Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent is 201 West, Inc., d/b/a Central City, who is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 11-00259, Series 4-COP, a "quota license." Respondent's licensed premises is located at 201 West University Avenue, Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. Craig Cinque is Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Joseph Cinque, Craig Cinque's father, was formerly Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Prior to becoming the owner of Central City, Craig Cinque managed the licensed premises on behalf of his father. During this period of time, the Division filed ten separate Notices to Show Cause against Respondent, alleging multiple sales to and consumption of alcoholic beverages by underaged persons. On August 29, 1989, the licensed premises was closed by an Emergency Order of Suspension. The administrative charges arising therefrom were resolved by a Stipulation and Consent Agreement, wherein the Respondent in that case admitted substantially to all of the violations. Craig Cinque individually executed the agreement, admitted responsibility for previous violations, and acknowledged that future violations of a similar nature could result in suspension or revocation of the alcoholic beverage license. The agency has issued numerous Notices to Show Cause against Respondent since the entry of the consent order. However, unproven Notices to Show Cause and unproven counts within any Notices to Show Cause are only unproven accusations, and as such are not probative herein even for purposes of showing "aggravation." Beverage Law Institute is an "approved trainer" under the Responsible Vendors Act, having been approved by the Petitioner as such. Petitioner certified Respondent Central City as a certified Responsible Vendor under the Act, on April 13, 1990. See, Subsections 561.701-561.706 F.S. Of the 483 nondistributor alcoholic beverage licensees in Alachua County, only 94 have been certified by Petitioner as Responsible Vendors. Of those 94, only 13 hold "4-COP" licenses, the category of license held by Respondent, which permits liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on premises or in a sealed container. Prior to the events of the instant Notices to Show Cause, and continuing through the 14-month period of the Notices to Show Cause and beyond, Respondent was engaged in a voluntary program designed to teach employees not to serve alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. Many of the materials therefor were provided by Beverage Law Institute. The training program and procedures involved multiple ID checkers at the front door. Also at the front door, wristbands to signify and quickly identify patrons of legal drinking age were issued. Once snapped on a customer's wrist, the band itself was stamped at a right angle across the customer's wrist to prevent or at least inhibit the wristband's transfer to an underage patron and to prevent a patron bringing in a counterfeit or "ringer" wristband. All patrons, regardless of age, received a stamp directly on the wrist to identify that they had paid their admission fee. Security personnel circulated inside the licensed premises checking drinks and wristbands, and waitresses were also instructed to check on drinks already purchased by customers. The training programs and procedures also involved Respondent's policy manual regarding IDs, extensive training and testing of employees, frequent oral reminders to employees concerning the law and concerning licensee policy, sporadic staff meetings regarding policy, videotaped instruction programs, provision of and instructions to employees to use an "ID Checking Guide" at the front door and at every internal bar within the licensed premises, confiscation of fake or questionable IDs at the door, 1/ and use of warning handbills given out to customers. Upon receipt, the handbills proclaiming the licensee's "of age only" policy were usually immediately discarded by customers. Some employees looked upon their training with more enthusiasm than others. Some employees considered the policy and training all for show. Most employees complied regularly with the requirements for training, review, and instructions. A few were lax in their compliance and had to be urged to attend staff meetings or to retest. In addition to all this, from the time the Responsible Vendor tests were available, all employees except two cashiers were tested according to the requirements of the Responsible Vendor Act and within the time frames provided therein. Every underage operative who testified admitted she or he had been "carded" at the door and that none had been issued wristbands. The parties stipulated that all of the individuals named in the four Notices to Show Cause (except for those alleged to have sold or given alcoholic beverages) were under the legal drinking age on the dates indicated by the respective Notices to Show Cause and that although each of these individuals "was actually in possession of alcoholic beverages as plead (sic), there was no evidence that any of the alcoholic beverages were obtained from Respondent's employees, agents, or servants." The stipulation listed the underage persons of the Notices to Show Cause but did not employ the term "consumption" which was specifically used only in the second Notice to Show Cause (GA11890496). Petitioner put on no witnesses as to "consumption." Likewise, Petitioner did not have admitted in evidence any confiscated alcoholic beverages alleged to have been sold by Respondent's agents/employees, nor did Petitioner present any laboratory reports to establish that any substance sold was alcohol. The only evidence of alcohol content is discussed infra. With regard to Craig Cinque's attitude and Central City's compliance with the Responsible Vendors Act, the testimony of Eileen Tenly and of William Cooter has been weighed and considered. Ms. Tenly is a totally noncredible witness whose testimony demonstrates an "axe to grind," and whose candor and demeanor is unpersuasive of anything except her animosity for Mr. Cinque. Petitioner's Investigator William Cooter, however, testified credibly that after having numerous conversations with Mr. Cinque on the subject of underage sales, Mr. Cinque stated that he was not worried about losing his alcoholic beverage license because he could get another one in his mother's name. On the other hand, Mr. Cooter, by his own testimony, has been invited by Mr. Cinque to instruct and has, in fact, instructed Mr. Cinque's employees on how to prevent underage drinking. The evidence as a whole, but most particularly that of Prince Miles, Respondent's janitor, who is a credible witness, is persuasive that patrons sometimes smuggle alcoholic beverages onto the licensed premises and that each time the establishment closes, commercial alcoholic beverage containers which are not part of the inventory sold by Respondent must be swept out. Since this smuggling activity must substantially reduce Respondent's profits, it is a logical inference that such smuggling is contrary to Respondent's policy and that Respondent does not encourage or condone it, whether done by adults or minors. I. Notice to Show Cause GA11890374; September 16, 1989 through February 9, 1990; sale to Toombs, Kittles, Goldtrap, and Ormsbee by Green, Halladay, Howell, and Grimes and possession by Peters, Conf, Kelly, Garcia, Fernandez, Shiskin, Brejhanan, Benz, Yawn, and Plettner All of the violations charged in Notice to Show Cause GA11890374 arose prior to Respondent's becoming a certified Responsible Vendor on April 13, 1990. On September 16, 1989, Ryan Conf and Alejandra Peters were each under the age of 21 and in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises as pled. On September 19, 1989, Central City bartender David Green sold the Division's underaged operative, Bridgette Toombs, a liquid beverage in a long- neck, factory-produced 12-ounce bottle labelled "Michelob Dry." At that time, the licensed premises was not busy and Mr. Green noted that Ms. Toombs had no wristband. He therefore checked Ms. Toombs' underage ID and instructed her that since she was old enough to drink, she should go get a wristband. This transaction was observed by Petitioner's agent, Ms. Pendarakis, but Ms. Pendarakis did not overhear the conversation. After delivering a sample of the liquid beverage to Ms. Pendarakis in the ladies' room, Ms. Toombs crossed in front of Mr. Green's bar on her way to exit the licensed premises. Mr. Green sent word to Ms. Toombs by another Central City employee that he wanted to see her. Ms. Toombs complied with Mr. Green's request and showed him her underage ID once more. At that point, Mr. Green recognized his error in thinking that Ms. Toombs was 21 or over and called over several other Central City employees, all of whom viewed the ID showing Ms. Toombs was actually two months short of 19 years old. Mr. Green was not arrested until after the ID was passed around, so it may be inferred that his recognizing his mistake was not the result of any confrontation with Petitioner's agents or law enforcement officers or due to his perception that he had been "caught." Indeed, Petitioner's witness, Ms. Toombs, attributed Mr. Green's illegal sale to her as a mistake in subtraction. Mr. Green had previously successfully passed all tests required under the licensee's policy in existence before the Responsible Vendor tests were available. On October 20, 1989, Charlotte Kelly and Alezandro Garcia, who were under the age of 21, were each in the actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1989, Cesar Fernandez, who was under the age of 21, was in possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On the same date, underage operative Megan Kittles was inside the licensed premises. She was not wearing a wristband, and her hand was stamped indicating that she was under 21. She first approached a white male bartender who checked her and refused to serve her. She then ordered a rum and coke from Respondent's bartender, Craig Halladay. Mr. Halladay did not check Ms. Kittles' ID and served her a liquid beverage which Mr. Szabo of the Division testified that he had identified by smell as containing alcohol. No one saw the drink mixed, and Mr. Szabo admitted that he did not know what kind of alcohol