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
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent's license number 42-55 be revoked. Respectfully submitted and entered this 27th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. C.A. Nuzum Director Division of Beverage 210 Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida Mr. Charles F. Tunnicliff Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Room 210, Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. White Route 2, Box 13B Marianna, Florida 32446
The Issue This case concerns the entitlement of the Petitioner, Price Candy Company, Inc., trading as St. James Place, to be granted a new Series 2-COP beverage license from the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco.
Findings Of Fact Beginning on June 13, 1978, the Petitioner, Price Candy Company, Inc., began the process of applying for a new Series 2-COP beverage license to be issued by the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. This license was to be issued for a premises located at 117 West Duval Street, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. The establishment for which this license is intended is a restaurant located in a building known as the May Cohens Building. The Petitioner leases a portion of that building from May Cohens and the balance of the building which constitutes the structure of the prospective licensed area, is controlled by May Cohens. The part of the building controlled by the Petitioner as a street entrance into the dining room area of the restaurant and an entrance from the May Cohens part of the building, which is an interior entrance to the restaurant. These entrances may be seen in examining the Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence, which is the Petitioner's sketch of the prospective licensed premises which was submitted to the Respondent as a part of the application. Within this diagram are several pencilled changes to the sketch which represent the current state of the building showing an extension of a wall, thereby closing off any direct access from May Cohens to the restrooms associated with Petitioner's restaurant. On May 30, 1979, the Director of the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco indicated his intent to deny the application stated that the reason was "Premises to be licensed is connected to other areas over which the applicant will have no dominion or control." As authority for that statement the Director referred to Subsection 561.01(11), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, Price Candy Company, Inc., trading as St. James Place, be granted a new Series 2-COP beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Bailey, Area Supervisor Price Candy Company, Inc. 117 West Duval Street Jacksonville, Florida 32204 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 14th day of May, 1976, Mary Lener Arnold, a licensed vendor, did have in her possession, permit or allow someone else to have unlawfully in their possession on Mary Lener Arnold's licensed premises, alcoholic beverages, to wit: 9 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to 562.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mary Lener Arnold, t/a Buggs' Drive Inn, held on May 14, 1976 and now holds beverage license no. 50-2 series 1-COP with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. This licensed premises is located on Main Street, Greenville, Florida. On May 14, 1976, a confidential informant with the Division of Beverage went to the licensed premise of the Respondent in Greenville, Florida and purchased a bottle of alcoholic beverage not permitted under a 1-COP license. This confidential informant was working for officer B.C. Maxwell of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. Officer Maxwell along with other officers with the Division of Beverage and officers of the Madison County, Sheriff's office returned to the licensed premises on May 14, 1976 and in looking through the licensed premises found a black bag containing 9 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka on the licensed premises. This Smirnoff Vodka was not permissible on the licensed premises under a 1-COP license. On the licensed premises at the time of the inspection was one Patsy Jackson Williams who indicated that she was in charge of the premises. The confidential informant who had purchased the bottle of alcoholic beverage indicated that his purchase had been made from the same Patsy Jackson Williams. The black bag with its contents of 9 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka is Petitioner's Exhibit #2 admitted into evidence. The alcoholic beverage purchased by the confidential informant is Petitioner's Exhibit #4 admitted into evidence.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Mary Lener Arnold have her beverage license suspended for a period of 30 days based upon the charge proven in the hearing. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Winson, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mary Lener Arnold t/a Buggs' Drive Inn Main Street Greenville, Florida
