Findings Of Fact Richard Stephan Flatt, M.D., Respondent, is licensed by the Board of Medical Examiners, Department of Professional Regulation (Petitioner) as a medical doctor and was so licensed at all times here relevant. Respondent has been a Board certified Dermatologist since 1957 and has practiced Dermatology in Sarasota for some 20 years. He is 54 years old. Tana Williams was a patient of Respondent in 1971 when he first treated her for warts, and he also treated Ms. Williams' daughter. Afterward she left Sarasota but returned in 1975 or 1976, at which time she was divorced. She visited Respondent's office for treatment of warts on 5 April 1976. Her appointment was near the close of Respondent's office hours. During this visit she told Respondent she was divorced; that she liked older men; and that she would like to see him socially. He suggested she come back to the office after 5:30 p.m. when his nurse normally departed. Upon her return after 5:30, Respondent and Ms. Williams discussed an arrangement whereby he would contribute $250 per month towards her support and spend weekends at the apartment she would occupy. According to Respondent's testimony, at this time he was going through a mid-life crisis and was delighted with the prospects of being desired by a woman 23 years his junior. Some two weeks later the first weekend was shared. Although the situation was very satisfactory to Respondent, the $250 per month was insufficient even to pay the rent, let alone satisfy Ms. Williams' money requirements. Accordingly, Respondent found the liaison was costing more than he could fund from his ready cash. After the 5 April 1976 visit, Ms. Williams did not again visit Respondent's office, or consider herself Respondent' s patient. In addition to cash, Ms. Williams also wanted drugs for her nervous condition and Respondent began supplying her with Quaaludes in the latter part of 1978. By 1979, Ms. Williams was psychologically dependent on Quaaludes and was taking 10 to 12 per day. As Respondent became more financially strapped the Quaaludes were provided for the additional purpose of being converted by Ms. Williams into cash to help maintain her life style. In 1976 Respondent began ordering Quaaludes and Preludin from New York drug houses under his DEA authorization. The Quaaludes started out in quantities of 200 every few months but increased to 1,000 nearly every month by the end of 1979. Most, if not all, of the 11,000 300 mg. Quaaludes Respondent ordered on an Official Order Form for Controlled Substances were given to Ms. Williams. In addition, Respondent ordered Preludin which he also gave to Ms. Williams. Both Preludin and Quaaludes are Class II controlled substances. Due to Ms. Williams' increasing dependence on Quaaludes, nearly half of these drugs given her by Respondent were taken by her. Petitioner presented no evidence that Preludin was wrongfully prescribed or abused. During the nearly four years the relationship continued, several interruptions occurred, due largely to Ms. Williams' living with other men, one of whom she married for a short period of about two months. During the periods Ms. Williams was living with other men, she would contact Respondent to continue or renew their liaison and even threatened suicide and to publicize their relationship to his wife if he did not continue to see her. In the latter months of their association, assignations were arranged at motels at which Respondent gave Ms. Williams money and/or drugs in exchange for sex. In addition to supplying Ms. Williams with drugs obtained on Official Order Forms, Respondent also wrote prescriptions in Ms. Williams' name, in the names of his children, or in the name of a fictitious person. Those prescriptions written in names other than Ms. Williams, Respondent took to Wallpole's Pharmacy personally and picked up the drugs. By this procedure from late 1978 through 1979 Respondent acquired an additional 1,249 300-mg. Quaaludes, 150 Preludin Endurettes, and 100 Preludin tablets which he gave to Ms. Williams. Using a confidential informant, the Sarasota police made two controlled buys of Quaaludes from Ms. Williams and on one of these occasions the informant was wired for sound so his conversations with Ms. Williams could be monitored. With information received from the confidential informant and a surveillance of Ms. Williams' residence, the police became aware that Respondent was Ms. Williams' supplier of drugs. On the morning of 8 February 1980, Ms. Williams was arrested at her home on charges of possession and sale of controlled substances. After being advised of her rights, she was taken down to the State Attorney's office where she was told that she could get up to 10 years in prison for possession and sale of drugs, but that if she cooperated with the police in their case against Respondent, the State Attorney's office would recommend probation rather than jail when she was sentenced. Prior to the arrest of Ms. Williams the Sarasota Police, state and federal drug authorities were aware of Respondent's involvement and were investigating. Respondent, too, was aware of his increasing vulnerability to criminal prosecution and requested a pharmacist to pass the word to the proper authorities that he would like to surrender his DEA certificate, under the authority of which he ordered controlled substances. On February 12, 1980 federal, state and local authorities, armed with information that Respondent had ordered some 11,000 Quaaludes from three New York drug companies during the period from 1976 to the present, visited Respondent's office, told him he was suspected of narcotics violation, read him his rights and asked to see his records. Respondent cooperated fully with the authorities and presented his records which confirmed that Respondent could not account for more than 10,600 Quaaludes during the period from 1976 to the date of the inspection. Respondent made a voluntary statement to the police in which he acknowledged many of the facts noted above. He also voluntarily surrendered his narcotics license. On 22 May 1980, Respondent pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County of two counts of possession of methaqualone and two counts of sale of methaqualone. Adjudication of guilt was withheld, but the Court sentenced Respondent to probation for a period of three years and a $5,000.00 fine on each of the two counts of possession and sale.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 00390879. The last license issued to Respondent was in 1988 as a salesman with Atlantic Marketing Realty, Inc., 224 Commercial Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. On July 26, 1984, a Grand Jury indictment was filed against Respondent in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and was assigned case number 84-67-CR-ORL-18. By Count Two of the indictment Respondent was charged with having sold, transferred, or delivered approximately 1,000 counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes in the denomination of $100 in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 473. On September 28, 1984, Respondent entered into a "Plea Agreement" in which he agreed to plead guilty to Count Two of the indictment filed in case number 84-67-CR-ORL-18. By this Plea Agreement, Respondent acknowledged that he entered into the agreement freely and voluntarily. Respondent acknowledged his understanding of the nature of the offense to which he agreed to plead guilty and the penalties therefor. The factual basis for his plea includes an admission that he knowingly delivered 1000 counterfeit $100 bills to two individuals at a motel in Daytona Beach, Florida, for which he received approximately $15,000. On November 19, 1984, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to Count Two of the indictment, a felony. He was adjudicated guilty of this felony offense and sentenced to three years in prison. Respondent served approximately ten months of the three year sentence at the Federal Correctional Institute in Lexington, Kentucky. Upon his release from federal prison, Respondent spent four months at a halfway house in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Respondent was not incarcerated at the time the Administrative Complaint was filed or at the time of the formal hearing. Respondent contends that he thought that he was working for the federal government when he committed the acts which resulted in his incarceration. This contention is rejected as lacking credibility and as being contrary to the Respondent's Plea Agreement. There is a dispute in the record as to whether Respondent notified Petitioner in writing as to his criminal conviction or his subsequent incarceration within thirty days of those events. Respondent contends that he notified Petitioner verbally and in writing of these events, but he was unable to identify the person he contends he notified verbally, nor did he produce a copy of his alleged written notification. Petitioner's records reflect no written notification from Respondent or from anyone on his behalf. This dispute is resolved by finding that Respondent did not notify Petitioner in writing as to his criminal conviction or his subsequent incarceration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 475.25(1)(b),(f), and (p), Florida Statutes, and which revokes all real estate licenses previously issued Respondent. It is further recommended that no administrative fines be entered against Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3568 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioners. The proposed findings of fact contained in paragraph 2 are rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Respondent's licensure is as a real estate salesman, not as a real estate broker. Whether Respondent was licensed as a broker or as a salesman would make no difference in the recommendation made as to the penalty to be imposed. All other proposed findings of fact are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Senior Attorney Florida Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William Richard Rossmeyer 180 Isle of Venice, #125 Post Office Box 7412 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are framed by the Notice to Show Cause issued by the Petitioner, the Department of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Department), on or about October 9, 1991. The Notice to Show Cause contains a total of 32 counts. Twenty nine (29) counts accuse the Respondent, Bernard Jordan, d/b/a Club Zanzibar, of permitting an agent, servant, patron, or employee to unlawfully possess, sell or deliver a controlled substance (cocaine) to an undercover informant or law enforcement officer on the licensed premises in violation of Sections 893.13(1)(a) and 893.13(1)(f) within Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. One count accuses the Respondent of permitting an agent, servant, patron, or employee to unlawfully possess, sell or deliver five (5) liters of non tax paid whiskey (moonshine) to an undercover informant or law enforcement officer on the licensed premises in violation of Sections and 562.451 within Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. 