the drink contained. He stated that he "would not swear it was rum." Mr. Szabo also was not aware until formal hearing that Respondent sold any nonalcoholic mixed drinks. Although the evidence is weak, it is persuasive that Ms. Kittles was served alcohol. Mr. Halladay successfully passed the licensee's policy test before this incident and the Responsible Vendor test afterwards. Also on October 21, 1989, Matthew Goldtrap, another underage operative, ordered a "Budweiser" and obtained a 12-ounce bottle labelled "beer" from a floor waitress named Shannon Howell. Mr. Goldtrap had no wristband but did have a stamp on his wrist. He gave the container to Investigator Smith. Mr. Szabo then took both of Respondent's employees into custody. Mr. Goldtrap does not drink alcohol. Investigator Smith did not testify, but it is inferred from the description of the beer bottle and the circumstances of the transaction as a whole that Mr. Goldtrap was served an alcoholic beverage. Ms. Howell successfully passed the licensee's test prior to this incident. On January 19, 1990, Scott Shiskin, Michael Brejhanan, and Carolyn Benz, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On February 9, 1990, Central City bartender Steve Grimes sold Petitioner's 19-year old operative Octavia Ormsbee a liquid beverage. Ms. Ormsbee, who had no wristband on, was first denied a sale of alcoholic beverage at the downstairs back bar after Respondent's bartender there checked her underage ID. Ms. Ormsbee then went to an upstairs bar and ordered a "Bud Light." She was told by Mr. Grimes, a bartender at that bar, that they were out of "Bud Light," and by agreement, a beer bottle labelled "Budweiser" was substituted. Ms. Ormsbee does not drink alcohol and did not testify that what she received from Mr. Grimes was alcohol. The bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee was turned over to Officer Byrd of the Gainesville Police Department. Officer Byrd, who is familiar with alcoholic beverages through his own education, training, practice, and experience, identified the contents of the bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee as being "beer." Officer Byrd turned the bottle over to Petitioner's agent Cooter. Also on this occasion, Preston Yawn and Eric Plettner, who were under the age of 21, were each actually in possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Mr. Grimes had successfully passed the licensee's policy test prior to this incident. All of the underaged operatives who testified concerning this Notice to Show Cause testified that Petitioner's adult operatives forbade them to drink (consume) what they were sold and that they did not consume any. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constituted their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, mere possession does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 2/ Therefore, Petitioner has only established that on September 19, 1989 Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to Petitioner's underage operative Bridgette Toombs; that on October 21, 1989, Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Megan Kittles; that also on October 21, 1989, Respondent's floor waitress sold Petitioner's underage operative Matthew Goldtrap an alcoholic beverage; and that on February 9, 1990, Respondent's bartender sold the Division's underage operative Octavia Ormsbee an alcoholic beverage. One of these sales was clearly a mistake and two other operatives had to go to two bartenders each before an illegal sale was made. II. Notice to Show Cause GA11890496; June 8, 1990 through June 16, 1990; sale to Wearner by Edge and to Seligman by Lemberger and Bergine and possession by Tetstone, Lockey, Klug, Skipper, and Bissell On June 8, 1990, Jennifer Tetstone and Amy Lockey, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. On June 16, 1990, Ann Klug, Shana Skipper, and Michael Bissell were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Also on June 16, 1990, Central City bartenders Michael Edge, Michael Bergine, and Robert Lemberger, respectively, sold each of the Division's underage operatives Kathy Wearner (who did not testify but who was stipulated to be underage) and Charles Seligman an alcoholic beverage. Neither underaged operative wore a wristband or was requested to produce an ID for purposes of the respective sales. As of date of formal hearing, the Respondent continued to employ these same bartenders. All of these bartenders had successfully completed the Responsible Vendor test before these incidents. Mr. Edge also had passed the licensee's earlier policy test. The underaged operative, Kathy Wearner, asked Michael Edge for "a Budweiser" and was sold liquid in a "Budweiser" beer bottle inverted in a drinking glass. Officer Rockey of the Gainesville Police Department convincingly described the liquid that came out of the bottle as beer, an alcoholic beverage. He turned the materials confiscated over to an unnamed agent of Respondent and has not seen them since. On the same date, Central City bartender Robert Lemberger sold a 12-ounce bottle labelled "Budweiser" to 18- year-old operative Charles Seligman. Mr. Seligman was at all times without a wristband and bearing a stamp on his hand. Mr. Seligman delivered the bottle he received from Mr. Lemberger to Officer Posey of the Gainesville Police Department who had watched the entire transaction. Mr. Seligman later purchased a 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to Officer Posey. Mr. Seligman purchased a third 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to one of Petitioner's agents, Ernest Wilson. Mr. Seligman does not drink alcohol. Agent Wilson does drink alcohol and testified that the bottle Charles Seligman handed him was, in fact, beer. Although Agent Wilson also testified that Mr. Seligman's first name was "Tom" and that Mr. Seligman had purchased a rum drink, nonetheless, Mr. Wilson was convincing that the bottle handed him by Mr. Seligman did, in fact, contain beer, an alcoholic beverage. Officer Posey convincingly described the first bottle he received from Mr. Seligman as containing beer, an alcoholic beverage, and upon all the circumstances, the undersigned infers that the second bottle given Officer Posey also contained beer. All the underaged operatives who testified on this Notice to Show Cause testified that they were forbidden to drink (consume) what they were sold and did not do so. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the other minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constitutes their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 3/ Therefore, Petitioner has established only that on June 16, 1990 Respondent's personnel sold one alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Wearner and three alcoholic beverages to the Petitioner's underage operative Seligman. III. Notice to Show Cause GA11900209; September 22, 1990 through September 29, 1990; service to, or consumption by Stanton, Coody, Willis, and, Torres On September 22, 1990, Amy Stanton and Janet Coody, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. On September 29, 1990, Betty Willis and Jose Torres, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 4/ IV. Notice to Show Cause GA11900254 October 19, 1990 through November 16, 1990; 9 counts possession by Harriett, Ortega, McKinney, Nelson, Smith, Winter, Joyner, Cooke, Sammon; "giving" by Blackwell and Strawser On October 19, 1990, Steven Harriett, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1990, Jamie Ortega, who was under the age of 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 20, 1990, Brian McKinney, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 15, 1990, Karen Nelson, Hollie Smith, Michael Winter, and Julia Joyner, all underage, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 16, 1990, Denise Cooke and Teresa Sammon, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 5/ No evidence was introduced to establish the allegations of Counts 4 and 6 of Notice to Show Cause GA11900254, alleging "giving."
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic and Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order dismissing Notices to Show Cause GA11900209 and GA11900254; finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890374, imposing a total of $1750 in civil fines therefor; and finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890496, imposing a total of $2000 in civil fines therefor. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 28th day of June, 1991.
Findings Of Fact The first paragraph of charges in the Amended Notice to Show Cause reads as follows: That you, P & D SOUTH OF MARTIN COUNTY, INC. d/b/a STAGE EAST, licensed under the beverage laws of the State of Florida as a licensed vendor holding a SRX series license, did in the year of 1982, violate the beverage laws, to wit: you failed to maintain as 51 percent of your gross revenue the sale of food and non- alcoholic beverages, based upon the average monthly gross revenue for the period 12/81 to 12/82, contrary to F.S. 561.20(2)(a)(3), Rules 7A-3.14 and 7A-3.15(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code. In the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation and again at the commencement of the formal hearing in this cause, Respondent admitted the violation alleged in that paragraph. Also at the commencement of the formal hearing, Petitioner dismissed with prejudice the charges contained within paragraphs numbered too and three of the Amended Notice to Show Cause. The case therefore proceeded forward for the presentation of evidence in aggravation or in mitigation of any penalty to be imposed against Respondent. Respondent corporation, P & D South of Martin County, Inc., does business as Stage East and is the holder of alcoholic beverage license No. 53- 352, Series 6-COP SRX. Stage East opened for business on November 25, 1981, at 200 South Dixie Highway, Stuart, Martin County, Florida. When Richard Pouser, Respondent's president, applied for an alcoholic beverage license, he spoke with Beverage Officer Richard White. White explained to Pouser that an SRX license is a special license, carrying with it a requirement that the restaurant derive at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. Pouser advised White that Respondent