Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has complained against the named Respondent pursuant to the accusations set forth above. The Respondent requested a formal hearing to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, but did not attend the hearing. However, the hearing having been set at Respondent's request was held and the Petitioner's case was presented. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is an agency of the State of Florida which has as its responsibility the licensure and regulation of beverage license holders in the State of Florida. Harry's, Inc., which trades under the name of Night Gallery III, is the holder of License No. 58-1036, Series 2-COP. This license allows the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises, located at 6010 Old Winter Garden Road, Orlando, Florida. On November 15, 1979, Beverage Officer Nathan Cahoon entered the licensed premises of Harry's, Inc., to investigate alleged Beverage Law violations. He observed a woman on the stage dancing who was subsequently identified as Denice Dyer. Thereafter, she approached Officer Cahoon and asked him to buy her a drink, which he did. She advised him that she was supposed to "hustle" drinks but not sex. Subsequently, she offered to give Officer Cahoon a "lap dance" which he refused. She also offered to "screw" Officer Cahoon (meaning to engage in sexual intercourse) for $25.00 or $30.00, and suggested using a back room of the licensed premises (Counts 1 and 2). On November 15, 1979, Beverage Officer C. E. Cruce entered the licensed premises of Harry's, Inc., to investigate alleged Beverage Law violations. He was approached by a woman known as "Sissy," who offered to give him a "lap dance" for $5.00, which be accepted. To perform this "dance," "Sissy" straddled the lap of Officer Cruce and went through a series of gyrations while a record was playing. Her top was removed during this procedure, exposing her breasts, but not her nipples. Officer Cruce later observed "Sissy" dancing on the stage, where she had been summoned by the bartender. Officer Cruce was approached by a woman known as "Misty," who solicited a drink from him. He purchased a beer for her at a cost of $2.50, which was one dollar more than the beer he purchased for himself. He observed that she paid the bartender the money he gave her (Count 3). On November 15, 1979, Beverage Officer B. A. Watts, Jr., entered the licensed premises of Harry's, Inc., to investigate alleged Beverage Law violations. He observed a woman dancing on the stage who later became known to him as "Peaches." She approached Officer Watts and solicited a drink from him. He purchased a beer for her and paid the waitress one dollar more for the drink than he paid for his own (Count 4). "Peaches" also performed a "lap dance" on Officer Watts and then offered to "take care" of him, stating that she would perform sexual intercourse or give him a "hand job" for $30.00 (Count 5). On November 19, 1979, Beverage Officer J. E. Kiker, Jr., entered the licensed premises of Harry's, Inc., to investigate alleged Beverage Law violations. Officer Kiker was approached by Julia Bernice Brooks, who solicited five drinks from him. Officer Kiker purchased these drinks from the waitress for $2.50 each. Julie Bernice Brooks also offered to engage in sexual intercourse with Officer Kiker (Counts 6 and 11). Officer Kiker observed Julie Bernice Brooks dance on stage two or more times. Although she was not nude, she pulled her costume aside so as to expose her pubic area to Officer Kiker and other patrons in the audience (Count 12). Officer Kiker observed Ozzlyn Wright dancing on the stage. On two occasions, she disrobed and bent over so as to expose her vaginal and anal openings to the audience. On a third occasion, she caused the face of a male patron to make contact with her pubic area (Counts 13 and 14). Officer Kiker observed a dancer on stage who he later identified as "Sissy." Although she was not nude, she pulled her costume aside so as to expose her pubic area to Officer Kiker and others in the audience (Count 15) . Officer Kiker observed that the bartender called Julie Bernice Brooks, Ozzlyn Wright, and "Sissy" to the stage periodically and that they received tips from members in the audience. On November 29, 1979, Officer Kiker returned to the licensed premises of Harry's, Inc., for the further investigation of alleged Beverage Law violations. He was approached by Julie Bernice Brooks, who asked him to buy her wine, which he did (Count 19).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that charges contained in Counts 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 18, and that all charges involving alleged violation of Section 877.03, Florida Statutes (1979), specified in the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violations as alleged in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11 and 19 of the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 800.03, Florida Statutes (1979), as alleged in Counts 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that License No. 58-1036, Series 2-COP, held by Respondent, Harry's, Inc., be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen McCormick, Esquire 217 North Eola Drive Orlando, Florida 32801 David Flaxer, Esquire 615 East Princeton 515 Loch Haven Executive Building Orlando, Florida 32803
The Issue The issue presented in this case is whether the Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that 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 Notice To Show Cause issued October 8, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Jin I. Jeon, (licensee), held license number 39-03637, series 2-APS, authorizing him to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of the Diwan Food Store, located at 7504 N. Florida Avenue, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida (premises). On or about September 16, 1992, Special Agent A. Murray, Special Agent K. Hamilton, Investigative Aide D. Snow and Intern M. Dolitsky went to Diwan Food Store to investigate complaints of alcoholic beverage sales to minors. Investigative Aide D. Snow's date of birth is November 11, 1973. She was 18 years of age on September 16, 1992. In accordance with the intructions of the law enforcement officers, Investigative Aide Snow entered the premises and selected a one-quart bottle of Budweiser beer, an alcoholic beverage, from a cooler. The bottle of beer was sealed and clearly marked as an alcoholic beverage. She proceeded to the cash register, where the Respondent was waiting. Snow paid the Respondent, who rang up the sale on the register. The Respondent did not request to see Snow's identification, nor did he ask her whether she was at least 21 years of age. The Respondent's defense was that he was not the person who sold Snow the beer. When he was confronted with the charges, he disclaimed any knowledge of them and blamed an employee, Min