worked together synergistically. The record evidence does not clearly and convincingly reveal that Epicure's "café" operation was merely incidental or subordinate to its "market" operation, or that its "café" was in any way operated as a subterfuge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, issue a final order dismissing the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2011.
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 14th of March, 1976, Pearlie Mae Smith, a licensed vendor, did have in her possession, permit or allow someone else, to wit: Junior Lee Smith, to have in their possession on the licensed premises, alcoholic beverages, to wit: 5 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to s. 562.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact On March 14, 1976, and up to and including the date of the hearing, the Respondent, Pearlie Mae Smith, held license no. 72-65, series 2-COP with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. The licensed premises is located at 1013 West Malloy Avenue, Perry, Florida. On the morning of March 14, 1976, Officer B.C. Maxwell with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage acting on an informant's information, searched the informant to determine if the informant had monies other than the money that the officer had given him or any alcoholic beverages on his person. Once the informant had been searched and it was determined that the informant was carrying with him only the money that the officer had given him to purchase alcoholic beverages, the informant was sent into the subject licensed premises. The informant returned with a half-pint bottle of alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold on the licensed premise and indicated that this purchase was made from one Junior Lee Smith. Later in the morning, around 11:30, officers of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage entered the licensed premises and an inspection of those premises revealed a bag containing 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka in the kitchen area of the licensed premises. This bag and contents were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit #2. The 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka are alcoholic beverages which are not allowed to be sold under the series 2-COP license on the subject premises. When the officers entered, the same Junior Lee Smith was in the licensed premises and indicated that he was in charge of the licensed premises and had been selling alcoholic beverages for "quite some time" together with his wife, Pearlie Mae Smith, the licensee. The bag he indicated, had been whiskey that had been left over from the night before.
Recommendation It is recommended that based upon the violation as established in the hearing that the licensee, Pearlie Mae Smith, have her beverage license suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Winson, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mrs. Pearlie Mae Smith 1013 West Malloy Avenue Perry, Florida
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent, doing business as The Knight Out, was the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 72-79, series 1-COP. Prior to the hearing . . . in this cause, Respondent had turned in his license to the Petitioner. To the rear of the licensed premises, Respondent operated a bottle club known as The Knight Club. The Knight Club is attached to and shares restroom facilities with The Knight Out. On March 27, 1975, Respondent was served with a "Notice to show cause why beverage license should not have civil penalty assessed against it or be suspended or revoked" on the grounds that on Sunday, January 26, 1975: his employee, Vicki Lynn Williamson, at approximately 2:00 am., did sell at the licensed premises, an alcoholic beverage, a can of Budweiser beer, to beverage officer L. E. Williams during the time that the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited, in violation of City of Perry Ordinance 394 enacted pursuant to F.S. s. 562.14; at approximately 4:00 a.m., he sold at the licensed premises an alcoholic beverage, one can of Budweiser beer, to beverage officer Williams in violation of City of Perry Ordinance 394; at approximately 5:00 a.m., he sold at the licensed premises an alcoholic beverage, one can of Budweiser beer, to beverage officer Williams in violation of City of Perry Ordinance 394; at approximately 6:05 a.m., he refused to admit to the licensed premises beverage officer Jack Garrett, while in the performance of his official duties, contrary to F.S. s. 562.41; and at approximately 6:05 a.m., he had in his possession, custody and control, at the licensed premises a partially full 4/5 quart of Smirnoff Vodka, an alcoholic beverage not authorized to be sold by him, in violation of F.S. s. 562.02. Beverage officer L. E. Williams went to The Knight Out the weekend of January 24, 1975, in order to conduct an undercover investigation of the licensed premises. He observed the Respondent, between 11:30 