intended to obtain an unrestricted quota license as soon as one became available in Martin County. When Respondent prepared to open Stage East, it leased a building containing two separate portions of space. It was Respondent's intention from the initial creation of its new business to open the first section of the restaurant as an area also geared to entertaining persons under the age of 50. In that section, Respondent has electronic games, televisions, pool tables, a dance and bandstand area, and two bars. There are approximately 25 tables in the "back bar" area and approximately 40 tables in the front or bandstand area. Full food service is available in both areas. In this section, Respondent also provides either recorded or live musical entertainment every day, ranging from local musical talent to "mini-concerts" by groups or individuals with national or international recognition. The second section of Stage East, which comprises an additional 4,000 square feet, is to be a family-type food service area, analogous to a "Bennigan's" style of restaurant. Only the first section of Stage East was opened on November 25, 1981, and Respondent continued its preparations to open the second section also. Respondent filed its plans for the proposed second section and application for a building permit and zoning approval with the City of Stuart on January 4, 1982. The City denied Respondent's application the same day, citing as its reason "inadequate parking." After Respondent expended substantial monies for legal fees and engineering studies, zoning approval was finally obtained in June 1983. The evidence is uncontroverted that the City had no legal basis for its denial of Respondent's application; rather, certain members of the City Commission personally did not approve of an establishment like Stage East. In February 1982, Beverage Officer White received an anonymous complaint that Respondent was not meeting its 51 percent requirement. He visited the premises and, upon examining the cash register receipts and food tickets, ascertained that only approximately 25 to 30 percent of Respondent's business had been from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. On February 9, 1982, White served on Pouser an Official Notice with a compliance deadline of August 9, 1982. On September 15, 1982, White returned to Stage East to make a compliance inspection. After speaking with Pouser and ascertaining that the 51 percent requirement was still not being met, White issued a second Official Notice. Although that Notice contained a compliance deadline of January 1, 1983, White returned to Stage East on December 23, 1982, met with Pouser, and reviewed Respondent's records. A cursory examination revealed that Respondent still had not met the 51 percent requirement. Between the time that White first advised Pouser of the 51 percent requirement and the date of the formal hearing in this cause, Respondent attempted to obtain a quota license, which carries no requirements as to food consumption on the premises. For a year, Respondent advertised daily in the Stuart newspaper that it wished to purchase a quota license. Respondent contacted Beverage Officer White, liquor distributors, and owners of quota licenses in Martin County to ascertain if they had a quota license for sale or if they knew someone who did. During this time, the quota license for Harper's became available. The license holder asked $250,000 cash, Respondent offered $200,000 cash, and Walgreen's purchased Harper's license for $215,000. By the time of the formal hearing in this cause, Respondent had entered into favorable negotiations for the SR license at Boston's. Although Respondent had inquired whether Petitioner would permit the transfer of Boston's license to Respondent, Petitioner had not answered Respondent's inquiry at the time this cause was heard. In addition to taking steps to expand its restaurant area and to obtain an alternate license throughout the time period in question, Respondent did all it could to encourage its customers to purchase food so that Respondent could meet the 51 percent requirement to which its license was subject. Respondent hired an experienced chef and additional kitchen staff in order to offer a larger variety of food at lower prices. Respondent changed its menu to add "quicker" foods and advertised its menu in the Stuart News. Respondent opened for lunch and advertised its daily luncheon specials; advertised its food service when advertising its new "happy hours" and those prices; opened for breakfast after 2:00 a.m.; advertised its dinner programs; hired male dancers to perform during certain hours on Monday nights "for ladies only;" offered discount Prices for women on Tuesdays for "ladies night;" and attempted to attract an older crowd on Sundays by providing a buffet and a Dixieland band or "the big band sound." Respondent increased its radio advertising to six to eight ads a week, sometimes advertising as a restaurant with a nightclub and sometimes only as a restaurant. Although Respondent had on its premises during 1982 sufficient foods, utensils, and personnel to serve everything on its menus, Respondent started a nightly buffet which was either self-service or could be served by a waitress. The cost of the buffet depended upon the day of the week, with ladies paying a small price on Tuesdays, ladies' night, for example. Sometimes the cost of the buffet (which is collected as the customer enters the premises) included the customer's alcoholic beverages on an "all you care to consume" basis, and sometimes the customer paid for his alcoholic beverages in addition to paying for the buffet. On the evening before the formal hearing, the buffet cost $10, and the price of drinks was not included. Since Respondent opened Stage East, it has made continuing good faith efforts to encourage the purchase of food at its premises, to add the "Bennigan's" family-style restaurant, and to obtain an alternate license without the 51 percent requirement. During the three-month period immediately before the formal hearing, Respondent approached, just exceeded, and then just missed the 51-percent mark.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the charge in paragraph numbered one of the Amended Notice to Show Cause, dismissing with prejudice the charges in paragraphs numbered two and three of the Amended Notice to Show Cause, and imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000 to be paid by Respondent within 30 days of the entry of the Final Order in this cause. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Boggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles L. Curtis, Esquire 1177 Northeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact By Stipulation filed September 11, 1986, the parties agreed to findings of fact 1-11. Donna Sawyer filed a preliminary application to participate in the state lottery for liquor license on January 20, 1984, on Department of Business Regulation form No. 747L. On September 18, 1984, Donna Sawyer was notified by Respondent that she had been selected in the lottery held on September 12, 1984, to be eligible to apply for a state quota liquor license. That on or about November 2, 1984, Donna Sawyer, acting through her wholly owned corporation, Sarasota County Liquors, Inc., filed a sworn "application for Alcoholic Beverage License" (Department of Business Regulation Form No. 700L), with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. That application included a description of a location which was to be the licensed premises. A Personal Questionaire, Department of Business Regulation Form 710L, was also included by Petitioner with said application. The license application was denied by Respondent on March 8, 1985. The grounds for the denial as stated in the denial letter were Petitioner's failure to provide: (1) proof of right of occupancy to the premises Petitioner was seeking to license; (2) verification of financial investment; (3) business name, and (4) sketch of the premises affixed to the application. On April 10, 1985, Sandra Allen, Esquire, acting on behalf of Petitioner, requested an administrative hearing in order to contest the March 8, 1985, denial of the subject license. Joseph Forbes, Esquire, of Gainesville, Florida, was then retained by Petitioner to resolve the denial of the requested license, which was then pending before the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, as an informal administrative proceeding, pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. In this capacity, Forbes, among other things filed a Motion for Continuance and Stipulation in this case attached to a June 6, 1985 cover letter. Forbes thereafter reached an agreement in the informal proceeding with Thomas Klein, Esquire, then counsel of record for Respondent, evidenced by letter dated October 1, 1985, which in its relevant portions indicated: This is to continue our telephone conversation of October 1, 1985, in which the following was discussed and agreed upon: Sarasota Liquors - your client will have 45 days from the date of this letter to cure the defects set forth in the March 8, 1985 letter of denial. Please direct your client to respond to the Tallahassee office. In order to rectify the original deficiencies causing the license denial, Petitioner re-filed an Application for Alcoholic Beverage License, Department of Business Regulation Form 700L, including exhibits, with Respondent, on or about November 13, 1985. Petitioner's re-filed license application was denied by Respondent on February 19, 1986, for two reasons: (1) "Application incomplete as applicant does not have right of occupancy to the premises for which she is seeking to license," and (2) "Division is unable to fully investigate applicant's financial documentation." On or about November 4, 1985, while searching for a location to submit as the licensed premises, in the re-filed application of November 13, 1985, Donna Sawyer and Ocie Allen met with Alton Allen at 258 S. Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida, who was an agent for Walter Spector, owner of several retail store spaces at that address. Ocie Allen, acting on behalf of his corporation, Ft. Myers A & T Corporation, entered into a lease for a store at 258 S. Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. On or about November 4, 1985, Ocie Allen, acting on behalf of his corporation Ft. Myers A & T Corporation, purportedly subleased the premises at 258 S. Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida to Petitioner. That Petitioner had submitted a letter dated November 4, 1984, signed by Jim Irey, as President of Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc., which is attached to the November 13, 1985 application, which stated that certain financial support would be available to the subject alcoholic beverage sales contemplated by Petitioner. That as a result of the investigation following the November 13, 1985 application, Respondent was "unable to fully investigate applicant's financial documentation," since Respondent's agents were unable to locate Jim Irey or his company at the address indicated on the November 4, 1984 letter. Based upon the evidence presented, the following additional findings of fact are made: Donna Sawyer's preliminary application to participate in the state lottery for a quota liquor license included instructions to the applicant that it was the first part of a two part application and that the second part would require proof of occupancy for the premises to be licensed. The second part of the application was that license application filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco on November 2, 1984, and again on November 13, 1985. As part of the notification that she was eligible to apply for a state quota liquor license, Donna Sawyer was advised that she had 45 days to file a full and complete application and that if she failed to do so, this failure would be deemed as a waiver of her right to file for a new quota liquor license. The letter also advised her that the Division had 180 days from the date of the drawing to act upon her application. The Petitioner's first quota liquor license application was denied on March 8, 1985. March 8, 1985, was within 180 days of the applicable lottery drawing held on September 12, 1984. The agreement of the parties to resolve the March 8, 1985, denial of the subject license evidences an tacit agreement by the parties to waive any applicable time limits existing at that time in order to allow the Petitioner to resubmit a corrected application within 45 days as allowed by the Thomas Klein letter of October 1, 1985. The Division investigated the Petitioner's second application and determined that the applicant did not have a right of occupancy to the premises sought to be licensed, 258 Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida, because Petitioner only had a purported sublease for the subject premises from Ft. Myers A & T Corporation. Ft. Myers A & T Corporation had obtained a lease for the property on November 4, 1985, from Walter Spector, deceased at the time of the administrative hearing. Said lease between Walter Spector, lessor, and Ft. Myers A & T Corporation, lessee, provided that subleases must be approved by the lessor and be in writing. The Petitioner did not produce evidence of written authorization by Walter Spector to allow Ocie Allen or Ft. Myers A & T Corporation, Inc., to sublease the subject premises to the Petitioner or to any other person. The only evidence of such authorization was the hearsay statement by Ocie Allen that Walter Spector had orally given such authorization. Furthermore, Mr. Alton Allen, then agent for Mr. Spector for leasing this property testified he had no knowledge that Mr. Spector was ever informed of a sublease. Therefore it is found that the sublease violated a material provision of the underlying lease from Walter Spector to Ft. Myers A & T Corporation. Mr. Ocie Allen, agent for the Petitioner and Donna Sawyer, testified and it is found that there was no intention for the Petitioner to operate an alcoholic beverage license at the 258 Tamiami Trail location. Petitioner's November 13, 1985, license application was also denied on February 19, 1986, for: Application incomplete as . . . the Division is unable to fully investigate applicant's financial documentation. This denial was due to the Division's agents being unable to verify the availability of financial funding from Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc. The Petitioner had submitted a November 9, 1984 letter from that corporation in its November 13, 1985 license application offering certain funding. Upon checking phone directories and making attempted telephone calls to the source named in that letter, the Division was not able to find the named business as source of funding. The Division further investigated Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc. as an alleged source of funding by sending an agent, Robert B. Baggett, to the address supplied by the applicant in a November 9, 1984 letter from Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc., only to find that no such business was located there and no neighbors knew of a new location. Sandra Allen, Esquire, testified that the source of the funding at the time of the second application was a new company run by the same person who was behind Florida Home Equity of Lee County, Inc., which was named as the source in the November 9, 1984 letter. However, this new company's name and address and verification of continued financial support to the Petitioner could not reasonably be determined by the Division and no evidence was presented that the Division had ever been provided with said new company's name or location prior to the denial of the second license application. Contradictory testimony was presented by Lt. Ewing and Sgt. Mills as to the existence of a policy requiring a "14 day" deficiency notice letter to applicants. It is clear that that policy was not recognized in the office supervised by Sgt. Mills. It was also not established that Lt. Ewing had the authority to set or enunciate policy for the Division.
The Issue Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance; cocaine, and whether said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 in U.S. currency, and whether said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage license premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine contrary to Section 893.13, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc. d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $2,200, U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. A count seven was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. A count eight was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. Whether or not on or about November 20, 1976, a bottle of non-tax paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered on the licensed premises, and whether or not said bottle bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid, contrary to Section 562.16, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 1, 1976, and continuing until on or about November 24, 1976, the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did maintain a public nuisance, to wit; maintain a place where controlled substances were illegally sold, kept or used, contrary to Section 823.10, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not investigation revealed that on or about November 20, 1976, the Respondent, its agent, servant, or employee, did remove, deposit, or conceal a beverage, to wit, one (1) 2,000 cc bottle of Ron Medeliin Rum, with the intent to defraud the state of tax, contrary to Section 562.32, F.S. and Section 562.30, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this complaint the Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, was the holder of a license no. 23-1901, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, and that license was for the premises located at 1601 Collins Avenue Miami Beach, Florida. The management of the licensed premises makes arrangements to hire entertainment in the form of musicians. This arrangement is made through agreement with the band leader. One of these agreements was made with a band leader who had as his band member Leouigildo Hernandez. On September 28, 1976, Officer E. Santiago, of the Miami Beach, Florida, Police Department entered the licensed premises and while in the licensed premises entered into discussion with Hernandez. Hernandez left the bar proper and came back with an amount of a substance known as cocaine. Santiago paid Hernandez $100 for the quantity of cocaine and the sale was consummated in the licensed premises. On October 30, 1976, Officer Santiago returned to the licensed premises. Santiago had been in the licensed premises many times prior to that occasion. Among the persons he had seen in the bar was Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales. Morales was the girlfriend of Anthony Bilbao, one of the principals in the ownership of the licensed premises. Morales had also served Santiago drinks in the bar on more than 50 occasions. On the evening in question, October 30, 1976, discussion was entered into between Santiago and Morales about the purchase of a substance known as cocaine. Morales produced a quantity of the cocaine and reached across the bar that she was standing behind and handed the quantity of the substance cocaine to Santiago, who was in the area where customers were served at the bar. Santiago paid her $100 for the cocaine. In the late hours of November 4 and early hours of November 5, 1976, Santiago again entered the licensed premises, his purpose for going to the licensed premises was to purchase a large quantity of cocaine from Morales. This arrangement had been entered into based upon the sample of cocaine that had been provided him on October 30, 1976. Morales left the licensed premises and returned 3 to 5 minutes later with a quantity of cocaine, for which Santiago paid her $2,200. On one of the above occasions of a purchase of cocaine from Morales, while in the licensed premises, Morales had conferred with Anthony Bilbao. In the course of that conference, Bilbao told Morales to be careful to whom she sold because "you don't know him", meaning Santiago. In the course of an investigation in the license premises on November 28, 1976, a bottle of non-tax-paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered in the licensed premises, which bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid. The size of the bottle was 2,000 cc.
