Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs RUEBEN MCCALL, JR., D/B/A MACCALL`S CHAMPAGNE LOUNGE, 92-005404 (1992)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tampa, Florida Sep. 03, 1992 Number: 92-005404 Latest Update: Nov. 04, 1992

Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco is the state agency charged with regulating the alcohol beverage and tobacco laws in Florida. Respondent, Rueben McCall, Jr., d/b/a McCall's Champagne Lounge, is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 62-00231, series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as McCall's Champagne Lounge which is located at 618 22nd Street South, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. On or about February 11, 1992, Officer T. Brockman of the St. Petersburg Police Department (SPPD) met with Respondent as licensee to discuss illegal activities which were ongoing in and around his licensed premises. Officer Brockman notified Respondent that controlled substances were being sold in and about the licensed premises and that underaged persons were being permitted to consume alcoholic beverages. Respondent was also notified of other illegal activities including weapons and firearms violations which were occurring on Friday and Saturday nights. On or about July 26, 1992, the Division's Special Agent, Cummings and other undercover law enforcement agents went to Respondent's premises as part of an ongoing narcotics investigation. While inside the premises, Cummings met a patron known as "Andy Griffin" regarding the purchase of marijuana. As a result of that meeting, Special Agent Cummings handed Andy Griffin $10.00 in exchange for a small plastic bag containing marijuana. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be marijuana. At the time, two employees were located a few feet away from the site where the marijuana was delivered. At the time, several patrons were also openly consuming and selling controlled substances in the presence of Respondent and his employees. On or about July 31, 1992, Cummings again reentered the licensed premises with other undercover law enforcement agents in furtherance of their investigation. While inside the premises, Special Agent Cummings met with an unknown patron regarding the purchase of "crack" cocaine. Subsequently Special Agent Cummings handed the unknown patron $10.00 in exchange for a small quantity of a substance which was analyzed and found to be cocaine. This transaction took place in plain view at the bar in the presence of Respondent and several employees. At the time, several patrons inside the premises were openly smoking marijuana in the presence of Respondent and his employees. On August 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 15, Special Agent Cummings and other law enforcement agents reentered the licensed premises as part of their ongoing narcotics investigation. While inside the premises, on each ocassion except August 8, Special Agent Cummings purchased narcotics for $10.00. On each occasion the substance purchased by Special Agent Cummings was laboratory analyzed and found to be marijuana. During the August 8, 1992 visit by Special Agent Cummings and the other law enforcement agents, several patrons were observed openly consuming marijuana in the presence of Respondent and several employees. At no time did Respondent or his employees make efforts to prevent that activity from occurring inside the licensed premises. On each occasion while in the premises, Special Agent Cummings observed several patrons openly consuming and selling controlled substances in the presence of employees. At the outset of the narcotics investigation, Officer Tim Brockman met with Respondent and advised him that he was a community police officer who was on call and would be walking the "beat" in and around the licensed premises. Officer Brockman made it known to Respondent that he was there to improve the quality of life and that he would be in contact with community leaders to try to get a handle on the extensive criminal activity which appeared to be ongoing in and around the licensed premises. As part of their efforts, Officer Brockman tried to develop a crime watch as the community residents felt threatened by the extensive criminal activity ongoing in and around the licensed premises. Officer Brockman advised Respondent that their primary goal would be to try to rid the area of drug sales. Respondent was specifically advised of the extensive drug activities that were ongoing both inside and outside of the licensed premises. Respondent's cooperation and assistance was requested by Officer Brockman and be agreed to assist. Officer Brockman made it known to Respondent that loitering was a problem outside the building and that alcoholic sales were being made in the building to minors. Finally, Officer Brockman told Respondent that he had observed patrons purchasing alcoholic beverages in the bar and who would later bring the open containers outside into the parking areas in and around the building in apparent violations of the local ordinances. Officer Brockman analyzed the phone calls which had been logged through the St. Petersburg Police Departments switchboard from the lounge and for law enforcement assistance in that area. The number of calls to Respondent's lounge greatly exceed the number of calls for law enforcement assistance in other areas of the City. Josephine McCall, Respondent's wife, denies that she ever saw drugs in the licensed premises. Ms. McCall maintains that Respondent would "come home sick as he could not stand the smell of marijuana." Thomas E. Hines, is a patron who occasionally frequents the bar during the early evening hours. During the times that he has frequented the club, he has not witnessed ellicit drugs being sold in the area nor would he recognize "reefer" if he saw it. Kathy Burgess has been a barmaid at Respondent's lounge in excess of thirteen years. Ms. Burgess contends that Respondent did not allow drug sales to occur and that if such sales were made, she told employees to "get them out of the premises." Bonny Bostick serves as a janitor at Respondent's lounge and works on the admissions door on Friday and Saturday nights. Bostick recalls having to get Respondent to curtail drug activities on four or five occasions. 0/ To the extent that the testimony of Respondent and witnesses J. McCall, T. Hines, K. Burgess and B. Bostick is in conflict with that of Officers Cummings and Brockman, their testimony is not credible. The testimony of Officers Cummings and Brockman is more credible and is more worthy of belief as they had no interest in the outcome of the proceedings. At all times throughout the investigation, Respondent was in the licensed premises while the illegal activities referred to herein were taking place. Respondent's employees either ignored or overlooked illegal activities as it was occurring inside the licensed premises.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order prevailing that Respondent, Rueben McCall, Jr., d/b/a McCall Champagne Lounge, license number 62-00231, series 2-COP be revoked. It is further recommended that this location be deemed ineligible for having an alcoholic beverage license issued for the maximum period allowable under the alcoholic beverage law. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1992 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 4th day of November, 1992.