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. on January 24th, remove four cases of beer from The Knight Out and place them into a small room in The Knight Club portion of the premises. At about 1:00 a.m. on January 25th, Williams paid a $2.00 cover charge, entered The Knight Club and remained there until 6:00 a.m. On Saturday night, January 25th, beverage officer Williams again went to The Knight Out and, at about 11:30 p.m., again observed Respondent moving five cases of beer from The Knight Out to the rear portion, The Knight Club. Williams entered The Knight Club during the early hours of January 26, 1975, carrying a can of beer with him. He left at approximately 2:30 a.m., met with other beverage agents, and returned to The Knight Club at about 3:45 a.m., paying the cover charge of $2.00. At 4:00 a.m. and again at 5:00 a.m. on January 26, 1975, Williams purchased from Respondent Poppell cans of Budweiser beer at seventy-five cents per can. Williams retained control of the two beer cans and at about 6:30 a.m. he tagged them as evidence. They were admitted into evidence at the hearing as Exhibits 4 and 5. At approximately 6:05 a.m. on January 26, 1975, beverage officer Jack Garrett, along with several other law enforcement agents, knocked on the front door of The Knight Club seeking entrance thereto. Respondent told Garrett to get in front of the peephole on the door so that he could see who was there. Garrett, who had known Respondent for some fifteen years, testified that he showed his identification card to Respondent through the peephole, whereupon Respondent replied that he would not let him in. Beverage officer T. A. Hicks, present with Garrett at the time, confirmed these events. Respondent and two other witnesses present at the scene testified that Respondent asked the persons at the front door to identify themselves, but that no response was received. Shortly thereafter, Officer Garrett, along with other law enforcement officers, went around to the other side of The Knight Club and entered, without knocking, the ladies rest room which led to the inside of The Knight Club. Once inside, they met Respondent leaving a small room with a handful of liquor bottles. One such bottle was seized - - a partially filled bottle of Smirnoff Vodka - - and was received into evidence at the hearing as Exhibit 6. Shirrell Woodalf testified that she had come to The Knight Out on the morning in question with another couple. When the other couple left, they gave her their bottle of Smirnoff Vodka. She then gave the bottle to Respondent to keep for her in his office. Woodalf identified Exhibit 6 as being the same bottle as that left with her and given to Respondent. Four witnesses who often frequented The Knight Club testified that patrons of the Club always brought their own beer or other alcoholic beverages into the Club. Respondent would cool their beer for them and keep their bottles in his office if they so desired. Respondent sometimes charged a small fee for cooling the beer and he sold setups for mixed drinks. These four witnesses never saw Respondent sell either beer or other alcoholic beverages in The Knight Club.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that: Paragraphs 1 and 5 of the notice to show cause be dismissed; Respondent be found guilty of violating F.S. ss. 562.14 and 562.41, as set forth in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the notice to show cause; and Respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked. Respectfully submitted and entered 26th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Charles Nuzum Director Division of Beverage 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street, Room 210 Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Conrad C. Bishop, Jr., Esquire Weed & Bishop P.O. Box 1090 Perry, Florida 32347
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Edward Lee Howell (Howell), holds alcoholic beverage license number 46-01252, Series 2-COP, for licensed premises located at 2712 Towles Street, Fort Myers, Florida, known as Mr. B's Lounge. Violation of Local Ordinance Lee County Ordinance 76-9, as amended by Ordinance 79-1, provides in pertinent part: All places or establishments within the unincorporated area of the county and lawfully licensed by the State Beverage Department of Florida, may sell or serve, or permit to be sold, served or consumed, any type of alcoholic beverage of any kind whatsoever for consumption both on or off the premises only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. of the following morning every day of the week, including Sundays. Howell was cited on or about July 1, 1989, for allegedly violating this "hours of sale" ordinance, but he was aquitted in August, 1989. In 1990, Lee County Sheriff's Office (LCSO) Deputy James Nygaard warned Howell a half dozen times not to sell alcoholic beverages after 2 p.m. On or about December 28, 1990, Nygaard cited Howell for allegedly violating the ordinance by allowing a patron to consume alcoholic beverages on