Recommendation Based upon the violations as established in the hearing on the notice to show cause, it is recommended that the license no. 23-1901 held by Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee ,Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Michael B. Solomon, Esquire Division of Beverage Theodore M. Trushin, Law Office The Johns Building 420 Lincoln Road, Number 600 725 Bronough Street Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Nathaniel Barone, Esquire 777 N.E. 79th Street Miami, Florida 33138
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent violated the Final Order of Petitioner by failing to pay $1,250 to Petitioner on or before the expiration of 30 days after the entry of the Final Order.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is licensed to sell alcoholic beverages pursuant to license number 15-02311, Series 4COP SRX. The licensed premises are located at 680 George J. King Boulevard, Port Canaveral, Florida, 32920. On October 2, 2000, Petitioner entered a Final Order that required Respondent to pay an administrative fine of $1,250 within 30 days of the date of entry of the order. Respondent appealed the Final Order to the First District Court of Appeal. The First District Court of Appeal upheld the Final Order. Respondent failed to pay any portion of the administrative fine.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 561.29; imposing an administrative fine of $2,500, pursuant to Rule 61A-2.022(8); and permanently revoking alcoholic beverage license number 15- 02311, Series 4COP SRX. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY 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 May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Chad D. Heckman, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Raymond J. Cascella Manos Inc., d/b/a Sea Port Restaurant 680 George J. King Boulevard Port Canaveral, Florida 32920 Capt. German Garzon Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Room 709 North Tower, Hurston Building Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent was the holder of a valid alcoholic beverage License No. 58-1090, Series 2APS. Respondent is a corporation which owns and operates several convenience stores in the Orlando, Florida area. On February 19, 1983, David Aaron Morgan purchased twelve cans of Budweiser beer at the Respondent's "Pore Jack's store located at 2233 Goldenrod Road, in Orlando, Florida. The purchase was made from a Mr. Claude P. Gillenwater, a clerk and employee at the store. Mr. Morgan had purchased beer from Mr. Gillenwater on at least three (3) prior occasions. At the time of his first purchase of beer from Gillenwater, David Morgan was required to show identification. He showed Mr. Gillenwater a restricted driver's license on which the year of birth appeared to be 1963. Mr. Morgan's date of birth is July 1, 1965. On February 19, 1983, Mr. Gillenwater did not check Mr. Morgan's identification. Mr. Morgan had never informed Mr. Gillenwater that he was underage. He knew Mr. Gillenwater would not serve him beer if he knew he was underage. The information on the restricted license was unclear because the license had been partially mutilated in the washing machine in the Morgan home. David Morgan is in the eleventh grade at Colonial High School. He is 5'8" tall and weighs approximately 160-170 pounds. He wears a mustache and has for over a year. After purchasing the beer, David Morgan left the store and walked to a car in the parking lot where two friends were waiting in a car. Mr. Morgan was observed leaving the store with the beer by Beverage Officers Homer Kenneth Rigsby and Claude E. Cruz. The beverage officers followed Mr. Morgan and his friends as they drove away from the store and stopped them a short distance away. Mr. Morgan was placed under arrest and taken to his home, where his parents were informed of the purchase of beer. It was then verified by a driver's license produced by Mr. Morgan's mother that he was, in fact, not of legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages. Prior to the February 19, 1983, incident, Mr. Gillenwater had been an employee with Respondent for six (6) years. He worked different shifts on an as need basis and the Respondent had never received any complaints regarding the performance of his duties. At the time of his initial employment, Mr. Gillenwater received training and instruction regarding his duties and specifically his responsibilities in assuring compliance with the beverage laws. After his initial training , Mr. Gillenwater was required to work under the supervision of the manager of the store or an experienced cashier until he became familiar enough with the policies and procedures of the company. All employees, and specifically Mr. Gillenwater, were instructed in checking identifications and in the Respondent's strict policy against sales of alcoholic beverages to minors. Mr. Gillenwater was fired by Respondent as a result of this incident. The store in question had a sign posted informing customers that they must be 19 years of age to purchase alcoholic beverages and that a Florida driver's license would be required as identification. (See Respondent's Exhibit 1.) There was also a sign reflecting the date prior to which a customer had to have been born in order to be able to purchase alcoholic beverages. Respondent's employees were instructed to require a driver's license as identification each time a purchase of alcoholic beverages was made by anyone who appeared under 30 years of age. They were required to do this until they became familiar with the particular individual and recognized him on sight as a person who had previously provided proper identification. There was no evidence that Respondent had had any previous violations at the store involved or at any of its other stores. During most of the hours the store is open, a manager or assistant manager is on duty supervising the cashiers. Respondent had no notice or information that any of its employees were failing to follow its procedures regarding the requirement for proper identification.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found not guilty of the violation charged in the Notice to Show Cause and that the charge be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Aldo Icardi, Esquire Post Office Box 879 Winter Park, Florida 32790 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Executive Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Thomas Olhausen and Henry Stripling, d/b/a Trackside Lounge, hold Beverage License No. 23-1647, Series No. 4-COP, which was issued for the current year. On or about June 5, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold a controlled substance, namely cocaine, to Beverage Officer Terminello while he was on the licensed premises known as Trackside Lounge in Dade County, Florida. On or about June 8, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold cocaine to Beverage Officer Dodson while he was on the Trackside Lounge premises. On or about June 12, 1983, the Respondent Thomas Olhausen sold cocaine to Beverage Officer Terminello while he was on the premises of Trackside Lounge. The Respondent Henry Stripling did not go onto the Trackside Lounge between the dates of March 10 and June 10, 1983, pursuant to a restraining order issued on March 10, 1983, by the Dade County Circuit Court. This March 10, 1983, court order appointed two receivers to supervise the operation of the business known as Trackside Lounge. Pursuant to this authority the receivers employed Thomas Olhausen to operate and manage the business. Thus, Thomas Olhausen was not subject to the restraining order which barred Henry Stripling from entry onto the Trackside Lounge premises. The Respondent Henry Stripling had no connection with the sale of cocaine by the Respondent Thomas Olhausen to the Beverage Officers on June 5, 8 and 12, 1983. The court order of March 10, 1983, did not attempt to effect a judicial transfer of the beverage license held by the Respondents. The court appointed receivers did not file an application for a beverage license pursuant to Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, and there is no evidence that the receivers attempted to transfer the beverage license held - by the Respondents pursuant to Section S61.32(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, or Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Adminstrative Code. The court appointed receivers did not file a certified copy of the order appointing them as receivers with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco pursuant to Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the alcoholic beverage license held by the Respondents, Thomas Olhausen and Henry Stripling, being number 23-1647, Series No. 4-COP, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 26th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark A. Jacobs, Esquire 18204 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 Richard F. Hayes, Esquire Suite 20 4601 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether "[o]n or about January 16, 2009, Respondent [the holder of an SR license] failed to maintain a restaurant . . . contrary to and in violation of [s]ection 561.20(2), Florida Statutes (1953), within [s]ection 561.20(5), Florida Statutes (2008), within [s]ection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2008),"2 as alleged in the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all material times, the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-02630, Series 4COP/SR (Subject License), which is a "Special Restaurant" or "SR" license issued by Petitioner. The location of the licensed premises is 17190 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, where Respondent operates Epicure Gourmet Market and Café (Epicure) in a structure having 34,000 square feet of interior space, 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of which is open to the consuming public. The Rascal House, an eating establishment specializing in comfort food, formerly occupied this location. The Rascal House opened in 1954 and was operated under the Subject License from December 30 of that year until March 30, 2008, when it was shuttered. For the final twelve years of its existence, the Rascal House was owned and operated by Jerry's Famous Deli, Inc., Respondent's parent corporation. Respondent