The Issue The issues presented are those set forth in a notice to show cause filed by Petitioner against Respondents in Case No. AY-74-87-0201. In particular, it is alleged that on March 16, 1988, October 21, 1988 and February 24, 1989, that the Respondents or their agents, servants or employees sold alcoholic beverages to minors in violation of Sections 561.29, Florida Statutes and 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times which pertain to this Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint, Respondents were doing business at 238-240 Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida under the business name Speidi Shack and pursuant to a beverage license issued by Petitioner. That license number was and continues to be number 74-01802, Series 2-COP. On March 16, 1988, and again on October 21, 1988, Michael Vanorder, whose birthday is March 27, 1969, purchased a Light beer from employees of the Respondents in the licensed premises. On February 24, 1989, Tina May purchased a Light beer from an employee of the Respondents in the licensed premises. Her date of birth is August 4, 1968. The Light beers that were purchased by those two individuals are alcoholic beverages. In the incident of March 16, 1988, Vanorder entered the licensed premises as an underage operative of the Petitioner. The purpose of underage operatives is to assist the Petitioner in investigations to ascertain whether suspected alcoholic beverage license holders will sell alcoholic beverages to minors. Vanorder was provided money from the Petitioner to purchase the alcoholic beverage if the licensees, their agents or employees would sell. Betty Warner and Tanya Pandarakis, who are Alcoholic Beverage Agents for Petitioner were in the bar and watched as Vanorder was asked by the bartender what Vanorder wanted. Vanorder indicated that he wanted a Light beer. Mark Barker, the bartender, brought a Light beer to Vanorder and accepted payment for that beer. In this purchase, Vanorder was not asked to produce any identification nor was he asked how old he was. Vanorder was under instructions from Petitioner's agents to validly respond to any questions about his age and to provide accurate identification in support of his remarks. The beer that he was given had been opened by the bartender. These events occurred around 8:35 p.m. The beer that was purchased was then given from Vanorder to Warner. Barker was then arrested by Warner and another Alcoholic Beverage Agent, Fred Dunbar, for selling alcoholic beverages to a minor. The arrest occurred when Dunbar entered the licensed premises following the sale and identified himself as an Alcoholic Beverage Agent. Prior to leaving the premises on that occasion, Respondent John M. Macker was told of the arrest and why an investigation had been made in the first place about suspected sales to minors in the licensed premises. Macker came the next day to meet with Dunbar at the invitation of Dunbar. Macker was told that a complaint file would remain open and that underage operatives would continue to be sent into the licensed premises to see if Macker had corrected the problem of selling to underage patrons. Respondent Macker promised that he would have closer supervision and would give training to his employees about proper identification techniques for sales of alcoholic beverages in the licensed premises. An official notice was given to the Respondents, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 which was admitted into evidence. That notice is dated March 17, 1988 and is issued from Dunbar and is acknowledged as having been received by Respondent Macker. It identifies the facts of the sale to a minor and the arrest of Mark Barker and warns Respondents that if the violation occurs again, that Respondents could be charged with the violation of March 16, 1988 and any future violations. Throughout this warning phase associated with the sale of March 16, 1988 Respondent Macker was cooperative in his attitude. As forecast, Petitioner sent Vanorder back into the licensed premises on October 21, 1988 to see if Respondents, their agents, servants or employees would sell him alcoholic beverages. Beverage Agent John Szabo, Agent Dunbar, Lt. Powell and Vanorder went to the licensed premises on that evening. Their activities at the licensed premises commenced around 8:55 p.m. At this time, there were around 10-20 patrons in the bar. Szabo went in first and sat down at the bar and ordered a beer. Vanorder came in some 2-3 minutes later and sat down at the bar. A white female bartender who was identified later as Beth Ann Marsden approached Vanorder and asked him what she could get for him. He asked for a Bud Light. The bartender went to the cooler and came back with an open can of Bud Light and said that the cost of that beer would be $1.25. Vanorder paid her and she gave him back change. Vanorder then went outside the licensed premises and gave the beer to Dunbar. During the course of this purchase, Vanorder was not asked his age or asked for any form of identification which would demonstrate his age. As before, Vanorder was prepared to show a valid identification and give his correct age. After Dunbar was given the beer, he came into the licensed premises and he and Szabo confronted the bartender with the fact that she had sold beer to an underaged patron. They asked if the owner was on the premises and she said that he was not. The bartender was then charged with selling to a minor. She was given a Notice of Appearance for October 25, 1988 which constituted of a letter of final warning to the licensee. A third phase of the investigation occurred on February 24, 1989 when Tina May, an underaged operative for the Petitioner assisted in the investigation of sales to minors. Around 10:50 p.m., Officer Szabo, Beverage Officer Sullivan and Tina May went to the licensed premises. Szabo went in the bar first. One customer was in the bar. Szabo asked for a beer and was asked for his identification and showed his license and was served a beer. Before Tina May entered the license premises, she had been instructed to dress in normal attire and to carry her drivers license and to tell the truth about her age and to give the correct identification. Once inside the licensed premises, May sat where she could be seen by Officer Szabo. The other patron left the bar. Around 11:00 p.m., May was approached by Beth Ann Marsden who asked May what she wanted. May replied that she wanted a Bud Light. The bartender