the premises after hours. Howell was tried and acquitted because it was not proven that the patron was drinking an alcoholic beverage. After successive reassignments to another patrol zone and to work as a detective, Nygaard was reassigned to patrol the East Zone in January, 1995. Beginning in January, 1995, Nygaard warned Howell twice not to sell alcoholic beverages after 2 p.m. On or about March 11, 1995, Nygaard cited Howell for violating the ordinance. Howell denied the charges, which still were pending in criminal court at the time of the final hearing. Nygaard testified that, this time (in contrast to the December, 1990, charge), he retained a sample of the contents of the container out of which the patron was drinking after 2 p.m. He testified that the sample was tested and found to be an alcoholic beverage. But the evidence shed no light on the extent of Howell's responsibility for the violation (e.g., how long after 2 p.m. the violation occurred, whether the violation was flagrant, whether Howell was even on the premises at the time of the violation or, if not, how diligent he was in training his employees on how to prevent violations of the "hours of sale" ordinance.) Howell denied that he sells or serves or allows alcoholic beverages to be served, sold or consumed in violation of the ordinance. Mr. B's remains open after 2 a.m. and patrons dance and listen to music, but Howell testified that they are not allowed to drink alcohol in the lounge after 2 a.m. Towles Street Near Mr. B's Mr. B's Lounge is in a section of Fort Myers, Florida, where in recent years violent crime increasingly has become an undeniably serious problem to area residents and the LCSO, which is the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction. Towles Street is a two-lane road that runs between Edison Avenue and State Road 82 outside the city limits of the City of Fort Myers. During the evening hours, especially on weekends, large numbers of people park cars in the street and congregate in the area. Some of these people patronize Mr. B's, but many more congregate in the street and on both sides of the street up and down Towles Street in the vicinity of Mr. B's. A good number of these people drink too much and become noisy and violent. (Not all of the drinking takes place in Mr. B's, and not all of what is drunk comes from Mr. B's. Many of these people buy their alcoholic beverages elsewhere, or bring them from home, and drink their alcoholic beverages outside on and along Towles Street.) Many drive at recklessly high speeds up and down the street (when the streets are passable.) Loud music is played from stereos in car driving up and down the street and parked in the street. Some of these people, drunk or not, come to the area with the intention to engage in crime, violence and other disruptive conduct. More and more carry knives and firearms, or keep them in their cars, and many use or threaten to use their weapons. Assaults and armed robberies are common. The area around and including Mr. B's has become known to those who frequent it as a place to go to "hang out" and be a part of this violent scene. The violence, including stabbings and shootings, has become so prevalent that residents of the area who do not participate in the violence are afraid to leave their homes at night and, even in their homes, they are not completely safe from stray bullets. The violence and reputation for violence on Towles Street in the vicinity of Mr. B's has become like no other place in Lee County. One LCSO deputy testified that he has heard more automatic weapon fire on duty at night on Towles Street than he heard during his entire experience as a member of the United States armed forces. Some deputies testified that, especially on weekends, there often are so many cars parked illegally in Towles Street that deputies patrolling the area or responding to complaints have to park their police vehicles on Edison Avenue or State Road 82 and walk in. They believe that, when they are seen approaching, the people congregating in the vicinity of Mr. B's lock their weapons in cars and that many of them enter Mr. B's to avoid the deputies. On occasion, the crowds of people encountered by LCSO deputies on Towles Street do not disperse so readily. Once, two deputies responding to a call for service in the vicinity of Mr. B's were assaulted before reaching the lounge and received injuries, including a broken jaw, requiring medical attention in the hospital. (Howell assisted the deputies in subduing the assailant.) On another occasion, it took deputies approximately an hour to control and disperse the crowd, during which time another call for LCSO assistance had to go unanswered for half an hour. Some of the incidents on Towles Street occur before 2 a.m., but many occur later, after the LCSO patrols have been reduced to a single shift. With fewer deputies on patrol, the violence on Towles Street becomes an even greater problem for law enforcement. By the time backup arrives in response to calls on Towles Street, practically