acquired the Rascal House property and the Subject License from Jerry's Famous Deli in 2008. After spending $7.5 million on renovations to the property,3 Respondent reopened the venue as Epicure on October 7, 2008, and has done business under that name at the former Rascal House location since. Petitioner approved the transfer of the Subject License to Respondent on October 27, 2008, following an inspection of the premises of Epicure by one of Petitioner's Special Agents, Bradley Frank, who found that all statutory requirements for "SR" licensure were met. In the summer of 2008, prior to the opening of Epicure, Respondent, through its Chief Financial Officer, Christina Sperling, submitted a Request for Initial Inspection and Food Permit Application with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Food Safety (DACS), in which it described Epicure as a "[f]ood market with indoor/outdoor seating area; but not a service restaurant." At the time of the filing of the Food Permit Application, Respondent had no intention of using waiters or waitresses to serve Epicure's patrons, although it did intend for these patrons to be able to purchase food and beverage items for consumption on the premises. Before Epicure opened, Respondent was granted a DACS Annual Food Permit, "Supermarket"-type, for the establishment, a permit it continues to hold today. On February 11, 2009, and again on July 28, 2009, Respondent applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (H&R) for a "public food service establishment"4 license for Epicure. Both applications were denied by H&R because Epicure was licensed (properly so, in the opinion of H&R) by DACS. The DACS permit is not the only license Respondent has for Epicure. It also has a retail license, a food market license, and a restaurant-outside dining license, all issued by the City of Sunny Isles Beach. Respondent has held these City of Sunny Isles Beach-issued licenses since 2008. On January 16, 2009, the date of the violation alleged in the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint, Epicure had the necessary equipment and supplies (including those in its 4,000 to 5,000 square foot kitchen where food was prepared) to provide, and it did provide, patrons full course meals (including ready to eat appetizer items, ready to eat salad items, ready to eat entree items, ready to eat vegetable items, ready to eat dessert items, ready to eat fruit items, hot and cold beverages (non-alcoholic and alcoholic), and bread) for on- premises consumption at indoor and outdoor tables5 (Eating Tables) having a total seating capacity in excess of 200 and occupying more than 4,000 square feet of space.6 There were no waiters or waitresses, at that time, to take orders from, and to serve food and beverages to, patrons sitting at the Eating Tables.7 The patrons themselves brought to their Eating Tables the food and beverages they consumed there--food and beverages they obtained from manned counters (in the hot food, raw meat/fresh seafood,8 deli, bakery, and bar areas); from the fresh produce area; and from the cases, shelves, and tables where packaged food and drink items were displayed for sale. Epicure employees were stationed in the areas where the Eating Tables were located to assist patrons who wanted tableware, a glass of ice water, a packaged item (such as soup) to be opened or warmed, or their table to be cleaned. Not all of the items sold at Epicure on January 16, 2009, were consumed on the premises. True to its name, Epicure had not only a bona fide "café" operation, it also operated as a "market" where patrons shopped for "gourmet" food and other items for off-premises consumption and use. Among the food and beverage items for sale were raw meat and fresh seafood; dairy products; ready to eat deli meats and cheeses, including those packaged by the manufacturer; packaged grains; packaged stocks, including vegetable, beef, seafood, and chicken stock; condiments, including jams, jellies, and caviar; sauces; spices; eggs; chips, popcorn, and nuts; packaged crackers and cookies; ingredients (other than meat and seafood) for salads, dips, and dressings; cooked and other prepared foods ready to eat; baked bread and other bakery items; candy; fruit and other fresh produce; bottles of wine, liquor, and beer, as well as non- alcoholic beverages, including water; and packaged tea. Among the non-food items for sale were flowers; glassware; candles; napkins, paper and plastic plates and cups, and eating and serving utensils; paper towels; toilet paper; toilet bowel cleaner; wine and liquor opening devices and equipment; publications relating to alcoholic beverage products; cookbooks; and personal care and over-the-counter health care items. Shopping carts were available for patrons to use in the establishment to transport items selected for purchase. These items were paid for at the same cash registers (at the front of the establishment) where food and beverages consumed on the premises were paid for. There was considerable overlap between Epicure's "café" and "market" operations in terms of space used and items sold. Both the "café" and the "market" were fundamental and substantial components of Epicure's business, and they worked together synergistically. The record evidence does not clearly and convincingly reveal that Epicure's "café" operation was merely incidental or subordinate to its "market" operation, or that its "café" was in any way operated as a subterfuge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, issue a final order dismissing the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2011.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner’s request to renew a lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62- 08383 on or about July 8, 2011, should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent is the state agency charged with the licensing, regulation, and enforcement of Florida’s alcoholic beverage laws pursuant to section 20.165(2)(b) and chapters 561- 568, Florida Statutes, including recordation of liens against alcoholic beverage licenses and provision of notice to lienholders pursuant to section 561.65. Petitioner is the holder of a recorded lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62-08383, a 4COP spirituous alcoholic beverage license, commonly referred to as a quota license, which was issued pursuant to sections 561.20(1) and 565.02(1)(a)-(f) for use in Pinellas County. Liens and Security Interests in Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Section 561.65 governs mortgages, liens, and security interests against spirituous alcoholic beverage licenses. DABT has a lien section within its Bureau of Licensing that is responsible for the oversight of lien recordings and lien searches. To perfect a lien or security interest in a spirituous alcoholic beverage license that may be enforceable against the license, the entity holding the security interest or lien must record it with DABT within 90 days of the date of creation of the lien or security interest, using forms authorized by DABT. The forms adopted by DABT require the names of the parties and the terms of the obligation being recorded. § 561.65(4), Fla. Stat. Form DBPR ABT-6022, Application for Mortgagee’s Interest in Spirituous Alcoholic Beverage License, is used to record a new lien, a lien assignment or assumption, or a lien renewal or extension. The form is adopted by rule. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61A-5.0012. Upon receipt of a request to record a lien or the renewal of an existing lien, DABT will review the provided documentation and, if the documentation is in order on approved forms and accompanied by the security agreement and statutorily- required payment, will record the lien or lien renewal. If there is a deficiency noted during review of the lien documentation submitted, DABT will issue a 14-day deficiency notice to the requesting entity to provide any missing information. If timely corrected, DABT will record the lien or lien renewal. Section 561.65(4) provides that any lien or security interest filed with DABT on or after July 1, 1995, expires five years after recordation by DABT unless renewed by the lienholder within six months prior to its expiration date. Statutory Notice Requirements to Lienholders Recording a lien not only makes it enforceable, but provides assurance to the lienholder that it will receive notice of pending actions by DABT against the license that may compromise the lien’s vitality. Section 561.65 also sets forth requirements for DABT to provide notice to lienholders of both pending actions against encumbered licenses and any suspension or revocation of a license subject to a lien. Specifically, section 561.65(3) provides that “such lienholder shall be notified in writing of the filing of an order to show cause as to why the license should not be suspended or revoked; and also the lienholder shall be furnished a copy of any order of suspension or revocation.” (Emphasis added). In other words, two separate notices are required: one when the agency institutes proceedings against the licensee and a second if the agency action against the licensee results in a suspension or revocation of the license. Respondent does not assert and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that Petitioner had knowledge of or participated in the cause for revocation of the license at issue in this proceeding, or that Petitioner would not otherwise be entitled to notice of the revocation proceeding. The holder of a recorded lien is entitled to notice because the lienholder has the right to enforce the lien against the licensee within 180 days after the entry of any order of revocation or suspension of the license. Section 561.65(3) specifies that “the 180 days within which to file for enforcement of the lien by the lienholder shall commence running from the date of the mailing of the copy of the order of revocation or suspension.” Thus, the 180-day period runs from when notice is sent to the lienholder, not from the entry of the final order of suspension or revocation. Once notice is provided to the lienholder, any enforcement of the lien is through foreclosure proceedings in circuit court. The process for foreclosure proceedings is outlined in section 561.65(5). Most importantly, both section 561.19(2) and