Florida Laws (5) 120.57561.29561.58823.10893.13
# 1
DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs. ARTHUR A. PELOSO, 87-000844 (1987)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 87-000844 Latest Update: Jul. 14, 1987

The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are: Whether Respondent sold alcoholic beverages on two occasions when the service of full course meals had been discontinued; Whether Respondent offered or allowed the operation of a football pool on the licensed premises; and If so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.

Findings Of Fact Arthur A. Peloso, doing business as Peloso's Spaghetti House, currently operates, and at all relevant periods was operating, under alcoholic beverage license number 59-129 SRX, Series 7-COP, a "special restaurant license." The premises are located at 1709 West Vine Street, Kissimmee, Florida. The premises consist of the main part of the restaurant, accessible by a door fronting the street; a lounge in the rear, accessible from the main restaurant and by a side door; and a kitchen, accessible to employees from both the lounge area and the main restaurant. The bar counter is located on the far end of the lounge, opposite the side entrance and adjacent to the kitchen. On September 22, 1986, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Beverage Agent Ronald P. Sullivan, visited the premises at the direction of his supervisor. The marquee in front read: "Restaurant Closed-Vacation. Lounge Open, 4-2." Sullivan entered through the side entrance and went back to the bar, where he was served a beer by the bartender, "Pat." Pat was serving drinks, mixing drinks and ringing up sales on the cash register. Sullivan asked what he could get to eat and Pat's response was, "popcorn." There was some conversation regarding the owner being on vacation and wanting to make some changes in the facility and that the kitchen was closed down. At the hearing, Sullivan identified Patrick Plunkett, also present, as the bartender. The same Beverage Agent returned to the licensed premises around 6:00 p.m. on September 25, 1986. Again, Pat was behind the bar and served him a beer. Again, Sullivan asked what he could get to eat and the response was, "popcorn." Pat also said he had a football pool that "Dale" who worked in a car lot helped him get going. Pat said it was Dale's idea and he pointed Dale out in the lounge. Pat pulled a sheet (Exhibit #3) from other sheets behind some whiskey bottles and showed Sullivan how to play. Sullivan filled it out and gave Pat $10.00. Sullivan returned on October 7, 1986. A woman identified as "Tina" was working behind the bar. Pat was not there. Sullivan asked Tina who won the football pool, and she replied that some guy at the car dealership won $350.00. Tina also told Sullivan that the restaurant had reopened after a three- week vacation, and a cook was on duty. On the occasions of his visits, Sullivan did not notice menus or meal set-ups on the tables in the lounge. He had to pass the tables to get to the bar, where he sat. He never tried to order food, as on the first two visits he had been told all they had was popcorn. On the third visit, he accepted the fact that the kitchen was open. He saw evidence of the football pool only on one occasion, the 25th of September; he did not see Arthur Peloso, or Peloso's son, the manager, on any occasion. In the three visits, Sullivan saw a total of six or seven people drinking in the lounge, but not eating. In his testimony, Patrick Plunkett admitted that he told Sullivan that only popcorn was available. The bartenders and waitresses are trained to cook and serve food and have been told to provide food to patrons when requested during business hours. Pat admitted that he did not serve food to Sullivan as the cook did not show up and he (Pat) was "too lazy to serve it." Pat also admitted that he assisted patrons in playing the football pool, but that he was doing it as a favor for a friend from the Pontiac dealership. This was a short-term arrangement and Pat did not receive a commission or any monetary gain from his participation. To Pat's knowledge, neither Peloso nor his son, the manager, were aware that food was not being served in the lounge during their vacation, nor were they aware that the football pool was being conducted. In his opinion, the Pelosos would have taken immediate corrective measures. This was confirmed by Arthur S. Peloso, Peloso's son, who serves as manager of the business. Their business is primarily food and they could not remain in business without the food. Their intent was that the lounge should serve as additional seating for the restaurant. He conceded that the restaurant was briefly closed, but insisted that the kitchen was never closed and the waitresses and bartender should have served food as they had been instructed. Captain Jack B. Wallace from the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco described the policy of the agency with regard to investigations, enforcement and civil penalties for violations. The non-rule policy is to assess a $500.00 civil fine for a first-time offense. He said that the two counts relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages without food should be treated as a single violation. No testimony or other evidence of prior violations by Respondent was presented, and the two witnesses for Petitioner knew of none.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the agency, finding Respondent guilty of violation of Rule 7A-3.015, Florida Administrative Code, not guilty of violation of Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and assessing a civil penalty of $500.00. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0844 The following constitute my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph #1. Adopted in paragraph #3. Adopted in substance in paragraphs #4 and #7. Rejected as unnecessary Adopted in substance in paragraphs #4 and #7. Adopted in paragraph #5. Adopted in part (as to availability of only popcorn) in paragraph #5; otherwise, rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in substance in paragraph #5. Adopted in paragraph #6. Adopted in paragraph #12. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact #1 and #2 The essential facts proposed here are adopted in my findings of fact #3, #9, #10 and #11, however, these facts alone are not dispositive of the issues in the proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Arthur A. Peloso 1960 Southeast 19th Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33062 Daniel Bosanko, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007