no deputies remain available to patrol or respond to calls for service in the rest of the zone. The Licensed Premises No sketch of the licensed premises was introduced in evidence. The evidence was that Mr. B's faces Towles Street and that the front door opens onto a front step that is separated from the street by an unpaved strip of grass and dirt about seven feet wide. Until very recently, Mr. B's had only four parking spaces and did not have a parking lot. The precise extent of the licensed premises was not made clear from the evidence. During an inspection of the licensed premises on February 23, 1995, DABT Special Agent Odom recovered 141 spent gun shell casings in the vicinity of Mr. B's, including: seventy-four 74 9mm's; three 38 Specials; sixteen 16 357 Magnums; four 45-caliber; three 30-caliber; three 44 Magnum; one 10mm; 2 25- caliber; and nineteen 12 gauge shotgun shell cases. Some of these spent shell casings were recovered between the front door to Mr. B's and Towles Street. Most were recovered within 15 to 20 feet from the lounge building, but some were recovered as far as 20 yards away, including some that were found all the way across Towles Street on the opposite side of the street. Four were recovered under the cushion of a couch inside Mr. B's, but there was no evidence how they got there and no evidence that they were fired inside Mr. B's. Except for these four, it was not proven that any of the spent shell casings actually were recovered from the licensed premises themselves. From February, 1991, through October, 1994, there have been 135 calls for LCSO service arising out of incidents in the vicinity of Mr. B's. Some of the calls reported finding lost property or suspicious persons or were for the purpose of reporting some other information to the LCSO. Many of the calls were for relatively minor offenses, such as disturbances, trespassing, vandalism, nuisances, car accidents and highway obstruction. But many were for more serious crimes such as assaults, use or display of firearms, burglaries and robberies. Although many of these calls were placed from a telephone at Mr. B's, the evidence was not clear which, if any, of the incidents instigating calls actually occurred at Mr. B's. It seems clear that the police records use a reference to "Mr. B's" as as short hand way of describing Towles Street in the vicinity of Mr. B's. Some of the incidents in the vicinity of Mr. B's constituted violent crimes. Since 1988, there have been: two murders; four attempted murders; 11 batteries with a firearm; two batteries with a knife; one sexual battery or attempted rape; one shooting into a vehicle; one robbery with a firearm; and two batteries with a dangerous weapon. Most of these crimes occurred outside of Mr. B's, and the evidence did not prove that they occurred on the licensed premises, or how close to the licensed premises they occurred. One incident that clearly occurred on the licensed premises was a fight that broke out during the early morning hours of February 12, 1995. One person was hit on the head with a claw hammer, and another was stabbed with a knife. After some of the participants left Mr. B's, fighting continued outside on the street. Someone telephoned the LCSO, and when deputies arrived, they witnessed four men kicking another who was lying on the ground behind a car, while approximately fifty other people stood watching. As the deputies approached, a man with a sawed-off shotgun walked up to the man lying on the ground and shot him in the leg. It was not clear from the evidence whether any of the people involved in the incident outside on the street had been patrons of Mr. B's. On or about August 3, 1993, the LCSO investigated an incident in which a patron of Mr. B's was shot while walking out the door of Mr. B's. The victim did not know who shot him or where the shot came from. On or about June 7, 1994, the LCSO investigated an incident involving an alleged sexual battery or attempted rape that occurred in the restroom at Mr. B's. The alleged victim in that case withdrew her complaint, and the case was closed. One LCSO deputy testified that he has received several telephone calls from a pay phone down the street at Edison Avenue reporting assaults and other crimes that allegedly occurred inside Mr. B's and that the victim reportedly was afraid to place the call to the police while still at Mr. B's (for fear of further assault.) But there was no specific evidence about any of these alleged crimes. Although some local residents blamed Mr. B's for the loud music heard in the neighborhood, especially on weekend nights, it was not clear whether the loud music being heard by the local residents actually is coming from Mr. B's, as opposed to being played from car stereos on the streets. The Respondent's Responsibility for the Violence and Noise It was not proven that Howell does anything to condone violence and noise in or around Mr. B's Lounge or that he is protecting criminals from apprehension by the LCSO. To the contrary, almost all of the crime