section 561.65(1) provide that no revoked quota beverage license encumbered by a lien or security interest perfected in accordance with section 561.65 shall be issued until the 180-day period (from mailing of the suspension or revocation order) has elapsed or until such enforcement proceeding is final. Re-issuance Through Double Random Drawings Quota licenses may become available three ways: 1) when a dry county goes wet (i.e., a county that previously prohibited the sale of alcohol decides to allow it), three initial quota licenses are issued for the county; 2) when there are population increases in a county, an additional quota license is issued for every population increase of 7,500; and 3) when a quota license in a county has been revoked. When any of those instances occur, pursuant to the directive in section 561.19(2), quota licenses are issued through the use of a double random public drawing. While a revoked quota license may be reissued in a double random quota drawing, if a revoked quota license is encumbered by a perfected and recorded lien or security interest, as discussed previously, it may not be reissued until the 180-day period has elapsed or until enforcement/foreclosure proceedings are final. Damon Larry is currently the assistant bureau chief of licensing, and oversees the annual quota drawing. Each year, he runs a report of all revoked quota licenses and, if the revocation is final, determines whether the 180-day period has elapsed. Before a revoked quota license is placed in the double random drawing, there is communication between staff in different sections within the Department to determine if a license is eligible for inclusion in the quota drawing. The communications involve the quota drawing section, the licensing section, the administrative case unit, the Office of the General Counsel, and the lien section. During this process, DABT staff will determine whether there is a lien attached to the license and, if so, whether there was notice to the lienholder, and whether the 180 days has elapsed or foreclosure proceedings no longer remain pending. If all of these conditions have been met, the revoked license is placed in the quota drawing for reissuance under a new license number. The revoked license number is then deleted from the Department’s database. Petitioner’s Lien Against Alcoholic Beverage License No. 62-08383 Turning to the facts of this case, Daniel A. King, as debtor, executed and delivered a Demand Promissory Note in favor of Rebco on or about April 18, 1997, in the principal amount of $61,000, and simultaneously executed a security agreement in favor of Rebco, as the secured party, pledging license number 62-08383 (the License) as collateral for repayment of the sums due and owing under the Promissory Note. Rebco submitted the promissory note and security agreement to DABT for initial recordation as a lien against the License on or about May 1, 1997, within 90 days of the date of the creation of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien against the License effective May 8, 1997. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on May 8, 2002. Rebco submitted a request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about November 7, 2001, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement, and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective November 7, 2001. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on November 7, 2006. Rebco submitted a second request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about July 26, 2006, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective August 1, 2006. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on August 1, 2011. The License Revocation Proceedings On or about November 16, 2006, at a time when the lien was recorded in the records of DABT, DABT filed administrative charges against Daniel J. King, holder of the License, in Case number 2006-049240, alleging that the licensee failed to operate the License in accordance with section 561.29(1)(f). DABT was unable to achieve personal service on Mr. King, so it published notice of the administrative action in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. The published notice did not identify Petitioner, and no evidence was presented to indicate that DABT sent a copy of the notice to Rebco. Rebco clearly had a recorded lien against the License when the disciplinary action was filed against the License. DABT did not notify Petitioner of the pending action. On or about June 22, 2007, after receiving no written defense in the disciplinary proceeding, DABT issued a Final Order revoking the License effective July 31, 2007. The Final Order of Revocation was not served on Rebco, the owner of the security interest in the License. Petitioner had a recorded lien against the License on file with DABT both when proceedings were instituted against the License and on the date of the entry of the Final Order of Revocation. Stephanie Coxwell works in the administrative case unit of DABT and has done so for at least the last 14 years. The administrative case unit is responsible for determining whether an alcoholic beverage license that is pending revocation or suspension is encumbered by a lien and for notifying any lienholder of the revocation or suspension of an encumbered license. DABT’s practice was to mail any lienholder notice of the license suspension or revocation, along with a copy of the final order, soon after entry of the final order. It is this mailing of the notice and final order that commences the 180 days referenced in section 561.65. For at least the last 14 years, DABT has used a form “notice to lienholder” to notify lienholders of the revocation or suspension of an alcoholic beverage license, accompanied by a copy of the final order revoking or suspending the license. The notification form is a public record maintained by DABT. It is this notification, and not the publication of the pending action, that provides notice to the lienholder. Internal correspondence from Ms. Coxwell within the licensure file for the License indicates that in December 2006, she requested a lien search with respect to the License. Ms. Coxwell was advised by return e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the license. On or about March 21, 2007, Ms. Coxwell requested research for any bankruptcy proceedings affecting the License. She was again informed by intra-agency e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the License. Ms. Coxwell replied by e-mail that she was aware that there was a lien, but that they would notify the lienholder of the administrative action “in the usual way.” However, Ms. Coxwell’s March 27 e-mail was sent three months before the final order revoking the license, not simultaneous to the Order. There is no record that notification was sent to Rebco, either at the time of the administrative action, or after issuance of the final order. Beverly Peebles works in Rebco’s corporate office located at 701 Tennessee River Drive, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35661, and has done so since 1990. She is responsible for receiving, retaining, and disbursing any mail received by Rebco. Ms. Peebles testified regarding the process used to copy, scan into the company’s electronic database, and distribute any mail received by Rebco. Rebco did not receive any notice concerning the administrative action or the revocation of the License until Rebco received the letter denying the recordation of its lien renewal against the license in 2011. Rebco’s address was at all times on file with the DABT since the inception of the lien against the license in 1997. It is found that the DABT did not notify Rebco that there was an administrative action filed against the License, and did not notify Rebco of the Final Order of Revocation against the License. The licensure file contains all other expected documents from the first recordation of the lien in 1997 to the present. It does not include a copy of notice to Rebco of either the pending action or the Final Order of revocation. Moreover, both a letter dated August 19, 2011, to counsel for Rebco, as well as an e-mail dated March 21, 2007, from Ms. Coxwell, contain handwritten notes regarding the failure to send proper notification. The notes, which are clearly hearsay, are part of public records maintained in the normal course of business, and corroborate Ms. Peebles’ testimony that no notification was received. They also corroborate evidence of the absence of any record of notification to Rebco in DABT’s records of regularly-conducted activity. The August 19, 2011, letter contains a handwritten note at the top stating, “$61K lien no lien ltr sent,” and the e-mail dated March 21, 2007, referenced in paragraph 32, contains the following note: “are we the only group/people who check for current liens recorded before deleting the license? It was deleted on 5/4/2011. Lien was still recorded at that time.”2/ Respondent has presented no credible evidence to indicate that the notice was somehow sent despite the lack of any documentation to that effect contained in the DABT’s records. While the handwritten notes standing alone do not establish that no notice was sent, they do indicate that a question was raised internally regarding whether adequate notice was provided. Despite the failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the License was placed in the 2010 double random drawing held on March 10, 2011, at a time when a valid lien against the License was duly recorded. Only one license for Pinellas County was included in the drawing for that year, and no licenses for Pinellas County have been issued in a double random quota drawing since then. Shortly after the random drawing, the license number assigned to the License was removed from the Department’s system and a new number assigned to the license issued as a result of the drawing. While there is no direct testimony on the issue, it can be inferred that the purchaser of the new license received the license with no notice that there was any outstanding lien on the right to engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages in Pinellas County under the new license. While it is DABT’s practice to delete a revoked license number from its database, no evidence or statutory reference was presented to support the