asked for identification and a driver's license was produced which showed May to be underage. Marsden was seen to count on her fingers when shown the identification. She opened up a Bud Light beer for May and gave it to her and said that the price of the beer was $1.25. May gave her $5.00 and received change. She then gave the beer to Szabo. Szabo then told the bartender that he was a Beverage Officer. Marsden recognized Szabo from the prior incident with Vanorder on October 21, 1988. Marsden told Szabo that May was 21 years old. Szabo got the driver's license from May and showed it to the bartender who admitted that she had made a mistake and that she didn't look at the month of the birth. She had only looked at the year, 1968. Out of this incident, an Official Notice was prepared, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. It sets out the violations of March 16, 1988, October 21, 1988 and February 24, 1989 and the intention of the Petitioner to file administrative charges against the Respondents for sales to minors. Since the Respondents were not there, the list was left with a Rosemarie Savini. That notice was served on November 2, 1989. Before the time of the final hearing in this case, the sole ownership of the licensed premises had been left with John M. Macker. Linda F. Williams no longer is involved with the license in question. Respondent Macker's principle business is that of a commercial fisherman. During the pendency of this investigation, he was gone a lot from his licensed premises because of his other work and relied on his employees to act appropriately concerning sales to minors. In the period 1985 until January, 1989, he had not experienced problems with this. He had posted notices around the bar about sales to minors and had instructed his employees about being careful not to sell to minors. He has calendars from beer distributors which assist in ascertaining the age of minors. March 16, 1988 was Barker's first day on the job, as was October 21, 1988 the first day on the job for Beth Ann Marsden. His instructions to his employees was to check identification if people did not look at least in their fifties or older than Respondent. Since these events, Respondent has taken more detailed steps and placed other signs to avoid sales to minors. He doesn't wish these problems to occur again and regrets that they happened on this occasion. On the other hand, he did not ask for help from the Petitioner after the October 21, 1988 incident as was offered. Following the third sale, he has moved into the licensed premises to maintain better control of the circumstance. No other incidents were reported to have occurred beyond that adjustment concerning sales to minors.
Recommendation Having considered the facts, and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which fines the Respondents in the amount of $500 for these violations. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 19th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2457 Those facts as suggested by the Petitioner are subordinate to facts found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John B. Fretwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John M. Macker 238-240 North Atlantic Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent, holder of an alcoholic beverage license, sold or permitted the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors on his licensed premises; whether Respondent retained alcoholic beverage invoices or sales tickets for three years in accordance with licensure requirements; and whether Respondent kept cigarette invoices or sales tickets for three years in accordance with licensure requirements.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is David L. Crews, holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 55-00162, series 1-APS, for a licensed premises known as Crews Texaco located in Nassau County, Florida. On December 15, 1989, Respondent sold William Christopher Brannan a twelve pack of beer which is an alcoholic beverage. Brannan was 17 years of age at the time Respondent sold him the beer. At the time of the sale, Respondent did not ask for proof of age or any other form of identification from Brannan. Accompanying Brannan on December 15, 1989, were two other teenagers: Robert Terrell Simmons, Jr., and Larry W. Wilkerson. Respondent sold Simmons a case of Busch beer, an alcoholic beverage, at the same time as the sale to Brannan. Simmons was 18 years of age at the time of the sale. Respondent did not ask for proof of age or any other form of identification from either Simmons or Wilkerson. It was common knowledge in the area that Respondent would readily sell alcoholic beverages at a higher than normal price to persons under the lawful age of 21 years. Respondent charged Brannan and Simmons a higher price for the alcoholic beverages purchased by them because he knew they were under the age of 21 years. Brannan, Simmons and Wilkerson had attempted to purchase alcoholic beverages from Respondent earlier in the evening, but Respondent waved them away because law enforcement personnel were investigating a domestic disturbance near his business. Later in the evening of December 15, 1989, after purchasing the alcoholic beverages from Respondent, the three youths were involved in a alcohol related accident and Brannan was killed. On April 30, 1990, Respondent was convicted in Nassau County Court of two counts of providing alcoholic beverages to a minor and paid a fine of $127.50 on each count. He also received a 30 day suspended sentence on each count. On March 9, 1990, agents for Petitioner's Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco interviewed Respondent about the matter of sale of alcoholic beverages to underage persons and conducted an inspection of his licensed