1/ One count accuses the Respondent of unlawfully keeping or maintaining the licensed premises for the illegal keeping, using, selling or delivering of substances controlled under Chapter 893.03, in violation of Sections 823.10 and 893.13(2)(a)(5), within Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Finally, the last count accuses the Respondent of failing to exercise due diligence in supervising the licensed premises, allowing it to be used by agents, servants, patrons, or employess for the purpose of possessing, selling, delivering and using illegal substances controlled under Chapter 893.03 (coccaine) and 562.451 (moonshine), 2/ in violation of Sections 823.10 and 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bernard Jordan, has owned and operated the Club Zanzibar, located at 2132 Main Street, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, for approximately nine years. He holds alcoholic beverage license number 39-00839, series 4-COP, issued by the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. (He also operates a package store on the premises.) When the Respondent began operating under his license in 1983, there was much less drug activity in the vicinity than there is now. The clientele of the Club Zanzibar was mixed, in the sense that it included the community's professional and blue collar workers, and also law enforcement employees; but the clientele generally was a stable and settled crowd. Supporters of a local community boys' club regularly met at the Club (and continued to meet there up to the time of the emergency suspension on October 10, 1991.) During the early years of the Club, the package store part of the business had two entrances, and the less controlled access to and egress from the premises did not present a problem for the Respondent. There was relatively little loitering and drinking on the street in front of the Club. Notwithstanding the relatively stable environment, the Respondent did not ignore the potential for unlawful activity on the premises. He utilized an Employee Handbook that all new employees had to read and, after completing a month of probationary employment, sign. Among other things, the handbook informed the employees: If a customer is suspected of performing any unlawful acts in this business, the police will be contacted. . . . Do not accuse a customer of any unlawful acts, if not seen by the employee of the establishment. If the employee is using, has or obtaining [sic] drugs, they will be dismissed immediately. (PLEASE READ NOTICE CONCERNING DRUGS). * * * DUE TO RECENT SUSPICIONS OF DRUGS AND OTHER ILLEGAL MATTERS BEING BROUGHT ON THESE PREMISES, ANYONE ENTERING THIS ESTABLISHMENT IS SUBJECT TO BEING POLITELY CHECKED, AS A MEASURE TO PROTECT THE OPERATION OF THIS BUSINESS. WE OFFER OUR DEEPEST APOLOGIES, BUT POSITIVELY NO DRUGS OR ANY OTHER ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES ARE ALLOWED. * * * No one is allowed to LOITER on the grounds of the establishment and no one should be standing in front of door exits or entrances. 4/ Club employees also were informed on a regular basis that no illegal drugs were allowed on the premises and that employees should keep them out if they could or, if not, should notify the Respondent, who either would take care of it himself or call the police. The Respondent also would "bar" anyone caught with or strongly suspected of having, illegal drugs on the premises. The "bar" was permanent or until lifted by the Respondent. The employees are told to enforce the "bar," and if someone who has been barred ignores an employee's enforcement measures, the employee is supposed to tell the Respondent, who enforces it himself or, if necessary, calls the police. But the Respondent did not hold regular, formal meetings to remind the employees of Respondent's prohibition against the possession, use or sale of illegal drugs and of their responsibility with respect to patrons violating the policy. He did not require his employees to complete employment applications or be screened. Nor did he polygraph his employees. The Respondent also posts five-by-seven inch placards in conspicuous places throughout the premises informing customers and employees alike: Illegal Activities Warning: This establishment is firmly against any illegal behavior! . . . Drugs: Drugs are positively prohibited on these premises! Anyone seen or reported with any form of Narcotics will IMMEDIATELY be reported to the police without warning! (A similar message is related as to dangerous weapons.) Although the Respondent makes efforts to enforce the basic "no drugs" policy, he does not always follow the letter of his warnings and announced enforcement measures. He does not, for example, report drug violators to the police "immediately" and "without warning," as the placards state. Indeed, there is no evidence that the Respondent ever reports drug violations to the police or asks for police or Department assistance to address the issue of drugs on the premises. In recent years, the environment around and in the Club Zanzibar has changed drastically. In recent years, crack cocaine has become a serious problem in the vicinity. Crack is sold predominantly by a crowd that is younger than the historical Club Zanzibar clientele. This younger crowd now mixes with the historical Club clientele. It also loiters around in the street in front of the Club and in the general vicinity. Street sales of crack are so frequent in the area that the street has been likened to a drug supermarket. Anyone, anywhere in Tampa, can come to Main Street in this part of the city and buy crack with almost no wait. The problem has become so bad that the Tampa Police Department has opened a sector office nearby; yet, the drug problem in the area persists despite the greater police presence. Because of changed circumstances in the neighborhood, the Respondent has altered the premises to eliminate one of the two entries to the package store to make it a little easier to monitor those going in and out of the package store. The Respondent also has placed a mirror in the premises to allow whoever is tending bar to monitor the foyer of the Club for possible loitering or illegal activity from a particular vantage point near the cash register. But he did not take steps to improve the lighting in the licensed premises. Nor did he vigorously police his establishment. The Respondent did not hire a manager or adequate security guards to police the licensed premises. The Respondent has volunteers who work for him on weekends and, to some extent, watch for illegal activities on the premises. But these volunteers are retirees who are not particularly effective and their primary function seems to be to collect the cover charge for the Respondent. Even assuming that they were actively policing the establishment, they were not capable of doing the job that should have been done. In response to apparent complaints, the Department sent an undercover special agent and an undercover confidential informant (the CI) into the Club Zanzibar on or about May 31, 1991. (An undercover Tampa Police detective also went as a back-up.) The CI and Agent Murray entered the Club and took a seat at the bar. In a short while, a black male known to the CI as a drug pusher who went by the initials "C.C." walked up to them. (C.C. also had told the CI that he (C.C.) was the Respondent's brother, but the evidence did not prove that C.C. was in fact the Respondent's brother.) The CI told C.C. he wanted to buy "a 20" ($20 worth of crack cocaine.) C.C. left for the men's room and returned with a plastic baggy. He held it up waist high or higher to show them that the baggy contained crack cocaine. He removed some of the crack from the baggy and gave it to the CI. 5/ After examining the crack, the CI told Agent Murray to pay C.C. the $20. There were about 15 people in the Club during the transaction on May 31, 1991. The participants in the transaction spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, the juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversations probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. 6/ No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on May 31, 1991. /7 But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. The evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on May 31, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On June 7, 1991, Agent Murray and the CI again entered the Club. There they talked to Wayne Fowler, who gave them the impression that he was employed at the bar as a manager or bouncer. (However, the evidence did not prove that Fowler was ever employed by the Respondent in any capacity.) The CI asked for C.C. Fowler told him that he (Fowler) was "holding C.C.'s stuff" and asked if they wanted to buy from him or wait for C.C. The CI said they would buy from Fowler, and Fowler passed some crack to the CI's lap, under the level of the bar (but not actually underneath the bar counter top). Agent Murray similarly passed a $20 bill to the CI, who passed it to Fowler. There were about 20 people in the Club during the transaction on June 7, 1991. But the evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on June 7, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On June 12, 1991, the CI and Agent Murray, together with a backup from the Tampa Police Department, again went to the Club. This time, they did not see anyone in the Club to buy drugs from, and the CI and Agent Murray were leaving when Fowler came in and met them in the foyer, which was not visible from throughout the Club's interior. Fowler immediately asked them if they wanted to buy crack. They said yes, and Fowler sold them "a 20." The whole transaction took no more than four or five seconds. The participants in the transaction on June 12, 1991, spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, the juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversations probably could be overheard only by someone passing through the foyer at the time. Although there ordinarily are people entering and leaving the Club through the foyer at fairly regular intervals, it was not proven that anyone passed by during the couple of seconds the drug deal lasted. 