The Issue Whether petitioner's application to change its corporate officers should be denied because the proposed officer allegedly lacks good moral character.
Findings Of Fact The Village Zoo holds alcoholic beverage license no. 16-839, Series 4- COP SR, authorizing it to serve alcoholic beverages at its bar (the "licensed premises") at 900 Sunrise Lane, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On September 22, 1982, the Village Zoo filed an application with DABT to change corporate officers by adding James C. Dowd as a vice president1. While this application was pending, James C. Dowd was employed as one of the managers at the Village Zoo. One of his duties was to help the bartender serve alcoholic beverages on an as-needed basis. On November 5, 1982, undercover Beverage Officer Tom Wheeler, 24, entered the licensed premises to investigate complaints of alleged sales of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons--persons under the age of 19. He paid a cover charge at the door, his identification was not checked. Inside, he saw 50-75 young patrons crowded in the area of the second floor bar. Two persons were tending bar, one of whom was James C. Dowd. Officer Wheeler saw two young patrons, William Esler, 17, and Kelly Heatherman, 18, approach the bar and ordered drinks from Mr. Dowd, who then served them two alcoholic beverages. (William Esler ordered and was served a Whiskey and Seven- up; Kelly Heatherman ordered and was served a Budweiser beer). Mr. Dowd served them these drinks without asking their age or checking their identification. When these two underaged individuals ordered the drinks, they were standing at the bar and in plain view of Mr. Dowd; they were neither standing behind others nor hidden from view. After Mr. Dowd served these two drinks, he was arrested and charged with the crime of serving alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 19. When Kelly Heatherman and William Esler, the two underaged persons, entered the premises that evening, they paid a cover charge but their age was not questioned at the entry door. Neither was their identification checked. The Village Zoo has a reputation in the community as a popular gathering place for young people. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman had been there before. William Esler had been there twice, prior to the November 5, 1982, incident, and once since. His identification had never been checked, although he did not order a drink on his last visit. Kelly Heatherman had been there every week from approximately September (1982) to November 5, 1982. During most of his visits, he ordered alcoholic beverages. One time, his identification was checked at the door and he was turned away. Since the November 5, 1982, incident, he has returned to the Village Zoo a couple of times. James C. Dowd was aware of Heatherman's continued patronage of the Village Zoo and described Heatherman as a regular customer. Heatherman continued to order and was served alcoholic beverages during his visits to the Village Zoo after November 5, 1982. After November 5, 1982, Heatherman continued to enter the Village Zoo without having his identification checked, despite the fact he was identified to the Village Zoo and James C. Dowd, on November 5, 1982, as being under the legal age (19) to possess or consume alcoholic beverages. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman were, as of the date of the administrative hearing on this case, under the age of 19 years. James C. Dowd knew or should have known that Kelly Heatherman's consumption of alcoholic beverages served by the Village Zoo after November 5, 1982, was contrary to the Beverage Law. (This paragraph contains findings of fact which are in addition to those found by the Hearing Officer. Such additional facts are not contrary to those found by the Hearing Officer, rather they amplify the same and are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the form of sworn testimony of Kelly Heatherman, William Esler and James C. Dowd). The Village Zoo had an announced policy prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons and prohibiting their entry onto the licensed premises. To enforce this policy, two persons were posted at the entryway to check identification and collect cover charges from patrons. Peter Balcunas, and off-duty Fort Lauderdale policeman, was also hired to provide security and assistance to the door-checkers. He was ordinarily posted near the front door, outside the premises. Under this Village Zoo policy, the two door-checkers had the primary responsibility to check the identification of patrons and prevent underaged persons from entering the premises. All employees, however, had the duty to check the identification of any patron if there was any question or doubt about whether the individual was of drinking age. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman fall within this "questionable or doubtful" category. From their demeanor and outward appearance at hearing, it is difficult to determine their true age. Their faces are mature for their age and they could reasonably pass as 18, 19 or 20-year olds. On the evening of November 5, 1982, Kelly Heatherman and William Esler entered the premises, walking past the door-checkers and Officer Balcunas. They then proceeded to the second floor bar and ordered drinks from Mr. Dowd. Their age was not questioned and their identification was not checked. The Village Zoo's announced policy of forbidding sale of alcoholic beverages to minors, including steps taken to enforce it, compares favorably with those of similar businesses in the area serving alcoholic beverages. James C. Dowd, the person allegedly lacking in good moral character, has a reputation in the community as an honest trustworthy, hardworking and law- abiding man. He attends church regularly. His business associates view him as a man who honors his financial obligations and who has good moral character. Mr. Dowd does not recall serving alcoholic beverages to William Esler and Kelly Heatherman on November 5, 1982. There was a crowd of customers near the bar at the time, and he was helping the bartender serve drinks as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, in his haste, he violated the Village Zoo policy. He served alcoholic beverages to two youthful-looking persons whose age was difficult to determine, without inquiring as to their age or checking their identification. There is no evidence that he knowingly and intentionally sold alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. (Two sentences contained in the Recommended Order at this place, were deleted as such constitute conclusions of law, not of fact). Although there was evidence that the two underaged persons had been served alcoholic beverages at the Village Zoo prior to and after November 5, 1982, it was not shown that Mr. Dowd served them or that (as one of the managers) he was culpably responsible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Village Zoo's application to change corporate officers be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 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 29th day of June, 1983.
The Issue A notice to show cause dated February 21, 1990, alleges that Respondent licensee sold beer to a person under the age of 21 on three occasions. The issue for determination is whether those allegations are true, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent, Convenience Alley, Inc. held alcoholic beverage license number 15-019272-APS, for the premises located at 5020 Minton Road NW, Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida. On Saturday April 29, 1989, at the request of the City of Palm Bay Police Department, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) participated in a joint operation with the Palm Bay police and the City of Melbourne police. The law enforcement agencies had received a series of complaints regarding the sale of alcohol to minors in the Palm Bay area. In the early evening, sometime between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., Amy Dvorak, a 17-year old underaged operative working with Sgt. Gordon Myers, an investigator with DABT, entered Respondent's licensed premises and purchased a sealed 6-pack of Budweiser beer from the clerk, Lisa McCormick. The clerk did not ask Ms. Dvorak's age and did not request her identification. Like all other underaged operatives working with DABT, Ms. Dvorak had parental permission to participate. She wore light makeup and appeared to be under 21 years of age at the time of the operation. She was casually dressed and her face and hair were fully exposed. Ms. Dvorak was instructed to carry legitimate identification and to produce it, or respond truthfully if requested. Convenience Alley is primarily a drive-through establishment where most customers are served while they wait in their automobiles. There is a walk-in entrance, however, and Ms. Dvorak made her purchase on foot. After exiting the premises, she gave the beer to the waiting law enforcement officers. The evidence was marked and placed in the inventory of the Palm Bay Police Department, where it was later destroyed in accordance with the department's policy of destroying evidence that is over one year old. Palm Bay Police Department property report #89-08883, maintained by Officer P. Scholem, documents the disposition of the 6-pack of beer. Melbourne Police Detective Ronald King observed the sale to Ms. Dvorak. Afterwards he approached the clerk, Lisa McCormick, under direction of Palm Bay Police Detective Paul Scholem and arrested her for unlawful sale to a minor. On May 3, 1989, Sgt. Myers mailed an "official notice" to the licensee, Convenience Alley, stating that the arrest had been made and warning that future violations could result in a charge against the license. On November 21, 1989, around 6:50 p.m. Sgt. Myers revisited Convenience Alley with another underage operative, James Core, Jr. As Sgt. Myers stood outside in the shadows, the youth drove through in his own vehicle and purchased a 6-pack of Budweiser beer. James Core was 19 years old and was attending the local police academy