Sup Lee, whom he believed must have been the person involved in the sale. He immediately fired Lee because of the charges. Lee testified that he was employed by the Respondent from March 1992 through January, 1993. Lee testified that he worked for Respondent six days a week, primarily at night, and that he was the person in charge of the cash register the majority of the time. He asserted that he probably worked the cash register on the night of the violation. However, he denied ever having seen either Special Agent Murray or Special Agent Hamilton, or Investigative Aide Snow, and he denied any knowledge of the incident. It seems clear that Lee was not the person who sold the beer to the Investigative Aide Snow. Communication problems (the Respondent's English language limitations) may be at the root of the Respondent's inability to understand and to carry out his responsibilities as a vendor under the Beverage Law. Later on the evening of the sale in question, Special Agent Murray returned to the store to talk to the Respondent about the violation but she was not confident that he understood anything she was saying. It is possible that, due to the Respondent's lack of facility with the English language, he did not understand that Murray was charging him with illegal sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor and that, when, some time later, the Respondent came understand the nature of the charge against him, he assumed that his employee must have been responsible. On the other hand, it is possible that the Respondent knows full well his responsibilities under the Beverage Law, and knows full well that he failed to meet those responsibilities on September 16, 1992, but that he knowingly and unfairly tried to use his employee to avoid his own responsibity. In any event, it is found that it was the Respondent, not Lee, who sold the beer to Snow and that, in all likelihood, Lee either was not working on September 16, 1992, or was occupied elsewhere with other responsibilities when Snow and Murray were in the store. The Division's standard penalty for the violation alleged in the Notice to Show Cause is a twenty-day license suspension and a thousand dollar ($1,000.00) civil penalty. This standard penalty has been noticed as proposed Rule 7A-2.022, Penalty Guidelines, pending public workshop and approval.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent guilty as charged in the Notice to Show Cause; (2) suspending the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for twenty days; and (3) ordering the Respondent to pay a $1,000 civil penalty. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1993, 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 27th day of July, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Jin I. Jeon 7504 N. Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604 John Harrison, Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Donald D. Conn, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Respondents or their employee sold an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of 21, on December 22, 1988, in violation of section 562.11(1)(e), Florida Statutes. If a violation occurred, a recommendation regarding discipline must be made. In addition to the substantive issue, Respondents claim that the agency's procedures regarding administrative prosecution for beverage license violations are unconstitutional. This issue is preserved for the record, but is not determined here as this is an essentially judicial function. Carrollwood State Bank v. Lewis, 362 So. 2nd 110, 113-14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) cert den mem. 372 So. 2nd 467 (1979)
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegation of the Notice to Show Cause, Respondents were doing business at 3200 South Orlando Drive, Sanford, Seminole County, Florida, as Cavalier Motor Inn, under alcoholic beverage license no. 69- 004675. On the afternoon of December 22, 1988, the Buccaneer Lounge at the Cavalier was busy with office Christmas parties. It was dark, crowded and noisy. In response to an earlier complaint, two investigators from the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) entered the lounge around 5:00 p.m. with an underage operative. That operative, Sherri Russell was born on August 18, 1971, thus was 17 years old in December 1988. She is a friend of the daughter of one of the investigators, David Ramey, and had worked for the agency as a volunteer operative on several prior occasions. Miss Russell entered the lounge with investigators Ramey and Glover a few feet behind her. She found a place in front of the bar, and the female bartender asked what she wanted to drink. She responded a "Bud Light"; the bartender told her how much it cost and got the drink. Miss Russell paid the bartender and took control of the drink from the bartender. At that, Investigator Ramey approached, removed the drink from Miss Russell and identified himself to the bartender. Miss Russell left the lounge with Investigator Glover. According to previous instructions, Miss Russell had no identification with her. She was told to respond truthfully if asked her age or if asked for identification. The money for the drink was provided by the investigators. The entire incident took about five minutes. The only person behind the bar was the female bartender. Co-Respondent, Cesare Polidoro, was standing approximately six to seven feet away from Miss Russell, in an opening in the bar, with a clear view of the transaction. As Investigator Ramey spoke to the bartender, Cesare Polidoro identified himself as the owner and the three moved into another room to talk. The only person working in the lounge on December 22, 1988, was the female bartender, Sylvia Wilson. Another employee was out sick. Cesare Polidoro was there to keep order and to fetch change, if necessary, but he never tends bar and he did not assist on this occasion. Even though the lounge was extremely busy, he did not call to have his partner come help. Although he did not anticipate the one employee would be out sick, Cesare Polidoro did anticipate the crowd on December 22, 1988. There were two parties scheduled in the lounge for around 4:30 or 5:00 p.m. The companies scheduled in advance and alerted the owner that approximately 150 people would be involved. Cesare Polidoro retired and moved to Florida from Elizabeth, New Jersey, where he had worked for twenty-five years as a fire-fighter. He invested his life savings in the business, at the Cavalier, now known as Cesare's Palace. His policy is to avoid selling alcoholic beverages to minors and he instructs his employees in that regard. Both he and his partner continually remind the employees to check identifications. Minors are not good for business as they cause problems and do not have the kind of money to spend ten or fifteen dollars over the counter, according to Cesare Polidoro. The employees are generally conscientious