8/ The evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on June 12, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On June 14, 1991, the CI and Agent Murray again went to the Club Zanzibar to make a drug buy. Shortly after they entered and sat down at the bar, Fowler came in and went over to them at the bar and asked if they wanted to buy crack. They told him they did, and Fowler left the premises. He returned a short while later and walked up behind the empty stool between them and shook some crack out of a handkerchief onto the empty stool. (The bar stools had a back; and the seats were below bar level.) The CI picked up the crack and gave it to Agent Murray, who gave Fowler a $20 bill. There were about 15 people in the Club during the transaction on June 14, 1991. The participants in the transaction spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, the juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversations probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on June 14, 1991. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. The crack was blocked from general view by the bar on one side, by the bar stool back and Fowler on the opposite side, and by the CI and Agent Fowler on either side of the empty stool. The whole transaction took only about five seconds. Although there were people moving about in the Club, as usual, the evidence did not prove that anyone in the bar during the transaction on June 14, 1991, observed the drug deal. On June 18, 1991, the CI, Agent Murray and their backup undercover detective from the Tampa Police Department returned to the Club Zanzibar to make drug buys. Although there were about 15 people in the premises, apparently no one was selling drugs to them, and the CI left to try to find Fowler. The CI found out that a man named Don Vanderhorst was holding Fowler's crack and would sell some to them. Vanderhorst returned with the CI to the Club. There, Vanderhorst showed them a plastic bag containing crack, holding it in a partially concealed manner between waist and chest height, sold them $10 of crack and left. After buying from Vanderhorst on June 18, 1991, the three law enforcement personnel stayed on the premises. A short time later, Fowler came in and went directly over to the CI and Agent Murray to see if they wanted to buy some more crack from him. Fowler passed to the CI, at waist level, a piece of crack folded up in a torn piece of brown paper the size of a quarter coin. Fowler said he would sell it to them for $10. He changed a $20 bill for them and made the sale. There were about 15 people in the Club during the transactions on June 18, 1991. The participants in the transactions spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, the juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversations probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transactions on June 18, 1991. But neither were the transactions done in an open manner for all to see. View of the Vanderhorst transaction was blocked from the back and sides by the three participants. Although customers generally move around and about inside the Club on a fairly regular basis, these transactions took place on the side of the "U"-shaped bar opposite the entrance to the Club, between the bar and the right hand perimeter wall of the premises, near the corner where one end of the bar "dead-ends" on that side into the front perimeter wall of the inside of the premises. There generally is much less traffic in this area since it is a "dead end." An unidentified female bartender might have been able to observe the transactions, but the evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on June 18, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On June 19, 1991, the CI and Agent Murray returned to the Club Zanzibar. This time, Fowler was seated at a table inside. After they were seated at the bar, Fowler approached them and asked them what they wanted. Agent Murray answered that they wanted "a 20." Fowler told them quietly and privately that they would have to wait because of the customer seated next to Agent Murray. When the customer left, Fowler proceeded to take out a folded up torn piece of brown paper. Holding it at waist level, he showed them the crack that was in it. He took two pieces and passed them to the CI, who passed them to Agent Murray, who gave the CI a $20 bill to give to Fowler. There were about 15 people in the Club during the transactions on June 19, 1991. The participants in the transaction spoke in a quiet tone in the presence of the customer seated next to Agent Murray but otherwise in a normal conversational tone. The juke box was playing, as usual, and the normal conversational tone probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on June 19, 1991. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. The participants partially blocked the view from the back and sides. The evidence did not prove that anyone in the bar observed the drug deal on on June 19, 1991. On June 24, 1991, Fowler and Vanderhorst were outside talking when the CI and Agent Murray arrived at the Club Zanzibar. Shortly after they entered, Fowler came in and approached them to ask them if they wanted to buy crack. Fowler said that Vanderhorst was "holding my stuff." He left and went to the back of the bar (where the bathrooms are). (Apparently, Vanderhorst also had entered the Club with Fowler and went to the back of the premises, perhaps to the bathroom.) Fowler returned with two pieces of crack which he passed to the CI. Agent Murray gave Fowler $20. There were about ten people in the Club during the transaction on June 24, 1991. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction. The evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on June 24, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. When the CI and Agent Murray arrived at the Club Zanzibar on July 1, 1991, once again Fowler and Vanderhorst were outside on the street. Fowler followed the two inside and approached them to ask if they wanted crack. They said they did, and Fowler passed some crack to the CI for $20. There were about 20 people in the Club during the transaction on July 1, 1991. The participants in the transaction spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, the juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversations probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on July 1, 1991. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. This transaction also took place on the part of the bar near the corner where it "dead-ends" into the front perimeter wall of the inside of the premises. See Finding of Fact 22, above. The evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 1, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On July 5, 1991, the CI and Agent Murray entered the Club Zanzibar to buy drugs but did not see anyone to sell to them. The CI had to go outside looking for Fowler. He found Fowler, who told him he (Fowler) was waiting for his "supply," i.e., the person supplying him with cocaine. The CI brought Fowler back into the Club with him. There, Agent Murray asked Fowler for "some play," i.e., some crack to buy. Fowler told her he would have to "cut" it, i.e., convert it to crack, and left. About five minutes later, Fowler came back in and passed a piece of crack to the CI. There were about 10-15 people in the Club during the transaction on July 5, 1991. The Respondent and his sister were working on the premises on July 5, 1991. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on July 5, 1991. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. This transaction also took place on the part of the bar near the corner where it "dead-ends" into the front perimeter wall of the inside of the premises. See Finding of Fact 22, above. The evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 5, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On July 8, 1991, Fowler again was outside on the street when the CI and Agent Murray arrived at the Club. Fowler followed them inside. The Respondent was tending bar. Fowler quietly and privately told the CI and Agent Murray that they would have to watch out for the Respondent. Fowler left them and returned in a minute or two. Fowler kept a close eye on the Respondent and, about three or four minutes later, got an opportunity to do the drug deal without the Respondent seeing it. While keeping a close eye out for the Respondent, Fowler passed two pieces of crack to the CI, who passed the crack to Agent Murray. Murray passed $20 back to Fowler through the CI. Besides the Respondent, there were about 10 people in the Club during the transaction on July 8, 1991. Except when they were lowering their voices so the Respondent would not hear them, the participants in the transaction spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, the juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversations probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. Except for the efforts to keep the Respondent from seeing it, no other extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on July 8, 1991. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. This transaction also took place on the part of the bar near the corner where it "dead-ends" into the front perimeter wall of the inside of the premises. See Finding of Fact 22, above. The evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 8, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. When the CI and Agent Murray arrived at the Club on July 16, 1991, they again saw Fowler outside on the street. Fowler followed them in but stopped in the foyer area and beckoned them to come to the foyer. There, Fowler informed them that the Respondent had barred him from the Club and that they would have to do the deal on the street. The CI protested that he did not want the police to see him. Fowler left, and the CI and Agent Murray returned to the Club. When they left the Club some time later, Fowler met them in the foyer. Within a matter of five to ten seconds, Fowler had passed a single piece of crack to the CI, and Murray passed $20 to Fowler. Although there ordinarily are people entering and leaving the Club through the foyer at fairly regular intervals, it was not proven that anyone passed by during the couple of seconds the drug deal lasted. The evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 16, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On July 18, 1991, Fowler was sitting outside on the street when the CI and Agent Murray arrived at and entered the Club. Fowler did not follow them in. Vanderhorst was inside, and they asked him for crack, but he did not have any to sell. Eventually, they left. Fowler apparently had been waiting for them in the street and, as the CI opened the door to exit the premises, Fowler met him and kept the door propped open while he offered to sell them crack. Fowler passed crack to CI, and Murray gave the CI $20 to give to Fowler. People were walking by on the street, and it would have been possible for someone in the street