premise that there is a legal impediment to renewing an existing lien for a revoked license when no notice of the revocation was provided. Given the Department’s failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the 180-day period identified in section 560.65 never began to run. On or about July 6, 2011, Rebco timely submitted a third request to DABT to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division, which request was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement. DABT notified Rebco by letter dated July 19, 2011, that it was unable to record the lien renewal because it was not submitted for recordation within 90 days of its creation. The July 19, 2011, notice of denial was issued based upon a review of the lien renewal request submitted to DABT, because the executed ABT6022 lien-recording form submitted with Rebco’s third renewal request mistakenly identified the effective date of the lien renewal as April 18, 1997, the date of the creation of the original lien. On or about July 25, 2011, Rebco submitted an amended form ABT6022 correcting the effective date for renewal of the lien as August 1, 2011. On August 3, 2011, DABT notified Rebco that it was unable to record the renewal of the lien against the License because “the alcoholic beverage license being pledged as collateral was revoked by the Division on July 31, 2007,” following service of a Notice of Action through publication in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. No action taken by Rebco compromised the vitality of its recorded lien against the License. To the contrary, Rebco faithfully adhered to the recording requirements outlined by statute to record and renew its lien. DABT, however, failed to take the action required by section 561.65 to provide notice to Rebco of the pending action and subsequent revocation of the License. As a result, the 180- day period required by section 561.65 did not run before the License was placed in the quota drawing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order approving the renewal of Rebco’s lien in the License at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 17th day of July, 2015.
The Issue Should Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License Number 63-04089 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: DABT is the division within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Beverage Law of the State of Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, operated as a sole proprietorship known as Fort Meade Restaurant and Lounge, located at 122 Fourth Street Southwest, Fort Meade, Florida. Respondent held a series SRX4COP Alcoholic Beverage License Number 63-04089, issued by DABT, which authorized Respondent to sell beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on the licensed premises in connection with the restaurant operation of Fort Meade Restaurant and Lounge. Respondent's beverage license did not authorize Respondent to sell any form of alcoholic beverage for consumption off of the licensed premises. By letter dated February 10, 1997, the Fort Meade Police Department requested investigative assistance from DABT concerning an allegation that controlled substances were being sold at Respondent's licensed premises as well as another location unrelated to Respondent. As a result of the request for assistance from the Fort Meade Police Department, DABT instituted an investigation concerning the complaint. In addition to assigning the complaint to a Special Agent, Cleveland McKenzie, DABT requested assistance from the Polk County Sheriff's Department. At approximately 9:45 p.m. on April 18, 1997, Agent McKenzie, accompanied by Detective Bobby Neil, Polk County Sheriff's Office, entered Respondent's licensed premises, located at 122 Fourth Street Southwest, Fort Meade, Florida, in an undercover capacity. While in Respondent's licensed premises on April 18, 1997, Agent McKenzie asked the person tending bar (bartender) for "a beer for the road." In response to Agent McKenzie's request, the bartender placed an unopened 12-ounce bottle of Budweiser beer in a paper bag and handed the bag, with the beer inside, to McKenzie who then paid for the beer and left the licensed premises without attempting to conceal the beer on his person and without being stopped by any person providing services on the licensed premises. Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil left the licensed premises at approximately 11:00 p.m. Both Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil described the bartender as a stout, light-skinned, black male approximately 20 to 25 years of age. Neither Larry Fisher, manager of the licensed premises, nor Reginald Johnson, Respondent's adult son, fit this description. The person tending bar at the licensed premises on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, was neither Larry Fisher nor Reginald Johnson, notwithstanding the testimony of Larry Fisher or Reginald Johnson to the contrary which I find lacks credibility. At approximately 10:30 p.m. on April 26, 1997, Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil entered Respondent's licensed premises located at 122 Fourth Street Southwest, Fort Meade, Florida, in an undercover capacity Before leaving the licensed premises on April 26, 1997, Agent McKenzie asked the bartender (the same individual tending bar while Agent McKenzie was in the licensed premises on April 18, 1997) for "a beer to go." The bartender placed an unopened 12-ounce bottle of Budweiser beer in a paper bag and handed the bag to Agent McKenzie. The bartender refused the offer of payment for the beer from Agent McKenzie's indicating that the beer was "on him." Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil left the licensed premises at approximately 11:55 p.m. on April 26, 1997. Upon leaving the licensed premises, Agent McKenzie carried the unopened bottle of beer in the paper bag without any attempt to conceal the beer on his person. Likewise, upon leaving the licensed premises, Detective Neil carried a half-full opened bottle of beer which he had purchased earlier from the bartender without any attempt to conceal the bottle on his person. In order to leave the licensed premises on April 26, 1997, Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil had to go pass two individuals who were providing services to Respondent's licensed premises. Neither of these individual, nor any other person providing services to Respondent's licensed premises on April 26, 1997, prevented Agent McKenzie or Detective Neil from leaving the licensed premises with the beer. There was no evidence presented By DABT to show that while Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil were in Respondent's licensed premises on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, that the bartender sold or gave any other customer an alcoholic beverage packaged to go or that any other customer left the licensed premises with an alcoholic beverage. Respondent was not present in his licensed premises during the time that Agent McKenzie and Detective Neil were there on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997. There is insufficient evidence to show that the bartender's action on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, was the result of Respondent's negligence, intentional wrongdoing, lack of diligence, lack of training for the employees, or lack of notice to customers that any alcoholic beverage purchased had to be consumed on the licensed premises. After the visits to the licensed premises on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, Agent McKenzie concluded that there was no basis to the alleged complaint that controlled substances were being sold on the licensed premises. The designation "SRX" identifies a beverage license issued to business which is to be operated as restaurant. As a result of its investigation of Respondent's licensed premises on April 18, 1997, and April 26, 1997, DABT, as is its normal practice, examined the Respondent's licensed premises for continuing requirements applicable to special licenses such as a "SRX" license. Respondent is an experienced business person with 15 years experience in operating licensee premises. Respondent knew at the time of obtaining the license at issue in May 1995 that he had an obligation to maintain records sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent met the 51 percent requirement in each bi-monthly period. Respondent's Profit and Loss Statement for the months of January 1997, February 1997, March 1997, and April 1997, listed the total amount of revenue derived from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages and alcoholic beverages. However, this figure for alcoholic beverages was not supported by any daily records of sales. Respondent maintained no records as to the daily sales of alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. Although Respondent presented guest checks for the daily sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages, the total of these checks for each month in question did not support the Respondent's Profit and Loss Statement for each corresponding month. Based on the Respondent's Profit and Loss Statement and other records furnished by Respondent for the months of January, February, March, and April 1997, the percentage of total gross revenue (sales of food, non-alcoholic beverages, and alcoholic beverages) derived from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages for the months of January 1997, February 1997, March 1997, and April 1997 was approximately 45 percent, 46 percent, 46 percent, and 44 percent, respectively.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and a review of the penalty guidelines in Rule 61A-2.022, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order revoking Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License, Number SRX4COP 63-04089 DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June 1998, 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages And Tobacco Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Linda Goodgame General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32299-0792 Madeline McGuckin, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Kenneth Glover, Esquire 505 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33802
