Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Garnetta Yvonne Graham, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-05643, series 2APS, for the premises known as Alexs Grocery, 260 N.W. 71st Street, Miami, Florida. On June 17, 1988, Detective Rickey Mitchell of the Metro Dade Police Department, operating undercover, entered the licensed premises to purchase narcotics. He approached the young lady who was working behind the counter and asked her for a "dime cigarette" and a "ten cent rock" (cocaine), and passed her a ten dollar bill and one dime. The young lady went to a room at the rear of the store, and when she returned told Detective Mitchell that she did not have any "ten cent rocks" but only "five cent rocks." When Detective Mitchell told her that he would accept two "five cent rocks," the young lady returned to the room at the rear of the store and upon her return delivered two plastic baggies to Detective Mitchell. The contents of the baggies were subsequently analyzed and proved positive for cocaine. The subject transaction was done openly, and with no attempt to conceal its occurrence from other persons on the premises. Respondent was not, however, present, and there was no proof that she had any actual knowledge that narcotics were sold or possessed on the licensed premises. In an apparently unrelated incident, respondent was charged by an information filed with the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, with having unlawfully and feloniously possessed cocaine on July 24, 1988, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, a third degree felony. 2/ On October 31, 1988, following a plea of nolo contendere, a final judgment was entered finding respondent guilty as charged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 23-05643 held by respondent, Garnetta Yvonne Graham d/b/a Alexs Grocery. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of May 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida which has as its responsibility licensure and regulation of beverage license holders in the State. The Respondents hold Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco License Number 13-490, Series 2-COP. At all times pertinent here to Larry E. Bunton and Ronald L. Jennings were the sole owners and operators of the license and licensed premises, which is located at 8503-A Thomas Drive, Panama City, Florida. Between the dates of June 4, 1981, and July 17, 1981, a joint investigation of the subject Respondents was conducted by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco and the Bay County Sheriff's Office. On the evening of June 24, 1981, Investigator Mike Broadway and Agent Al Whitfield of the Bay County Sheriff's Department and the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, respectively, entered the licensed premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether controlled substances or drugs were either used, dispensed or sold on the premises. On that occasion they made the acquaintance of one Wendall Earl Holt ("Windowpane") and after talking with him inside the licensed premises and negotiating the purchase of drugs, the three went out into the parking lot by the front door of the licensed premises at which location Officers Broadway and Whitfield purchased three methaqualone tablets from "Windowpane" for ten dollars. Methaqualone or "quaalude" is a controlled substance within the purview of Chapter 893 Florida Statutes. The next evening on June 25, 1981, Officers Broadway and Whitfield entered the licensed premises once again, ordered a beer and engaged the bartender, Dan Barbeau, in conversation. During the course of that conversation they inquired of him of the possibility of purchasing drugs and Barbeau indicated that he was the "distributor" for "Windowpane" or Wendall Earl Holt. Shortly thereafter, in the course of the conversation, the two officers and the bartender agreed upon the sale and purchase of three round white tablets, which later proved to be methaqualone, from Dan, the bartender. This transaction occurred in plain view, over the top of the bar, during the course of which he handed to them the three tablets in return for a ten dollar-bill. On July 6, 1981, Officers Whitfield and Broadway again entered the bar and engaged in conversation with Dan Barbeau. They inquired of him about the possibility of purchasing a thousand to five thousand methqualone tablets. Barbeau agreed to make arrangements for the purchase of that quantity of methaqualone and also indicated that he could obtain a supply of marijuana. Barbeau then introduced the officers to an individual known as "Stargazer" and the Officers gave Dan, the bartender, thirty-five dollars to purchase a bag of marijuana from "Stargazer." They observed Barbeau keep out five dollars of that purchase for himself. The Officers visited the bar again on July 9, 1981, and bought a forty- dollar bag of marijuana from "Stargazer" at the bar, giving him the money at the bar, whereupon he went outside to obtain the goods. He returned to the bar and delivered the marijuana to them inside the licensed premises. On July 15, 1981, the Officers returned to the bar and were inside drinking beer and shooting pool when "Windowpane" Holt arrived and offered to sell them more methaqualone or quaalude tablets. This negotiation occurred inside the premises and the three then went outside to the parking lot where the Officers bought one tablet from Bolt. Thus, during six or seven visits to the licensed premises, the Officers made five separate drug purchases of illegal controlled drugs. These transactions occurred on June 24 and 25, July 6, July 9, and July 15, 1981. Two of the five purchases were made directly from the licensees' bartender, Dan Barbeau. The other purchases were made from the two patrons named above. On one occasion the acting manager was made aware of controlled substances on the premises because one of the Officers showed him a methaqualone tablet he had just purchased. During the course of the investigation and at no time during any of the transactions referred to above was either of the licensee-owners observed on the premises, nor were they observed dealing in drugs. They were not shown to be involved in any of the subject purchases of drugs. There was no showing that the licensees had any direct knowledge that drug transactions were occurring on the premises. The Respondents have been licensed for only a few months and have never been charged with a violation of the beverage or drug laws previously.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Edna P. Smith, d/b/a Silver Tip Beer And Wine, holds Alcoholic Beverage License Number 69-465, Series Number 2-COP, to operate Silver Tip Beer And Wine at 1509 West 13th Street, Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. Due to her age and bad health, Respondent hired a manager named Joseph Lee Solomon (Joe) to operate the licensed premises and herself withdrew from the operation and supervision of the licensed premises approximately one to one and one-half years ago. Since then, Respondent's only contact with the operation or supervision of the licensed premises was to receive her profits from Joe. On or about October 22, l985, while he was actively engaged as the manager on the licensed premises, Joe did unlawfully aid, abet, counsel, hire or otherwise procure the sale/or delivery of a controlled substance as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: aided a patron, in selling marijuana to a third party, on the licensed premises, in violation of Sections 777.011 and 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On or about October 28, 1985, while he was actively