Florida Laws (5) 120.57561.29775.082775.083849.08
# 2
DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs. BULK, INC., T/A SPANKY'S, 88-005244 (1988)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 88-005244 Latest Update: Feb. 22, 1989

Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Bulk, Inc. held a 4-COP SRX alcoholic beverage license number 39-3188, issued by the petitioner, for the premises known as Spanky's located at 2556 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, Florida. At some time prior to 9:00 PM on July 14, 1988, Laura Steuer, born, July 29, 1969, "in the company of her friend Lynn Arnold, born August 21, 1968, entered the licensed premises without being asked by any employee of the Respondent for proof of age. The two girls had gone in for dinner and after eating, "hung out" there until nickel beer started at 10:00 PM. The girls had come in early to eat and to relax at the end of exams because they knew they would be served, having been served there before. On this evening, after dinner, they were asked by the waitress if they wanted anything and when they asked for beer, were served a pitcher, which they consumed. Ms. Steuer has drunk enough beer to know that the substance she was served that night was beer. They were starting on their second pitcher at $4.00 per pitcher, when they were arrested. At that point in time, she had nothing in front of her because, when she heard the police were there, she dumped it on the floor. Neither girl was asked for identification or proof of age at any time that evening by any employee of the facility. Ms. Steuer had her legitimate driver's license and her University ID card in her possession at the time, and Ms. Arnold had her legitimate student ID and driver's license with her. Ms. Steuer knew she was not old enough to legally drink but did it anyway. Ms. Arnold confirms Ms. Steuer's story, adding that it was her idea to come there because she had been there before and knew she would not be "carded." She indicates it was she who got the first pitcher of beer from the bartender. She was not asked for identification either at that time or when they bought the second pitcher from the waitress who came to the table. In her opinion, at the time of the arrest, there were less than 100 patrons in the establishment. Stephanie Sanchez also was at Spanky's that night, arriving sometime between 7:00 and 8:00 PM. When she arrived, there was a line at the door waiting to be checked by the bouncer but neither she nor the friends she was with, all of whom were under 21, were asked for proof of age. When they got inside, they joined some other people whom she knew to be over 21 and ate with them. Ms. Sanchez had nothing to drink, but when she was later approached by the police during the sweep, she had just been given a cup of beer purchased for her by someone else from a bar in the back. By this time, it was after 10:00 PM. Jennifer Reagan arrived at Spanky's at about 9:50 PM on the night in question to meet some friends. She had never been there before and knew nothing about it but was going at the suggestion of her friends. When she arrived with her male friend, there was a line of people outside waiting to be checked by the bouncer. Ms. Reagan is not yet 21, so her friend got someone else's ID for her with which she was able to gain entrance even though it was looked at by the bouncer at the door. The picture on the card, in her opinion, looked somewhat like her showing the same hair color and eye color and the age displayed was not 28 or 29 but 21, much closer to her own age. When inside, Ms. Reagan, who does not like beer or liquor, on advice of someone else ordered a "Long Island Iced Tea" at the bar where the bartender did not check her identification. Since she had tasted alcohol before, she could tell that the drink she got definitely had that substance in it. Because the Department had received complaints of sales of alcoholic beverages to underage patrons, Ms. Warner and several other Department investigators, in conjunction with Sheriff's Deputies from Hillsborough County, were undercover in Spanky's on the night of July 14, 1988. She went in about 9:30 PM and described the place as a large facility with loud music, a large bar with people drinking out front and a smaller bar in the back. When she went in, there were two men checking identification at the door who seemed to be doing a thorough job. However, for one fifteen minute period, when one of them left the door, it did not seem to her that anyone was checking. At 10:15 PM, when by prearrangement, the uniformed police arrived, she and her partner went to two booths where they felt underage patrons were drinking and asked for ID. The group, which included Steuer, Arnold, and Reagan, was all underage. When she checked the patrons' identifications, she found only one false ID card. There were less than 100 people in the facility at the time of the raid. While she was in the bar, before the raid, she was approached by Greg Hawkins, an officer of Bulk, Inc., who said he knew her to be a policewoman and was sure they wouldn't find anyone underage on the premises because they were checking. He was wrong. Mr. Bean, Vice President of Bulk, Inc., and manager of Spanky's was on duty there the night in question. He indicated the place has a standing policy which stated that no one under 21 could consume alcoholic beverages on the premises. In fact, he has a written slogan posted in the bar which reads, "When in doubt, keep them out." Mr. Bean states he has tried on at least 7 occasions to set up classes with the Department agents for his employees to train them in what is required to operate properly. He got a book of sample driver's licenses and gave copies to all the doormen and waitresses so that they could effectively check proof of age. There was a special light placed at the entrance to show up altered identification cards. On Thursday nights, an active time, there are 5 people assigned to the door to check ID's and barkeeps and waitresses are also instructed to check. On the night of July 14, 1988, there were 4 people on the door checking who recognized and checked the beverage agents. In Bean's opinion, people who appear to be under age should be checked before 9:00 PM by a waitress or bartender if they ask for an alcoholic beverage. In addition to all the above, management has devised a procedure to avoid the problem of underage people coming in before 9:00 and staying until after 9:00. At 9:00 PM the glassware changes from glass to plastic and in order to be served alcohol, one must have the plastic cup. To get the plastic cup, one must prove he is over 21. Unfortunately, this scheme has not always worked, but he believed that on July 14, 1988, everyone who was drinking in Spanky's was legal. In his opinion, his employees did everything they could to keep underage people out, and he, as manager has done everything he could do to train and convince his people of the need to enforce the law.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order in this case finding Respondent guilty of Counts (3), (4), and (9) of the Notice to Show Cause herein and not guilty of the others, that Respondent's alcoholic beverage license be suspended for 90 days, and that it be assessed a civil penalty of $3,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of February, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 23rd day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-5244 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner herein. By the Petitioner: 1. Accepted and Incorporated herein 2.-5. Accepted and Incorporated herein 6.-10. Accepted and Incorporated herein Irrelevant Accepted and incorporated herein Not proven except for the last sentence which is accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Van B. Poole, Secretary Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Department of Business Regulation Regulation 725 South Bronough Street 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Wayne S. Timmerman, Esquire 308 South Fielding Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000