in verifying ages and identification of patrons. Sylvia Wilson, who has criminal charges pending with regard to the alleged sale, refused to testify on matters directly related to the criminal charges. Cesare Polidoro denied that he witnessed the sale and claimed that he had never seen Sherri Russell before the hearing. Investigator Glover, however, observed Polidoro looking directly at Miss Russell during the entire transaction. Polidoro's credibility is discredited by two particularly blatant artifices he employed at the hearing. In response to his attorney's question with regard to educational programs for his employees regarding serving alcoholic beverages to minors, he invoked his experience as a "law enforcement officer" in New Jersey and the many cases he saw involving minor children and drugs. As a firefighter, however, he was not an armed law enforcement officer and had limited arrest powers, not including drug offenses. He also claimed that "a fellow by the name of Mr. York" came up to him on the December 22nd and gratuitously volunteered that the investigator bought the drink and gave it to the young woman. He did not explain how this person, whom he did not know, would be interested in sharing the information or would understand its importance. On the date of the hearing, this ephemeron, just as inexplicably, withdrew his assistance and allegedly told Polidoro he was too busy to come testify. No evidence adduced at hearing established Anthony Milazzo's culpability or implication in the unlawful sale. Cesare Polidoro was culpable. He watched the incident. Moreover he allowed a single employee to become so "swamped" (her term) that it became virtually impossible for her to meaningfully comply with his instructions regarding checking identifications. The DABT policy regarding incidents of sales to minors is to file administrative charges immediately if the licensee was on the premises. Otherwise, the licensee receives a notice after the first violation and criminal charges are filed against the employee or agent who made the sale. For the second violation, the licensee is notified that an investigation is open and criminal charges are filed against the person serving the minor. For the third violation, administrative charges are filed against the licensee and criminal charges are filed against the employee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that a Final Order be entered finding the licensee guilty of a violation of section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes and section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and imposing a civil penalty of $1,000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 June, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Adopted in Paragraph #1. Adopted in substance in paragraphs #3, 4, and 5. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in substance in paragraph #3. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary, except for the observation of Polidoro, which is adopted in paragraph #11. Adopted in substance in paragraphs #2 and 8. Rejected as unnecessary, except for Ms. Smith's nonappearance at work on the 22nd, which is adopted in paragraph #8. Adopted in part in paragraphs #10 and 11, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraphs #8, 10, and 12. Rejected as unnecessary. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Adopted in paragraph #1. through 4. Adopted in paragraph #3. Adopted in paragraph #2. and 7. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as contrary to the evidence relating to the incident in issue. Rejected in part, as the age of Sherri Russell was not checked in the incident at issue. Otherwise adopted in paragraph #8. Adopted in paragraph #4. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph #14. Rejected as unnecessary. and 16. Rejected as cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: JOHN B. FRETWELL, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 RICHARD A. COLEGROVE, JR., ESQUIRE 801 ORIENTA AVENUE SUITE 2600 ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32701 STEPHEN R. MACNAMARA, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION THE JOHNS BUILDING 725 S. BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1000 LEONARD IVEY, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO 725 S. BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1000 JOSEPH A. SOLE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 S. BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1000
The Issue Should Respondent’s license to sell alcoholic beverages be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent El-Bireh, Inc., held license number 63-02202, ZAPS, authorizing Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of Sam’s Big Apple Number 2, located at 110 Manor Drive, Bartow, Polk County, Florida. Zahieh Awad Awadallah is the sole corporate officer and sole shareholder of El-Bireh, Inc. On January 18, 1997, as a result of a complaint from the City of Bartow, the Department initiated an investigation of Respondent’s premises located at 110 Manor Drive, Bartow, Polk County, Florida, for the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under 21 years of age. On January 18, 1997, Special Agent Greenlee, along with another Department Special Agent, and Gabriel Shuler, went to Respondent’s licensed premises to investigate the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under 21 years of age. Gabriel Shuler was born on January 7, 1978, and on January 18, 1997, was 19 years of age. At times pertinent to this proceeding, Shuler was 6 feet 6 inches tall and weighed 270 pounds. Shuler had a valid State of Florida driver’s license in his possession on January 18, 1997. The driver’s license carried Shuler’s correct age, height, and weight. The Department’s special agents present at Respondent’s licensed premises on January 18, 1997, instructed Shuler to enter the premises and attempt to purchase an alcoholic beverage. Shuler was also instructed to produce his driver’s license for identification, if requested, and not to attempt to deceive the clerk as to his correct age. Shuler entered the licensed premises and selected a 16-ounce can of “Budweiser” beer from the cooler inside the premises. Shuler purchased this 16 ounce can of “Budweiser” beer from a person later identified as Zahieh Awad Awadallah, the sole shareholder of Respondent. Sahieh Awad Awadallah did not ask Shuler for any identification or ask Shuler if he was 21 years of age. The 16 ounce of “Budweiser” beer purchased by Shuler from Respondent was in a container labeled “beer” and contained “beer,” an alcoholic beverage. The Respondent has not denied that Shuler purchased the beer. Special Agent Greenlee entered the licensed premises after Shuler and witnessed the sale of the beer to Shuler by Respondent. After purchasing this beer, Shuler exited the premises. Upon Shuler’s exiting the premises, the Department’s