premises. In the course of the inspection, the agents requested that Respondent produce his alcoholic beverage and cigarette invoices. Respondent was unable to produce the invoices and admitted to the agents that he had used the invoices for writing paper and had then thrown them away. Respondent reaffirmed these statements at the final hearing. As of December 20, 1991, Respondent has failed to produce either alcoholic beverage or cigarette invoices. As established by his own testimony at the final hearing, prior to March 9, 1990, Respondent did not maintain either alcoholic beverage or cigarette invoices on the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered suspending Respondent's beverage license bearing number 55-00162, Series 1- APS, for a period of 40 days and requiring payment of a administrative fine in the amount of $2,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-21. Adopted, although not verbatim. 22.-26.Rejected, unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robin L. Suarez, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 David L. Crews U. S. 1 & 5th Street Hilliard, Florida 32046 Donald D. Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Janet Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Richard W. Scully, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Edward Lee Howell (Howell), holds alcoholic beverage license number 46-01252, Series 2-COP, for licensed premises located at 2712 Towles Street, Fort Myers, Florida, known as Mr. B's Lounge. Violation of Local Ordinance Lee County Ordinance 76-9, as amended by Ordinance 79-1, provides in pertinent part: All places or establishments within the unincorporated area of the county and lawfully licensed by the State Beverage Department of Florida, may sell or serve, or permit to be sold, served or consumed, any type of alcoholic beverage of any kind whatsoever for consumption both on or off the premises only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. of the following morning every day of the week, including Sundays. Howell was cited on or about July 1, 1989, for allegedly violating this "hours of sale" ordinance, but he was aquitted in August, 1989. In 1990, Lee County Sheriff's Office (LCSO) Deputy James Nygaard warned Howell a half dozen times not to sell alcoholic beverages after 2 p.m. On or about December 28, 1990, Nygaard cited Howell for allegedly violating the ordinance by allowing a patron to consume alcoholic beverages on the premises after hours. Howell was tried and acquitted because it was not proven that the patron was drinking an alcoholic beverage. After successive reassignments to another patrol zone and to work as a detective, Nygaard was reassigned to patrol the East Zone in January, 1995. Beginning in January, 1995, Nygaard warned Howell twice not to sell alcoholic beverages after 2 p.m. On or about March 11, 1995, Nygaard cited Howell for violating the ordinance. Howell denied the charges, which still were pending in criminal court at the time of the final hearing. Nygaard testified that, this time (in contrast to the December, 1990, charge), he retained a sample of the contents of the container out of which the patron was drinking after 2 p.m. He testified that the sample was tested and found to be an alcoholic beverage. But the evidence shed no light on the extent of Howell's responsibility for the violation (e.g., how long after 2 p.m. the violation occurred, whether the violation was flagrant, whether Howell was even on the premises at the time of the violation or, if not, how diligent he was in training his employees on how to prevent violations of the "hours of sale" ordinance.) Howell denied that he sells or serves or allows alcoholic beverages to be served, sold or consumed in violation of the ordinance. Mr. B's remains open after 2 a.m. and patrons dance and listen to music, but Howell testified that they are not allowed to drink alcohol in the lounge after 2 a.m. Towles Street Near Mr. B's Mr. B's Lounge is in a section of Fort Myers, Florida, where in recent years violent crime increasingly has become an undeniably serious problem to area residents and the LCSO, which is the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction. Towles Street is a two-lane road that runs between Edison Avenue and State Road 82 outside the city limits of the City of Fort Myers. During the evening hours, especially on weekends, large numbers of people park cars in the street and congregate in the area. Some of these people patronize Mr. B's, but many more congregate in the street and on both sides of the street up and down Towles Street in the vicinity of Mr. B's. A good number of these people drink too much and become noisy and violent. (Not all of the drinking takes place in Mr. B's, and not all of what is drunk comes from Mr. B's. Many of these people buy their alcoholic beverages elsewhere, or bring them from home, and drink their alcoholic beverages outside on and along Towles Street.) Many drive at recklessly high speeds up and down the street (when the streets are passable.) Loud music is played from stereos in car driving up and down the street and parked in the street. Some of these people, drunk or not, come to the area with the intention to engage in crime, violence and other disruptive conduct. More and more carry knives and firearms, or keep them in their cars, and many use or threaten to use their weapons. Assaults and armed robberies are common. The area around and including Mr. B's has become known to those who frequent it as a place to go to "hang out" and be a part of this violent scene. The violence, including stabbings and shootings, has become so prevalent that residents of the area who do not participate in the violence are afraid to leave their homes at night and, even in their homes, they