Florida Laws (3) 120.57561.29562.11
# 3
DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs. EARLY MITCHELL, T/A MITCHELL`S FISH MARKET, 77-000840 (1977)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-000840 Latest Update: Aug. 08, 1977

Findings Of Fact Early Mitchell t/a Mitchell's Fish Market holds 1-COP beverage license which authorizes the sale of beer only for consumption on the premises. At the time scheduled for the commencement of the hearing Mitchell was not present and the hearing commenced. Exhibit 1 shows that the notice of the hearing was served upon Mitchell on May 10, 1977. Shortly thereafter Mitchell arrived and the hearing proceeded. On October 5, 1976 a beverage agent accompanied by an officer from the Tallahassee Police Department inspected Mitchell's Fish Market. Inside they found a partially filled bottle of Smirnoff vodka which was seized, duly marked, and presented in evidence at the hearing. A description of the bottle was substituted for the exhibit and Exhibit 2 was returned to the Beverage Division. On March 9, 1977 another beverage officer, on a routine inspection of Mitchell's Fish Market, discovered behind the counter concealed in an open beer case, one partially filled bottle of Smirnoff vodka. The bottle was seized, marked for identification and retained in the custody of the seizing beverage officer until such time as it was produced in evidence at the hearing. A description of the bottle was entered into the record and Exhibit 3 returned to the Division of Beverage.

Florida Laws (2) 561.29562.02
# 4
DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs CERVERA BLANCO CURINTON, D/B/A MY SUPER STORE, 97-004719 (1997)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Daytona Beach, Florida Oct. 13, 1997 Number: 97-004719 Latest Update: Feb. 04, 1999

The Issue The issue presented in whether an agent or employee of Respondent sold alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21, in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administration Action issued September 10, 1997, and if so, what penalty is appropriate.

Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, Respondent held alcoholic beverage license no. 74-01498, series 2APS, for an establishment known as My Super Store ("the licensed premises"), located at 701 South Martin Luther King Boulevard, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida. Daytona Beach Police Department opened an investigation of the licensed premises after it received numerous complaints of illegal activity at the licensed premises. Paris Anthony is a black female born on June 13, 1977, and was 19 years old on May 5 through May 21, 1997. On May 5, 1997, Ms. Anthony entered the licensed premises and selected a bottle marked "beer" from the store's cooler. The bottle bore the manufacturer's trade mark for "Bud Ice." Ms. Anthony brought the beer to the sales counter and tendered payment to the cashier. The cashier accepted payment for the beer, but did not ask Ms. Anthony for any identification before accepting payment and selling the beer to her. When Ms. Anthony asked for a receipt for the beer, the cashier, in a raised voice, commented to Ms. Anthony, "Well, you're not old enough, are you?" or words to that effect. Ms. Anthony answered that she was not, but was nonetheless permitted to leave the premises with the bottle of beer. During the conversation between the cashier and Ms. Anthony, Respondent was seated an arm's length away from the cashier. Respondent was not talking to anyone at the time. Although Respondent looked up at Ms. Anthony and the cashier during the exchange reported in paragraph 5, above, he took no action in response to the assertion that Ms. Anthony was not of legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages. On May 7, 1997, Ms. Anthony entered the licensed premises and selected a bottle marked "beer" from the store's cooler. The beer bore the manufacturer's trademark for "Bud Ice." Ms. Anthony brought the beer to the sales counter and tendered payment to the same cashier who was working behind the counter on May 5, 1997. The cashier did not ask Ms. Anthony for any identification before accepting payment and selling the beer to her. Ms. Anthony departed the licensed premises with the bottle of beer. The Respondent was observed on the premises by Ms. Anthony at the time of the purchase. On May 21, 1997, Ms. Anthony entered the licensed premises and selected a bottle marked "beer" from the store's cooler. The beer bore the manufacturer's trademark for "Bud Ice." Ms. Anthony brought the beer to the sales counter and tendered payment to the same cashier who was working behind the counter on May 5 and May 7, 1997. The cashier did not ask Ms. Anthony for any identification before accepting payment and selling the beer to her. Ms. Anthony departed the licensed premises with the bottle beer. The Respondent was observed on the premises by Ms. Anthony at the time of the purchase. At hearing, nine months after the incident, Ms. Anthony appeared to be a young woman of an age that a prudent person would check to determine whether she was 21 years old. Respondent testified he had no employees at the time of the violations, but allowed "volunteers" to help him on the licensed premises, including Benette Lisa Brown. According to the Respondent, he was always on site, and in charge. The "volunteers," according to Respondent, did not work the cash register; however, Respondent's testimony was not consistent with Ms. Anthony's and that of a former "volunteer." Respondent's testimony was not credible. The person at the sales counter was working under the supervision of Respondent who was present on the premises each occasion Ms. Anthony purchased beer. At the time of the violations, Respondent did not have signs posted on the licensed premises informing customers that the vendor had a policy against serving alcoholic beverages to underage persons and informing customers that the purchase of alcoholic beverages by an underage person or the illegal use of or trafficking in controlled substances will result in ejection from the licensed premises and prosecution. The training of employees or agents was inadequate and their supervision poor.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's alcoholic beverage licensee No. 74-01498, series 2APS, be suspended for a period of 30 days, and it is further recommended that Respondent be ordered to pay a $1,000 civil penalty to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 25th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas D. Winokur, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joan Lowe, Esquire 520 North Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114-2188 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007

Florida Laws (10) 120.57561.11561.29561.701561.705561.706562.11562.47775.082775.083 Florida Administrative Code (1) 61A-2.022
# 5
DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs. BOBBIE P. MILES, D/B/A D. J.`S LOUNGE, 76-001202 (1976)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 76-001202 Latest Update: Nov. 01, 1976