or walking into the foyer to observe the drug deal that took place on July 18, 1991. But it was not proved that anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 18, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On July 22, 1991, Fowler stopped the CI and Agent Murray before they could even get into the Club. Again dealing in the doorway with the door propped open, Fowler passed crack to the CI (in a manner such that Murray herself, who was not looking directly at the transaction, was unable to observe it). The CI passed the crack to Murray, who gave Fowler $20. Again, as on July 18, people were walking by on the street, and it would have been possible for someone in the street or entering the foyer to observe the drug deal that took place on July 22, 1991. But it was not proved that anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 22, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. The next day, the CI and Agent Murray returned to the Club Zanzibar. They didn't see Fowler or Vanderhorst. The CI saw someone named Eddie Hall, who was known to the CI to be a "watch dog" for drug pushers. The CI approached him and asked for Fowler and Vanderhorst. Hall left looking for them and returned to tell them that the Respondent had barred Fowler from the Club and that he couldn't come in. Hall told the CI that Fowler was outside and would sell them "a half a packet" (apparently, four pieces of crack) for $20. Just then, Fowler appeared just inside the entrance to the Club and beckoned the CI and Murray to come to him. In all, Fowler was inside the Club for just a matter of seconds (four to five). Fowler met them in the foyer, and the CI told him that they declined the offer to sell "a half a packet" because they were looking for a full "packet." Fowler became irate, apparently at the illogic of their refusal to buy anything. He yelled and screamed and carried on for thirty seconds to a minute until they were in the street. Eventually, the CI and Agent Murray relented in their dubious position and bought a "half a packet" for $20 on the street in front of the Club. 9/ Except for Fowler's yelling and carrying on in the foyer and in the street, the participants in the transaction on July 23, 1991, spoke in a normal conversational tone. The juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversational tone probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. As for the Fowler's yelling and screaming, it might have been heard by the bartender, a female named Brunette, and she did not do anything about it before they all moved into the street, but the evidence did not prove that she would have been able to tell that Fowler's yelling and screaming necessarily involved a drug deal. The evidence did not prove that anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 23, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On July 25, 1991, the CI and Agent Murray again went to the Club Zanzibar. The Respondent was behind the bar. His sister was working there, too. After a time, the Respondent left, and Eddie Hall approached them. He told them that the Respondent was gone and that Fowler wanted to see them outside. The CI objected to doing the deal in the street and went to the front door of the Club and called out to Fowler to come in. Fowler went as far as the foyer and met them there. No employees were nearby. In conducting the transaction, Fowler accidentally dropped a white crack "rock" on the foyer floor. He nonchalantly bent down as if he were tying his shoe and picked it up. 10/ Fowler passed the crack to CI, who passed it to Agent Murray, who gave the CI $20 to give to Fowler. Other than Fowler's effort to pick up the crack he had dropped without attracting attention, no other extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on July 25, 1991. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. It was conducted in the foyer where no employee saw it. Indeed, there is no evidence that anyone saw the transaction other than the participants. There is no evidence that anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 25, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On July 26, 1991, the CI and Agent Murray returned to the Club Zanzibar. As they were about to enter, they saw Vanderhorst just outside. Vanderhorst followed them in. The CI went over to Vanderhorst to ask about crack. Vanderhorst said Fowler was waiting to get some from his girl friend. He left to look for them. Later, Vanderhorst returned and told the CI and Murray that Fowler had some crack and would meet them in the foyer. They went to meet Fowler and bought $20 of crack from him. The participants in the transaction spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, the juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversations probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on July 26, 1991. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. It was conducted in the foyer where no employee saw it. Indeed, although there were 10-15 people in the Club at the time, there is no evidence that anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 26, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On August 2, 1991, Vanderhorst followed the CI and Agent Murray into the Club Zanzibar. Vanderhorst approached them and told them his crack was in his car. Vanderhorst left and returned with a $10 piece of crack. The drugs and money passed inside the bar. There were about 10-15 people in the Club during the transaction on August 2, 1991. The participants in the transaction spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, the juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversations probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on August 2, 1991. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. This transaction also took place on the part of the bar near the corner where it "dead-ends" into the front perimeter wall of the inside of the premises. See Finding of Fact 22, above. The evidence did not prove that anyone in the bar during the transaction on August 2, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On August 14, 1991, the CI and Agent Murray went to the Club Zanzibar and apparently found no one to sell them drugs. The CI went outside to find someone named "Dragon," who was leaving when they came in. The CI returned with someone named James Royal, who had "some dubs" and sold them "a 20" of crack. Royal passed the crack to the CI at chest height (i.e., above the bar). Holding it between his two fingers, the CI showed it to Murray for a few seconds (three or four) before giving it to her. Murray gave Royal $20 for the crack. There were about 15 people in the Club during the transaction on August 14, 1991. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on August 14, 1991. This transaction also took place on the part of the bar near the corner where it "dead-ends" into the front perimeter wall of the inside of the premises. See Finding of Fact 22, above. The evidence did not prove that the two female bartenders on duty--Pat and Lena--or anyone in the bar during the transaction on August 14, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On August 26, 1991, the Respondent was working in the package store when the CI and Agent Murray entered the Club Zanzibar. Lena was tending the bar. A man known as Adelbert Cliatt or Al Clyde (Clyde) came up to the CI, who asked if Clyde was "still in the business." Clyde said he was but that someone else was holding his "stuff" to reduce the chances that he would get caught. During the conversation between Clyde and the CI, the Respondent came into the Club to try to fix the juke box. The Respondent was kneeling with his back to the bar, about 8-10 feet away from where they were sitting at the bar. While the Respondent was still working on the juke box, someone named Toby Adams came in and joined them. Clyde told Adams, apparently the person holding Clyde's crack, that the CI had asked for "a 20" and to go get. Adams gestured towards the Respondent, afraid to discuss it further or to deal while the Respondent was there. Clyde and Adams then left the Club. When they returned with the drugs, Clyde and Adams just stood behind where Murray and the CI were seated at the bar and waited until the Respondent was finished with the juke box and returned to the package store. Then Clyde took out a piece of crack on a piece of paper to display it to the CI at about chest level. Twice during the five or seven seconds Clyde was displaying the crack to the CI, the CI told Clyde in hushed tones to lower the crack so that it would not be as easy for others to see. The CI also complained that it was not "a 20," but Clyde insisted that it was, pointed out that he was also selling the "shake," i.e., the loose crack particles, that was on the paper. Clyde then folded the paper and gave it to the CI. While the Respondent did not return to the bar area while the transaction was taking place on August 26, 1991, Lena was in the vicinity the whole time and was able to see what was happening, but she showed no interest and did nothing to stop it. It was not proven that the Respondent or any other of the 15 or so people in the Club, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. Two days later, on August 28, 1991, Agent Murray and the CI returned to the Club Zanzibar and met Fowler on the street outside the Club. As the three headed towards the entrance, Fowler reminded them that he was barred from the Club, and Fowler passed crack to Murray in the foyer. There was no evidence that anyone other than the participants saw the transaction or knew that drugs had been passed. Agent Murray and the CI then continued into the Club. Although Fowler had not yet been paid for the crack, he did not follow them but stopped at the end of the bar nearest the entrance. The Respondent saw Fowler and went over to talk to him. The evidence was not clear what was said, but no more than a minute later, Fowler left. 11/ While the CI and Agent Murray were inside the Club, someone named Clements came in and approached them to tell them that Fowler was "waiting for his package," i.e., his $20. The CI told him, "later," and Clements left. A little while later, Fowler came back into the Club, went up to the CI and Murray at the bar near the entrance, and began to yell at them for not giving Clements Fowler's money. The CI or Murray apparently told Fowler to keep it down, because Fowler informed them that he had seen the Respondent leave, apparently to assure them that it was safer now (even though Brunette still was there). While Agent Murray handed Fowler the money, the CI explained to Fowler that they were not sure Clements would give Fowler the money and that they wanted to give it to him personally. This seemed to satisfy Fowler. Brunette was able to hear Fowler arguing loudly with Murray and the CI and did not intervene or try to find out what the argument was about. But the evidence did not prove that Brunette could hear or could tell what it was that they were saying. The CI and Agent Murray were back at the Club on September 10, 1991. Apparently, there was no one inside to sell them drugs, so the CI went outside. On his return, he told Murray that Fowler was outside "doing a deal." A while later, Fowler came into the Club and joined them. He held a small brown bag up to about chest level to show them the crack inside and then gave it to them. Agent Murray gave Fowler $20. During the conversation between the CI and Fowler on September 10, 1991, the CI asked if Fowler was "back in with " the Respondent, to which Fowler answered that he was. The evidence was not clear whether the CI meant, or that Fowler understood, anything by the question other than that the CI thought Fowler was barred from the Club and was surprised to see him back inside. The CI also asked Fowler if Fowler worked at the Club. Fowler glanced back at the CI, making a face as if to ask, "are you crazy?" and answered, "no way." The CI then asked, "you mean [the Respondent] wants to bar you but still wants you to do favors for him?" and Fowler answered, "yes." However, again, the meaning of this exchange was ambiguous. There were about ten people in the Club during the transaction on September 10, 1991. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction. The Respondent was not there. The bartender on duty, Debra, was new and did not work at the Club very long before her employment was terminated. The evidence was not clear whether she witnessed the transaction or heard the conversation, or heard or saw anything suspicious (although it is possible that she did.) The transaction took place on the side of the bar opposite the entrance to the Club, between the bar and the right hand perimeter wall of the premises, half way to the corner where the "U"-shaped bar "dead-ends" on that side into the front perimeter wall of the inside of the premises. Although customers generally circulate fairly regularly throughout the premises, there generally is much less traffic in this area since it near the "dead end." See Finding of Fact 22, above. There were people playing dominos at a low table in the corner behind the bar where the transaction occurred, but it was not proven that the transaction could have been observed from the domino table. The evidence did not prove that anyone in the bar during the transaction on September 10, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. The CI and Agent Murray returned to the Club on September 13, 1991. The Club was crowded; there were 20-25 people there. Lena was tending bar; the Respondent's wife was in the package store; the Respondent himself was not there. At one point, while the CI and Murray were seated at the bar, a man called "Big John" Polite walked up to them, and the CI told him that Murray wanted "a 20." Polite asked if they wanted to do the deal in the Club, and the CI said, "yes." Polite left to go to the men's room, where he said his crack was, and returned to where they were sitting. He walked up between them and passed the crack to the CI under bar level. The CI passed it to Murray, who put it on a napkin on the bar counter top, wrapped it up, and put it in her pocket. Murray then passed $20 to Polite. The man sitting next to Murray at the bar on September 13, 1991, easily could have seen the crack, but the evidence did not prove that he did, or that he would have known what it was. Others also could perhaps have recognized that a drug transaction was occurring, but the evidence did not prove that anyone else in fact knew it was happening. With the juke box playing, and the crowd making noise, probably only someone actually involved in the conversations with Polite would have been able to hear them. When the CI and Agent Murray were in the Club on September 17, 1991, it was again crowded, with about 25 people inside. Brunette and a man named Carl were tending bar. There was confusion in the testimony as to who Carl was. The CI understood him to be the Respondent's cousin, Carl Jordan. The Respondent testified that he had no cousin named Carl Jordan. He admitted he had a cousin name Carl Warmack, who sometimes accompanied him to the Club, but said his cousin Carl was severely retarded and incapable of tending bar or doing anything other than simple menial chores. The CI and Agent Murray did not seem to think that the person they identified as Carl Jordan was retarded. Seated at the bar on September 17, 1991, on the side where there is less traffic circulating, 12/ Murray and the CI observed an unidentified female patron holding three crack "rocks" in her open palm while fingering them with her other hand. She did this in the open so that others seated on that side of the bar also would have been able to see. But it was not proven that anyone else in fact saw what she was doing or knew she had crack in her hand. A little later, Clyde walked up to them, and Murray asked for "a 20." Clyde left and returned shortly to pass some crack to Murray under bar level. Murray put the crack in her pocket and passed $20 to Clyde. "Carl" did nothing about the drug deal between Clyde and Murray. Much of the time while this transaction was taking place, "Carl" was talking to the CI within about three feet from where Murray was sitting. He could have seen the transaction but the evidence did not prove that "Carl" in fact saw it or knew it was taking place. Nor did the evidence prove that Brunette saw the transaction or knew it was taking place. On September 19, 1991, Agent Murray and the CI again went to the Club. Lena was tending bar. The Respondent's daughter also was there. It was crowded, with about 25 people inside. During the time they were there, Murray saw Clyde and asked him for "a 20." Clyde pulled a small brown bag out of his shirt pocket, took out three pieces of crack, and passed them to Murray below the level of the bar where they were sitting. Murray then passed Clyde $20. There were people sitting all around the bar, but the evidence did not prove that anyone saw the transaction to that point. Then, Murray held the crack up for Lena to see and asked her if it was "hard white," a common illegal drug dealing slang intended to describe the potentially dangerous kind of crack that is "cut" with baking soda. Lena lit a cigarette lighter to see it better, looked at it for a moment and answered, "it looks beige to me." Crack that is "cut" in the acceptable manner has a beige-like color and is referred to as "beige" in illegal drug dealing slang. It is found that Lena was using the drug dealing slang. On September 26, 1991, Agent Murray and the CI were at the Club sitting at the bar. The CI called over to a man named David Glover, a/k/a Jake, who was playing dominoes. Glover came over and sat in the bar stool next to the CI. There, Glover sold the CI crack for $25. There were 15-20 people in the Club on September 26, 1991. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. This transaction took place on the side where there is less traffic circulating. See Finding of Fact 61, above. However, after the deal, the CI called the bartender, Debra, over and asked for a napkin. He put the crack on the napkin on the bar counter top and asked her if she knew what it was. She looked at it and, knowing what it was, simply said, "you better get it off the bar." Debra was terminated shortly afterwards for reasons not disclosed by the evidence. (The Respondent said only that "she didn't work out.") According to the evidence, Agent Murray's last visit to the Club Zanzibar was on October 8, 1991. She and a backup sat at the part of the bar closest to the domino table. Clyde walked up, and Murray asked for "a 20." She gave him $20, and Clyde went to the domino table to talk to someone and then left. The unidentified person with whom he had spoken came over and told Murray that he could get whatever she wanted if Clyde couldn't. Murray told him that Clyde had just left with her money and that she hoped Clyde had what she wanted. A little later, Clyde returned and passed Murray a crack "rock" at the bar under bar level height. After the deal with Clyde, the Respondent walked behind and past where Clyde and Murray were, but the evidence did not prove that the Respondent saw anything suspicious occurring. After the drug deal with Clyde, Murray beckoned to the unidentified male with whom she had spoken earlier. He gestured acknowledgement and came over shortly. Murray asked him for $10 worth of crack. He said he would get it and returned shortly to say it would have to be "a 20." Murray said, "OK," and passed him a $20 bill. He passed her the crack at waist level as he walked past her. There were about 15 people in the Club on October 8, 1991. The Respondent was there. Brunette and "Carl" were behind the bar. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. From where Murray was sitting, her back and Clyde's back were between the transaction and the domino table. The unidentified pusher sneakily slipped the crack to Murray as he walked past between her and the vantage from the domino table. The evidence did not prove that anyone in the bar during the transaction on October 8, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. The Respondent testified that he later barred Clyde for drug activity. On or about October 10, 1991, the Club Zanzibar was raided by Tampa Police, arrests were made, and an Emergency Suspension Order issued by the Department was served. The Club has not been in operation since then. There is no evidence that the Respondent ever asked the Division or the Tampa Police for help in controlling illegal drug use on his premises. He did not ask the police to send undercover agents into the area and his establishment to make cases against customers who broke the drug laws or to "test" his employees. There is no evidence that the Respondent gave the Tampa Police intelligence information regarding the source of illegal drugs in the area. Nor did he work as closely or as diligently with local community leaders as he could have. Since the Club Zanzibar has been closed, illegal drug activity in the immediate vicinity has decreased markedly. This is a common occurrence for some period of time after a police raid. Longer periods of decreased drug activity also can be explained by the arrest of some of the participants in the illegal activities and by the fewer number of people in the area, which translates to fewer potential drug buyers in the area. The extended duration of decreased illegal drug activity after the raid in this case (almost two months, through the time of the final hearing) is somewhat unusual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order suspending the Respondent's license for six months from entry of final order and fining the Respondent $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Starla K. Rose, was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0046404. On February 25, 1985, an Information was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, charging Respondent with one count of grand theft, Sections 512.014(1)a and b and 512.014(2)b, Florida Statutes, two counts of insurance fraud by false or fraudulent claims Section 517.234(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes; and, one count of false report of the commission of a crime, Section 817.49, Florida Statutes. Respondent pled not guilty to the Information. On June 6, 1985, a verdict was rendered which found Respondent guilty of one count of grand theft, one count of insurance fraud by false or fraudulent claims and one count of false report of the commission of a crime. The court adjudged Respondent guilty of issuing a false report of the commission of a crime, withheld adjudication of guilt on the remaining counts, placed Respondent on probation for 3 years, and ordered her to pay costs. Respondent filed a timely motion for new trial following rendition of the verdict. At the time of final hearing in this case, no disposition had been made of Respondent's motion for new trial.