are not completely safe from stray bullets. The violence and reputation for violence on Towles Street in the vicinity of Mr. B's has become like no other place in Lee County. One LCSO deputy testified that he has heard more automatic weapon fire on duty at night on Towles Street than he heard during his entire experience as a member of the United States armed forces. Some deputies testified that, especially on weekends, there often are so many cars parked illegally in Towles Street that deputies patrolling the area or responding to complaints have to park their police vehicles on Edison Avenue or State Road 82 and walk in. They believe that, when they are seen approaching, the people congregating in the vicinity of Mr. B's lock their weapons in cars and that many of them enter Mr. B's to avoid the deputies. On occasion, the crowds of people encountered by LCSO deputies on Towles Street do not disperse so readily. Once, two deputies responding to a call for service in the vicinity of Mr. B's were assaulted before reaching the lounge and received injuries, including a broken jaw, requiring medical attention in the hospital. (Howell assisted the deputies in subduing the assailant.) On another occasion, it took deputies approximately an hour to control and disperse the crowd, during which time another call for LCSO assistance had to go unanswered for half an hour. Some of the incidents on Towles Street occur before 2 a.m., but many occur later, after the LCSO patrols have been reduced to a single shift. With fewer deputies on patrol, the violence on Towles Street becomes an even greater problem for law enforcement. By the time backup arrives in response to calls on Towles Street, practically no deputies remain available to patrol or respond to calls for service in the rest of the zone. The Licensed Premises No sketch of the licensed premises was introduced in evidence. The evidence was that Mr. B's faces Towles Street and that the front door opens onto a front step that is separated from the street by an unpaved strip of grass and dirt about seven feet wide. Until very recently, Mr. B's had only four parking spaces and did not have a parking lot. The precise extent of the licensed premises was not made clear from the evidence. During an inspection of the licensed premises on February 23, 1995, DABT Special Agent Odom recovered 141 spent gun shell casings in the vicinity of Mr. B's, including: seventy-four 74 9mm's; three 38 Specials; sixteen 16 357 Magnums; four 45-caliber; three 30-caliber; three 44 Magnum; one 10mm; 2 25- caliber; and nineteen 12 gauge shotgun shell cases. Some of these spent shell casings were recovered between the front door to Mr. B's and Towles Street. Most were recovered within 15 to 20 feet from the lounge building, but some were recovered as far as 20 yards away, including some that were found all the way across Towles Street on the opposite side of the street. Four were recovered under the cushion of a couch inside Mr. B's, but there was no evidence how they got there and no evidence that they were fired inside Mr. B's. Except for these four, it was not proven that any of the spent shell casings actually were recovered from the licensed premises themselves. From February, 1991, through October, 1994, there have been 135 calls for LCSO service arising out of incidents in the vicinity of Mr. B's. Some of the calls reported finding lost property or suspicious persons or were for the purpose of reporting some other information to the LCSO. Many of the calls were for relatively minor offenses, such as disturbances, trespassing, vandalism, nuisances, car accidents and highway obstruction. But many were for more serious crimes such as assaults, use or display of firearms, burglaries and robberies. Although many of these calls were placed from a telephone at Mr. B's, the evidence was not clear which, if any, of the incidents instigating calls actually occurred at Mr. B's. It seems clear that the police records use a reference to "Mr. B's" as as short hand way of describing Towles Street in the vicinity of Mr. B's. Some of the incidents in the vicinity of Mr. B's constituted violent crimes. Since 1988, there have been: two murders; four attempted murders; 11 batteries with a firearm; two batteries with a knife; one sexual battery or attempted rape; one shooting into a vehicle; one robbery with a firearm; and two batteries with a dangerous weapon. Most of these crimes occurred outside of Mr. B's, and the evidence did not prove that they occurred on the licensed premises, or how close to the licensed premises they occurred. One incident that clearly occurred on the licensed premises was a fight that broke out during the early morning hours of February 12, 1995. One person was hit on the head with a claw hammer, and another was stabbed with a knife. After some of the participants left Mr. B's, fighting continued outside on the street. Someone telephoned the LCSO, and when deputies arrived, they witnessed four men kicking another who was lying on the ground behind a car, while approximately fifty other people stood watching. As the deputies approached, a man with a sawed-off shotgun walked up to the man lying on the ground and shot him in the leg. It was not clear from the evidence whether any of the people involved in the incident outside on the street had been patrons of Mr. B's. On or about August 3, 1993, the LCSO investigated an incident in which a patron of Mr. B's was shot while walking out the door of Mr. B's. The victim did not know who shot him or where the shot came from. On or about June 7, 1994, the LCSO investigated an incident involving an alleged sexual battery or attempted rape that occurred in the restroom at Mr. B's. The alleged victim in that case withdrew her complaint, and the case was closed. One