at the time. He was clean-shaven and looked his age. As he made the purchase, the clerk laughingly said to him, "Shouldn't I be checking your I.D.?" He responded, also in a joking manner "Yes, ma'am." Nothing more was said, and Core did not offer his license. After the purchase, James Core drove into the parking lot and gave Sgt. Myers the beer and change from the $10.00 he had been given for the purchase. Sgt. Myers went into the establishment and issued an arrest citation to Valerie Britts, the clerk. DABT sent Convenience Alley a notice, titled "Final Warning" dated November 27, 1989, stating that the next violation would subject the licensee to formal revocation or suspension proceedings. On February 7, 1990, Sgt. Myers returned to Convenience Alley with George Madden, a 20 year old recruit from the police academy, also clean shaven and casually dressed. George Madden drove through in his own vehicle with two beverage agents behind him in their vehicle. He asked for the 6-pack of Budweiser. The clerk returned with the beer and asked for his identification. Madden showed his driver's license; the clerk looked at it and sold him the beer. George Madden's birthdate is 11/30/69. His driver's license reflects this, and is stamped "Under 21", across the front. The stamp, however, obscures one digit of the 11, making his birthdate appear, without close scrutiny, to be 1/30/69. The clerk, Keith Wayne Lewis, read the birthdate as January. Since the incident occurred in February 1990, Lewis figured his customer had just turned 21, notwithstanding the stamp and yellow background on the photograph. A few minutes after the sale Sgt. Myers arrested Lewis. On February 8, 1990 Sgt. Myers sent Convenience Alley a notice of intent to file a notice to show cause, citing the recent, as well as two previous arrests of employees. On each occasion noted above, the store and drive through area were well-lit. The three operatives were appropriately trained and none appeared old beyond his or her years. None had been in the premises before. The DABT has written policies and procedures, dated July 1, 1989, governing the investigation of sales to minors and the use of underage operatives. The agency generally will not proceed against a licensee until there have been three violations, unless the licensee (owner) is on the premises making the sale or observing it. The policy guide suggests that the second sale should be on a different date, time or shift than the first, and within three to eight weeks after the official notice has been issued to the licensee. The third sale should be on a still different date, time or shift than the first two sales, and within three to eight weeks after the letter of final warning has been received by the licensee. The three sales in this case do not conform to those written guidelines. Instead of three sales over a period of approximately two months, this case involves three illegal sales in approximately ten months. Linda Beard is the Vice-president/Secretary and part owner of Convenience Alley, Inc. Her sister-in-law, Barbara Thomas is Treasurer and part-owner. A third owner, Terry Loy, is President and is unrelated. None of the owners was on the premises at the time of the sales which are the subject of this proceeding. The licensee owns only this one location. One of the two women works at the store every day and closes up the premises every night. Respondent did not provide formal training to its employees in the past, but now administers the "responsible vendor" test, which it obtained in March, after the third violation. The store has always had a sign near the cash register facing the clerks, reminding them to check ID's and giving the birthdates by which persons may legally purchase alcohol and tobacco. After the first violation, Linda Beard requested that DABT send her a poster explaining the new format for driver's licenses adopted on July 1, 1988. The poster was sent, but it was a black and white photocopy, and arrived in an envelope with $.10 postage due. The agency provides such aids to licensees as a courtesy. Sgt. Myers offered training to Convenience Alley's employees, but Linda Beard felt that since they were primarily part-time, it would be difficult to schedule the training, so she did not take advantage of the offer. Instead she relied on careful recruiting. The employees were only hired on good recommendations. Keith Lewis, for example, had experience in other convenience stores and is the son of a local police officer. She also admonished the employees to check IDs and warned that no sale is worth an arrest or the loss of a license. The owners now use a colored poster to train the clerks themselves. They also point out to the employees how difficult it is to read the birthday with the "Under 21" stamp superimposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the February 21, 1990 notice to show cause. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 8th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitute rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraphs 3-5. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in substance in paragraph 18. Rejected as immaterial. Respondent obtained the poster. and 11. Adopted in paragraph 8 and 9. 12. and 13. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as unnecessary. and 18. Adopted in substance in paragraph 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in paragraph 12. The date is legible if the observer is looking for second digit; it is not in plain sight. and 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 14. Rejected as cumulative and, as to non-misleading actions, contrary to the weight of evidence. No one lied and each operative followed the specific instructions. However, Operative Core's response was, in the context, sufficiently ambiguous as to mislead the clerk. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact ["Point 2"] Rejected as unnecessary. ["Point 3"] Rejected as unnecessary. ["Point 8"] Adopted in substance in paragraphs 17 and 18. ["Point 11"] Adopted in part, as to the response, in paragraph 9, otherwise rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Petitioners were not "out to get" Respondents, according to the evidence in this case. and 6. ["Point 16" and "Point 24"] Rejected as unnecessary. ["Point 26"] Adopted in paragraph 16. and 9. ["Point 33" and "Point 37"] Rejected as unnecessary, except as addressed in paragraphs 12 and 15. COPIES FURNISHED TO: Robin L. Suarez Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Linda J. Beard, Vice-President/Secretary Convenience Alley, Inc. 5020 Minton Road, N.W. Palm Bay, FL 32907 Joseph Sole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Dept. of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact Respondents hold alcoholic beverage license number 60- 0122, series 2- COP, and do business at 704 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach under the name of The Brass Bull. Respondents have operated The Brass Bull for six years without any complaints from law enforcement agencies until the execution of a search warrant on the premises on November 29, 1994. On September 12, 1984 the Petitioner and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office began an investigation of The Brass Bull and met with a confidential informant, hereinafter referred to as CI, who was employed at the time as a dancer at The Brass Bull. The CI agreed to make introductions for law enforcement officers to employees on the premises and was paid $150 on November 26, 1964 for making these introductions. The CI had been placed on probation in July, 1983 and was on probation during this investigation. The CI's husband was placed on probation on September 11, 1984. On September 14, 1984 Investigator Kenneth Goodman, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, and Sergeant David R. Harris, Riviera Beach Police Department, entered the licensed premises and talked with a dancer identified as "Linda" about the purchase of some marijuana. Linda gave Investigator Goodman a single marijuana cigarette analyzed as containing 260 milligrams of cannabis, but she did not have any to sell. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris met another dancer on the premises, identified as "Sunrise," on September 19, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine. Sunrise was later identified as Dawn Birnbaum. Sgt. Harris gave Sunrise $40, she left the premises through the front door, returned in a few minutes and handed Sgt. Harris two aluminum foil packets later analyzed as containing 200 milligrams of cocaine. Investigator Goodman also purchased 100 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise on September 19, 1984. These sales took place on the premises while other patrons were present, although Sunrise left the premises to obtain the cocaine for the sales. On September 25, 1984, Sgt. Harris entered the licensed premises with Investigator Richard Walker, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Investigator Walker purchased 505 milligrams of cocaine from Sunrise who left the premises to obtain the cocaine but returned to complete the sale on the premises. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were on the licensed premises on October 6, 1984 and discussed their desire to purchase cocaine with a dancer identified as Christine Flynn. They each gave Flynn $45, she left the premises, returned and handed them each a plastic baggie containing a total of 590 milligrams of cocaine. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. On October 12, 1984, Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris entered the premises and met a waitress identified as April Finster. Investigator Goodman asked to buy some marijuana. She went into a back room on the premises and returned with one marijuana cigarette containing 300 milligrams of cannabis, which she gave to Investigator Goodman. On October 16, 1984, Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer identified as "Blondie" on the premises and discussed their desire to purchase some cocaine from Blondie. The CI was present during this discussion, took $20 from Sgt. Harris, and then left the premises with Blondie. When Blondie and the CI returned, the CI gave Sgt. Harris a plastic bag which was heat sealed and filled with 110 milligrams of cocaine. Blondie stated that she always heat sealed her bags. Later Sgt. Harris gave Blondie $100, she brought him $70 change and then went into the dressing room. When Blondie exited the dressing room she approached the CI and they approached the table where Sgt. Harris was sitting. The CI placed a book of matches on the table and Blondie told Harris the cocaine was in the book of matches. Sgt. Harris found a heat sealed plastic bag containing 135 milligrams of cocaine in the matches. There were other patrons on the premises when these transactions took place. Sgt. Harris and Investigator Walker met a dancer named "Lola" on the premises on October 30, 1984. Sgt. Harris gave Lola $80, she entered the dressing room and then returned to where Sgt. Harris was seated with a white towel around her hand. Inside the towel was a bag containing 800 milligrams of cocaine. While on the premises with Sgt. Harris on October 31, 1984, Investigator Walker gave Lola $100. She left the premises and returned with a plastic bag containing 560 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Walker. On November 6, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris, and Investigator Goodman gave Lola $55. Lola approached a white male patron and then returned to Investigator Goodman and gave him a plastic bag containing 400 milligrams of cocaine. On November 20, 1984 Investigator Goodman was on the premises with Sgt. Harris. Lola approached Investigator Goodman and asked him if he wanted to buy some cocaine. He gave her $50, she left the premises and returned with a bag containing 300 milligrams of cocaine which she gave to Investigator Goodman. Other patrons were on the premises at the time of the transaction. Investigator Goodman and Sgt. Harris were also on the licensed premises on September 28, October 9 and 10, November 1 and 5. On each occasion they discussed the purchase of controlled substances as defined in Section 893.03, F.S., with Respondents' employees who were on the premises at the time of these discussions. No actual transactions took place on these dates. In brief summary of the foregoing, during the period of September 14 to November 20, 1984, transactions involving the sale of a total of 3.7 grams of cocaine and gifts of 560 milligrams of cannabis took place at The Brass Bull between Respondents' employees and Investigators Goodman and Walker, and Sgt. Harris. There were also five occasions when the purchase of controlled substances was discussed with Respondents' employees on the premises but no actual transaction took place. The CI was on the premises during most of these occasions, introducing the law enforcement officers to the various employees. The transactions usually took place while other patrons were on the premises, and included Respondents' employees passing the controlled substances on or above the table at which the officers were seated. On some occasions the employees left the premises after receiving money from the officers and returned a short time later with the controlled substance which they then gave to the officers on the premises. Respondents do not take an active role in managing The Brass Bull. They rely on a day manager and a night manager to hire, fire and discipline employees, to schedule the dancers, and to enforce the rules which are posted in the employees' dressing room. Rule 11 prohibits employees from having drugs or "liquors" on the premises, and states that anyone having these substances on the premises will be terminated immediately. Respondents never met with employees, other than their managers with whom they met or talked almost daily. Conversations and meetings with the managers were usually social, however, and generally did not involve business matters. Business meetings with the managers were held infrequently. Robert Meloche only visited the premises at 7:00 a.m. when no one else was present in order to review the prior night's receipts. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents employed various dancers on the licensed premises under the terms of an Entertainment Booking Agreement. All dancers were required to sign the booking agreement and agree to working conditions prescribed by the Respondents, including compensation arrangements, the number and color of their costumes, work hours, and the additional duties of cleaning and serving tables. Respondents also prescribed a set of seventeen (17) rules for all dancers and other employees. The above referenced individuals named Linda, Sunrise, Christine Flynn, April Finster, Blondie, Lola, and the Confidential Informant were employees of Respondents' at the licensed premises during the time relevant to this case. In making the above findings, the undersigned Hearing Officer has considered proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4., F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary or not based on competent substantial evidence. Specifically, Respondents' proposed findings as to Counts 14, 15 and 16 are rejected since they are not based on competent substantial evidence and are otherwise immaterial and irrelevant.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's license number 60-0122, series 2-COP. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations in the Notice to Show Cause herein, Respondent, Grand Saloon Tavern, Inc., was the holder of a valid alcoholic beverage license number 15-00028, Series 4-COP issued by Petitioner (DABT) to Respondent for the Inner Room located at 74 North Orlando Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida. On the evening of April 24, 1984, Beverage Investigator Gloria Smith and Special Agent Terry Altman, both in an undercover capacity, entered Respondent's licensed premises and took a seat near the disc jockey's booth. Smith asked an employee of the bar, a dancer named Janice Decker, who used the stage name "Angel," whom she had met weeks previously and established a friendship with, if Angel could get her some cocaine. Angel agreed and made arrangements for some cocaine, which she told Smith and Altman would arrive in about a "half hour." Somewhat later, Angel came up to the two agents where they were sitting in the bar, told them the cocaine had arrived, and received a $100 bill from Smith. Smith saw Angel engage in an exchange between Angel and the courier known to Smith as "Tommy" after which Angel came back to the agents' table and delivered to them a match box and told them it contained cocaine in two half-gram packages. When Angel left the table, Smith opened the match box and observed it contained two clear plastic bags which both had a white powder in them subsequently properly identified as cocaine. She took one of the bags out of the match box to check it. In Altman's opinion, the disc jockey saw her do this but that individual denies having done so. He contends that, given her position in the booth, with the lights adjusted as they are, he cannot see the people sitting at the tables below him and he knows nothing of any sale of drugs by Angel to Smith. Smith and Altman had gone into the Inner Room as a part of an ongoing investigation of several establishments to see if they could purchase drugs in them. Smith had met Angel at the Show Bar, another Cocoa Beach bar, in early March when Angel, who was working there at the time, did a personal dance for Agent Altman. After that, she made several purchases from Angel at the Show Bar using the cover story that she the, widow of an older man, who had been left a good income, and was now out looking for some "fun" with some younger man of whom Altman was supposed to be one. She said she wanted the cocaine for recreational use. The first time she want into the Inner Room she went in part to meet people and see the atmosphere of the place. On the first occasion, when she asked for Angel, Angel was not there. Smith returned to the Inner Room on May 10, 1984, this time in the company of United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent Eslingor and the two of them sat along the east wall of the lounge. On this occasion, she met Mr. Johnson, one of the owners who introduced her to the other owner, Mr. Crockett. The licensed premises is divided into three general areas--a small lounge, a larger lounge, and a game room. The east wall, where Smith sat, is in the area near the disc jockey's booth. Smith spoke with Angel about Angel's inability to deliver the cocaine she had promised on a previous occasion and asked her if she knew of anyone else who might have any cocaine for sale. When inquiry by Angel failed to reveal any available sources that evening, Smith gave Angel $100.00 for 1 gram of cocaine to be delivered the next night. Just about that time, Smith observed another dancer, Danielle, going into the restroom and followed her in. She went after Danielle because, based on information she had received from a third dancer, Deosia, she thought Danielle might have some for sale. When she got into the restroom, Smith asked Danielle if she had any cocaine to which Danielle replied she had only a little in her personal stack, of which she could give Smith a "line." Danielle then poured some white powdery substance, subsequently identified as cocaine, from a plastic triangular bag into a cellophane cigarette wrapper and handed it to Smith. Smith does not recall if Danielle asked for payment, but when Smith handed her $5.00 and when asked if that was enough, Danielle replied, "That's what I usually get." When Smith and Eslinger went back the following night, approximately 11:15 p.m., Angel, to whom Smith had given $100.00 the previous evening, told her that she had the cocaine Smith had asked for. She then delivered the substance, later identified as cocaine, and stated that she had taken a "line" for herself out of it. Smith agreed to that. Smith does not recall if the cocaine was delivered in a matchbook or in a folded $1.00 bill. In either case, however, consistent with her routine practice, upon delivery she checked the delivered