Findings Of Fact By Exhibit 4, the Respondent, on April 4, 1972, was found guilty of urging and uttering a check, unlawful possession of a counterfeit operator's license, and grand larceny. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. By Exhibit 3, Respondent on June 27, 1975 was found guilty of conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit: obtain Schedule II controlled substances by fraud and misrepresentation, and forgery.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating F.S. 475.25(1)(e), and that his registration be suspended for a period of forty-five (45) days. Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce I. Kamelhair Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 George H. Lowe Post Office Box 445 Bonita Springs, Florida 32923
Findings Of Fact During the month of September 1988, petitioner, David J. Caplan, agreed with, unbeknownst to him, a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration to secure and deliver to the agent 12 kilograms of cocaine for $16,500 per kilogram (kilo). On September 27, 1988, petitioner picked up one kilo of cocaine from his supplier and transported it in his vehicle to his residence. Within his residence, petitioner met with the agent and a confidential informant (CI), and delivered the one kilo of cocaine to the agent in exchange for $16,500. On September 28, 1988, following negotiations regarding the purchase of the balance of the cocaine, petitioner picked up two kilos of cocaine from his supplier, transported it by truck to his residence, and hid it in a garbage can adjacent to his garage. Upon the arrival of the agent and CI, petitioner removed the cocaine from the garbage can, and displayed it to the agent inside his residence. After examining the cocaine, the agent and CI left the residence under the announced intention of going to get the money for the purchase of the two kilos, and once away from the residence the agent gave the signal to other agents for petitioner's arrest. Upon arrest, petitioner cooperated with the agents, and directed them to the two kilos of cocaine, which he had hidden in the rafters of his garage. 1/ Subsequently, petitioner was charged and pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine. On February 21, 1990, respondent, Department of Revenue (Department), issued a Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Findings which assessed a tax of $9,900, a penalty of $2,475, an additional penalty of $4,950, and interest of $1,589.25, together with interest thereon at the rate of $3.25 per day after February 21, 1990, against petitioner, pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes. At petitioner's request, the Department reconsidered such assessment, and on May 7, 1991, issued a revised assessment against petitioner, assessing a tax of $9,900, a penalty of $2,475, and interest of $1,589.25, together with interest at the rate of $3.25 per day after February 21, 1990. The factual basis for the assessment was the petitioner's involvement in the cocaine transactions described in the foregoing findings of fact. Petitioner filed a timely petition seeking a formal hearing to contest the Department's assessment. At hearing, petitioner contended that the cocaine in question was not his, that he merely acted as a go-between for the agent and his supplier, and that he was therefore not involved in any sale, use or distribution of the subject cocaine. Moreover, with regard to the second transaction, which involved the two kilos of cocaine, petitioner contended that no liability for any tax could attach because the sale was not consummated, i.e.: petitioner had not yet actually exchanged the cocaine with the agent for the agreed purchase price. Petitioner's contentions regarding the limited nature of his involvement is contrary to the credible proof, and petitioner's contentions regarding the implications of that participation are contrary to the law, discussed infra. Succinctly, petitioner actively participated in the transportation, storage, distribution and sale of the cocaine, and he is subject to the implications of such activity under the provisions of Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes. Notwithstanding his active participation in the sale of the cocaine, petitioner averred at hearing that such participation was not voluntary. Rather, petitioner contended that his participation resulted from pressure asserted by a friend of long standing (Lupo) who, unbeknown to him, had become a confidential informant. 2/ According to petitioner, Lupo pressured him into locating a supplier of cocaine for the agent and CI involved in the subject transactions, as a consequence of hounding him for an old $1,600 debt petitioner had incurred for purchasing cocaine at a time he was addicted to the drug, and by an oblique remark the confidential informant made that "he knew my kid played outside," which petitioner averred he interpreted to be a threat to do something to his son. Petitioner's contention that his participation in the subject transactions was not voluntary or, stated differently, that he was entrapped, is rejected as contrary to the more credible proof. Here, the proof demonstrates that petitioner's motivation was financial and that he had a familiar relationship of long standing with Lupo and his ultimate supplier (Greenburg) which, coupled with the lack of sincerity and precision to his testimony, make his protestations of duress ring hollow. Regarding his financial motivation, the proof demonstrates that when approached by Lupo, petitioner was financially strapped, and stood to make $500 for each kilo he could deliver. Had the entire transaction been consummated for the agreed 12 kilos, petitioner stood to make a quick $6,000. Regarding the relationships that existed, the proof demonstrates that petitioner had been friends with Lupo and Greenberg for over twenty years, had actually lived with Greenberg for ten years, and that there was no apparent change in that relationship when he was approached by Lupo and introduced to the agent in this case. Considering the length of their relationship, and the lack of conviction in petitioner's testimony, it is concluded that petitioner's participation in this transaction was not compelled by any threat from Lupo, but by his own financial needs. In sum, the proof supports the conclusion that petitioner did engage in the unlawful sale, use, distribution, transportation or storage of cocaine as set forth in the Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Findings, and that the Department's assessment of tax, penalty and interest set forth in its revised assessment was reasonable and appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order concluding that petitioner, David J. Caplan, is liable for taxes, penalties and interest pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes, and assessing the amount of such liability at $13,964.25, plus interest at the rate of $3.25 per day from February 22, 1990. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of March 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent has been convicted of a crime which involves moral turpitude or fraudulent or dishonest dealing in violation of subsection 475.25(1)(f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is now and was at all times material to this cause a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida having been issued License No. 10931734 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On August 29, 1986, a two-count information was filed in the Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County, Florida, against respondent and four other individuals. Count I of the information charged a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act. Count II of the information charged conspiracy to violate the RICO Act. Specifically, Count II of the information alleged that respondent, and five other individuals, on a continuing basis from November 14, 1985, through December 21, 1985, "did knowingly, willfully and unlawfully, conspire, combine, confederate or agree together with each other and with other persons . . . to violate the laws of the State of Florida, to wit: The laws prohibiting any person employed by or associated with any enterprise from conducting or participating either directly or indirectly, in the affairs of said enterprise through a pattern or [sic] racketeering activity as prohibited in Florida Statute 895.03(3), in violation of Florida Statute 895.03(4), and it was a part of said conspiracy that the above- named defendants were associated with an enterprise to wit: a group of individuals associated in fact, although not a legal entity, for the purpose of engaging in various criminal activities in violation of Chapter 849 of the Florida Statutes relating to gambling, including but not limited to: bookmaking, (2) unlawful betting, and (3) criminal conspiracy in violation of Florida Statute 895.03(4), to the evil example of all persons in like cases offending and contrary to the statute in such case made and provided against the peace of dignity of the State of Florida." By letter dated March 20, 1986, the respondent advised the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, that she had been arrested on felony charges. On September 10, 1986, respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of conspiracy to violate Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, as