LCSO deputy testified that he has received several telephone calls from a pay phone down the street at Edison Avenue reporting assaults and other crimes that allegedly occurred inside Mr. B's and that the victim reportedly was afraid to place the call to the police while still at Mr. B's (for fear of further assault.) But there was no specific evidence about any of these alleged crimes. Although some local residents blamed Mr. B's for the loud music heard in the neighborhood, especially on weekend nights, it was not clear whether the loud music being heard by the local residents actually is coming from Mr. B's, as opposed to being played from car stereos on the streets. The Respondent's Responsibility for the Violence and Noise It was not proven that Howell does anything to condone violence and noise in or around Mr. B's Lounge or that he is protecting criminals from apprehension by the LCSO. To the contrary, almost all of the crime reports to the LCSO from 2712 Towles Street were placed by Howell himself or his employees. Not only has Howell telephoned the police for assistance on many occasions, he also has put himself at risk of physical harm by helping law enforcement officers subdue violent subjects in and around the premises. In addition, Howell employs a bouncer who uses a metal detector to try to insure that no weapons are brought into Mr. B's and denies entrance to certain people known to cause problems. (Surprisingly, given the kind of people who congregate on Towles Street, there also was no evidence sufficient to support a finding of illegal drug use in or about the licensed premises.) One LCSO sergeant recalled an occasion when he confronted Howell about problems in and around Mr. B's and, in the sergeant's opinion, Howell treated him rudely. Howell does not recall the incident. No other law enforcement officer testified to any occasion when Howell was anything but cooperative with law enforcement. There was no evidence that the DABT counseled Howell on measures to take to reduce violence on his licensed premises. For example, the DABT could have required the Respondent to supervise and control the entire licensed premises, including both the building and grounds (including parking lot). The Respondent also could have been required to fully cooperate with law enforcement in its efforts to control crime in the area, including allowing LCSO complete access to the licensed premises. See Section 562.41(5), Fla. Stat. (1993). Instead, the evidence was that the LCSO complained to the DABT about Mr. B's on or about February 20, 1995, that the DABT inspected the premises on February 23, 1995, and that the DABT then initiated the proceedings that led to the issuance of the Emergency Suspension Order on or about March 16, 1995. Since Mr. B's has been under the Emergency Suspension Order, there have been markedly fewer problems for law enforcement and law-abiding residents in the area. The people who had been congregating near Mr. B's and causing problems either have found somewhere else to congregate or have dispersed for the time being. Mr. B's apparently attracted and served as a focal point for these people. It seems that suspending the Respondent's license has had a positive effect on the level of crime in the immediate vicinity. (However, some law enforcement officers seemed to support Howell's opinion that the people causing the problems near Mr. B's eventually will find another place to hang out and cause problems.) Clearly, the LCSO and many of the local residents would like to see Mr. B's closed permanently. But the reduction in violence and loitering after the Respondent's beverage license was suspended does not, in itself, prove that the Respondent was culpably responsible for violence and loitering that occurred while the licensed premises were open and operating. Howell operates a package store, not far from Mr. B's but within the city limits of Fort Myers, and near another lounge. City police regularly patrol the area, and it has relatively few of the problems experienced on Towles Street. A more frequent and visible law enforcement presence on Towles Street also would reduce violence and disturbances there. Five to ten years ago, Mr. B's operated in the same location with fewer problems. In those earlier years, LCSO patrolled the area more frequently. In those days, parking laws were enforced more consistently, and LCSO patrol cars could drive down Towles Street without difficulty. When loiterers were encountered in the street, LCSO required them to either go inside Mr. B's or go home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT), enter a final order: (1) dismissing the charges in the Notice to Show Cause against the Respondent, Edward Lee Howell; and (2) also dismissing the Notice to Show Cause seeking to impair the licensed location owned by the Respondent, William A. Bell. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 95-1403 and 95-1404 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, the reputation attached to licensed premises actually applies not only to the licensed premises but also to Towles Street and the area surrounding Mr. B's. First sentence, rejected as not proven. (Many of the 176 calls on DABT Ex. 3 were not made from Mr. B's.) Second and third sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, it only was proven that a few of the violent acts actually were committed on the licensed premises.) Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (One of the questions for determination in this case is the extent of Howell's "affirmative duty.") Rejected as not proven that the violent acts were committed by patrons or, if they were patrons, that they were committed on the licensed premises. Otherwise, the first sentence is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, in the public mind, "Mr. B's" describes not just the licensed premises but also Towles Street and the area surrounding Mr. B's. First sentence, rejected as not proven that the initial service call reported the shooting of a patron. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the incidents described in the second sentence occurred during the investigation. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the 141 shell casings were recovered in the Respondent's "parking lot." (They were recovered from the immediate vicinity of Mr. B's, starting from the side of the building and extending for up to approximately 40 yards away, and including on the opposite side of Towles Street across from the licensed premises. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (Nygaard warned Howell several times in 1990 before arresting him. Howell was tried and acquitted on a judge's ruling that it was not proven that the patron was drinking alcoholic beverages after hours. After Nygaard was reassigned to the East Zone in January, 1995, he again arrested Howell on similar charges, which Howell denies and which are still pending.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Howell's Proposed Findings of Fact. (Howell wrote a letter from which findings arguably have been proposed, as indicated.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the crimes described in the evidence did not "in the vicinity of" Mr. B's. Accepted that the Respondent recently added a parking lot and incorporated to the extent necessary. Accepted that, if they cooperate, the Respondent and LCSO can solve some of the problems, and incorporated to the extent necessary. Bell's Proposed Findings of Fact. (Bell also wrote a letter. Much of the letter is argument but findings arguably also have been proposed, as indicated. For purposes of these rulings, the unnumbered paragraphs of Bell's letter are treated as consecutive, separate proposed findings.) Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as argument and as not supported by any evidence. First sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as argument and as conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated that Howell called LCSO frequently to report crime. Rejected as not proven that none of the incidents involved Mr. B's, that all involved "just the neighborhood"; accepted and incorporated that many of the calls involved incidents occurring off the licensed premises. The rest is rejected as argument and as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not supported by the record that most of the alcoholic beverages drunk by people hanging around in Towles Street are from sources other than Mr. B's; accepted and incorporated that much is, and that all the liquor is. (Mr. B's has a Series 2-COP license.) Rejected as argument, as subordinate and unnecessary, and as unsupported by any evidence. Accepted and incorporated that LCSO has reduced patrols in the area, in part due to budgetary constraints but also in part due to the illegally parked cars that block Towles Street, and that Howell places many of the telephone calls reporting crime in the area. Otherwise, rejected in part as unsupported by any evidence, in part as argument and conclusion of law, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated that reduced police presence in areas like Towles Street increases crime. Otherwise, rejected as argument, as subordinate and as unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated that the DABT did not prove lack of due diligence. Otherwise, rejected in part as argument and conclusion of law, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. In part, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that only one of the violent crimes was reported to have originated in Mr. B's.) (See Findings of Fact 19 and 20.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated in part. In part, rejected in part as argument and conclusion of law, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated that the wounds were not received on the licensed premises. Otherwise, rejected as cumulative. Accepted and incorporated that the evidence did not clearly identify either the victim or the assailant as being patrons. Otherwise, rejected in part as argument and conclusion of law, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Cumulative. Accepted and incorporated that Towles Street presents a difficult police problem and that increased patrols and manpower could help. Otherwise, rejected in part as unsupported by any evidence (the nine-block area), in part as argument, and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated that many people congregate in the streets and that policing them is made difficult by the congestion. Otherwise, rejected in part as argument and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. 17.-18. Cumulative. Rejected that Tamayo's statement was naive. Accepted and incorporated that the problem could move elsewhere if Mr. B's were closed. Otherwise, argument, subordinate and unnecessary. Generally accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary, or argument. However, Bell does not seem to acknowledge the serious problems faced by law enforcement in the Towles Street. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that no problems occur before 2 a.m. Also, subordinate, unnecessary, and argument. 22.-23. Argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Chief Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020 Edward Lee Howell 1348 Brook Hill Drive Ft. Myers, Florida 33916 William A. Bell 19450 Tammy Lane Ft. Myers, Florida 33917 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John J. Harris, Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020
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