engaged as the manager on the licensed premises, Joe did unlawfully aid, abet, counsel, hire or otherwise procure the sale and/or delivery of a controlled substance as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: aided a patron, in selling marijuana to a third party, on the licensed premises, in violation of Sections 777.011 and 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On or about November 6, 1985, while he was actively engaged as the manager on the licensed premises, Joe did unlawfully aid, abet, counsel, hire or otherwise procure the sale and/or delivery of a controlled substance as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: aided a patron, in selling marijuana to a third party on the licensed premises, in violation of Sections 777.011 and 893.13(1)(a) within Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On or about November 18, 1985, while he was actively engaged as the manager on the licensed premises, Joe did unlawfully possess and sell and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: sold and personally delivered marijuana to a third party, on the licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On or about November 21, 1985, while he was actively engaged as the manager on the licensed premises, Joe did unlawfully possess and sell and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: sold and personally delivered cocaine to a third party, on the licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On or about November 25, 1985, while he was actively engaged as the manager of the licensed premises, Joe did unlawfully possess and sell and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: sold and personally delivered cocaine to a third party, on the licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On or about December 5, 1985, while he was actively engaged as the manager of the licensed premises, Joe did unlawfully possess and sell and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: sold and personally delivered cocaine to a third party, on the licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On or about December 16, 1985, while he was actively engaged as the manager of the licensed premises, Joe did unlawfully possess and sell and/or deliver a controlled substance as defined in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, to wit: sold and personally delivered cocaine to a third party, on the licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The transactions referred to in paragraphs 3. through 10. above occurred in view of all patrons in the licensed premises at the time. In addition, patrons openly smoked marijuana, snorted cocaine and injected drugs hypodermically in front of Joe, the manager, during the time period from approximately October 22, 1985, through December 19, 1985. There was no need to hide these activities from Joe because he knew about them and condoned them. On December 19, 1985, Joe was arrested and was in possession of cocaine in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. It was not proved that Respondent had actual knowledge of the violations described in paragraphs 3. through 10. and 12. above. Nor was it proved that she actually condoned them. But it was proved that Respondent was negligent in supervising her manager, Joe, and the operation of the licensed premises. Her negligence allowed the violations to take place easily and with impunity until her license was suspended.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking Alcoholic Beverage License Number 69-465, Series 2-COP, held by Respondent, Edna P. Smith, d/b/a Silver Tip Beer And Wine, 1509 West 13th Street, Sanford, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of January, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esq. Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edna P. Smith 1900 West 18th Street Sanford, Florida 32771 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Notice To Show Cause issued September 22, 1989 by the Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondents, Eugene and Joan Ferretti, d/b/a Gino's Beer and Wine (Gino's) held a Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division) alcoholic beverage license for the premises known as Gino's located at 2012 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach Shores, Volusia County, Florida, license number 74-01399, series 2-APS Eugene and Joan Ferretti are co-licensees for Gino'. The Respondents stipulated that Gina Ferretti, employee and daughter of Eugene and Joan Ferretti, did on July 13, 1988 sell one 12 ounce can of Budweiser Light Beer, an alcoholic beverage, to a person under the age of 21 years and on October 21, 1988 did sell one 8 ounce can of Budweiser Beer, an alcoholic beverage, to a person under the age of 21 years, both sales being in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On July 18, 1988 the Division gave the licensees Official Notice of the July 13, 1988 violation and advised the licensees that if a similar violation occurred in the future the licensees could be charged with the current violation along with any future violations. On October 24, 1988 the Division advised the licensees of the October 21, 1988 violation and that this was a final warning before issuance of a Notice To Show Cause in the event of another violation which could subject the license to revocation or suspension. Since the two incidents in which she was involved occurred, Gina Ferretti has had training concerning the sale of an alcoholic beverage to persons believed to be under the age of 21 years, and has not been involved in any other violations since October 21, 1988. Because Eugene Ferretti works in construction it is necessary for Gina Ferretti to help in running Gino's and, therefore, Gina Ferretti stills works in Gino's. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Tina D. May worked with the law enforcement investigators of the Division in the Daytona Beach, Florida area as an underage operative to assist in determining whether licensed establishments were selling alcoholic beverages within their licensed premises to persons under the age of 21 years. Ms. May was instructed by the Division, as all underage operatives are, not to dress or act in such a fashion that is designed to entice the licensee to sell her alcoholic beverages without checking her identification to confirm her age or in any way lie about her age or use a false identification. Ms. May considered her work with the Division as a public service because her husband was killed in a alcohol related vehicular accident. On March 11, 1989 Ms. May, then 20 years and 7 months of age, entered the licensed premises of the Respondent under the supervision of Ronald P. Sullivan, Investigator for the Division. Ms. May was casually dressed, wearing a white T-shirt with logo and blue jeans; her hair was brushed straight downward, and she wore no makeup. On March 11, 1989 Ms. May's appearance resembled that of a working person rather than that of a student on spring break. After entering Gino's, Ms. May proceeded to purchase a 12 ounce can of Budweiser Light Beer, an alcoholic beverage. Eugene Ferretti was on duty at the time, and asked Ms. May if she was "21". Instead of responding that she was not "21", Ms. May handed Ferretti her Florida's driver's license with a yellow background indicating that the person identified in the license was under the age of 21 years when the license was issued. Ms. May's lack of a verbal response to Ferretti's question concerning her age was contrary to instructions given by Ronald Sullivan, to be "up front" about her age. The implication of Ms. May producing her driver's license in response