charged in Count II of the information. Adjudication was withheld, and respondent was placed on probation for two years with a special condition that she cooperate fully with law enforcement. On October 8, 1986, respondent sent a letter to the petitioner stating that she had entered a plea of nolo contendere, "to the charge of `conspiracy to violate RICO' for bookmaking." Respondent stated in the letter, "In short, I was betting on football and basketball games and placing bets with a bookie in Ft. Myers." Respondent's husband, John Flanagan, was named as a co-defendant and co-conspirator in the information. At the hearing, respondent testified that her only role in the betting activity was to take telephone messages for her husband. She explained that when her husband was not home, she would answer the phone and take messages for him from friends wishing to place bets on football games. She would write down the message, i.e., what the bet was and the amount of the bet, and leave the message for her husband. However, this testimony is not entirely consistent with her statement in the letter of October 8, 1986, where she stated that she was betting on football and basketball games and placing bets with a bookie in Ft. Myers. Thus, from respondent's admissions it appears that she was involved with gambling activity by taking bets over the phone, which bets were passed on to her husband, by betting on football and basketball games herself, and by placing bets with a bookie in Ft. Myers. Further, respondent admitted that she pleaded nolo contendere to the charge of conspiracy to violate the RICO act "for bookmaking." Respondent determined to plead nolo contendere to the conspiracy charge, a first degree felony, to protect her family and because she knew adjudication of guilt would be withheld and she would be placed on probation. Respondent also contends that she pleaded nolo contendere to the first degree felony of conspiracy to violate the RICO Act, rather than the underlying third degree felony of bookmaking, because adjudication of guilt could not be withheld under the bookmaking statute. Respondent's husband, John Flanagan, who also pleaded nolo contendere to Count II of the information, is a certified public accountant. When his case was presented to the probable cause panel of the State of Florida Board of Accountancy, the panel decided that there was no moral turpitude or fraud involved in the crime and decided to issue a letter of guidance under a different disciplinary provision. Respondent's arrest and subsequent disposition of the felony charges have not had an adverse-effect on respondent's real estate business. Respondent's friends and associates find her to be honest and of the highest moral integrity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding that respondent has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and imposing an administrative fine of $500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2274 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: 1. Accepted in #1. 2-3. Accepted in #4. Accepted in #`s 3 and 5. Accepted in #2. Respondent's proposed findings of fact: 1-2. Rejected, not a finding of fact. Accepted in part in #2, remainder rejected as not a finding of fact. Accepted in #7, to the degree it is a finding of fact, not a legal conclusion, which might be considered in mitigation of penalty. Accepted as stated in #8. 6-7. Accepted as stated in #6. 8. Accepted in that there was no finding that a fine was imposed. 9-10. Rejected as not a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation - Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Stacey Lee Flanagan, pro se 3364 Country Oaks Boulevard Bradenton, Florida 34243 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Florida Real Estate Commission 400 W. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Tom Gallagher Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 60-05660, series 2COP, should be disciplined based on the alleged violations of the alcoholic beverage laws set forth in the Notice to Show Cause dated August 14, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Jimmy Karl Boyd is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 60-05660, series 2COP, for a licensed premises known as Get A Way Bar & Lounge, located at 2517 North Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Ellie Reardon was the girlfriend of the Respondent and the manager of the premises. Shannon Dowding, who is Ms. Reardon's daughter, and Kathy Harris were also bartenders at the establishment. Petitioner initiated an investigation of the licensed premises based on a complaint from Jim Falsia, a deputy with the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office, that persons were dealing in stolen property and drugs on the premises.2 Kent Stanton and Jennifer DeGidio, special agents employed by Petitioner, conducted the undercover investigation of Respondent's business in cooperation with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. Before they entered the subject premises for the first time, Agents Stanton and DeGidio were given certain information, including identifying information pertaining to two suspected drug dealers named William Howell and Scott Lyons. As part of their investigation, Agents Stanton and DeGidio entered the subject premises during late afternoon or early evening on the following dates: June 18, 19, 23, and 26; July 1, 15, 21, 23, 29, and 31; and August 4, 6, and 12, 1998. After each of these visits, the undercover agents returned to their office where they recorded their recollection of what had transpired. At all times, the two agents entered the premises together. One or the other agent always wore a listening device that was monitored by backup law enforcement officers. Agents Stanton and DeGidio purchased quantities of cocaine inside the subject premises on the following dates: June 19; July 1, 15, 21, 23, 29, and 31; and August 6 and 12, 1998. THE PREMISES The premises are located in a commercial area that backs up to an area of low income housing. The premises consist of a parking area and a rectangular shaped building with approximately 2,000 square feet. The building has three doors. There is no lighting other than that provided by the open doors. The evidence established that there was adequate light in the premises to observe the events pertinent to this proceeding. There is a long bar with a mirror on the wall that the patrons face. The bartender on duty is usually stationed behind the bar in the vicinity of the cash register, which is behind the bar toward the eastern end of the bar. There is a telephone at the eastern end of the bar that patrons are free to use. The door at the westerly end of the premises is off a hallway in the vicinity of the men's room. This hallway is not visible from where the bartender is usually stationed and is not otherwise monitored. There are four televisions that could be set on different stations. One or more television was usually on. There is a juke box. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, the bar was cooled by two four-foot fans and an 18-inch fan because the central air conditioning system was broken. There were coolers behind the bar. Although the premises was noisy, the evidence established that the noise did not prevent ordinary conversation. JUNE 18, 1998 The first time the undercover agents entered the subject premises was Thursday, June 18, 1998. They observed Respondent, Ellie Reardon, and two patrons drinking beer and engaging in conversation. The agents only engaged in small talk on that occasion. No drugs were purchased by the undercover agents on this date. JUNE 19, 1998 On Friday, June 19, 1998, the two undercover agents entered the premises and made contact with Respondent, Ms. Reardon, and two patrons known to the agents only as "Rick" and "Gabe." Agent DeGidio asked Rick if he knew where she could "get something to party with." Rick replied, grass (slang for marijuana) or powder (slang for cocaine). When Agent DeGidio responded powder, Rick introduced her to another patron, William Howell, and requested Howell to provide cocaine to Agent DeGidio. Howell asked Agent DeGidio what she wanted, and Agent DeGidio replied an "eight bail," which is slang for 3.5 grams of cocaine. No employee of the Respondent was in a position to hear those conversations. After Howell related the price, Agent DeGidio returned to the bar area to Agent Stanton and asked him for money. Agent Stanton openly handed Agent DeGidio approximately $160.00. Ms. Reardon was in a position to observe this transfer of money. Agent DeGidio returned to Howell and gave him $150.00. Agent DeGidio and Howell returned to the bar area and Howell picked up the phone from Ms. Reardon. Howell placed a brief telephone call, and within a short time, Ms. Reardon picked up the ringing telephone, and gave it to Howell. Howell then departed the premises and returned shortly thereafter, whereupon he handed Agent DeGidio a small plastic bag containing suspected cocaine. Howell did not attempt to conceal the nature of the transaction from Ms. Reardon, who was in position to observe the transfer. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JUNE 23, 1998 On June 23, 1998, the undercover agents returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio approached employee Ms. Reardon and openly asked her if Howell was around and whether he could "get us some stuff." Ms. Reardon began looking for Howell, but did not take any other action regarding Agent DeGidio's obvious drug request. When Howell arrived at the premises shortly thereafter, he approached Agents DeGidio and Stanton. Howell told Agent DeGidio that Ellie (Ms. Reardon) had told him that she (DeGidio) wanted some, meaning drugs. When Agent DeGidio told Howell that she was looking for a gram of cocaine, Howell said he would try, made a phone call, and thereafter departed the premises. When Howell returned, he told the agents that his cocaine supplier had not come yet. No drugs were purchased by the undercover agents on this date. JUNE 26, 1998 On June 26, 1998, the undercover agents returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio made contact with Howell regarding the purchase of cocaine. Howell placed a phone call at the bar phone, and received a return call a few minutes later. Howell informed Agent DeGidio that he could sell her cocaine as soon as his supplier arrived. When Howell returned and advised that his cocaine supplier had not arrived, the agents departed. The evidence failed to establish that anyone employed by Respondent heard this conversation. No drugs were purchased by the undercover agents on this date. JULY 1, 1998 On July 1, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio made contact with Howell regarding the purchase of cocaine. Their conversation occurred at the bar less than two feet from Shannon Dowding, who was tending the bar and in a position to hear the conversation. Ms. Dowding took no action in response to this conversation. Howell placed a call using the telephone at the bar and received a return call seconds later. Agent DeGidio approached Agent Stanton, who openly handed her $60.00. Agent DeGidio then handed the money to Howell. This exchange occurred in the middle of the bar in plain view of Ms. Dowding, but no reasonable inquiry or action was taken. Howell later approached an unidentified patron and called Agent DeGidio to where he was standing in the hallway in the vicinity of the men's room. This area was not monitored or supervised by the Respondent or his employees and was not visible from the bar counter where the Respondent's bartender was stationed. When Agent DeGidio arrived, Howell handed her a small plastic bag containing cocaine. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JULY 15, 1998 On July 15, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, the agents met with Kathy Harris, who was working as the bartender at the premises. Ms. Harris answered the telephone at the bar and the caller asked for Howell, but Howell was not on the premises. Agent Stanton asked Ms. Harris if she knew whether Howell was coming to the premises that day. When Ms. Harris replied that she did not know, Agent DeGidio asked Ms. Harris if she knew someone who could get the agents "something to party with." Ms. Harris told the agents that Howell's "partner" was present. Ms. Harris then brought the partner into the premises and introduced him to the agents as "Scott," later identified as Scott Lyons. Agent DeGidio then loudly asked Lyons, in the presence of Ms. Harris, whether he could provide the agents "something to party with." Agent DeGidio and Lyons then discussed availability and price of the cocaine in the presence of Ms. Harris. When Agent Stanton expressed concern over giving Lyons money before receiving cocaine, Ms. Harris stated that Lyons could be trusted. Agent Stanton then handed Lyons $60.00 and Lyons departed the premises. Soon thereafter, Lyons returned to the premises and approached Agent Stanton, who was sitting at the bar two feet from Ms. Harris. Lyons handed Agent Stanton, at bar level, a small plastic bag with a white powdery substance. At no time during this transaction did Ms. Harris, or any other employee, take any action to stop the drug transaction or even inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JULY 21, 1998 On July 21, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, the agents sat at the bar, which was tended by Ms. Dowding. Agent DeGidio made contact with Lyons, who was standing at the bar in front of Ms. Dowding, and asked if he could "get some stuff." Lyons said that he could, made another call using the bar phone, and departed the premises. Lyons and Howell later entered the premises together. Lyons approached Agent Stanton, and they discussed a cocaine transaction. Agent Stanton openly handed Lyons $60.00. These conversations were at normal speaking volumes and could have been heard by anybody at the bar including Ms. Dowding. After departing and then returning to the premises, Lyons approached Agent Stanton, who was sitting at the bar three feet from Ms. Dowding and four feet from Ms. Reardon, who had entered the premises. Lyons handed Agent Stanton, at bar level, two small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. Agent Stanton placed the small clear bags in the palm of his hand, and then placed his hand at chest level and looked at the bags of cocaine for a few seconds. Anybody at the bar was in a position to see the bags in Agent Stanton's hand including Ms. Dowding and Ms. Reardon. At no time did Ms. Dowding or Ms. Reardon take any action to stop the drug transaction or inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JULY 23, 1998 On July 23, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. Agent Stanton went to the hallway by the men's room and met with Lyons regarding the purchase of cocaine. Agent Stanton handed Lyons $60.00. Approximately five minutes later, Lyons approached Agent Stanton at the bar and handed him at bar level two small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. Agent Stanton held the cocaine in his palm and looked at it before placing it into his pocket. The cocaine transfer could have been viewed by anyone sitting at the bar, including a ten-year old boy, who was sitting next to Agent Stanton, and Ms. Reardon. At no time did Ms. Reardon or any other employee take any action to stop the drug transaction or inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JULY 29, 1998 On July 29, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio met with Howell regarding the purchase of cocaine and asked him, in the presence of Ms.Dowding, for a gram. Howell walked to the end of the bar where Ms. Dowding handed him the telephone. Howell placed a call. When the phone rang moments later, Ms. Dowding answered and handed the telephone to Howell. After a short conversation, Howell told Agent DeGidio that she would have to wait. Ms. Dowding was sitting right next to Howell during this exchange. Shortly thereafter Ms. Dowding departed the premises and was replaced by Ms. Reardon, who had arrived with a child approximately ten years old. Agent DeGidio looked out the back door and saw Howell and an unidentified male in an automobile engaged in what appeared to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction. Howell then reentered the bar and approached Agent DeGidio. Agent DeGidio told Agent Stanton that Howell needed the money, and Agent Stanton gave Howell $60.00 in the presence of Ms. Reardon. Howell briefly walked out the back door, reentered and handed Agent DeGidio two small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. The transfer occurred at the back of the bar. At no time did Ms. Dowding or Ms. Reardon take any action to stop the drug transaction or to inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to contain cocaine. JULY 31, 1998 On July 31, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent Stanton met with Lyons regarding the purchase of cocaine. Later, Lyons signaled Agent Stanton to walk to the hall by the men's room. Lyons stated that he needed the money, and Agent Stanton gave Lyons $60.00. Approximately ten minutes later, Lyons again signaled Agent Stanton to go to the back of the bar. There Lyons handed Agent Stanton two small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. The evidence failed to establish that any employee of the Respondent was in a position to see these events or hear these conversations. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to contain cocaine. AUGUST 4, 1998 On August 4, 1998, the undercover agents returned to the premises, but they did not purchase any drugs. AUGUST 6, 1998 On August 6, 1998, Agents Stanton and DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio met with Howell regarding the purchase of cocaine. Agent DeGidio obtained $60.00 from Agent Stanton and handed it to Howell. Approximately ten minutes later, Howell signaled Agent DeGidio to go to the back of the bar in front of the men's restroom. Once there Howell handed Agent DeGidio two small clear plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. Ms. Reardon was in a position to observe Agent Stanton give Agent DeGidio the money that she subsequently gave to Howell. Ms. Reardon was not in a position to see or hear the remaining events. At no time did any employee take any action to stop the drug transaction or to inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to be cocaine. AUGUST 12, 1998 On August 12, 1998, Agents Stanton and Agent DeGidio returned to the licensed premises. On this date, Agent DeGidio again met with Howell regarding the purchase of cocaine. Howell was standing in the back of the bar with employee Ms. Reardon, Respondent, and an unknown patron. In the presence of these people, Agent DeGidio asked Howell if he could "hook her up." This question should have been construed by all who heard it as an inquiry pertaining to drugs. Howell replied that he would attempt to locate some cocaine for Agent DeGidio. Shortly thereafter, Howell met with Agent DeGidio and told Agent DeGidio that his usual source wasn't home, but he would see if he could get it from someone else. After discussing price with Howell, Agent DeGidio approached Agent Stanton and obtained $60.00 from him. Agent Stanton counted out the money in front of Ms. Reardon and Ms. Dowding and handed the money to Agent DeGidio. Agent DeGidio then gave the $60.00 to Howell. Shortly thereafter, Howell motioned for Agent DeGidio to come to the area of the men's room, where he handed Agent DeGidio $10.003 and two paper packets containing a white powdery substance. At no time did any of the employees attempt to stop the transaction or to inquire about it. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory-analyzed and found to be cocaine. Although the consummation of the foregoing transactions was frequently in the area of the men's room, any reasonable employee knew or should have known that the undercover agents were purchasing drugs from Howell and Lyons. With the exception of the transaction on July 31, 1998, at least a part of each transaction was conducted in an open manner near the bar, where the transaction could easily be viewed by the bartender on duty. Ellie Reardon, Shannon Dowding, and Kathy Harris were aware of, or should have been aware of, the drug activity. Respondent's employees openly condoned it, to the point of actually directing the agents to the sellers and vouching for the reliability of Lyons. The testimony of the Respondent and his employees that they had no idea drugs were being bought and sold in the establishment is rejected because that testimony is contrary to the clear and convincing evidence of the two special agents and to the multiple bags of cocaine that were produced as evidence. NO RESPONSIBLE VENDOR TRAINING Respondent took no action to prevent drug activity on the premises. Respondent provided no Responsible Vendor Training pursuant to Section 561.701, Florida Statutes.4 The Respondent never informed his employees that drug use and sales were not to be tolerated on the licensed premises, nor did he instruct them what they should do if they observed drugs being trafficked on the premises. Ms. Reardon, Ms. Dowding, and Ms. Harris testified that they had been given appropriate vendor training by the Respondent. This testimony is rejected as being contrary to the Respondent's testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 60-05660, series 2COP, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1998.