Special Agent took custody of the beer. Respondent was subsequently advised of the violations by Special Agent Greenlee and was issued a Notice to Appear by Special Agent Greenlee. There is sufficient evidence to show that Sahieh Awad Awadallah, the sole shareholder of El-Bireh, Inc., d/b/a Sam’s Big Apple Number 2, sold a 16-ounce can of “Budweiser” beer, an alcoholic beverage, to Gabriel Shuler, a person under the age of 21 years, without asking Shuler his age or requesting Shuler to produce identification showing his age to be 21 years. There are no mitigating circumstances which would support a reduction of the standard penalty imposed for the violation alleged in the Administrative Action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and having reviewed the penalty guidelines set forth in Rule 61A-2.022, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and for this violation that the Department issue an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 against Respondent and that Respondent’s alcoholic beverage license number 63-02202, ZAPS, be suspended for a period of 7 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Martin, Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Brandon Rafool, Esquire Post Office Box 7286 Winter Haven, Florida 33883 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined for violation of Chapter 561, Florida Statutes. Resolution of this issue requires a determination of whether Respondent correctly reported and remitted alcoholic beverage surcharges.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Betty Schmidt. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, she held alcoholic beverage license no. 74-00275, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises located at 1161 North U.S. 1, Ormond Beach, Florida. Petitioner's auditor, Muriel Johnson, performs audits on vendors monthly surcharge reports in order to confirm the accuracy of those reports and ensure compliance with statutory and administrative rule requirements. The audit in the instant case covered the reporting period of Respondent from September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1997. Alcoholic beverage licensees are afforded an opportunity to elect to report and pay the surcharge by either the purchase method or the sales method. Under the purchase method, a licensee pays the surcharge on alcoholic beverages purchased from authorized distributors. Under the sales method, licensees pay the surcharge on alcoholic beverages sold for consumption on the premises. Respondent elected to report via the sales method. A licensee's reporting under the sales method is audited by the Sales Depletion Method. Under this methodology, a beginning inventory is ascertained. Second, purchases made by the licensee for the audit period are computed. Third, an ending inventory for the audit period is ascertained. Fourth, Gross Gallonage Available For Sale is computed by adding the beginning inventory to the purchases made during the audit period and then subtracting the ending inventory. Fifth, the Net Gallonage Available For Sale during the audit period is calculated by subtracting from the Gross Gallonage an allowance for spillage and a cooking adjustment. The end result is termed the Adjusted Sales Gallonage from which amount the amount of surcharge owed for the audit period is determined. Because Respondent did not keep inventory figures, and based upon her assertion that her inventory was generally the same, Respondent and the auditor agreed upon zero as the starting inventory. Second, purchases of alcoholic beverages by Respondent during the audit period were computed based upon purchase figures provided by Respondent and verified independently through records obtained from distributors. Third, the ending inventory was agreed to be zero. Fourth, The gross gallonage available for sale was determined by adding the beginning inventory (zero) to the purchases made during the audit period and subtracting the ending inventory (also zero). Fifth, adjustments to net gallonage for sale included allowances for spillage and package sales. Notably, the audit revealed that Respondent was treating liquor mixers as wine coolers and paying a lower tax on that basis when in fact wine coolers are taxed at the rate of one ounce of liquor per container at a higher rate. Adjustments for this practice were also made. Finally, the total surcharge due for the audit period was calculated and compared to the amount already reported in order to determine the amount of under- reported or over-reported tax. Respondent sets up various disbursement stations for beer on her property during “bike week” in Daytona Beach. With only one cash register, the sales at the various stations are maintained by hand on clipboards. Additional staff is employed at this time and Respondent is not personally present at each station to monitor sales reporting. Frequent sources of alcoholic beverage sales that are not captured by a license’s cash register include theft, breakage, leakage, spillage, overpouring of drinks, and free drinks. The amounts of alcoholic beverage that are lost to a cash register in these ways are captured by Petitioner’s sales audit method. While Respondent keeps good records, no cash register method can ever capture all of the alcoholic beverages available for consumption on premises and consequently there will always be some discrepancy as the result of a sales method audit. As established by results of Petitioner's audit, Respondent underpaid surcharges for the audit period in the amount of $890. Additionally, it is established that Respondent owes $557.66 in penalties and $193.33 in interest on the payment deficiency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring payment by Respondent in the amount of $1641.10, the amount of total tax and liabilities claimed by Petitioner to be due. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 23rd day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Betty Schmidt Smiley's Tap 1161 North U.S. 1 Ormond Beach, Florida 32174 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offense alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 14, 2012, and, if so, what penalties, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact PTL Associates, Inc., d/b/a 7 Eleven Store No. 32599A (PTL), is a convenience store located at 4401 Colonial Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33912. Lucia D'Costa is the sole shareholder of PTL. Since October 12, 2011, and at all times material to this case, the Respondent has been licensed by the Petitioner to sell alcoholic beverages under license number BEV 4604710, Series 2APS. According to a document titled "Record of Inspection-- Official Notice," on July 19, 2012, an employee of the Respondent sold an alcoholic beverage to an underage individual after checking the individual's identification. The document advised the Respondent that a