to a question concerning her age, coupled with her appearance, led Ferretti to believe that she was "21", and resulted in Ferretti being less diligent than he should have been in reviewing Ms. May's driver's license. Due to Ferretti's lack of diligence he misread the 08 in May's birth date of 08/04/68 as an 03 and determined her birth date to be 03/04/68 rather than 08/04/68. Thinking she had just turned "21" on March 4, 1988, Ferretti sold Ms. May, a person under the age of 21 years, a 12 ounce can of Budweiser Light Beer, an alcoholic beverage. Ms. May had never purchased or attempted to purchase an alcoholic beverage in Gino's before the time of this offense. Ronald P. Sullivan was at the door of Gino's when Ms. May purchased the beer, but was unable to hear the conversation between Ferretti and Ms. May. Upon completing the purchase of the 12 ounce can of Budweiser Light Beer from Ferretti, Ms. May handed the beer to Sullivan who impounded it. Ferretti does not dispute the sale of the beer on March 11, 1989 to Ms. May, and allowed it to be introduced into evidence without objection. The conversations between the Division's operative and Gina Ferretti during the sales on July 13, 1988 and October 21, 1988 were taped, which is the usual procedure so as to rebut any conflicting testimony concerning a conversations between the Division's operative and the person making the sale. However, the conversation at the time of the sale between Ferretti and Ms. May on March 11, 1989 was not taped.
Recommendation In making the following recommendation I am mindful of the Division's "guidelines" of imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 and a 20-day suspension of the license for the first offense of violating Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, (selling an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of 21 years) regardless of the circumstances surrounding the violation, which appear to conclusively presume that the penalty should be the same regardless of the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation without any consideration being given to mitigating circumstances, if any. Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the circumstances surrounding the violations, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and for such violations, considering the circumstances surrounding the violations, assess a civil penalty of $250.00 for each of the violations for a total civil penalty of $750.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 20th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6166 Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 9 and 11, except the last sentence which is rejected since the label on the can of beer does not indicate the alcohol content. However, the can of beer does have the word Florida? on its lid and bares the trademark "Anheuser-Busch" which is prima facie evidence of it being an alcoholic beverage as defined in Section 561.01(4)(a), Florida Statutes which was not rebutted. See Section 562.47(2), Florida Statutes. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, as modified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 and 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 through 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 through 6, as modified. Not necessary to the conclusion reached in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-2. Adopted in Finding of Facts 1 and 2, respectively. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7, but modified. 4.-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11. 9.-10. These are restatements of testimony and not findings of fact, but see Finding of Fact 9. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 12.-16. These are restatements of testimony and not findings of fact, but see Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 17.-18. Not material to the conclusion reached in this Recommended Order. 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Emily Moore, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 French Davis, Esquire 2762 South Peninsular Daytona Beach, Florida 32118
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the accusation by the Petitioner directed to the Respondent that the Respondent, on or about January 24, 1980, did unlawfully have in her possession or permit or allow someone else to have in their possession, namely, Anthony Lewis Graham, alcoholic beverages, to wit: one partial quart bottle of Smirnoff Vodka, one partial quart bottle of Gordon's Gin and one 200 ml bottle of Gordon's Gin, on the licensed premises and it is further alleged that the substances were not authorized by law to be sold under the Respondent's license, contrary to Section 562.02, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this action is an agency of the State of Florida which has as its purpose the regulation of those several licensees who sell alcoholic beverages and tobacco products in the State of Florida. The Respondent, Estelle Collins, is the holder of an alcoholic beverages license issued by the Petitioner, License No. 26-00766, Series 2-APS. This license allows the Respondent to sell beer and wine to be consumed off the licensed premises. The license is issued for the Respondent's premises located at 1152 East 21st Street, Jacksonville, Florida, where the Respondent trades under the name 21st Street Grocery. On January 24, 1980, Anthony Lewis Graham, one of the Respondent's patrons in her licensed premises, removed a box from his automobile which was parked on the street in the vicinity of the licensed premises. He carried the box which contained a partially filled quart bottle of Gordon`s Gin; a partially filled quart bottle of Smirnoff Vodka and a partially filled 200 ml bottle of Gordon's Gin into the licensed premises. These bottles contained liquor, that is, alcoholic or spiritous beverages that were not authorized to be sold at the licensed premises under the terms and conditions of the license issued to the Respondent. The box containing the liquor was carried in while an employee of the Respondent was working in the licensed premises and placed behind the meat counter. The box was left with the top opened. It is not clear whether the employee saw the bottles in the box prior to a routine premises inspection conducted by officers with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The inspection took place shortly after Graham had brought the alcoholic beverages into the licensed premises. When the officers entered the premises, they identified themselves to the employee working in the store and this employee left to get the licensee. The employee returned with the Respondent, Estelle Collins, and the officers commenced inspection of the premises. In the course of that inspection, they discovered the aforementioned bottles of alcoholic beverages in the box. They also noted other empty liquor bottles in the area of the meat counter and the service counter within the licensed premises. (There had been another occasion in February, 1979, when the Petitioner's officers had discovered empty gin and vodka bottles in the licensed premises, and this former situation brought about a citation to the Respondent but no penalty action was taken against the Respondent.) No testimony was developed on the matter of the instructions which the Respondent had given to her employees on the subject of keeping unauthorized forms of liquor out of the licensed premises. The only remark which was established by the hearing dealing with the question of keeping those items away from the licensed premises was a statement by Graham, who said that it was not unusual for him to go behind the service counter in the licensed premises. Following this inspection and the discovery of the alcoholic beverages, to wit: liquor bottles in the box, the Petitioner brought the present action against the Respondent.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint accusation placed against the Respondent, Estelle Collins, d/b/a 21st Street Grocery, License No. 26-00766, Series 2-APS, be DISMISSED. 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: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Kennedy Hutcheson, Esquire 341 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be suspended or revoked for alleged violations of the Beverage Law, Chapters 561 and 562, Florida Statutes (1981).