substance out in the open by opening the package, tapping the enclosure on the table, and examining it, a procedure, he feels, that takes about 10 seconds. On this occasion, as on all other occasions, when she was in this lounge, she sat in an area off to the side of the bar which is visible from all other areas of the bar except the entrance. There are also other tables there as well. On May 25, 1984, Smith, Altman and Eslinger went into the Inner Room, actually at about 12:15 a.m. on May 28. On this occasion, Angel told Smith she had gotten rid of the cocaine she had promised to get for Smith because she had fronted the money for it. However, she stated she would have her husband bring some more, and later the same evening came back to the table where Smith and the others were sitting, sat down with them, and handed Smith a folded $1.00 bill for which Smith gave her $100.00. From this $1.00 bill, Smith took a small plastic bag which contained a substance later identified as cocaine. Not all cocaine sales ware arranged at the licensed premises, however. On June 4, 1984, Agent Smith phoned Angel at home and suggested that Angel get her some cocaine and deliver it at the Inner Room. She thereafter took $100.00 to Angel at her home and made the definite arrangements for the delivery of the cocaine at the licensed premises. When Smith, Altman, and Eslinger went to the Inner Room at approximately 9:30 p.m. that evening, Angel came over to them and delivered a cigarette package to Smith. After Angel left, Smith took a plastic bag from the cigarette pack and checked it on top of the table so that it could be seen by other patrons and Hank, the manager, was standing over near the disco booth talking with two men who appeared to be Cocoa Beach police officers. Smith cannot say that her actions were seen by these people, but the package contained what was later identified as cocaine. Smith was not arrested by these police officers even though they did not know she was an undercover agent. This leads to the conclusion that her "checking out" of the deliveries was not so open or notorious as, by Smith's own admission, had they seen what she was doing, they probably would have had cause to arrest her. When Smith first bought cocaine from Angel in the Inner Room, she had already made two or three purchases from her at another bar in the area and it was always Smith who made the purchases. She also paid Angel to "dance" for her "boyfriend" Altman several times and for each "dance" paid Angel $3.00. Over the period of the investigation, including this establishment and others, she got to know Angel and liked her. In doing so, she built up Angel's trust in her which Angel contends was the only reason she sold Smith cocaine. Smith purchased from only Angel and Danielle at the Inner Room. There is no evidence of other drug sales by other employees to other agents nor does Smith have any personal knowledge of any drugs on the premises except for those forming the bases of the allegations here. Altman played the part of the hanger-on sponging off a rich lady consistent with Smith's cover story. He was introduced to one of the co-owners, Mr. Johnson, on one occasion but had no conversations with him or anyone else regarding drugs. He made no drug purchases because his DATF investigation related to firearms. Though he was in the Inner Room quite a few times with and without Smith, he never saw any independent opportunity to buy drugs except for Smith's buys and he has no personal knowledge of anyone other than Angel or Danielle who had drugs for sale or were dealing drugs there. While in the Inner Room, Smith had several general conversations with owner Johnson during which she says she may have mentioned her "mid-life crisis" cover story. She denies any conversations with him, however, in which she tried to entice him into using drugs with her or when he said he did not use drugs or permit them on the premises. She does not recall them discussing what steps he took to keep drugs out. She did not notice any posted rules or notices regarding drugs. On each occasion Smith was in the Inner Room, either one or both of the owners were there in addition to a manager. She does not know what this latter individual's responsibilities were. There were also always men at the door but she does not knew what their function was other than to collect the entrance fee. Angel, whose real name is Janice M. Decker, was employed at the Inner Room as a dancer. She had just returned there prior to April 24, 1984, after working at the Show Bar, another club in Cocoa Beach, for 9 months. Prior to that, she worked at the Inner Room for 3 1/2 years. When she was first hired, she was instructed by owners that their rules included no drugs, no alcohol, and no solicitation for prostitution on the premises and during the first 3 1/2 years she worked there, she never had any drugs or saw any there. She first met Agent Smith at the Show Bar in July 1983 and developed a friendship with her. Smith did not make any requests for cocaine until their fourth meeting. By this time, Angel had accepted Smith's cover story and thought she was a nice lady. They had talked of going shopping together and of going out to dinner with their respective man as couples. In fact, Smith gave Angel her home phone number, but whenever Smith would call Angel, she would say she was out of town. Smith's first request for cocaine from Angel came at the Show Bar. Angel contends that even though she did not use cocaine and did not have any, because of her friendship for Smith and the fact that she felt sorry for her, she agreed to try to get some from someone. She found a source and whenever she bought any for Smith, she would deliver all she got and keep more for herself. She also felt close enough to Smith to front the money for these purchases and each time Smith requested cocaine, the purchase details ware always secondary to social conversation and "girl talk." When Angel quit the Show Bar and went back to the Inner Room, though she had fears about bringing drugs into the premises because she knew the owners' anti-drug policy, she did so because: (1) she knew her reputation there was as a "straight," and (2) she felt sorry for Smith and wanted to help her. As a result, she deceived her employers. On several of the occasions alleged, Angel didn't want be deliver on the premises but Smith insisted she deliver there. Their agreement was to meet outside for the transfer on two occasions, but each time Smith was not there and since Angel had to go to work, she had to go inside and when Smith showed up deliver there. Aside from the sales to Smith, Angel contends she has never had any drugs inside the Inner Room, nor has she ever seen any other employee with it in their possession there. She got the cocaine from a supplier she knows as Terry who she would meet at McDonald's-- never her husband. When she would get cocaine for Smith, she would keep it in her work purse with her in the lounge and not in her street purse in her locker. Neither she nor her locker has ever been searched for drugs. In her opinion, the licensees run a legitimate operation. They are strict about people who break the rules and seem to know what is going on there. Either one or both owners are on the premises every night along with two security people. This opinion is shared by other club employees like the dancers Angie and Danielle. Angie worked for the licensees for 11 months before they closed on June 8 and never saw any drug dealings or employees with drugs on the premises. Customers have asked her about drugs on various occasions but she always refused to get involved. When she was hired, she was advised that the club rules included no use or sale of drugs and called for the employee to be fired if this rule was violated. Danielle, who has worked there for 9 or 10 months, had the same understanding of the rules. When she was hired, she was given a copy of the posted rules and the owners have periodic meetings of the employees at which they are reminded of the rules regarding no alcohol, no drugs, no prostitution, and the need to report any infractions. She knew that a violation of those rules would result in termination. Regarding the sale to Smith, Danielle admits the transfer, but contends she at first refused and gave Smith the cocaine only after Smith said it was for her boyfriend who needed it badly. She didn't ask Smith for any money, intending it to be a gift even though she had never met Smith before. After the transfer, Smith threw her $5.00 and left. She is concerned about her job even though she has not been told she was fired. The disc jockey, Ken Carlin, who has worked at the Inner Room for 4 years, relates much the same story regarding the owners' efforts to keep drugs out as do the dancers. There are frequent meetings of all personnel regarding illegal activities and anyone caught involved in them is fired. Whereas the dancers disclaim any knowledge of any employees involved in drugs, Mr. Carlin, however, indicates at least one a month is fired. This must be for other reasons, however, because, according to him, he has seen drugs on the premises only once about a year ago and had fired the dancer who had them immediately. In addition to his job as disc jockey, his responsibilities also include policing the premises on a frequent basis and this includes inspecting the dancers' dressing room which he does about three times each night. When he does these inspections, he does not go into the house, however. In addition to the owners, the managers and Carlin, all of whom exercise the responsibility to check the premises for drugs, Gary O. Greenwald, one of the doormen and bouncers, also patrols the inside for violations. He has bean briefed regarding certain known drug users or dealers who are barred from entering the club. He has also been instructed to throw anyone suspected of possessing drugs out and if anyone is caught with it, he is to hold that person and call the police. During the three months he has worked there, ha has not observed any drugs on the premises. The Inner Room's reputation with at least a portion of the Cocoa Beach police force