follow-up compliance check would take place within the subsequent 12 weeks. The Petitioner took no disciplinary action against the Respondent based on the July 19, 2012, compliance check. The Respondent has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary proceeding related to the license referenced herein. On August 2, 2012, the Petitioner conducted an undercover compliance check as a follow-up to a compliance check done on July 19, 2012, to determine whether the Respondent was selling alcoholic beverages to underage individuals. The compliance check was performed by two of the Petitioner's agents, Jennifer Nash and David Foraker, with the assistance of a 16- year-old female identified as Investigative Aide FT0205 (IA). On August 2, the IA entered the store accompanied by Agent Nash, while Agent Foraker remained in the vehicle outside the store. Ms. D'Costa was present in the store, behind the counter and operating multiple store sales registers. Two employees were also present, occupied with various cleaning tasks. The IA walked to the beverage cooler and withdrew a 16 ounce Coors Light, carried it to the counter area, and stood in line to pay for the beer. Ms. D'Costa took the beer from the IA, scanned the beer into the sales register, and completed the transaction. Ms. D'Costa did not ask the IA to produce any form of identification to verify the IA's age. While the transaction occurred, Agent Nash observed the AI and Ms. D'Costa, initially from inside the store, and then from outside while looking through large windows on the storefront. Although while in the store Agent Nash spoke to Ms. D'Costa to ask for driving directions, Agent Nash did not interfere with the sale of beer to the IA. There is no evidence that Agent Nash prompted Ms. D'Costa to sell the beer to the IA, or that she interfered in the transaction in any way. Some, but not all, of the Respondent's cash registers have software to prompt a register operator to verify a customer's age during the sale of an alcoholic beverage. When Ms. D'Costa sold the beer to the IA, she used a register that did not prompt the sales clerk to verify the customer's age. Ms. D'Costa testified that she does not usually operate the sales registers and that the clerks are usually responsible for the counter operation. She testified that, at the time of the compliance check on August 2, 2012, the two employees present were cleaning the store in anticipation of a monthly inspection, and, therefore, Ms. D'Costa was working alone at the sales registers. The inspection referenced by Ms. D'Costa is a routine monthly inspection conducted by corporate representatives at a time unknown to the licensee until the representatives arrive. It is reasonable to presume, given the nature of the inspection, that store cleaning would be an ongoing obligation of a licensee. The testimony fails to suggest that a licensee is exempt from compliance with laws prohibiting underage alcohol sales when employees are busy. After completing the purchase, the IA left the store and delivered the beer to Agent Foraker. The Petitioner's agents then went into the store to notify Ms. D'Costa that the transaction had taken place and to deliver to her a "Record of Inspection--Official Notice" and a "Notice to Appear." Ms. D'Costa testified at the hearing that she believed the IA to be at least 30 years of age on August 2, 2012. The IA participated in seven undercover compliance checks on August 2, 2012. The Respondent was the only store that did not check the IA's identification during a compliance check. Ms. D'Costa also testified that the franchise agreement could be breached by a suspension of the alcoholic beverage license. The franchise agreement was not offered into evidence at the hearing. The Petitioner has a written policy of not utilizing children or other relatives of the Petitioner's employees as IAs. At the time the compliance check was conducted on August 2, 2012, the Petitioner was apparently unaware that the IA was related to an employee of the Petitioner. After the Petitioner learned of the relationship, the IA was not again utilized in making compliance checks. The evidence fails to establish that the relationship between the IA and an employee of the Petitioner prompted Ms. D'Costa to sell the beer to the IA without checking whether the IA was of legal age to purchase alcohol.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order suspending the license referenced herein for a period of seven days and imposing a fine of $1,000 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew R. Fier, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 42 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Timothy Joseph Perry, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant and Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Allen Douglas, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Action and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, M & W Enterprises of Key West, Inc., held license number 54-00200, series 5COP, authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on and off the premises known as Stick N Stein, located at 1126 C & D Key Plaza, Key West, Florida (hereinafter "the licensed premises"). In October 1996, the Department undertook a beverage surcharge audit of the licensed premises for the period of September 1, 1992, through October 29, 1996.1 At the time, the premises had elected the "sales method"2 of reporting, and the Department proposed to determine whether the monthly reports submitted by the vendor were accurate by application of the "sales depletion method," as prescribed by Rule 61A-4.063(9), Florida Administrative Code. This formula uses beginning inventory, plus purchases for the period, less ending inventory, less spillage allowance, prescribed by Rule 61A-4.063(6), Florida Administrative Code, to ascertain sales for the period. Application of the formula to this vendor was complicated by a number of factors, including the nature of the vendor's business, the vendor's inventory practices, and the vendor's failure to maintain appropriate records. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the licensed premises includes a liquor store, where alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption off-premises, and a bar area, where alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on-premises. Alcoholic beverages are purchased for the premises in bulk, and stored in the liquor store or the storeroom (also referred to as the beer room or cooler). As need dictates, alcoholic beverages are transferred from the liquor store or the storeroom to replenish the bar's stock; however, no record is made to reflect this transfer or addition to the bar's inventory. Consequently, there are no records from which one can derive the data needed to drive the Department's formula or, stated otherwise, there are no records from which the quantities of alcoholic beverages sold for consumption on or off the premises may be reliably calculated. Notwithstanding the vendor's failure to maintain appropriate records, the Department agreed to accept the vendor's estimate of the percentage of each class of alcoholic beverage purchased during the audit period that it would attribute to NON-COP (non-consumption on premises) sales, and subtract those volumes from the volumes purchased during the audit period to derive the total gallons available for sale under the formula. Here, the deduction (credit) accorded the vendor for NON-COP sales as a percentage of purchases was, as follows: draft beer, 10 percent; bottle/can beer, 15 percent; wine coolers, 50 percent; wine, 90 percent; and liquor, 70 percent.3 To further drive the formula, the Department did an audit on October 29, 1996, to calculate the vendor's ending inventory. Notably, that audit (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) encompassed only the alcoholic beverages in the bar area, and failed to include an inventory of the alcoholic beverages in the liquor store and storeroom. By letter of June 24, 1997, Respondent was advised of the results of the audit, and the Department's conclusion that it owed $14,960.82, as beverage surcharge, penalties, and interest. Respondent, because the audit did not include the liquor store and storeroom inventory as part of the ending inventory calculation, disputed the results of the audit.4 Given the failing of the first audit, the Department performed an additional audit of Respondent's inventory on August 1, 1997. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). That audit was restricted to the inventory in the liquor store and the storeroom, and did not include an inventory of the bar area. On August 8, 1997, the Department issued a new retail beverage surcharge audit report for the licensed premises. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). That report reflected a total tax liability (beverage surcharge, penalties, and interest) of $12,279.76. Notably, the report was based on the August 1, 1997, inventory and not the vendor's inventory at the end of the audit period (October 29, 1996). Moreover, the audit that was used considered only liquor store and storeroom inventory, and omitted bar inventory. Respondent again disputed the results of the audit. Since the report did not apply the vendor's inventory at the end of the audit period (October 29, 1996) to drive the formula, the result reached could not be an accurate reflection of sales or surcharge liability for the audit period. Moreover, by omitting bar inventory as a component of ending inventory, the report overstated sales, and, therefore, overstated surcharge liability. Consequently, as Respondent argues, the audit does not provide a reliable indication of what, if any, surcharge is due.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Action. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 26th day of May, 1998.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has incurred and failed to pay Petitioner a surcharge of $38,218.31 plus a penalty of $25,946.18, in violation of Section 561.501, Florida Statutes, and whether Respondent has failed to maintain the records required by Section 561.501(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61A-4.063(8), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license number 39-04047 4COP. Respondent owns and operates Gene's Bar located at 2932 North 22nd Street in Tampa. Respondent sells alcoholic beverages, but is not a “pouring bar.” In other words, Respondent’s employees sell the alcoholic beverages, but never open and pour the alcoholic beverage into a glass. Respondent sells mostly liquor and beer, and lesser amounts of wine. In the typical transaction, Respondent sells a bottle or six-pack of alcoholic beverages to a patron, who may also purchase from Respondent a nonalcoholic beverage to mix with his alcoholic beverage, as well as cups and stirrers. Sometimes, the patrons remain in the bar after the purchase, often sitting at the half-dozen tables that Respondent provides for this purpose, and consume their alcoholic beverages in the bar. A sign on the premises prohibits patrons from taking open containers of alcoholic beverages out of the bar. Respondent has hired a security guard to enforce this prohibition on busy nights. Respondent’s accounting system is fairly simple. Placing labels on each bottle, Respondent’s employees remove the label each time that a bottle is sold. If a patron chooses to consume his drink on the premises, the bartender is supposed to record this fact on a piece of paper. Either the bartender or Respondent’s manager records sales information on a daily sheet; however, during the time period in question, if not also at present, Respondent’s manager discarded this sheet after he transfered the information to a weekly sheet. Respondent also uses a two-tape cash register, but it shows only the sale amount and is not computerized. Neither tape reveals individual sales or whether the patron purchased his alcoholic beverage for consumption on the premises. Respondent’s manager uses the tape with the more detailed information to reconcile any shortages. After doing so, or if no shortages arise, the manager discards the more detailed tape. During the audit, Respondent took the position that all of its wine sales and 78 percent of its beer and liquor sales were for off-premises consumption. However, despite repeated requests from Petitioner’s auditor, Respondent never produced a daily log or any documentation of individual transactions. Instead, Respondent produced only highly summarized information supporting its position. Respondent delayed providing the auditor with copies of its purchase invoices for the alcoholic beverages, although it eventually did so. Petitioner’s auditor agreed to allow Respondent to provide a detailed sample of sales from February to April, 2000. When the auditor requested the documentation from this sampling period, she received nothing. Knowing that Respondent made some sales for consumption off premises, Petitioner’s auditor allocated 20 percent of all sales of alcoholic beverages for consumption off premises. Applying this 20 percent factor, Petitioner’s audit determined that, from January 1, 1996, through December 31, 1998, Respondent incurred a surcharge liability of $38,218.31, as well as a penalty of $25,946.18, for a total liability of $64,164.49, taxes and penalty.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding Respondent liable for $38,218.31 in surcharge and $19,109.15 in penalty, for a total liability of $57,327.46. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 13th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Northwood Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Northwood Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Michael Martinez Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Thomas A. Smith 800 West Platt, Suite 3 Tampa, Florida 33606 Captain John L. Blair 1313 Tampa Street Park Trammel Building, Suite 702 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Aristen Group, L.L.C., d/b/a Pangaea Gryphon (Respondent or Licensee), failed to remit monies owed to the Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Department or Petitioner) pursuant to the surcharge provisions found in Section 561.501(2), Florida Statutes (2007). If so, the Department seeks to discipline the licensee pursuant to Section 561.29, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons holding alcoholic beverage licenses. See § 561.02, Fla. Stat. (2007). At all times material to the allegations of this matter the Respondent has been a licensee holding license number 1616908, series 4-COP. When the Licensee filed its surcharge audit questionnaire it elected to file its surcharge tax based upon the "purchase method." The Department offers alcoholic licensees two methods to compute the alcoholic beverage surcharge tax. The methods are known as the "purchase method" and the "sales method." The "purchase method" calculates the surcharge due to the Department based upon everything purchased during a given month. For the "sales method" the surcharge tax is computed based upon the actual cash register records for the sales during the reporting period. The Department may audit any licensee to compare the amounts remitted with the records maintained by the licensee to verify the correct surcharge tax was paid. In this case, the Licensee was audited for the period September 23, 2004 through August 31, 2006. To verify the surcharge amount was properly remitted, the Department reviewed the records of the beverage distributors used by the Licensee. When the Surcharge Audit Questionnaire was submitted the Respondent identified five suppliers of alcoholic beverages from whom the Licensee purchased beverages for the audit period. Those suppliers then provided their records to establish the beverages sold to the Respondent during the audit period. Based upon those records the Department compared the volume purchased and calculated the surcharge tax due and owing to the state versus the surcharge tax paid to the Petitioner during the audited period. Based upon that comparison, the Department found that the Licensee had failed to remit the correct surcharge payment. More specifically, the Department calculated that the Respondent owed the State a surcharge principle in the amount of $7,975.70. Based upon that amount the Department assessed a penalty in the amount of $4,217.87 along with interest in the amount of $1,409.54. The Respondent does not dispute the calculations for penalty and interest if the principle amount is correct. James Napolitano is the accountant for the Respondent. He was authorized to appear at the hearing on behalf of the Licensee but was unclear as to how the Department computed the surcharge amounts. Mr. Napolitano did not dispute that the Licensee was to remit the surcharge tax based upon the "purchase method." Mr. Napolitano represented that all purchases were to be signed for and opined that if they were, in fact, received by the Licensee the surcharge computation may be correct. Copies of the documents relied upon by the Department were provided to the Licensee at its business address. Mr. Napolitano did not receive them until the date of the hearing. Mr. Napolitano represented he intended to review the invoice records to verify the shipments were actually provided to the Licensee. No further information was offered by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a Final Order providing that the Respondent owes the surcharge tax in the amount of $7,975.70, and assessing a penalty and interest based upon that amount. Further, the Final Order should provide a limited time for the repayment of the delinquent amount. Should the Licensee fail to timely remit the full amount, with penalty and interest, it is recommended that the license be suspended until such time as the amount is paid in full. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (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 3rd day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Wheeler, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 40 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 James P. Napolitano 404 Jerusalem Avenue Hicksville, New York 11801 James P. Napolitano 5711 Seminole Way Hollywood, Florida 33314 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Cynthia Hill, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages And Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Should Respondent's alcoholic beverage license be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent held alcoholic beverage license No. 63-02541, series 2APS, for an establishment known as Green and White Texaco (the licensed premises), located at 3501 Cleveland Heights Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida. The Department opened an investigation of the licensed premises after an arrest was made by the Lakeland Police Department related to alleged sales of alcoholic beverages to underage persons by Respondent's employees. James Carl Clinard was identified as the underage Investigative Aide No. 97032 in the Administrative Action filed against Respondent by the Department. On December 5, 1997, James Carl Clinard was 18 years of age (date of birth May 23, 1979) and his appearance on December 5, 1997, was that of a person under 21 years of age. On December 5, 1997, Clinard was working with Officer Leron Strong and Lt. Nelson in an attempt, as an underage Investigative Aide, to purchase an alcoholic beverage from the licensed premises. Before beginning work on December 5, 1997, Clinard was instructed by Strong and Nelson that he was not to attempt to deceive anyone as to his age or appearance. Clinard's identification (a valid State of Florida driver's license which indicated his age to be 18 years) was checked by Lt. Nelson and Officer Strong and found to be legitimate. Clinard's photograph on his identification and his appearance on December 5, 1997, were similar and not misleading as to his age listed on his identification. Clinard was only allowed to carry into the licensed premises his identification and the money furnished by the Department for the purchase of the alcoholic beverage. Sometime around 6:20 p.m. on December 5, 1997, Clinard entered Respondent's licensed premises. Both Strong and Nelson waited outside the licensed premises. After entering the licensed premises, Clinard went to the cooler and selected a bottle of "Bud Light" beer which he brought to the counter. Before selling Clinard the beer, the cashier, Robin Ann Boss asked for and Clinard presented his identification. The cashier sold Clinard the beer, notwithstanding that Clinard's identification showed his age to be 18 years of age. After paying for the beer, Clinard took possession of the beer