reports to the LCSO from 2712 Towles Street were placed by Howell himself or his employees. Not only has Howell telephoned the police for assistance on many occasions, he also has put himself at risk of physical harm by helping law enforcement officers subdue violent subjects in and around the premises. In addition, Howell employs a bouncer who uses a metal detector to try to insure that no weapons are brought into Mr. B's and denies entrance to certain people known to cause problems. (Surprisingly, given the kind of people who congregate on Towles Street, there also was no evidence sufficient to support a finding of illegal drug use in or about the licensed premises.) One LCSO sergeant recalled an occasion when he confronted Howell about problems in and around Mr. B's and, in the sergeant's opinion, Howell treated him rudely. Howell does not recall the incident. No other law enforcement officer testified to any occasion when Howell was anything but cooperative with law enforcement. There was no evidence that the DABT counseled Howell on measures to take to reduce violence on his licensed premises. For example, the DABT could have required the Respondent to supervise and control the entire licensed premises, including both the building and grounds (including parking lot). The Respondent also could have been required to fully cooperate with law enforcement in its efforts to control crime in the area, including allowing LCSO complete access to the licensed premises. See Section 562.41(5), Fla. Stat. (1993). Instead, the evidence was that the LCSO complained to the DABT about Mr. B's on or about February 20, 1995, that the DABT inspected the premises on February 23, 1995, and that the DABT then initiated the proceedings that led to the issuance of the Emergency Suspension Order on or about March 16, 1995. Since Mr. B's has been under the Emergency Suspension Order, there have been markedly fewer problems for law enforcement and law-abiding residents in the area. The people who had been congregating near Mr. B's and causing problems either have found somewhere else to congregate or have dispersed for the time being. Mr. B's apparently attracted and served as a focal point for these people. It seems that suspending the Respondent's license has had a positive effect on the level of crime in the immediate vicinity. (However, some law enforcement officers seemed to support Howell's opinion that the people causing the problems near Mr. B's eventually will find another place to hang out and cause problems.) Clearly, the LCSO and many of the local residents would like to see Mr. B's closed permanently. But the reduction in violence and loitering after the Respondent's beverage license was suspended does not, in itself, prove that the Respondent was culpably responsible for violence and loitering that occurred while the licensed premises were open and operating. Howell operates a package store, not far from Mr. B's but within the city limits of Fort Myers, and near another lounge. City police regularly patrol the area, and it has relatively few of the problems experienced on Towles Street. A more frequent and visible law enforcement presence on Towles Street also would reduce violence and disturbances there. Five to ten years ago, Mr. B's operated in the same location with fewer problems. In those earlier years, LCSO patrolled the area more frequently. In those days, parking laws were enforced more consistently, and LCSO patrol cars could drive down Towles Street without difficulty. When loiterers were encountered in the street, LCSO required them to either go inside Mr. B's or go home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), enter a final order: (1) dismissing the charges in the Notice to Show Cause against the Respondent, Edward Lee Howell; and (2) also dismissing the Notice to Show Cause seeking to impair the licensed location owned by the Respondent, William A. Bell. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 21st day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 95-1403 and 95-1404 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, the reputation attached to licensed premises actually applies not only to the licensed premises but also to Towles Street and the area surrounding Mr. B's. First sentence, rejected as not proven. (Many of the 176 calls on DABT Ex. 3 were not made from Mr. B's.) Second and third sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, it only was proven that a few of the violent acts actually were committed on the licensed premises.) Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (One of the questions for determination in this case is the extent of Howell's "affirmative duty.") Rejected as not proven that the violent acts were committed by patrons or, if they were patrons, that they were committed on the licensed premises. Otherwise, the first sentence is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, in the public mind, "Mr. B's" describes not just the licensed premises but also Towles Street and the area surrounding Mr. B's. First sentence, rejected as not proven that the initial service call reported the shooting of a patron. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the incidents described in the second sentence occurred during the investigation. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the 141 shell casings were recovered in the Respondent's "parking lot." (They were recovered from the immediate vicinity of Mr. B's, starting from the side of the building and extending for up to approximately 40 yards away, and including on the opposite side of Towles Street across from the licensed premises. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (Nygaard warned Howell several times in 1990 before arresting him. Howell was tried and acquitted on a judge's ruling that it was not proven that the patron was drinking alcoholic beverages after hours. After Nygaard was reassigned to the East Zone in January, 1995, he again arrested Howell on similar charges, which Howell denies and which are still pending.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Howell's Proposed Findings of Fact. (Howell wrote a letter from which findings arguably have been proposed, as indicated.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the crimes described in the evidence did not "in the vicinity of" Mr. B's. Accepted that the Respondent recently added a parking lot and incorporated to the extent necessary. Accepted that, if they cooperate, the Respondent and LCSO can solve some of the problems, and incorporated to the extent necessary. Bell's Proposed Findings of Fact. (Bell also wrote a letter. Much of the letter is argument but findings arguably also have been proposed, as indicated. For purposes of these rulings, the unnumbered paragraphs of Bell's letter are treated as consecutive, separate proposed findings.) Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as argument and as not supported by any evidence. First sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as argument and as conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated that Howell called LCSO frequently to report crime. Rejected as not proven that none of the incidents involved Mr. B's, that all involved "just the neighborhood"; accepted and incorporated that many of the calls involved incidents occurring off the licensed premises. The rest is rejected as argument and as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not supported by the record that most of the alcoholic beverages drunk by people hanging around in Towles Street are from sources other than Mr. B's; accepted and incorporated that much is, and that all the liquor is. (Mr. B's has a Series 2-COP license.) Rejected as argument, as subordinate and unnecessary, and as unsupported by any evidence. Accepted and incorporated that LCSO has reduced patrols in the area, in part due to budgetary constraints but also in part due to the illegally parked cars that block Towles Street, and that Howell places many of the telephone calls reporting crime in the area. Otherwise, rejected in part as unsupported by any evidence, in part as argument and conclusion of law, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated that reduced police presence in areas like Towles Street increases crime. Otherwise, rejected as argument, as subordinate and as unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated that the DABT did not prove lack of due diligence. Otherwise, rejected in part as argument and conclusion of law, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. In part, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that only one of the violent crimes was reported to have originated in Mr. B's.) (See Findings of Fact 19 and 20.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated in part. In part, rejected in part as argument and conclusion of law, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated that the wounds were not received on the licensed premises. Otherwise, rejected as cumulative. Accepted and incorporated that the evidence did not clearly identify either the victim or the assailant as being patrons. Otherwise, rejected in part as argument and conclusion of law, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Cumulative. Accepted and incorporated that Towles Street presents a difficult police problem and that increased patrols and manpower could help. Otherwise, rejected in part as unsupported by any evidence (the nine-block area), in part as argument, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated that many people congregate in the streets and that policing them is made difficult by the congestion. Otherwise, rejected in part as argument and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. 17.-18. Cumulative. Rejected that Tamayo's statement was naive. Accepted and incorporated that the problem could move elsewhere if Mr. B's were closed. Otherwise, argument, subordinate and unnecessary. Generally accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary, or argument. However, Bell does not seem to acknowledge the serious problems faced by law enforcement in the Towles Street. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that no problems occur before 2 a.m. Also, subordinate, unnecessary, and argument. 22.-23. Argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Chief Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020 Edward Lee Howell 1348 Brook Hill Drive Ft. Myers, Florida 33916 William A. Bell 19450 Tammy Lane Ft. Myers, Florida 33917 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John J. Harris, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), is an agency of the State of Florida charged with responsibility for enforcing Chapter 561, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is Walter Falcon, d/b/a Falcons JVJ General Store (hereinafter referred to as "Falcons"). At all times relevant to this proceeding Mr. Falcon held Florida alcoholic beverage license number 64-00453, series 2-COP (hereinafter referred to as the "License"). The License authorized Mr. Falcon to sell and possess alcoholic beverages on premises of Falcon's located at 1088 Highway 20, Interlachen, Putnam County, Florida. The Putnam County Sheriffs Office Investigation of Falcon's. In October of 1993, the Putnam County Sheriffs Office initiated an investigation of alleged sales of alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21 years at Falcons. On October 14, 19, 20 and 28, 1993 Pollyanna Alessi entered Falcons in furtherance of the Putnam County Sheriffs Office investigation. Ms. Alessi's date of birth is March 13, 1973. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Alessi was 20 years old. Ms. Alessi's appearance in October of 1993 was not such that an ordinary prudent person would believe her to be of legal age. On October 14, 1993: Ms. Alessi entered Falcon's and purchased a six-pack of Miller Genuine Draft beer. Petitioner's exhibit 2. Mr. Falcon sold the beer to Ms. Alessi. Mr. Falcon did not ask Ms. Alessi for any identification or other proof of age. Mr. Falcon also did not ask Ms. Alessi her age. On October 19, 1993: Ms. Alessi entered Falcon's and purchased a six-pack of Miller Genuine Draft beer. Petitioner's exhibit 3. Mr. Falcon sold the beer to Ms. Alessi. Mr. Falcon did not ask Ms. Alessi for any identification or other proof of age. Mr. Falcon also did not ask Ms. Alessi her age. On October 20, 1993: Ms. Alessi entered Falcon's and purchased one bottle of Miller Genuine Draft beer. Petitioner's exhibit 4. Mr. Falcon sold the beer to Ms. Alessi. Mr. Falcon did not ask Ms. Alessi for any identification or other proof of age. Mr. Falcon also did not ask Ms. Alessi her age. On October 28, 1993: Ms. Alessi entered Falcon's and purchased a six-pack of Coors beer. Petitioner's exhibit 5. Mr. Falcon sold the beer to Ms. Alessi. Mr. Falcon did not ask Ms. Alessi for any identification or other proof of age. Mr. Falcon also did not ask Ms. Alessi her age. The products purchased by Ms. Alessi were clearly labelled as beer, an alcoholic beverage, and were identified as alcoholic beverages. The Division's Investigation of Falcon's. On October 29, 1993, Chris LaBelle, while in the employ of the Division, participated in the investigation of alleged sales of alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21 years at Falcons. Ms. LaBelle's date of birth is April 29, 1974. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. LaBelle was 19 years old. Ms. LaBelle's appearance on October 29, 1993 was not such that an ordinary prudent person would believe her to be of legal age. On October 29, 1993: Ms. LaBelle entered Falcon's and purchased a six-pack of Michelob Light beer. Petitioner's exhibit 7. Mr. Falcon sold the beer to Ms. LaBelle. Mr. Falcon did not ask Ms. LaBelle for any identification or other proof of age. Mr. Falcon also did not ask Ms. LaBelle her age. The products purchased by Ms. LaBelle were clearly labelled as beer, an alcoholic beverage, and were identified as alcoholic beverages.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a Final Order finding that Walter Falcon, d/b/a Falcon's JVJ General Store, is guilty of the violations of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Action of December 17, 1993. It is further RECOMMENDED that Walter Falcon, d/b/a Falcon's JVJ General Store, alcoholic beverage license number 64-0453, series 2-COP be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 9th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX The Division has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Falcon did not file a proposed recommended order. The Division's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Accepted in 3. 2 See 4. 3 Accepted in 5-7. 4 Accepted in 7. 5 Accepted in 8. 6 Accepted in 9. 7 Accepted in 10. 8 Accepted in 12-14. 9 Accepted in 14. 10 Accepted in 11 and 15. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Jack McRay DBPR Acting General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John J. Harris Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