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent held alcoholic beverage license No. 15-388 2-COP, authorizing it to sell beer and wine at its business known as Golden Dolphin #2, ("licensed premises") located at 218-B Highway A1A, Satellite Beach, Florida. The licensed premises includes a bar, lounge, and stage where nude or partially nude dancers provide live entertainment. I. Alleged Violations Occurring On July 3, 1980 During the evening of July 3, 1980, Beverage Officers B. A. Watts and Kevin Ashcroft entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Officer Watts sat down at a table and ordered a beer. Patricia Belle Gardener a/k/a "Peaches," employed by respondent, approached and sat down at his table. While they were talking, Anita Jackson, a waitress employed by respondent, approached and asked him, "Do you want to buy Peaches a drink?" or words to that effect. He turned to Peaches and asked her if she wanted a drink; she answered "Yes." He then ordered a wine cocktail for her and paid Ms. Jackson $5.00. (Testimony of Watts.) Later that evening, Peaches asked Officer Watts if he would buy her another drink. He replied that the price was rather steep but that, if she got part of it, he would agree. After she replied that she received a commission from the sale, he agreed. She summonned waitress Jackson, and told her that he wanted another drink. Ms. Jackson asked Officer Watts if he wanted a bottle, which she said was a "better deal." (Tr. 32) After hearing the price, he declined and ordered her another wine cocktail. (Testimony of Watts.) Officer Watts then asked Peaches what time she got off work and if she had a date. She told him the time, and that she did not have a date. He asked if she liked to have a good time, to which she replied, "Yes, how much money have you got?" (Tr.33) He answered "How much will it take?" and offered her $20. She said "that's not enough." He asked, "[H]ow about $30?" (Tr.33) She agreed. He asked, "What will $30 get me?" and she replied, "Half and half," which--in street talk--means oral and sexual intercourse. (Testimony of Watts.) Officer Ashcroft, who had entered the premises with Officer Watts, had seated himself at the bar. He was approached by Laurie Thornton, another female dancer employed by respondent, who asked, "How about buying me a drink?" or words to that effect. He declined, after which she approached another patron at the bar. (Testimony of Ashcroft.) No evidence was adduced to show that respondent, through its owners or managers, knew that its employees were asking or soliciting customers to purchase alcoholic beverages for the employees' consumption. II. Alleged Violations Occurring On February 19, 1981 In February, 1981, DABT launched another investigation of the licensed premises. On February 19, 1981, Beverage Officers Fred Dunbar and Rufus Blanton entered the licensed premises, set at a table near the dance stage, and ordered beers from Helen Davis, a waitress employed by respondent. McKinney Rojas, a/k/a Tia Marie, a dancer employed by respondent, approached them and sat down at their table. Almost immediately, waitress Davis appeared and asked "Are you going to buy Ti [meaning Tia Marie] a drink?" (Tr.-73) Officer Dunbar replied, "Ti ain't said nothing about wanting a drink." (Tr.-73) Tia Marie then explained: Fred, let me explain it to you. This is a beer and wine bar, and it's against the rules for us to drink beer. What I'd like for you to do is buy me a bottle of champagne. Helen will bring it to us in a bucket of ice with two glasses and we can sit here and drink it together, and we can talk. (Tr.-73) Officer Dunbar agreed and ordered a small (6.3 oz.) bottle champagne for $10.00. Waitress Davis then brought it to the table with a bucket of ice and one glass. He continued to drink his beer; she drank the champagne and remained at the table for approximately 45 minutes, then excused herself because it was her turn to dance on stage. (Testimony of Dunbar, Blanton.) Tia Marie then returned to the beverage officers table. Almost immediately waitress Davis appeared and asked Officer Dunbar if he was going to buy Tia Marie another bottle. He declined. Tia Marie then stood up, and asked Officer Blanton if he was going to buy her a bottle. Waitress Davis asked him the same question. He agreed, waitress Davis brought another bottle of champagne, and he paid her $10.00. During this conversation, Tia Marie explained to the officers that she was getting a 25 percent commission for the drinks customers bought for her; that they were really paying for her company, not for the champagne. (Testimony of Blanton, Dunbar.) During that same evening, Beverage Officer Watts entered the licensed premises and sat at another table near the dance stage. He ordered a beer from waitress Davis. Shortly thereafter, "Sabal," a female dancer employed by respondent, sat down at his table and engaged him in conversation. A few minutes later, waitress Davis appeared and asked if he wanted to buy Sabal a drink. He turned to Sabal and asked her what she wanted. She replied, "Helen [Davis] can explain it to you." (Tr.-46) Ms. Davis then explained that he could buy a bottle of champagne for Sabal for $10.00. He agreed. (Testimony of Watts.) After Sabal finished drinking the champagne, she asked Officer Watts if he would buy her another bottle. He replied that it was a rather steep price, that he might agree if she got something out of it. After being assured that she received a commission of $3.00 per bottle, he agreed to purchase her another for $10.00. Waitress Davis, again, brought it to the table. After finishing her second bottle, Sabal told Officer Watts that it was her turn to dance and went to the nearby stage. (Testimony of Watts.) III. Alleged Violations Occurring On February 26, 1981 On February 26, 1981, the three beverage officers (Watts, Dunbar and Blanton) returned to the licensed premises. Officers Dunbar and Blanton again sat at a table near the stage, Officer Watts sat at another. While seated at their table, Officers Dunbar and Blanton were approached by "Dominique" (later identified as Madeline C. Droege), a female dancer employed by respondent. Dominique was wearing black panties, stockings with a garter belt, high-heeled shoes, and a silk elastic-like material covering her breasts. Almost immediately, waitress Davis appeared and asked, "Are you going to buy Dominique a drink?" (Tr.-77) Officer Dunbar replied, "We're not going to go through all that again are we?" (Tr.