and exited the licensed premises. Subsequently, Clinard turned the beer over to the Department's agents. Clinard does not remember the cashier giving him a receipt for the beer. Likewise, the agents do not remember Clinard turning in a receipt for the beer. As a result of selling the alcoholic beverage to Clinard, Robin Ann Boss was arrested by Officer Strong. On December 8, 1997, Lt. Nelson mailed Respondent an Official Notice advising Respondent that its employee, Robin Ann Boss, had been "warned or charged" for selling, giving, or serving persons under 21 years of age alcoholic beverages in violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes. Crystal Henry was identified as the underage Investigative Aide No. 97028 in the Administrative Action filed against the Respondent by the Department. On January 7, 1998, Henry was 16 years of age (date of birth October 22, 1981) and her appearance on January 7, 1998, was that of person under the age of 21 years. On January 7, 1998, Henry was working with Agent Cleveland McKenzie and Anne Ekstrand in an attempt, as an underage Investigative Aide, to purchase alcoholic beverages or tobacco products from the licensed premises. Before beginning work on January 7, 1998, Henry was instructed by Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand that she was not to attempt to deceive anyone as to her age or appearance. Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand checked Henry's identification (a valid State of Florida driver's license which indicated her age to be 16 years) and found it to be legitimate and found that her identification was not misleading as to her age or her appearance on January 7, 1998. Henry was only allowed to carry into the licensed premises her identification and the money furnished to her by the Department for the purchase of the alcoholic beverage and tobacco product. Sometime around 5:00 p.m. on January 7, 1998, Henry entered the licensed premises. Upon entering the licensed premises, Henry proceeded to the beer cooler and obtained a Bacardi Breezer wine cooler. Henry then walked to the check-out counter with the wine cooler and asked the clerk for a five-pack of Black and Mild Cigars. The sales clerk completed the sale without asking Henry for any form of identification. Henry paid the sales clerk $1.79 for the cigars and $2.09 for the wine cooler. Henry took possession of the wine cooler and cigars and exited the licensed premises. Subsequently, Henry turned the wine cooler and cigars over to Agent McKenzie. Henry does not remember the clerk giving her a receipt for the wine cooler and cigars. Likewise, the agents do not remember Henry turning in a receipt for the wine cooler and cigars. The clerk was identified as Valerie Ann Walker, who was subsequently charged with and arrested for, the sale of an alcoholic beverage and tobacco product to an underage person in violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes. A Final Warning was issued to Respondent on January 9, 1998, advising Respondent of the violation and giving Respondent notice that another violation would result in the issuance of an Administrative Action by the Department which could subject Respondent's alcoholic beverage license to formal revocation or suspension proceedings. Enrique Ramos was identified as the underage Investigative Aide No. 97033 in the Administrative Action filed against the Respondent by the Department. On February 17, 1998, Ramos was 18 years of age and his appearance on February 17, 1998, was that of a person under the age of 21 years. On February 17, 1998, Enrique Ramos was working with Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand in an attempt, as an underage Investigative Aide, to purchase alcoholic beverages from the licensed premises. Before beginning work on February 17, 1998, Ramos was instructed by Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand not to attempt to deceive anyone about his age or appearance. Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand checked Ramos' identification (a valid State of Florida driver's license which indicated his age to be 18 years) and found his identification to be legitimate and his identification not misleading as to his age or appearance. Ramos was only allowed to carry into the licensed premises his identification and the money furnished by the Department for the purchase of the alcoholic beverage. At approximately 4:15 p.m. on February 17, 1998, Ramos entered the licensed premises and went to the beer cooler and obtained a six-pack of Budweiser Beer (12-ounce bottles) and approached the check-out counter and placed the beer on the counter. The clerk sold Ramos the beer without checking his identification. Ramos paid the clerk $5.19 for the beer. Ramos took possession of the beer from the clerk and exited the licensed premises where he subsequently turned the beer over to Agents McKenzie and Ekstrand. The clerk was later identified as Ravin E. Bradshaw. Bradshaw was charged with selling an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of 21 in violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes. Respondent's back-up cash register tapes (Respondent's Exhibit number 2) do not reflect a beer sale during the period of time Ramos testified that he purchased the six-pack of Budweiser Beer on February 17, 1998. However, I find the testimonies of Ramos, Agent McKenzie, and Agent Ekstrand to be more credible concerning the purchase of the beer on February 17, 1998, than the back-up cash register tapes or the testimony of Bradshaw, Respondent's clerk and Jung I. Huang, Respondent's manager. The testimony of Respondent's clerks were that they were instructed to "card" or check each alcoholic beverage or tobacco product purchaser's identification to determine if the purchaser was 21 years old or older. However, it was also the practice of Jung Huang and his wife, Yu Chin Lin, a.k.a Michelle, president of Green and White, Inc., to become angry with a clerk who was "carding" every customer. In some instances, both Huang and Michelle would advise a clerk not to card certain customers. Respondent failed to comply with all the training and record-keeping requirements of the Responsible Vendor Program set out in Sections 561.701-561.706, Florida Statutes, notwithstanding the testimony of Jung Huang to the contrary and whose testimony I find lacks credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and having reviewed the penalty guidelines set forth in Rule 61A-2.022, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license No. 63-02541, 2APS for a period of seven days and it is further recommended that Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 to the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 10th day of August, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Tony Dodds, Esquire 825 East Main Street Lakeland, Florida 33801 Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