is high. William McDonald, who has been an officer for 11 years, has visited the licensed premises two or three times a week for 11 years and has never, at any time, seen any drug activity there. He has been called there by the owners several times (never for drugs) and has made some arrests for such offenses as drunk and disorderly, firearms, and assaults. In his opinion, none of the bars in the area are completely drug-free, but comparing this bar with others in the area, it is run better because the owners are more conscientious. Mr. Johnston has talked with him repeatedly about the effort made to keep drug activity out of the bar and considering the fact that the owners are not police, he feels they do a good job of it. So, too, does David E. Schoch, also a Cocoa Beach Police Officer who has gone into the Inner Room three to four times a week on duty and at least one night a week off duty for the past several months. In all that time, he has never seen drugs on the premises except one time when he was called there on duty. By the time he arrived, one of the owners and the bouncer had the situation under control and had confiscated some cocaine. He finds this bar to be one of the better and safer bars in the area due to the preventive actions of the management. He is convinced it is one of the more drug-free bars in the area due primarily to these efforts and considers that, considering their lack of training, the owners do a good job of it. Lamar L. Johnston has been a co-owner of the Inner Room with Jesse Crockett for 8 1/2 years. During that time, the bar has never been cited for any infractions of the beverage laws. He has what is to him a lot of money invested in this bar and to keep from losing it, he has worked hard and been through in indoctrinating his people on the no drug policy. He has published a list of employee rules which are made known to every employee at monthly meetings and are posted in the dancers' dressing room, behind the bar, and in the disc jockey booth. He keeps tabs not only on his employees but also on his clientele and if he sees someone in the bar who he knows to be involved in any type of illegal activity, he advises his bouncers to keep that person out. He personally patrols the bar on a regular basis each night and has his disc jockey, managers, 2 bouncers, and security men do the same. He requests the Police Department to come in on duty and has given off-duty policemen passes to come in without paying the admission charge. With the exception of the one occasion described by Officer McDonald, he has never seen any drugs in his club. With regard be the personnel he hires, he keeps tabs on all dancers in the area including as far away as Orlando and Daytona Beach, by real and stage names, who have been arrested or fired for prostitution or drugs. If one of these apply for work, he will not hire them. However, he contends he cannot prevent an employee from breaking a rule if that person is bent on doing so. All he can do is publicize the rules and warn his employees of the consequences of breaking them. He checks the dressing room six times a night and, recognizing that thirty pairs of eyes are better than one, put into effect the rule relating to firing employees who have knowledge of but fail to report drug activity. His bar is not brightly lighted because, in his experience, bar patrons do not like a brightly lighted bar. Because of that, he tries to patrol as much as possible. On top of that, his lounge caters to a higher element clientele such as engineers from Cape Kennedy Space Center, Administrators from Brevard Community College, and professional people. His bouncers are instructed to keep the lower element out and a dress code is enforced.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), should revoke, suspend, or otherwise discipline the alcoholic beverage license number 13-153, Series 5-COP, issued to the Respondent, Tupelo Management, Inc., doing business as Pastime, a bar located at 3602 West Highway 98, Panama City, Florida, upon the following grounds alleged in DABT's Notice To Show Cause issued May 2, 1984: On or about March 7, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your agent, servant or employee, to wit: Margie, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did sell or deliver marijuana to Investigator Moore on your licensed premises in violation of F.S. 893.13. On or about March 12, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your servant, agent or employee, to wit: Margie, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did sell or deliver marijuana to Detective Moore on your licensed premises in violation of F.S. 893.13. On or about March 23, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your agent, servant or employee, to wit: Teresa, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did deliver marijuana to Investigator Moore on your licensed premises in violation of section 893.13. On or about March 26, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your agent, servant, or employee, to wit: Margie, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did sell or deliver marijuana to Investigator Moore and Officer Russ on your licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13. On or about April 2, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your servant, agent or employee, to wit: Margie, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did sell or deliver marijuana to Investigator Moore and Officer Russ on your licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13. On or about April 9, 1984, you, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, your servant, agent or employee, to wit: Margie, did violate F.S. 561.29(1)(a), to wit: did sell or deliver marijuana to Investigator Moore and Officer Russ on your licensed premises in violation of Section 893.13. You, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, between March 7, 1984 and the date of service of this Notice to Show Cause have maintained a public nuisance on your licensed premises, to wit: a place or building which is visited by persons for the purpose of unlawfully using, keeping, selling and/or delivering controlled substances in violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, such being a violation of: (a) Florida Statutes 823.10 and 561.29(1)(c); (b) Florida Statutes 823.01 and 561.29(1)(a). You, Tupelo Management, Inc., d/b/a the Pastime, licensed under the beverage laws, between March 7, 1984 and the date of this Notice to Show Cause have maintained your licensed premises as a place resorted to by persons selling controlled substances in violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, in violation of Sections 893.13(2)(a)5 and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits admitted in evidence at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times relevant and material to this case, Tupelo Management, Inc., has been the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 13-153, Series 5- COP, issued for the premises known as the Pastime, located at 3602 West Highway 98, Panama City, Florida. Mr. John Michael Whitfield is, and was at all relevant and material times, the president of Tupelo Management, Inc. Mr. Whitfield and his wife own all of the stock of Tupelo Management, Inc. Mr. Whitfield first opened the Pastime on May 18, 1977. At that time it was a small beer and wine bar with five pool tables. Over the years the business grew and in August of 1983 Mr. Whitfield purchased a 5-COP license for the Pastime. Prior to the events giving rise to this case, the Pastime had only been cited by the DABT for two violations. The first violation occurred during the first year of Pastime's operation. It concerned the wording of an advertisement on the exterior of the building. A DABT agent wrote a report or citation and the sign was promptly removed. No penalty was imposed as a result of that event. The second violation occurred during January of 1984. On that occasion the DABT agents found two minors on the licensed premises. The January 1984 violation was resolved by stipulation, pursuant to which Tupelo Management, Inc., paid a civil penalty in the amount of $250.00. The Bay County Sheriff's Department began an investigation of the Pastime in March of 1984 on the basis of information that illegal drug activity was occurring on the licensed premises. Mr. Floyd M. Moore, Jr., an investigator with the Bay County Sheriff's Department, went to the licensed premises the evening of March 7, 1984. Investigator Moore was introduced by a confidential informant to a waitress named Margie Adams, who was employed on the licensed premises. Investigator Moore asked Margie Adams if she could obtain some marijuana and she answered in the affirmative. Investigator Moore left the premises and returned at approximately 7:45 P.M. that same evening. He made contact with Margie Adams again. Margie Adams made a telephone call and then told Investigator Moore the marijuana would be there a short time later. At about 8:45 P.M. Margie Adams asked Moore how the transaction could be made. At Moore's suggestion they went to a table on the licensed premises and Margie Adams handed Investigator Moore a clear plastic bag containing marijuana. The plastic bag was covered when it was given to Investigator Moore. Investigator Moore paid Margie Adams $35.00 for the marijuana. On March 12, 1984, at approximately 7:45 P.M. Investigator Moore and Beverage Officer Rodney Russ entered the Pastime. After Investigator Moore introduced Margie Adams to Russ, Margie asked Moore if he had liked what she had previously sold him and agreed to get another bag for Moore, stating that it would just take a phone call. Margie spoke to a female waitress for a few minutes, after which she went behind the bar and made a telephone call. She thereafter returned to the officers and stated that the marijuana would arrive in approximately 30 minutes and asked that Investigator Moore pay her at that time to avoid confusion when it arrived. Investigator Moore gave Margie $35. At approximately 8:45 P.M. Margie told Investigator Moore that the merchandise had arrived and asked him to walk to the end of the bar. Moore went to the end of the bar located next to the dart board, where there was a lot of activity and numerous people, and Margie handed him a white paper napkin covering a plastic baggie of marijuana. On the evening of March 19, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ returned to the Pastime. The officers each ordered one-quarter ounce of marijuana from Margie Adams but she stated that the person she was getting it from was not home so it would take some time. The officers observed Margie making a phone call, after which she told them that it would be approximately one hour before she could deliver. The officers left the Pastime and returned at approximately 9:00 P.M. The officers entered into a conversation with a male patron who told them there was a man in the pool room trying to sell marijuana. Investigator Moore told the patron to tell the man in the pool room that they were interested in buying. The patron went to the pool room and spoke to a male, who later came over to the officers and introduced himself as George. George (who was later identified as George W. Osborne) told the Officers that he had heard they were interested in buying, and Moore explained that they had ordered one-quarter ounce each but it did not look like it was going to arrive. George stated that he could sell them one-quarter ounce for $35.00 and the officers agreed to buy it. George left the officers and went to speak with Margie Adams. He returned shortly and asked the officers if they were getting their marijuana from Margie Adams. Russ stated that he would rather not say, and George said it was okay because he and the waitress were getting from the same person and that he and Margie had discovered that they were each ordering for the same persons. Russ told Margie that he did not want to cut her out of a sale, and she stated that it was okay to buy from George, that it was just like buying from her and she would get credit for the sale. During the time that Russ was talking to Margie, George handed Investigator Moore an orange tablet which he stated was a Preludin. Shortly thereafter, the officers and George walked outside to a motorcycle parked near the door and George laid two plastic baggies containing marijuana on the seat of the motorcycle. Each officer obtained one of the baggies of marijuana and each paid George 535.00. On March 22, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ returned to the pastime. Margie was not on duty that night. Moore and Russ spoke to two waitresses who were on duty, Karen and Sionna, and told the waitresses they had purchased marijuana from George and were waiting to buy some more from him. The officers asked Sionna if George was an all right guy to deal with and she said that he was. Later that evening when George entered the Pastime he spoke to Sionna and then went back outside where the officers observed him talking to customers near the front door. A few minutes later George approached the officers and asked how they had liked the marijuana he had sold them. The officers said it had been fine and they asked George if he could obtain some more marijuana and some more "speed" or Preludin. George said he could obtain both and he left the premises on his motorcycle. When George returned he approached Investigator Russ and handed him five orange tablets which were supposed to be "speed" or Preludin. Investigator Russ paid George $25.00 for the tablets. George told the officers he had been unable to obtain marijuana, but would have some the following morning. The five tablets sold to Investigator Russ were later tested and found to contain caffeine, but they did not contain any controlled substances. On March 22, 1984, Detective Jonathan McNeil and Investigator Pam Hellett were also at the Pastime. They were seated at a booth with other officers. A male who identified himself as Phillip (later identified as Leroy Phillips) sat with the officers for a while. He got up to leave and told Detective McNeil that he would be back, he just needed to find something for his head. When he returned, McNeil asked Phillips where he could get something for his head and Phillips got up and said that he would go see his sister, he knew she had something. Phillips later identified his sister as Gloria, the manager of the Pastime. When Phillips returned to the table, he pulled a package of cigarettes from his pocket and showed Detective McNeil two small white square pieces of paper under the cellophane portion and stated that they were two hits of acid. McNeil paid Phillips $10.00 and took the two pieces of paper and inserted them into his cigarette package. Phillips told McNeil that the acid was "Mr. Natural." The pieces of paper were subsequently tested and found to contain LSD. The male previously identified as George came and sat with the officers and they began discussing whether a man seated at the next booth was a police officer. Investigator Hellett said to George, "Hurry up and give me everything you have," and George reached into his jacket and removed several orange tablets and some marijuana, which he placed in Investigator Hellett's lap. Hellett told George that she did not accept anything that she did not pay for and he asked how much she would like to buy. Detective McNeil asked George how much he was selling the tablets for and he stated that he would sell them to the officers for $3.00 apiece although he had sold them to other Persons for $5.00. McNeil agreed to buy five tablets and, in an attempt to be discreet, handed George $15.00 under the table. George handed the tablets to McNeil under the table, although McNeil stated that he was the only one trying to be discreet about the transaction. Investigator Hellett bought seven tablets from George in exchange for $21.00. George gave Investigator Hellett a small amount of marijuana and told her to try it and see if she liked it. The substance given to Investigator Hellett was subsequently tested and found to be marijuana, and the pills were tested and found to contain caffeine, but not to contain any controlled substance. Late in the morning on March 23, 1984, Investigator Moore went to the licensed premises to obtain the marijuana previously promised by George. George was not at the Pastime, and Moore talked to the bartender Teresa about being there to obtain marijuana from George. Teresa stated that George was probably getting it from "us." After conversing with Teresa about other drug transactions, Moore told Teresa that it looked like George was not going to arrive and Teresa stated that she would give him some. She put her purse on the bar and removed from it a small portion of marijuana and placed it in a napkin lying on the bar. Investigator Moore observed Mr. Michael Whitfield and his wife on the licensed premises, but neither of them were in sight at the time Teresa placed the marijuana on the napkin. Moore also talked to Teresa about cocaine and she said she could obtain some for him for $100.00 a gram. On March 26, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ returned to the Pastime. They asked the waitress Margie Adams if she could get them a quarter ounce of marijuana. At first she said she could not, because she said she had had a fight with her supplier. Later she said she could obtain some marijuana from someone else, but that she did not know anything about the quality of the marijuana. The officers told Margie that they would trust her judgment on the matter. Investigator Russ paid Margie $40.00 for the marijuana, $5.00 of which was a tip for her. At about 8:55 P.M. that evening Margie Adams approached Investigator Moore. She had a napkin on a tray and told Moore that it was in the napkin. Investigator Moore took the napkin from the tray. Inside the napkin was a small plastic bag containing marijuana. On April 2, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ returned to the Pastime. The waitress Margie Adams told the officers that she was leaving at 8:00 P.M. and Investigator Russ advised her that they would like to purchase one-quarter ounce of marijuana before she left. Margie stated that she would see what she could do and later came over and said that she had arranged for some marijuana to be delivered and that if it did not arrive before she left, one of the other waitresses would deliver it to them. A short time later Margie returned and showed Investigator Russ a towel on her tray. A plastic baggie of marijuana was under the towel. Investigator Russ took the plastic baggie of marijuana and paid Margie for it. Then he placed the baggie on the table and both investigators wrote their initials on it. On April 9, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ returned to the Pastime. Margie Adams approached the officers and Russ asked whether she could get them some more of the same marijuana. She said she could and asked how much they wanted. The officers openly discussed the amount to be purchased and agreed upon one-half ounce, which Margie stated would be cheaper than purchasing two one-quarter ounces. Russ asked Margie if she could get some LSD or acid. Margie later came over to the officers and stated that the marijuana had arrived but that she could not deliver it because an undercover officer was seated at the bar. Margie later returned and sat beside Moore and handed him a white napkin covering a clear plastic baggie of marijuana. The officers paid her for the marijuana. Margie told them that she had not been able to get any acid. Investigator Russ told her he would be in town later on and would like to have a couple of hits of acid. On April 11, 1984, Investigator Russ went to the Pastime and asked Margie Adams if she had been able to obtain any acid or LSD. Margie said she had been unable to get it yet. Russ told her he was going to Montego Bay (another bar) and Margie said that if she was able to get the acid she would bring it to him at Montego Bay later that night. Russ paid her $20.00 for three hits of acid at $5.00 each, plus $5.00 as a tip for her. On April 16, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ entered the Pastime to find out if Margie Adams had been able to obtain the acid Investigator Russ had paid her for. Margie was not present when the investigators arrived. When she came in later, she told the officers she had been unable to obtain the acid since she had been out of town for her grandmother's funeral. George Osborne was on the premises and Investigator Moore asked George if he had a quarter- ounce of marijuana to sell. George stated that he could get it for them in a few seconds. George left and returned shortly, motioning to investigator Moore to follow him. Moore followed George to the restroom and George handed Moore a plastic baggie containing marijuana. As Moore was examining the baggie, two white males entered the restroom, observed George and Moore, commented on how nice the marijuana looked, and asked how much it cost. Officer Moore paid George $45.00 for the marijuana and returned to the table and handed the baggie to Russ. Russ opened the baggie in plain view of other patrons and smelled the contents. Margie Adams, who was waiting on another nearby table, observed the bag of marijuana and commented to the investigators that she saw that they had gotten what they were looking for. Russ then put the baggie of marijuana in his shirt pocket so that half of it was visible and visited around the bar for several minutes. One patron told Russ that he was about to lose something out of his pocket. On April 25, 1984, Investigators Moore and Russ entered the Pastime again. They asked Margie Adams if she had been able to obtain the acid Russ had paid her for. Margie told the investigators she had been unable to obtain the acid. Investigator Moore contacted George Osborne and asked whether George could get the officers a quarter-ounce bag of marijuana and also asked how long it would take. Shortly thereafter George and the two investigators walked outside to George's motorcycle and George removed from his shoe a wallet containing two plastic baggies. As George handed Moore one of the baggies, a white male walked up. George asked what he wanted and he said he wanted a bag. George went inside to make change for the $40.00 Moore had given him. While George was inside the white male said that he had been told to go to the Pastime if he wanted drugs. George returned with Moore's change and then walked around to the back of the establishment with the white male. The baggie George had handed to Moore contained marijuana. In brief summary of the foregoing, during the 7-week period from March 7, 1984, through April 25, 1984, the following events occurred on the licensed premises: 3/07/84 Employee Margie Adams sold marijuana to Investigator Moore. 3/12/84 Employee Margie Adams sold marijuana to Investigator Moore. 3/19/84 Employee Margie Adams agreed to sell marijuana to Investigator Moore and Russ, but she did not sell them anything that day. 3/19/84 Patron George Osborne, with the knowledge of employee Margie Adams, agreed to sell marijuana to Investigator Moore and Russ. (The actual sale took place outside the licensed premises.) 3/22/84 Patron George Osborne, with the knowledge of employee Sionna, agreed to sell marijuana and "speed," or Preludin to Investigators Moore and Russ, and actually sold 5 tablets to Investigator Moore which were supposed to he "speed," or Preludin. 3/22/84 Patron Leroy Phillips sold fro tabs of LSD to Detective McNeil. 3/22/84 Patron George Osborne gave some marijuana to Investigator Hellett, sold 7 tablets that were supposed to be "speed," or Preludin to Investigator Hellett and sold 5 of the same tablets to Detective McNeil. 3/23/84 Employee Teresa gave some marijuana to Investigator Moore and told him she could obtain cocaine for him. 3/26/84 Employee Margie Adams sold marijuana to Investigators Moore and Russ. 4/02/84 Employee Margie Adams sold marijuana to Investigators Moore and Russ. 4/09/84 Employee Margie Adams sold marijuana to Investigators Moore and Russ and agreed to sell Russ some LSD. 4/11/84 Employee Margie Adams agreed to sell LSD to Investigator Russ and accepted payment for same, but did not deliver anything to him that day. 4/16/84 Patron George Osborne, with the knowledge of employee Margie Adams, sold marijuana to Investigator Moore. 4/25/84 Patron George Osborne agreed to sell marijuana to Investigators Moore and Russ. (The actual sale took place outside the licensed premises.) The vast majority of the drug transactions described above were accomplished in a relatively discreet manner. Most of the transactions took place in a booth and involved delivery of marijuana that was covered with a towel or a napkin. During the period of the investigation which led up to this case, the police officers and DABT investigators did not see any illegal drug usage or any illegal drug transactions on the licensed premises other than the ones they were personally involved in. Mr. John Michael Whitfield, the President of Tupelo Management, Inc., and co-owner with his wife of all of the corporation's stock, takes an active role in the management of the business because it is his family's sole source of income. He usually visits this licensed premises six days per week and he spends between 40 and 50 hours per week at the licensed premises. Mr. Whitfield is well educated. His formal education includes a Bachelor of Science degree in Social Welfare and a Master's degree in Social Work, both from Florida State University. After receiving his Master's degree, Mr. Whitfield was employed for three years as the Assistant Director of the Mental Health Center in Panama City, Florida. Thereafter he also worked for a year as Director of the Gerontology program at the same Mental Health Center. His work at the Mental Health Center included work in the area of drug abuse and alcoholism programs. Mr. Whitfield has never used any type of illegal drugs and is opposed to the use of illegal drugs by others. Mr. Whitfield has a very responsible attitude towards the fulfillment of his obligations and responsibilities as an alcoholic beverage licensee. For example, prior to January 1984, Mr. Whitfield had always used his own employees as doormen to check identification of patrons. Immediately after two minors were found on the licensed premises in January of 1984, Mr. Whitfield not only fired the doorman who was on duty that night, but arranged with Florida Security Service to provide extra uniformed security personnel to check the identification of patrons. When Mr. Whitfield met with DABT representatives concerning the problem with the two minors, he was advised that the two major priorities of the DABT were minors and drugs. Mr. Whitfield had several meetings with all of his employees in which he told them explicitly that he did not want to have any problems with minors or drugs on the licensed premises. He told all of the employees that they would be fired if they were responsible for any problems on the licensed premises related to minors or drugs. He also told the employees they would not be given any second chances about such matters, but would be fired for a first offense. Prior to May 2, 1904, when the Notice To Show Cause was served on the Pastime, Mr. Whitfield had never seen anything that caused him to suspect there was a drug problem at the Pastime. The security service never told him that there was a drug problem at the Pastime or that they suspected a drug problem. The uniformed police officers who walked through the Pastime practically every night never told him he had a drug problem on the licensed premises. Mr. Whitfield usually requires prospective employees to fill out a written application form. He usually does not check references, but he usually does check with prior employers. Mr. Whitfield will not hire people who have previously worked in what he considers to be dives. His usual employment practices notwithstanding, Mr. Whitfield has occasionally failed to require a written application and has occasionally failed to check the background of new employees. Some of the employees and former employees he failed to check were the causes of the present charges against Mr. Whitfield. One former employee whose background was not checked was George Osborne. Mr. Whitfield has barred several patrons in the past for improper conduct on the licensed premises and he has barred a suspected drug dealer from patronizing the Pastime. The DABT sent a letter to all alcoholic beverage licensees in south Florida in March of 1984 advising them of the DABT's priorities. The main priorities were the prevention of sales of alcoholic beverages to minors and the prevention of illegal drug activities on the licensed premises. The letter was not sent to alcoholic beverage licensees in north Florida, but will be sent to them later.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons I recommend that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order finding that the Respondent has violated Sections 561.29(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes, ordering the Respondent to pay a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each of the violations charged in the first six paragraphs of the Notice To Show Cause (a total of three thousand dollars), and suspending the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of six months. DONE and ORDERED this 29day of October, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1984.
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, 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.
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 Respondent, Alton Beverages, Inc., trading as Mayflower Lounge, holds Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco License Number 23-2043, Series 4- COP. Respondent conducts its business pursuant to said license at 17IG Alton Road, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. At all times material hereto Sam Rosen was the sole corporate officer and shareholder of Alton Beverages, Inc. In addition, at all times material to this proceeding, Robert L. Pyle was the night manager for Respondent's licensed premises at the aforementioned address. During the time periods alleged in the Notice to Show Cause, that is, from February 21, 1981 through March 7, 1981, Dottie Turner, Laura Kimberly, Mona Castro, Sandra Timmsen and Deborah Sutcliff were dancers at the licensed premises, and were "agents" of Respondent. In the early morning hours of February 21, 1981, an undercover officer in Petitioner's employ was introduced by a confidential informant to Robert L. Pyle, the night manager on duty at Respondent's licensed premises. Shortly after that introduction, the undercover officer purchased a quantity of cocaine from Pyle for $50.00, the sale and delivery of which substance took place on the licensed premises, while Pyle and the officer were seated at a table in the lounge portion of the premises. During the evening hours of February 21, 1981, Petitioner's undercover officer returned to the licensed premises. While seated at a table with Dottie Turner, a topless dancer in the employ of Respondent, Turner mentioned to the undercover officer that she was going outside "to smoke a joint." Thereupon, the undercover officer asked if he could purchase a "joint" from her, and she advised that she would "roll one" for him for one dollar. Thereafter, Turner went outside the licensed premises, subsequently returned to the table, and gave one marijuana cigarette to the undercover officer in exchange for one dollar. Later on the evening of February 21, 1981, the undercover officer made a second purchase of cocaine for $50.00 from Pyle, Respondent's night manager. Again, the purchase ant exchange of this cocaine took place on the licensed promises while the officer and Pyle were seated at a table in the bar. While still in the licensed premises on February 21, 1981, the undercover officer asked for, and obtained, a second marijuana cigarette from dancer Dottie Turner at no cost. On February 23, 1981 the undercover officer again returned to the licensed premises where he spoke with Dottie Turner. On this occasion another purchase of a marijuana cigarette for one dollar from Dottie Turner was accomplished, with the negotiation for and delivery of the cigarette occurring on the licensed premises. After delivery of the marijuana cigarette, the undercover officer inquired of Turner concerning the purchase of a larger quantity of marijuana. The undercover officer was advised by Turner that if he would give her the money for an ounce of marijuana she could purchase it for him and bring it to the licensed premises for delivery. When the undercover officer refused to part with the money prior to delivery, Turner advised him that he would have to come to her apartment to make the purchase. Subsequently, on February 25, 1981, the undercover officer went to Turner's apartment, some distance from the licensed premises, and purchased one ounce of marijuana for $30.00. On February 25, 1981, the undercover officer returned to the licensed premises. On this date, he met with Robert L. Pyle, the night manager, and requested to purchase one quarter-ounce of cocaine. While the undercover officer and Pyle were seated in the Manager's office on the licensed premises, Pyle advised the undercover officer that he could arrange the purchase of that amount of cocaine for $500.00. Pyle further advised the undercover officer that he would have to go upstairs to get the cocaine and would return shortly. Thereupon both the undercover officer and Pyle left the Manager's office, and the undercover officer resumed a seat in the lounge portion of the licensed premises. Shortly thereafter, Pyle returned, and, while seated at a table with the undercover officer and Deborah Sutcliff, one of Respondent's topless dancers, exchanged with the undercover officer the one quarter-ounce of cocaine for $500.00 in currency. As previously indicated, the address of the licensed premises is 1716 Alton Road, Miami Beach. This address consists of the first floor of a two- story concrete block structure. The first floor is leased by Respondent from the building owner, Sam Berlin. The second floor of the structure was leased from the building owner by Robert L. Pyle, the night manager, and several of the dancers and other employees of Respondent for use as apartments. At all times material hereto, access to the apartments on the second floor could be had either by way of an exterior stairway in the rear of the building, or through a door in the interior of the licensed premises opening on an interior stairway. This interior door was used frequently by the dancers to access their apartments, and was used by Pyle on at least one of the occasions when the undercover officer purchased cocaine as hereinabove described. The sketch appearing on or attached to Respondent's license does not show the second floor of the two-story structure as being contained within the licensed premises and, indeed, does not show the interior door giving access to the second floor, although the record in this proceeding establishes that the door was present when Petitioner's agent made the sketch of the premises to attach to Respondent's license. There is no showing in this record that the interior door and stairway were ever used by anyone other than persons making their residence on the second floor. The upstairs portion of the building was never used for storage or for any other purpose connected with the operation of the licensed premises. Finally, there is no showing in this record that Respondent bad, or attempted to exercise, any dominion or control over the second floor of the building. On March 7, 1981, pursuant to a search warrant, law enforcement officers, including Petitioner's undercover officer, conducted a raid of the licensed premises. One of Respondent's dancers was found to be in possession of in excess of 10 grams of cocaine in her purse on the licensed premises. In addition, a quantity of marijuana was found near the bar and a yellow change purse containing a cocaine kit and spoon were found in the Manager's office. In the upstairs area where several of Respondent's employees lived, another of Respondent's dancers was found to be in possession of a controlled substance, Diazepam, and a bartender In Respondent's employ was found to be in possession of Diazepam as well as a small quantity of marijuana. Still another dancer was found to be in possession of a quantity of marijuana in her apartment, while Robert Pyle's bedroom in the upstairs area contained Diazepam and assorted narcotics paraphernalia including a cocaine user's kit, knives and scales. In addition, in the general living area of the upstairs, there was assorted narcotics paraphernalia including large heating elements; boxes and plastic jugs and bags containing different cocaine cutting agents such as procaine; an automatic plastic wrapping machine; a large-size scale; test tubes; and two bags containing cocaine. Respondent does not deny that the aforementioned activities occurred, but instead defends against the allegations or the Notice to Show Cause, as amended, by contending that the corporate licensee, through its sole officer and shareholder, Sam Hill Rosen, took every reasonable precaution to guard against such activity occurring on the premises. Respondent contends, Petitioner admits, and the record herein clearly establishes that Mr. Rosen was not "directly involved" nor did he have personal knowledge of the activities occurring on the licensed premises. Respondent asserts that in an attempt to prevent legal activity from occurring on the licensed premises, it posted signs in conspicuous places, such as the dancers' dressing room, and gave written instructions to employees announcing its policy of prohibiting drugs, other than prescription drugs, from being used or sold on the licensed premises. Violation of this employment policy, according to Respondent, resulted, on occasion, in immediate dismissal of employees. Additional Policies allegedly adopted by Respondent to guard against illegal activity included prohibiting dancers from leaving the licensed premises to go outside while they were working, and subjecting all employees to periodic "shakedown searches". There was also some indication in the record that Respondent reserved the right to subject its employees to polygraph tests. Finally, Respondent also asserts that, acting through its principal, Mr. Rosen, the premises was periodically checked while Mr. Pyle was on duty to assure that no violations of law were occurring. Accepting Respondent's representation that the aforementioned policies were established on the premises, the record in this proceeding clearly establishes that to the extent that these policies did exist they were more honored in the breach than in the observance. For example, of those employees of Respondent who were called to testify at the final hearing in this proceeding, none of them had been administered a polygraph examination, none had had their persons or belongings searched while working on the licensed premises, and they had observed Mr. Rosen on the premises during the evening hours at best "infrequently". Mr. Rosen's failure to adequately supervise the licensed premises is corroborated by the fact that on February 23, 1981, when Petitioner's undercover officer was on the licensed premises, Mr. Pyle, the night manager, was off duty, and Mr. Rosen, who managed the licensed premises during other portions of the day, was not present. In addition, on at least one occasion, one of Respondent's dancers observed Pyle on the licensed premises in possession of both cocaine and pep pills, the latter of which, according to Pyle, were used in case ". . . some of the girls came into work and weren't quite up to doing their performance." The record in this proceeding fails to establish that any agent, employee or patron of Respondent was ever observed using illegal drugs or narcotics inside the licensed premises. In addition, the record clearly establishes that Respondent has never previously been cited by and law enforcement agency, regulatory or governmental body for narcotics law violations of any nature. Both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer in this proceeding. To the extent that those findings of fact have not been incorporated in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as either being irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