Findings Of Fact From October 1, 1975, up to and including April 14, 1976, the Respondent, Bobbie P. Miles, d/b/a D. J. `s Lounge, held State of Florida Alcoholic Beverage License No. 26-91, Series 2-COP, for operation at a premises of 6644 Arlington Road, Jacksonville, Florida. A copy of this license is found in Composite Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. Sometime in the beginning of April, 1976, Detective Claude Locke with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, received information from an informant that a minor female was selling alcoholic beverages in D. J.`s Lounge. This minor female was identified as being 5 foot 7 inches tall with reddish blonde hair. Locke went to D. J.`s Lounge and was served a beer by a woman fitting that description. No other employee in the bar was serving alcoholic beverages while he was there for 45 minutes. Subsequent to his investigation of the bar, Officer Locke contacted the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, about his activities. Officers B. W. Rowe and K. A. Boyd of the Division of Beverage acting on Officer Locke's report went to D. J.`s Lounge on April 14, 1976. The officers took a seat at the bar and a white female who was playing the pinball machine went to the bar and served them alcoholic beverages by serving the beverage and taking the money and returning the change from the purchase. This person who served them had reddish blond hair and was later identified in the course of the hearing as being one Darlene Usury. After Darlene Usury served the beer to the officers she went behind the bar and poured herself a beer and began to drink that beer. Her glass of alcoholic beverage was checked by the officers on the basis of their expertise and found to be an alcoholic beverage, and is offered into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 3, admitted. The alcoholic beverage served them was also tasted, based upon their expertise and found to be an alcoholic beverage. There was another woman working at the bar on April 14, 1976. This woman was Donna Moody. Ms. Moody indicated that Usury was not employed in the bar and that she had never checked her identification because the owner of the bar, Bobbie P. Miles, had allowed Darlene Usury to drink on other occasions. Later in the evening of April 14, 1976, the owner and Respondent, Bobbie P. Miles, came to the bar and indicated that he had met Darlene Usury at another establishment which he was operating and had been shown an identification. This identification was a Pennsylvania license issued to Debra Yanni, and this identification showed Darlene R. Usury to be more than 18 years of age on April 14, 1976. The identification card is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The identification card does not have a photograph. The identification card was initially shown to Bobbie P. Miles at the Jubille Bar a year or more before April 14, 1976. Darlene R. Usury was in fact 17 years old on April 14, 1976, at the time she served the alcoholic beverages to the beverage officers and consumed an alcoholic beverage. Darlene Usury explained that her action of serving the beer to the beverage officers was an isolated incident and she only did it to help out Donna Moody, the person in charge of the bar on that night. Bobbie P. Miles said that Darlene R. Usury was not employed on that night or on any other night. Although Darlene R. Usury had served the alcoholic beverages to Officers Rowe and Boyd, Donna Moody was also working behind the bar at that time. Officer Locke was unable to identify Darlene R. Usury as the woman who had served him alcoholic beverages on the prior occasion in April, 1976.

Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the licensee, Bobbie P. Miles, be fined in the amount of $150.00 for the violation as established by the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Bobbie P. Miles pro se 6644 Arlington Road Jacksonville, Florida

Florida Laws (2) 562.11562.13
# 6
DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs JOSE B. MEDINA, T/A C. J.'S PIZZA AND SUBS, 91-007984 (1991)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Margate, Florida Dec. 12, 1991 Number: 91-007984 Latest Update: Feb. 25, 1992

The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice To Show Cause and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.

Findings Of Fact Respondent, Jose B. Medina ("Medina"), holds alcoholic beverage license number 16-07324, series 2-COP. The licensed premises are known as C.J.'s Pizza and Subs C.J.'s is located at 5150 Coconut Creek Parkway, Margate, Broward County, Florida. In June of 1990, Detective Bukata of the Broward County Sheriffs Office (BSO) conducted an undercover narcotics investigation involving Medina and C.J.'s Pizza and Subs. Detective Bukata negotiated with Medina several times at C.J.'s for the purchase of several kilograms of cocaine. However, a transaction was never consummated due to Medina's requirement that approximately $46,000.00 in cash be paid in advance. After several unsuccessful attempts at negotiations, Detective Bukata referred the open investigation to his partner, Detective Barnhouse, sometime in the spring of 1991. This was due in part to new information being obtained from confidential informants as well as Medina's reputation in the community for dealing in stolen property. On or about May 28, 1991, two "Uzi" semi-automatic pistols were stolen in a residential burglary in Coral Springs, Florida. Subsequently, Detective Barnhouse was notified by a confidential informant that Medina offered to sell these weapons for $250.00 each. On May 30, 1992, Detective Barnhouse purchased the two semi-automatic pistols from Medina at the licensed premises. The serial numbers on the weapons were identical to those which were stolen in the burglary. The weapons were still in their original packaging and had a price tag of $875.00 each. Medina offered to sell Detective Barnhouse more stolen weapons and was instructed not to deface the serial numbers. Medina either knew or should have known that the weapons were stolen. In June of 1991, Detective Barnhouse began conducting negotiations with Medina regarding the purchase of several kilograms of cocaine. Detective Barnhouse met several times with Medina at C.J.'s, had several telephone conversations, and openly displayed several thousands of dollars in an attempt to purchase cocaine. However, as in Detective Bukata's prior dealings with Medina, the negotiations were stalled due to Medina's cash advance requirement. On August 23, 1991, Detective Barnhouse offered to purchase a smaller quantity of cocaine from Medina. Subsequently, Detective Barnhouse met with Medina at the licensed premises and was shown two plastic bags containing approximately sixty grams of cocaine. After the display, Medina returned the cocaine to a storage area in the kitchen. Subsequently, he was arrested by Detectives Bukata and Barnhouse. The substance displayed by and subsequently seized from Medina tested positively as cocaine during field testing. Laboratory tests confirmed that contents of the packages was cocaine.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the alcoholic beverage license held by Respondent, Jose B. Medina, d/b/a C.J.'s Pizza and Subs, license number 16-07324, series 2-COP, be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of February, 1992. DANIEL MANRY 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 25th day of February, 1992.