-77) Waitress Davis laughed, and Dominique said she would like to have some wine. But before he agreed to buy her wine, the conversation turned to the subject of lap dancing. (Testimony of Dunbar, Blanton) Dominique told Officer Blanton that she would perform a lap dance for him for $5.00. He agreed. When the next song started, she removed the silk material covering her breasts and straddled Officer Blanton's lap. Wearing only panties and high-heeled shoes, she simulated sexual intercourse by rotating and gyrating the lower part of her body. During the lap dance, she massaged her breasts with her hands. Later that evening she also performed the same type of dance on Officer Watts, for which she was also paid $5.00. (Testimony of Blanton, Watts.) After Dominique departed, Michelle Smith, another female dancer employed by respondent, approached the officers' table and asked if she could join them. They agreed, she sat down, and then waitress Davis appeared, asking, "Are you going to buy Michelle a bottle of champagne?" (Tr.-80) At first, he resisted. But Miss Smith encouraged him, "Oh, come on, Fred, buy me a bottle of champagne. (Tr.-81) He finally agreed, and waitress Davis brought a bucket of ice, a glass, and a small bottle of champagne, for which he paid $10.00. Miss Smith also told the officers that she received a commission on the champagne sales. After drinking half of the bottle she left the table, explaining that she had to go backstage. (Testimony of Dunbar.) She returned to the table a few minutes later, finished the bottle of champagne, and requested another. At the same time, she turned the bottle upside down in the ice bucket and admitted that this was a signal to the waitress that she wanted another bottle. Waitress Davis then returned to the table and--at Miss Smith's request--Officer Dunbar purchased her a second bottle of champagne. She later requested that he purchase a third bottle, but he declined, explaining that he was out of money. She then left the table and performed a striptease on the nearby stage. (Testimony of Dunbar.) Before leaving the premises, the two officers were approached by Tia Marie, the same dancer whom they had met on February 19, 1981. She sat at the table and asked Officer Blanton to buy her a drink. He agreed and waitress Davis returned with a bottle of champagne. Tia Marie consumed the champagne, then turned the bottle upside down on the ice bucket. (Testimony of Dunbar, Blanton) That same evening, Office Watts--who had seated himself at another table nearby--was also approached by Dominique, who sat down and engaged him in conversation. Waitress Davis soon appeared and asked if he would like to buy the lady a drink. He said the lady had not asked for one; Dominique responded that she would like to have one. She then ordered a bottle of champagne for which Officer Watts paid the waitress $10.00. (Testimony of Watts.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked for multiple violations of the Beverage Law. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel S. Henderson, Esquire and Jerrold A. Bross, Esquire 1365 North Courtney Parkway, Suite D Merritt Island, Florida 32952 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Emergency Order of Suspension and Notice to Show Cause and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating licensed alcoholic beverage establishments. At all times material to the allegations in this case, the Respondent, Marsbar of Kendall, Inc., doing business as Marsbar, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-00706 which is a series 4-COP license. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Marsbar was located at 8505 Mills Drive, R-2, in Miami, Dade County, Florida. At all times material to the allegations in this case, the following persons were officers and/or shareholders of the Respondent corporation: Mark Vasu, Shannon Miller, David Lageschulte, Gerald Joe Delaney, and Henry Long. Others having a direct or indirect interest in the company are: Bonnie M. Vasu, Carole W. Vasu, Paul Lynch, Jonathan G. Delaney, and Douglas Long. Prior to the issuance of the Emergency Order of Suspension which is at issue in this proceeding, the Department conducted an investigation of alleged acts of recurring, illegal narcotic activity on the licensed premises. In furtherance of such investigation, Special Agent Bartelt, Detective Fernandez, and Detective Robertson entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity for the purpose of purchasing illegal substances. In this regard Special Agent Bartelt observed the two detectives as they attempted to acquire illegal substances from persons within the licensed premises. The investigation at Marsbar began on April 5, 1997, and was concluded on June 12, 1997. In total, the detectives made eight purchases of a substance which was later tested and determined to contain cocaine. Respondent did not object to, nor dispute the accuracy of, the lab reports received into evidence which confirmed the substances contained cocaine. As to the purchase which occurred on April 5, 1997, Detective Robertson approached a male bathroom attendant and represented to him that "Anthony" had sent him. He then asked the attendant for drugs and, by implication in the language of such transactions, requested cocaine. The attendant referred him to a patron of the bar who he described as a man in a black shirt with a black cap. Detective Robertson attempted to locate the patron as he had been described and even asked a security person if he had seen the male. When the security person denied having seen any drug dealers, Detective Robertson went back to the attendant for clarification who then pointed out an individual known in this record as "Juan." After transferring $20.00 to Juan, Detective Robertson received a small plastic bag containing less than one-half gram of cocaine. Upon receipt of the bag, Detective Robertson held the bag at approximately waist level and "flicked" it to verify the amount of the contents. This was done in an inconspicuous manner and simulated the procedure the detective felt was used by drug purchasers to examine the amount of the substance being procured. Although this transaction took place eight or ten feet from a bartender, there is no evidence that the transaction was witnessed by any person other than those participating in the buy. On April 19, 1997, Detective Fernandez went to the female restroom attendant and asked for drugs. After being advised to return later, Detective Fernandez observed an unknown male hand the attendant a plastic bag. In exchange for $25.00, the attendant then delivered a plastic bag containing approximately one-half gram of cocaine to Detective Fernandez. Although Detective Fernandez observed a bartender enter and exit the restroom during the events described in this paragraph, there is no evidence that the bartender observed any or part of the transactions which took place. On May 8, 1997, or the early morning of May 9, 1997, Detective Robertson again approached the male bathroom attendant at Marsbar and requested drugs. On this occasion the attendant, in exchange for $20.00, sold the detective approximately one-half gram of cocaine in the men's restroom. Although there were other patrons of the bar within the restroom, there is no evidence that any of them witnessed the transaction. On May 9, 1997, Detective Fernandez also sought to purchase drugs through the female restroom attendant. Although there were numerous patrons entering and exiting the facility, there is no evidence that anyone observed Detective Fernandez exchange $25.00 for approximately one-half gram of cocaine which was delivered in a small plastic bag. On May 16, 1997, Detective Fernandez purchased two bags of cocaine for $30.00 each from the female restroom attendant following the same procedure described above. Again, there is no evidence that anyone in or near the restroom observed the transactions. Detectives Fernandez and Robertson went to Marsbar again on May 30, 1997 for the purpose of purchasing illegal drugs. Using the same methods described above, Detective Fernandez was unable to purchase cocaine on this date. Detective Robertson, however, after beginning a conversation inside Marsbar, was able to purchase cocaine in the parking lot outside the club. This transaction resulted from contact made with a club patron known in the record as "Alex." This individual and the female restroom attendant introduced Detective Robertson to another patron known in this record as "Al" who later delivered the cocaine in the parking lot. Another male, "Manolito" in this record, approached Al and demanded cocaine he had allegedly been sold but had not received. Conversation regarding the pending sales took place in the licensed club, but it is unknown whether any employee of Marsbar heard the nature of the transactions discussed. A presumably drunken outburst from one bar patron suggests he understood a drug transaction was being discussed. It is undisputed that the actual exchange took place off the licensed premises. Finally, on June 12, 1997, Detective Fernandez returned to Marsbar and for $30.00 was able to purchase approximately one- half gram of cocaine. This purchase, like the others by Detective Fernandez, was through the female restroom attendant and occurred in or near the restroom facility. There is no evidence anyone observed the transaction. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Marsbar was a popular club which was well attended on the nights of this investigation. The audio system for the club, though especially dominating on the dance floor, distributed music throughout the licensed premises. As to the lighting system for the club, at all times material to this investigation, it would have been set at its lowest levels of illumination throughout the licensed premises. Consequently, only the restrooms would have been well lit. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the restroom attendants were not employees of Marsbar or its management company but were contract personnel through a third party valet service operated by David Cook. Marsbar paid Cook to provide restroom attendants. This contract was terminated on June 13, 1997, when Respondent learned of the attendants' alleged involvement in the illegal transactions described above. Further, Marsbar notified Cook of its intention to assist in the prosecution of such individuals. Marsbar is managed by a company known as Chameleon Concepts. In order to effectively identify and minimize potential losses for Marsbar, Chameleon Concepts contracted with a company whose purpose was to audit operations to ensure the overall integrity of the business operation. This auditor, a forensic fraud examiner, was to identify losses or potential losses due to fraud, embezzlement, policy or procedure violations, or other improprieties. Thus, effective October 1, 1996, Marsbar was voluntarily being reviewed by an independent company for potential improprieties. The auditor for the company, John Capizzi, found no violations of policy, alcoholic beverage rules, or regulations. Prior to the investigation of this case, Marsbar employees have been required to participate in responsible vendor programs. Marsbar management routinely conducts meetings wherein responsible vendor practices are discussed. Marsbar and Chameleon Concepts have developed written employee handbooks and policies which specifically admonish employees regarding illegal substances on the licensed premises. Marsbar employees and managers are instructed to advise the management of any suspected illegal substances on the licensed premises. In the past, Marsbar has participated in campaigns designed to retain false identification used by suspected underage drinkers to gain entrance to licensed premises. The testimony of Mr. Vasu, regarding efforts of the company to comply with all rules or regulations of the Department, has been deemed credible and persuasive regarding Marsbar's position on illegal drug transactions. Management would not condone or allow illegal drug sales if they were known to it. None of the officers or shareholders of Marsbar were aware of the illegal drug transactions occurring on the licensed premises. Cocaine is a controlled substance, the sale of which is prohibited by Florida law. None of the purchases described herein were of such a nature or were so conspicuously transacted that a reasonable person would have known illegal sales were taking place. None of the patrons of the club who testified for Respondent were aware that illegal drug sales took place within the licensed premises. Neither of the detectives making the purchases acted in a flagrant or open manner. Moreover, neither of the detectives attempted to verify whether or not bartenders, security guards, or managers employed by Marsbar were aware of the restroom attendants' illegal activities. In addition to selling illegal drugs, the restroom attendants handed out towels to club patrons and offered for sale personal toiletry items at tables maintained within the restroom. For a club patron to have money to purchase such items or tip the attendant would be reasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the Emergency Order of Suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Louis J. Terminello, Esquire Chadroff, Terminello & Terminello 2700 Southwest 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133-2728 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Hearing Officer finds the following facts: Respondent is the holder of Beverage License No. 26-957,2-COP and the licensed premises encompass the bar known as "The Harem". Sergeant Thomas R. Genest, a Jacksonville Police Officer, went in The Harem on November 1, 1974. Upon entering he saw Georgiann Smith and Annie Pearl Williams, both of whom worked as topless dancers in The Harem and were at that time dressed as topless dancers. At the time Sergeant Genest entered the bar Smith was dancing topless at the bar between the legs of a male patron simulating intercourse with the patron. Williams was similarly dancing topless between the legs of a male patron, simulating intercourse and allowing the patron to place his hands on her buttocks and thighs. Sergeant Genest had no independent recollection of Virginia Lou Roberts or any acts in which she might have been engaged on November 1, 1974, in The Harem. On March 6, 1975, Detective H. R. Hall of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office Vice Squad, was working The Harem undercover. While in The Harem he saw Maria Jenkins, Essie Mae Parks and Gaynell Moore, who were dressed as topless dancers and working as topless dancers in the bar. Jenkins was dancing topless between the legs of a male patron and rubbing her body against him as she danced. Parks was dancing topless between the legs of a male patron, who had his hands on her buttocks as she rubbed her vagina against his mid-section. Moore was dancing topless between the legs of a male patron who had his hands on her buttocks as she rubbed her vagina against his mid-section. At all times pertinent to this proceeding Georgiann Smith, Annie Pearl Williams, Maria Jenkins, Essie May Parks and Gaynell Moore were agents, servants or employees of the licensee.
The Issue Whether Petitioners' applications for the delinquent renewal of their special restaurant licenses pursuant to Section 561.27(2), Florida Statutes, should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notices of Intent to Deny.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: There are various types of DABT-issued licenses authorizing the retail sale of alcoholic beverages. Among them are quota licenses, SRX licenses, and SR licenses. All three of these licenses allow the licensee to sell liquor, as well as beer and wine. Quota licenses, as their name suggests, are limited in number. The number of quota licenses available in each county is based upon that county's population. SRX and SR licenses are "special" licenses authorizing the retail sale of beer, wine, and liquor by restaurants. There are no restrictions on the number of these "special" licenses that may be in effect (countywide or statewide) at any one time. SRX licenses are "special restaurant" licenses that were originally issued in or after 1958.3 SR licenses are "special restaurant" licenses that were originally issued prior to 1958. For restaurants originally licensed after April 18, 1972, at least 51 percent of the licensed restaurant's total gross revenues must be from the retail sale of food and non- alcoholic beverages.4 Restaurants for which an SR license has been obtained, on the other hand, do not have to derive any set percentage or amount of their total gross revenues from the retail sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. DABT-issued alcoholic beverage licenses are subject to annual renewal.5 License holders who have not timely renewed their licenses, but wish to remain licensed, may file an Application for Delinquent Renewal (on DABT Form 6015). Until recently, it was DABT's longstanding policy and practice to routinely grant applications for the delinquent renewal of SR and other alcoholic beverage licenses, regardless of the reason for the delinquency. DABT still routinely grants applications to delinquently renew alcoholic beverage licenses other than SR licenses, but it now has a "new policy" in place with respect to applications for the delinquent renewal of SR licenses. The "new policy" is to deny all such applications based upon these SR licenses' not having been in "continuous operation," action that, according to DABT, is dictated by operation of Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, a statutory provision DABT now claims it had previously misinterpreted when it was routinely granting these applications. Relying on Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, to blanketly deny all applications for the delinquent renewal of SR licenses was the idea of Eileen Klinger, the head of DABT's Bureau of Licensing. She directed her licensing staff to implement the "new policy" after being told by agency attorneys that this "was the appropriate thing [from a legal perspective] to do." Abkey and Amy Cat have SR licenses that were originally issued in 1956 "per general law and not pursuant to any special or local act." Maneros has an SR license that was originally issued in 1952 "per general law and not pursuant to any special or local act." As applicants applying to delinquently renew their SR licenses, Petitioners are substantially affected by DABT's "new policy" that SR licenses cannot be delinquently renewed because they have not been in "continuous operation," as that term is used in Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes. Their applications for the delinquent renewal of their licenses would have been approved had the status quo been maintained and this "new policy" not been implemented. Abkey filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 2005) on February 21, 2007. On the application form, Abkey gave the following "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period": "Building was sold. Lost our lease." On April 2, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Abkey's application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 2005, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. Maneros filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 2005) on June 4, 2007. On the application form, Maneros gave no "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period"; however, the application was accompanied by a letter from a Maneros representative, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: I am today submitting a delinquent renewal application for the above-referenced alcoholic beverage license. The building has been demolished, and there is a vacant lot at the site at this time. Redevelopment is scheduled for this area, and I expect new construction to begin shortly. The license was first issued to this location 55 years ago. I have inquired with the City of Hallandale Beach, Florida, and there remains a question as to whether zoning approval for this type of alcoholic beverage license would be permitted under current uses once reconstruction is complete. The licensee of record wishes to reinstate and possibly use or transfer the license. . . . On June 8, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Maneros' application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 2005, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. SR licenses will not be allowed to be moved from the location where the license was originally issued. Amy Cat filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 1999) on December 6, 2006. On the application form, Amy Cat gave the following "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period": "Building was closed." On June 8, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Amy Cat's application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 1999, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. SR licenses will not be allowed to be moved from the location where the license was originally issued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order granting Petitioners' applications for the delinquent renewal of their SR licenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2008, 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 30th day of April, 2008.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating licensed alcoholic beverage establishments. At all times material to the allegations in this case, the Respondent, Café Iguana, Inc., doing business as Café Iguana, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-01868 which is a series 4-COP license. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Iguana was located at 8505 Mills Drive, D-75, in Miami, Dade County, Florida. At all times material to the allegations in this case, the following persons were officers and/or shareholders of the Respondent corporation: Mark Vasu, Shannon Miller, David Lageschulte, and Gerald Joe Delaney. Prior to the issuance of the Emergency Order of Suspension which is at issue in this proceeding, the Department conducted an investigation of alleged acts of recurring illegal narcotic activity on the licensed premises. In furtherance of such investigation Special Agent Bartelt, Detective Fernandez, and Detective Robertson entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity for the purpose of purchasing illegal substances. In this regard Special Agent Bartelt observed the two detectives as they attempted to acquire illegal substances from persons within the licensed premises. The investigation at Iguana began on March 15, 1997, and was concluded on June 12, 1997. In total, the detectives made seven purchases of a substance which was later tested and determined to contain cocaine. Respondent did not object to, nor dispute the accuracy of, the lab reports received into evidence which confirmed the substances contained cocaine. As to the purchase which occurred on March 15, 1997, Detective Fernandez approached a female bathroom attendant and represented that she wanted "to get hooked up." According to Detective Fernandez this type of language is commonly used to ask for illegal drugs. She sought cocaine, by implication in the language of such transactions. The attendant referred her to an individual known in this record as "Anthony" who was the men's restroom attendant. Standing in the doorway to the men's restroom, Detective Fernandez exchanged $20.00 for approximately one-half gram of cocaine. The cocaine was in a clear plastic zip-lock style bag that was no larger than two inches by two inches. Upon receipt of the bag, Detective Fernandez placed it in her pocket and left the restroom area. All of the transactions later described were completed in the same manner. Detective Fernandez made no effort to be noticed by the club's management. She was not conspicuous in the purchase of the illegal substance. Instead, she made every effort to mimic her perception of a drug transaction. The next purchase occurred on April 4, 1997. On this date, Detective Fernandez went back to Anthony and again requested drugs. She was told to wait. Approximately forty-five minutes later she returned to the doorway area adjacent to the men's room. At that time other females were also waiting for Anthony. After transferring $25.00 to the attendant, Detective Fernandez received approximately one-half gram of cocaine. During this purchase, Detective Fernandez believes Respondent's employees may have walked past to use the restroom but could not verify that anyone observed her transaction. Additionally, Detective Fernandez did not observe a sale of a similar type to the other females in line at the restroom corridor. On April 12, 1997, Detective Fernandez went to Anthony and asked him if she could "get a half." Noteworthy on this date was the fact that Detective Fernandez went inside the men's room to make the transaction. During her stay in the restroom she saw a bartender and a security person who were using the facility. Neither asked why she was inside the men's restroom. Neither interfered with her discussion with Anthony. Instead, Anthony introduced her to a white male who was using the telephone in the room who is identified in this record as "Juan." Anthony reported that Juan was "my man." In exchange for $40.00 Anthony delivered approximately one gram of cocaine to Detective Fernandez. There is no evidence that the bartender or the security person observed any of the transaction which took place. On May 9, 1997, Detective Fernandez again went to Respondent's club and sought illegal drugs. This time she asked a bartender how to "hook up." He referred her to the restroom. Anthony was not at the men's room, so she went to the female attendant known in this record as "Rica." Inside the female's restroom Rica exchanged approximately one-half gram of cocaine for $25.00. On May 15, 1997, Detective Fernandez purchased one-half gram of cocaine from Anthony for $30.00. Later, during the early morning hours of May 16, 1997, Detective Fernandez made a second purchase from Anthony. Although there were other patrons of the bar within the restroom, there is no evidence that any of them witnessed either of these transactions. The final purchase by Detective Fernandez was on June 11, 1997. On this date she contacted Rica and again sought to purchase drugs. She handed Rica $30.00, and the attendant left the restroom and returned a short while later with approximately one-half gram of cocaine. Although there were numerous patrons entering and exiting the facility, there is no evidence that anyone observed Detective Fernandez receive the bag of cocaine. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Iguana was a popular club which was well attended on the nights of this investigation. The audio system for the club, although especially dominating on the dance floor, distributed music throughout the licensed premises. In this regard it is uncertain if any of the conversations between the undercover officer and the parties selling drugs could be easily overheard. As to the lighting system for the club, at all times material to this investigation, lighting would have been set at its lowest levels of illumination throughout the licensed premises. Consequently, only the restrooms would have been well- lit. As a result it is uncertain as to how visible transactions occurring outside the restrooms would have been. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the restroom attendants were not employees of Iguana or its management company but were contract personnel through a third party valet service operated by David Cook. Iguana paid Cook to provide restroom attendants. This contract was terminated on June 13, 1997, when Respondent learned of the attendants' alleged involvement in the illegal transactions described above. Further, Iguana notified Cook of its intention to assist in the prosecution of such individuals. Iguana is managed by a company known as Chameleon Concepts. In order to effectively identify and minimize potential losses for Iguana, Chameleon Concepts contracted with a company whose purpose was to audit operations to ensure the overall integrity of the business operation. This auditor, a forensic fraud examiner, was to identify losses or potential losses due to fraud, embezzlement, policy or procedure violations, or other improprieties. Thus, effective October 1, 1996, Iguana was voluntarily being reviewed by an independent company, with an on-going, monthly retainer, to determine if there were any potential improprieties. The auditor for the company, John Capizzi, found no violations of policy, alcoholic beverage rules, or regulations. Prior to the investigation of this case, Iguana employees were required to participate in responsible vendor programs. Prior to the investigation of this case, Iguana managers were required to participate in responsible vendor programs. Iguana management routinely conducts meetings wherein responsible vendor practices are discussed. Iguana and Chameleon Concepts have developed written employee handbooks and policies which specifically admonish employees regarding illegal substances on the licensed premises. Iguana employees and managers are instructed to advise the management of any suspected illegal substances on the licensed premises. In the past, Iguana has participated in campaigns designed to retain false identification used by suspected underage drinkers to gain entrance to licensed premises. The testimony of Mr. Vasu regarding efforts of the company to comply with all rules and regulations of the Department has been deemed credible and persuasive regarding Iguana's position on illegal drug transactions. Management would not condone or allow illegal drug sales if it were known to them. None of the officers or shareholders of Iguana were aware of the illegal drug transactions occurring on the licensed premises. The only Iguana employee alleged to have been connected to a sale was one incident wherein a bartender referred Detective Fernandez to the restroom. Cocaine is a controlled substance, the sale of which is prohibited by Florida law. None of the purchases described herein were of such a nature or were so conspicuously transacted that a reasonable person would have known illegal sales were taking place. None of the patrons of the club who testified for Respondent were aware that illegal drug sales took place within the licensed premises. The detective making the purchases did not act in a flagrant or open manner. Moreover, the detective did not attempt to verify whether or not bartenders, security guards, or managers employed by Iguana were aware of the restroom attendants' illegal activities. At best, one bartender knew to refer the detective to the restroom. In addition to selling illegal drugs, the restroom attendants handed out towels to club patrons and offered for sale personal toiletry items at tables maintained within the restroom. For a club patron to have money to purchase such items or tip the attendant would be a reasonable assumption.