Florida Laws (4) 561.29812.012812.019893.135
# 7
DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs. RIP`S CORNER AND ERNEST ISAAC, 78-000340 (1978)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 78-000340 Latest Update: Oct. 11, 1978

The Issue Petitioner (hereafter DABT) seeks to assess a civil penalty against, or to suspend or revoke the Division of Beverage license issued to, Respondent, Ernest Isaac (hereafter Isaac) doing business as Rip's Corner. DABT has charged Isaac with four (4) violations of the beverage law. It is alleged that Isaac unlawfully possessed alcoholic beverages for which excise taxes had not been paid, that he unlawfully possessed for the purpose of sale or resale, malt beverages which did not have the word "Florida" printed on the lid, that he unlawfully possessed an alcoholic beverage which was not authorized to be sold under his beverage license and finally that Isaac conspired with another person to unlawfully obtain his beverage license.

Findings Of Fact Isaac is the holder of series 2-COP Alcoholic Beverage license, State of Florida, number 26-1381 for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The license was first issued in 1973. Series 2-COP vendor's licenses authorize the sale of beer and wine for consumption on the premises. Isaac, the nominal licensee, had nothing to do with the existing business at the licensed premises known as Rip's Corner. The initial issuance of the license was obtained by Isaac on behalf of a Mr. Cornell Tarver because Tarver thought at the time that he was a convicted felon. In fact, Tarver later discovered that he was not a convicted felon. Nonetheless, the license has continued to be reissued in Isaac's name. Rip's Corner is actually run by Cornell Tarver and has been since 1973. Tarver supervises the day to day management of the business by one Cecil Jackson, pays Jackson, does the hiring and firing and otherwise conducts all aspects of the business operation. On July 16, 1977, Mr. Robert L. Dirst, a patrol officer with the United States Customs Services, went to the licensed premises in the company of Detective Sykes of the Jacksonville Sheriff's office. The purpose of the visit was to determine whether there was any stolen beer on the premises. The two originally intended to go to the Pace Setter Club but that was closed. The two went to the licensed premises with the understanding that they could locate the owner of the Pace Setter Club there. Mr. Tarver had a key to the Pace Setter Club and let them in. At that time, Detective Sykes advised Tarver that he was looking for stolen beer. Tarver told Sykes that he had recently purchased ten cases of what purported to be Miller High Life beer and agreed to take the two officers to the licensed premises to show them the cases. The cases were stamped "For Export Without Payment of Tax." The two officers at that point placed the ten cases under seizure and took them into custody. On September 14, 1977, Richard A. Boyd, a beverage officer with DABT, went to the licensed premises and identified himself to the person in charge, one Ceaser Jackson. At that time, Boyd found two bottles of liquid labeled "Leroux Sloe Gin." Boyd seized these bottles because the license allows only the sale of beer and wine beverages. Isaac, when asked about the sloe gin, claimed it was his and that he inadvertently left it on the licensed premises. At the hearing, no evidence was introduced other than the containers themselves to establish whether the liquids were alcoholic beverages or malt beverages.

Florida Laws (6) 561.15562.01562.02562.23563.05563.06
# 8
DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs. JAMES P. CARPENTER, T/A PONY KEG, 87-004934 (1987)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 87-004934 Latest Update: Mar. 29, 1988

Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondent, James P. Carpenter, held alcoholic beverage license number 21-429, Series 2-COP, issued by the State of Florida. On August 6, 1987, Alphonso Fontdevila, a Community Service Deputy with the Collier County Sheriff's Office, and an individual under the age of nineteen, was on special detail with sheriff's deputy, Todd Taylor, checking out various liquor stores in the area to see if the operators were checking the age of purchasers. At approximately 9:00 p.m., Fontdevila and Taylor drove in an unmarked car to the Respondent's place of business, the Pony Keg, a drive through bar and restaurant located on U.S. 41 South in Naples, Florida. Before Fontdevila entered the facility, Taylor got out of the car and went over to stand by some bushes to the side of the facility. Though concealed from sight, he could see what was going on inside the facility. He observed Fontdevila drive into the facility and up to the counter, where he was waited on by the Respondent, personally. Mr. Carpenter approached Fontdevila from behind the counter and asked what he wanted. When Fontdevila indicated he wanted a six pack of beer, Respondent gave it to him. Mr. Fontdevila paid Respondent $3.24, receiving change from a $5 bill. At no time did Mr. Carpenter ask for any identification or proof of age from Mr. Fontdevila. Having made the purchase, Mr. Fontdevila left the facility, picked up Mr. Taylor and returned to the sheriff's office. Respondent claims no recollection of the purchase in question. However, he claims that on the date of the purchase, a Thursday, he was in his office working on the payroll. Though he usually has two people on duty in the facility, when necessary he comes out and serves patrons to speed service. On the evening in question, trade was sporadic. When Fontdevila entered the facility, Carpenter had just come out of his office to help his sales' lady serve a line of cars and they were not working fast. It is often difficult to get a good look at patrons when one is off to the side looking into a dark car, especially at night. It is difficult to tell if the person or patron is over age or not. Respondent has a standard procedure at the Pony Keg which requires his employees to check identification. Because he understands kids will try to buy beer improperly, he emphasizes to all his employees the need to check identification and age. If he suspects a minor is trying to buy beer, the patron is normally refused service if he will not produce identification to establish age. In some cases in the past, his employees have called the sheriff's office to come to the facility when they suspect an underaged individual is making a purchase. However, since he has no authority to hold the patron, ordinarily the patron is gone by the time the sheriff's car gets there. Mr. Carpenter was issued a citation in this case and tried in county court. The judge withheld adjudication and imposed court costs. The records of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco reflect that on November 16, 1983, Respondent was issued an official notice that an employee had been observed selling alcoholic beverages to an underaged individual and on April 23, 1986, the Respondent was issued a second official notice alleging similar misconduct. Respondent has, since this latest incident, been instrumental in the establishment of a seminar for facility owners on methods of identifying patrons for age. He has also put his business up for sale.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's 2-COP alcoholic beverage license number 21-429 be suspended for thirty days and that he pay a fine of $500. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee this 29th day of March, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-4934 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner herein. 1-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Christine Hissam, Esguire Faerber and Miller 2335 Tamiami Trail North Suite 505 Naples, Florida 33940-4482 s Daniel Bosanko, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph Sole General Counsel 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007

Florida Laws (2) 561.29562.11
# 9
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, vs SKYLINE CATERERS CORPORATION, D/B/A CRACKER BARREL, 01-001117 (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Sarasota, Florida Mar. 21, 2001 Number: 01-001117 Latest Update: May 28, 2002

The Issue Whether Timothy John O'Dea, on behalf of Respondent, Skyline Caterers Corporation, d/b/a Cracker Barrel, willingly and knowingly falsely swore to having no criminal charges filed against him within the past 15 years on his Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco license application on September 1, 1999.

Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulations, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the Agency charged with the responsibility of administrating and enforcing the beverage laws of the State. Chapters 559-568 Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Skyline Caters Corporation, d/b/a Cracker Barrel, Timothy John O'Dea, President, operated a licensed restaurant-catering business located at 7984 North Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida 34243. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent applied for and was holding Beverage License Number 51-00228, Series 2APS, package sales only of beer and wine (and other alcoholic beverages under 6 percent alcohol by volume) and 51-02385 tobacco. On or about September 1, 1999, Timothy John O'Dea, on behalf of Respondent, completed a License/Permit application, Form ABT 4000-001L. On page four of the application, under oath or affirmation, Mr. O'Dea answered "NO" to the question have you had any criminal charges filed against you within the past 15 years. Special Agent Suzanne Castro, testimony proved that the criminal charges portion of the Alcoholic Beverage License Application, that asks whether Respondent has any criminal charges filed against him, is used in determining applicant's initial eligibility for the requested license. According to Special Agent Castro, reliance upon the sworn information provided by Respondent was the basis upon which the Agency issued to Timothy John O'Dea the herein- referred to license. In completing the approval process, DABT's routine and subsequent investigation revealed that Timothy John O'Dea had been arrested and charged with thief of services by the Passaic, New Jersey, Police Department on January 18, 1995. The Bergen, New Jersey, Police Department, on August 3, 1995, arrested Respondent a second time on the charge of thief of services. The dispositions of the arrests are unknown. Presently, there are two outstanding New Jersey arrest warrants for Timothy John O'Dea. Timothy John O'Dea, willingly and knowingly, falsely swore, under oath or affirmation, of having no criminal charges filed against him within the 15 years prior to September 1, 1999.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and review of the penalty guidelines in Rule 61A.2-022, Florida Administrative Code, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order revoking license numbered 51-00228, Series 2APS, issued to Timothy John O'Dea. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Martinez, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lt. David Merrill Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1748 Independence Boulevard Building E, Suite 4 Sarasota, Florida 34234 Timothy John O'Dea Cracker Barrell 7984 North Tamiami Trail Sarasota, Florida 34243 Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

Florida Laws (3) 120.57559.791561.29 Florida Administrative Code (2) 61A-2.00261A-2.022
# 10

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer