Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Blue Sun, Inc. d/b/a Phillip's Corner Cruise-Thru, was a licensed beer vendor having been issued Series 2-APS license number 39-01076 by petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). Respondent uses its license at a business known as University Texaco located at 2245 East Fletcher Avenue, Tampa, Florida. The store is located close to the University of South Florida campus. Its manager is Nancy Krueger, who appeared on behalf of the licensee. On the evening of December 4, 1987 a Division investigator, Keith B. Hamilton, conducted an investigation of respondent's licensed premises to determine if respondent was selling beer to minors. The investigation was prompted by an unidentified complaint that beer was being sold to minors. It was the Division's practice that when such complaints were received, it sent a minor onto the premises for the purpose of purchasing alcoholic beverages. In this case, a sixteen year old minor, Scott Meredith, drove his personal car to the store and, while Hamilton stayed across the street and observed the transaction, ordered a twelve ounce can of Budweiser beer. The store clerk, John A. Damm, did not check Scott's identification or verify his age and sold him the beer. Afterwards, Hamilton met with Damm, obtained his identification and issued a criminal citation for Damn to appear in court for selling beer to a minor. Around 10:45 p.m. on July 8, 1988 Hamilton and a Division investigative aide, James Leschner, who was then 17 years of age, visited respondent's licensed premises for the purpose of determining if Leschner could purchase beer. While Hamilton stayed across the street and observed the transaction, Leschner drove to the front of the store in his own car and ordered a six-pack of Budweiser beer. The clerk, Brian Szcinski, did not check Leschner's identification or verify his age and sold him the beer. Szcinski was issued a citation requiring him to appear in court. After the incident occurred, Szcinski advised the manager what had happened. On September 10, 1988 Hamilton and Leschner returned to respondent's licensed premises. Again, while Hamilton observed from across the street, Leschner drove his own car to the front parking area and ordered a can of Budweiser beer. The order was initially placed with an unidentified male clerk but Krueger accepted the money and handed the beer to Leschner. The minor's identification was not checked. After the sale took place, Hamilton issued Krueger a criminal citation requiring her to appear in court. Also, a notice to show cause was later issued against the licensee seeking to impose a fine and suspend its license. Krueger blamed the three incidents on a high turnover of employees and the failure of a few employees to conform to store policy. According to Krueger, despite posting signs, advising employees of the rule on sales to minors, and instituting a policy of checking the identification of every person who looked under thirty years of age, these three sales inadvertently occurred. She asked for leniency given the number of years the business has been operating and the isolated instances of misconduct. She also complained that after the December 4, 1987 sale occurred, the Division did not personally advise her or the owner of the incident but merely served a citation on the clerk. According to agency records, respondent entered into consent agreements with the Division in 1983 and 1985 for the same type of violation. The agency does not have a rule containing suggested penalty guidelines for violations by licensees. However, its investigator recommended the imposition of a 60-day suspension of respondent's license and a $3,000 civil penalty as being appropriate under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987) on three occasions. It is further recommended that respondent's APS license number 39-01076 be suspended for sixty days and it pay a $3,000 civil penalty. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1989.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Respondent violated Section 562.12(1), Florida Statutes, by selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not authorized by law and/or maintaining a place where alcoholic beverages were sold unlawfully; (2) Whether Respondent violated Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, by failing to comply with the terms set forth in a prior Final Order of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; and (3) If so, what sanctions should be imposed against Respondent's alcoholic beverage licenses.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Easy Way of Lee County, Inc., d/b/a Hollywood Underground, holds a bottle club license number 46- 03606, issued by the Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Department/Division) and has held such license since June 1995. Under this license, Respondent operates a bottle club known as Hollywood Underground (the licensed premises/the premises or Hollywood Underground) located at 16440 South Tamiami Trail, Unit 1, Fort Myers, Florida. At all times relevant to this action, Mattheos Milonas was the director, president, secretary, and treasurer of Easy Way of Lee County, Inc., d/b/a Hollywood Underground, and the holder of the above-referenced alcoholic beverage license. On or about February 12, 1999, Peggy Duffala, a special agent with the Department, organized an undercover on-site investigation of Hollywood Underground, based on a complaint that Respondent was in violation of certain laws pertaining to the sale of alcoholic beverages without a proper license. On February 12, 1999, Agent Duffala, and two other special agents of the Department, Agent David Perez and Agent Patrick McEnroe, went to the licensed premises to further the investigation. When Agent Duffala arrived, she conducted surveillance in the parking lot of the licensed premises for approximately one and a half hours. During that time, Agent Duffala observed patrons entering and exiting the premises, but saw no patrons entering the premises carrying alcoholic beverages or containers of any kind in their hands. On February 12, 1999, at or near 2:30 a.m., acting in an undercover capacity, Agent Perez and Agent McEnroe entered the licensed premises. Upon entering the premises, Agent Perez paid a $5.00 cover charge and received a wristband. Perez brought no alcohol into the premises with him on that evening. Once inside the licensed premises, Agent Perez went to the bar where he was approached by bartender Norman Vanderbiest. After Vanderbiest asked him what he would like, Agent Perez ordered a Budweiser beer. Vanderbiest retrieved the beer from the cooler behind the bar and gave Agent Perez the beer. After Perez asked how much the Budweiser cost, Vanderbiest responded, "$3.00." Agent Perez then gave $3.00 to Vanderbiest, who subsequently rang up the sale and placed the money in the cash register. At no time during the transaction described in paragraph 6 did Vanderbiest ask Agent Perez if he had brought any alcoholic beverages with him to the licensed premises. In fact, Agent Perez had not brought any alcoholic beverages into the licensed premises on August 12, 1999. Furthermore, prior to February 12, 1999, Agent Perez had never visited the licensed premises, and thus, had never taken any alcoholic beverages there. After Agent Perez purchased the Budweiser beer, he moved from the main bar area to the west end of the bar where he remained for about ten minutes. While situated at the west end of the bar, Agent Perez observed several patrons approach the bar and speak with Vanderbiest. Agent Perez was unable to hear what was being said but he observed Vanderbiest serve each patron an alcoholic beverage. After receiving the alcoholic beverages, each patron would then give Vanderbiest money. At no time during these transactions did Agent Perez observe patrons present cards to Vanderbiest to punch. Furthermore, Agent Perez did not see Vanderbiest check a logbook before he served alcoholic beverages to those patrons. From the west end of the bar, Agent Perez saw 10 to 15 patrons entering the licensed premises. During that time, Agent Perez observed that none of the patrons entering the premises brought alcoholic beverages with them. Agent Patrick McEnroe entered the premises on February 12, 1999, at about 2:30 a.m. Upon entering the premises, Agent McEnroe paid a $5.00 cover charge. Agent McEnroe brought no alcoholic beverages into the licensed premises with him nor did he receive a ticket or card to be punched. Once inside the premises, Agent McEnroe went to the bar and ordered a Bud Light beer from bartender, Norman Vanderbiest. Vanderbiest informed Agent McEnroe that the cost was $3.00, then retrieved a Bud Light beer from the cooler and handed it to Agent McEnroe. Agent McEnroe gave the bartender $3.00 for the beer. Agent McEnroe purchased three bottles of beer that evening. In none of these transactions did Vanderbiest ask Agent McEnroe if he brought any beer with him nor did he ask Agent McEnroe for a card to be punched. Later that evening, after Agents Perez and McEnroe exited the premises, Division agents, assisted by the Lee County Sheriff's Office, entered and raided the premises. During the raid, agents seized 571 containers of alcoholic beverages, $315.00 in cash from the cash register, and two notebooks. One of the notebooks seized was a log book containing entries listing alleged patrons' names along with an alcoholic beverage type, a number assigned to the beverage, and a date. The last entry in the log book was made on February 6, 1999, six days prior to the raid. Neither Agent Perez nor Agent McEnroe was listed in the logbooks. During the raid, Division agents entered the premises and arrested the manager of the club. Subsequently, the manager pled guilty in the Lee County Circuit Court to the criminal charge of keeping or maintaining a place, the licensed premises, that sold alcoholic beverages without a proper license on February 12, 1999. The licensed premises had procedures that governed how employees of Hollywood Underground were to accept and distribute beer and liquor brought into the premises by patrons. When a patron brought beer into the licensed premises, an employee of the club was to write on a card the number and kind of beer that the patron brought to the premises. Once this information was recorded on the card, the employee would give the card to the patron. After the club employee accepted the beer from and issued the card to the patron, in order for the patron to retrieve one or more of the beers, the patron was to present the card to the bartender. The bartender was to then give the patron the requested number of beers and punch the card the corresponding number of times, thereby indicating to both the bartender and patron the number of beers the patron had been given and how many remained. To facilitate ease in the dispensing of the beer, like brands of beer were commingled and placed in a cooler with other containers of identical brands. No attempt was made to designate or label containers of beer by the patrons who brought them into the premises. With regard to liquor, the policy of Hollywood Underground was that bottles of liquor brought in by patrons were to be identified in a manner to ensure that patrons were served liquor only from the bottles that they brought to the premises. In accordance with this policy, when a patron brought a bottle of liquor into the licensed premises, an employee of the club was to put a label on each bottle and write a number on the label. Next, in a log book, the employee was to write the number designated on the club's label, the kind of liquor, and the name of the patron who brought in that bottle of liquor. On February 12, 1999, these policies were not implemented by employees of the licensed premises as evidenced by the transactions involving Agents Perez and McEnroe. In the fall of 1998, Tom Lloyd, a videographer for Channel 6 television, followed Division agents into the licensed premises for purposes of an undercover television news story regarding illegal sale of alcoholic beverages by Respondent. Lloyd did not bring any alcoholic beverages with him to the licensed premises. Nevertheless, while sitting at the bar, Lloyd was approached by a bartender who solicited an order from Lloyd for an alcoholic beverage. Lloyd requested a rum and coke and was sold a rum and coke for $4.00 by the bartender. Prior to the Administrative Action which is the subject of this proceeding, three other administrative actions have been filed against Hollywood Underground for violations of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. All of the three previously filed administrative actions resulted in disciplinary action against Respondent's license. Respondent was charged in two separate administrative actions (DBPR Case Nos. 46-95-0582 and 46-95-0089) with selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not permitted by license, in violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. These two cases were resolved by combined Consent Order (Final Order No. BPR-96-02540), wherein Respondent paid a $5,000 civil penalty and agreed that its "agents, servants, or employees would not sell or supply alcoholic beverages to any person other than the patron who brought such alcoholic beverages onto the premises." Respondent also agreed to diligently "ensure that no alcoholic beverage would be dispensed to any person that did not bring such alcoholic beverage onto the premises." In DBPR Case No. 46-97-0890, Respondent was charged for the third time with selling alcoholic beverages in a manner not permitted by license, a violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. This case was resolved by Consent Order (Final Order No. BPR-98-06888), wherein Respondent paid a $7,500 civil penalty and agreed to take corrective action regarding the unlawful sale of alcohol on the premises. Respondent agreed to prevent further occurrences of violations of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes. In paragraph 6 of the Consent Order, Respondent agreed and acknowledged that revocation of its alcoholic beverage license would be the appropriate sanction for any subsequent administrative action against the Respondent's license alleging failure of the Respondent to comply with the beverage laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Action; that Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 39-01181 be revoked; and that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $1,000 per count for a total of $2,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 16th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Julius F. Parker, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkerson, Bell and Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent Bisayne Menage Club, Inc., trading as Chantel Menage on the Bay, located at 2333 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida held 4-COP-SRX alcoholic Beverage license No 23-4231. The Respondent being a corporation, records of the Division of Business Regulation reflected that the sole corporate officer was Mitchell J. Segal who was president, secretary, and treasurer. On October 22, 1982, pursuant to an ongoing investigation, Officer Jonas Sears, in an undercover capacity, entered the Respondent's club where he met with Jose' Carballea (Coco), who he knew from some other narcotic transactions prior to this time which occurred off the licensed premises. At this time, Coco took Sears back into the kitchen area and, from a small metal key container which he had in his pocket, removed two small plastic bags containing a white powdery substance, one of which he sold to Sears for $80.00. The substance purchased by Sears then was subsequently identified as cocaine. From the access that Carballea had to all areas of the club, utilizing keys in his possesssion, and from the fact that he had advised Sears that his nephew owned the club, Sears concluded, and the evidence clearly establishes, that Core was, in some form or fashion, substantially high in the management of the operation. Sears, accompanied by Detective Ramirez, went back to the club on October 26, 1982 in the afternoon. As on the previous visit, the club was not open to the public at this time and the two officers met with Coco in the office area and then walked into the lounge. At this point Sears advised Coco he was there to buy another gram of cocaine. Coco took him to one of the offices off the kitchen where from a desk he removed a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance from the metal container he had used previously. He gave this bag to Sears in return for which Sears gave him $80.00. Before leaving, Sears was served a beer by Coco. The white powder substance purchased by Sears on this occasion was subsequently identified as cocaine. On November 9, Sears, again accompanied by Ramirez and another officer went to the club at 3:45 p.m. and met Coco in the kitchen. After a short discussion there, Coco took Sears into his office where he removed two plastic packages of white powder from the three that were in his metal key container. Sears gave Coco $160.00 for the two packets which were subsequently identified as containing cocaine. On this occasion, Coco indicated to Sears that consistent with the previous conversation they had had, he was interested in buying "Club" which was another name for Canadian Club whiskey. He took a piece of paper from a legal pad and wrote thereon the words, Canadian Club" and several other liquors including "J&B," "Amaretto," "Tia Maria," and "Red/Black" asking Sears if he could get the liquor the same day. This conversation transpired after Sears had asked Coco if his boss still wanted liquor. Coco had previously asked if Sears could get filet mignon. On November 18, 1982, in the afternoon, Sears, Ramirez, and a U.S. Customs agent, all in an undercover capacity, entered the club, When they arrived there, they were advised that Coco was not there. After a short wait, the officers left, returning approximately 40 minutes later. At this time, Sears came in by himself, meeting Coco in the lounge area. When Coco asked about the meat, Sears replied that none was available. However, he had the requested liquor in a friend s car parked outside. The liquor in question was liquor which had been purchased by the Miami Police Department for this operation and consisted of various liquors in case lots. It included some whiskeys that Coco had not mentioned. Coco negotiated with Ramirez in Spanish during which Ramirez allowed himself to be beaten down considerably in price from the original asking figure. Once the par ties struck the bargain the officers were instructed by Coco to carry and stack the cases in the rear office previously mentioned. This office was occupied by Letitia Thomas who was seated at a desk in the office. It was Ms. Thomas who took $245.00 from the pile of cash on her desk and paid Ramirez. Ms. Thomas was obviously an employee of the club. On the way out, Coco called Sears and Ramirez over and asked if Sears wanted to buy any more cocaine. When Sears said he did not have enough money with him, Ramirez offered to pay and Coco removed a small plastic bag containing a white powder from the small metal key container he carried and sold it to Sears for $80.00. This substance was subsequently identified as cocaine. When Sears and Ramirez went into the club again on December 3, 1982, to meet with Coco as per a prior arrangement, Coco again asked Sears if he wanted to buy cocaine. At this point, Sears said he wanted he grams. On this occasion, Coco sold Sears two packages of a substance subsequently identified as cocaine for $70.00 per package instead of the normal $80.00 per package. On December 8, 1982, Sears and Ramirez again went to the Respondent's club. They had previously discussed with Coco not only the sale of liquor and meat but also video recorders which the officers had clearly represented as being stolen. On this occasion, Coco said that his nephew wanted a recorder for his home and when this nephew, identified as Roberto Carbajal, arrived at the club, they discussed the video recorder with him. During this conversation, Carbajal indicated that he knew that the merchandise was stolen. After discussion back and forth, the parties arrived at a purchase price of $120.00 for the brand new unit. The officers were instructed by Carbajal to put the recorder in Coco's office and Carbajal paid Ramirez from his pocket. Carbajal, at this time, was a management employee of the license holder. On December 16, 1982, Sears and Ramirez went to the licensed premises as instructed by Coco. At that time, they had 56 cases of Dom Perignon champagne. Coco had told them to bring the champagne, which, he had indicated, was to be used by the club management. Their understanding with Coco was that he would buy the champagne upon delivery and would also sell them larger amounts of cocaine. When they arrived, Coco was not there and they dealt with other people in the club's employ. The man who approached them was identified as Mario Cordoves, who indicated that neither Coco nor Carbajal were there. Cordoves went off for a moment and returned a few moments later with an individual identified as John Radney who, he indicated, would be interested in buying the champagne. Radney agreed to take all 56 cases but stated that he could not take delivery at the club. He asked them to put some of it in his car. He also indicated that part of the 56 cases could be sold to someone else through his arrangement which was all right with Ramirez so long as the price remained the same. While this was going on, another individual, identified as George Kovacs, approached Ramirez and Sears, and negotiated to buy 18 of the cases of champagne for $100.00 per case. Kovacs left and came back with another individual who was to help him load the champagne into his car. All of this took place on the licensed premises attended by a bartender and two kitchen helpers in addition to Cordoves, Radney, Kovacs, and Kovacs assistant. When the deal was set, all the parties moved out into the parking lot and part of the champagne was placed into Kovacs vehicle. When this was done, Ramirez and Sears identified themselves as police officers and placed Kovacs under arrest. While this transaction was unfolding, Sears was told by Kovacs or someone at the club that the champagne would be sold in the club as part of a "Dom Perignon special" at $100.00 per bottle instead of the normal $200.00 per bottle they usually got. At the time of their arrest, Kovacs and Radney indicated they were up-front operators for the licensed club through an arrangement with Mr. Carbajal but were having difficulty with him. They indicated that Carbajal was the actual owner of the club while Mr. Segal was referred to as an attorney who was acting as registering agent for the corporation which he had set up. Neither Sears nor Ramirez ever saw Segal at the club on any of the visits they made there. Regardless of who was the beneficial owner of the stock in the corporation, Segal was listed as the sole officer and as such, was responsible for the operation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent held valid alcoholic beverage licenses for Pirate Jim's Restaurant and Lounge and Island House Games People Play at all times relevant to these proceedings. Thomas Joseph Dorsey was a principal corporate officer during such relevant period. Dorsey was arrested in the Miami area for trafficking in cannabis on or about September 2, 1981. The testimony of a Florida Department of Law Enforcement special agent established that he attempted to arrange the purchase of a large quantity of marijuana from Dorsey pursuant to their agreement. The evidence did not establish that the substance viewed by the special agent was, in fact, marijuana. Further, there was no evidence that any sale or delivery took place or that any controlled substances were seized as a result of the proposed transaction.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the charges against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 7th day of December, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Alice Waldo, holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 45- 00293, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as the SILVER DOLLAR CAFE located in Lake County, Florida. On or about February 4, 1989, an investigator employed by Petitioner entered the licensed premises of Respondent. While in Respondent's facility, the investigator observed several patrons smoking a substance, which by its smell and usage, he believed to be marijuana. The investigator then met with a patron, ordered a small quantity of crack cocaine and handed the patron some money for the forthcoming purchase. The patron then asked Respondent to hold the money while he left the premises to retrieve the controlled substance from his automobile. Shortly thereafter, the patron returned with the cocaine. The investigator showed the substance to Respondent's daughter, who had taken her mother's place at the bar. The purpose of displaying the drug to the proprietor, or the proprietor's daughter in this instance, was to later illustrate that Respondent condoned the use and sale of the drug in connection with her licensed premises. A field test by the investigator and a later laboratory test confirmed the identity of the substance purchased as crack cocaine. Petitioner's investigator again entered Respondent's facility on or about February 10, 1989. On this occasion, the investigator purchased a quantity of marijuana from a female patron, then took the substance over to the bar where he proceeded to roll a marijuana cigarette in the presence of Petitioner. At no time did Petitioner inform the investigator that controlled substances were not allowed on the licensed premises. Upon later laboratory analysis, the substance was confirmed to be marijuana. Upon leaving Respondent's facility on February 10, 1989, Petitioner's investigator met an individual within 10 feet of the front door of the premises who sold him a quantity of a substance later determined by laboratory analysis to be crack cocaine. On or about February 24, 1989, Petitioner's investigator entered Respondent's facility. On the front porch of Respondent's facility, the investigator purchased a quantity of a substance later determined by the investigator's field test and a subsequent laboratory analysis to be crack cocaine. After completing the purchase of the substance, the investigator went inside the facility, placed the material on the counter and recounted to Respondent that it had just been purchased on the front porch. Respondent made no reply to the investigator's announcement and, instead, complied with his request for change for a $20 bill. Upon receipt of the change, the investigator wrapped the crack cocaine in a $1 bill in Respondent's presence. On February 28, 1989, Petitioner's investigator again entered Respondent's facility. He approached a black female named "Lilly" and gave her $20 for the purchase of crack cocaine. However, after the lady accepted the $20 and left to retrieve the cocaine, she did not return. The investigator complained to Respondent that "Lilly" had failed to deliver the drug to him. The investigator also told Respondent that the lady could keep the $20 if Respondent would get him some of the drug. At that time, Respondent referred the investigator to a group of three male patrons on the front porch of the facility who appeared to be smoking marijuana. At no time during this incident did Respondent take any steps to prevent the use of any controlled substances on the licensed premises. Subsequently, Petitioner's investigator returned to Respondent's facility on or about March 4, 1989. He purchased a beer and went outside to the front porch of the facility. He observed a number of furtive transactions where currency was passed between certain individuals. He noticed Respondent go to one of the automobiles in the facility parking lot, get into the automobile, engage in conversation with the occupants and shortly thereafter emerge from the automobile. Respondent went back into the facility. The investigator approached a black male and gave him $20 for some crack cocaine. The black male took the investigator's money, then went directly to the automobile where Respondent had been previously. He returned shortly thereafter to the investigator with two pieces of a substance which later tested positive, via field test and laboratory analysis, as cocaine. During another visit to Respondent's facility on or about March 9, 1989, Petitioner's investigator observed a patron rolling what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes in Respondent's presence. While Respondent took no action to prohibit the use or possession of the apparently controlled substance, she did get her coat and leave shortly after the investigator's arrival. On or about March 11, 1989, Petitioner's investigator reentered Respondent's facility. The investigator purchased a small quantity of crack cocaine from a black male on the front porch of the facility. The investigator then took the controlled substance inside the building and displayed it to Respondent, telling her that he had just obtained the drug on the porch. Respondent asked the investigator if he was going to smoke the drug, and he replied yes. Later, a field test and laboratory analysis confirmed the drug to be cocaine. On or about March 17, 1989, Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's facility. This time the investigator purchased a small quantity of a drug on the front porch of the building which, upon subsequent field test and laboratory analysis, was confirmed to be cocaine. After completing the purchase, the investigator took the substance inside and showed it to Respondent. Later in the evening, the investigator engaged Respondent in conversation on the front porch and related to her that he had observed numerous drug transactions taking place in her facility. Respondent smiled in acknowledgment of the investigator's statement and replied that she certainly hoped he was not a policeman. He told her that he was not a policeman. Respondent took no action to prohibit further use or transactions relating to drugs on the premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Respondent's beverage license bearing number 45-00293, Series 2- COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1989, 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 13th day of June, 1989 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.-10. Addressed. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: EDWIN R. IVY, ESQUIRE BOX 3223 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 THOMAS A. KLEIN, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 STEPHEN R. MACNAMARA, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007 LEONARD IVEY, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH ST. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact Respondents, Marianne Goodman and Frank Beyo, are now licensed and were licensed on January 16, 1976 by the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, under license No. 13-97, Series 1-COP. This license allows for the consumption of beer on the premises. On January 16, 1976, several officers with the Division of Beverage arrived at the licensed premises to make a periodic inspection of that premises. They proceeded to make a search in the connection with their inspection of the bar area and the living quarters which is part of the same building. This premises is identified in Petitioner's Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence in its page 3. The premises is also identified in the course of Respondents' Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. The diagram of the licensed premises shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 3 was as signed by the Respondent, Frank Beyo, and acknowledged by both Respondents, Frank Beyo and Marianne Goodman, on page 4 of the Petitioner's Exhibit 3. This diagram comports with the current floor plan in the premises. In searching, the officers found in the kitchen area certain bottles of wine which is delineated by number 4 on the Respondents' Exhibit 1. In addition, they found certain other bottles of liquor in the living room area and one bedroom area described as the front bedroom, and this location is delineated by number 4 on Respondents' Exhibit 1. There was no testimony offered by the officer or other witnesses that they had observed consumption of these alcoholic beverages, which were not beer, by any persons other than the vendor, his family, or guests. The Respondent, Frank Beyo, indicated that the various bottles of liquor which were full or partially full were for cooking purposes; private consumption by his wife, now deceased; consumption by his son or his personal consumption. Within a cabinet area in the kitchen, which location is identified by number 5 on Respondents' Exhibit 1, were found certain football parlay sheets. These parlay sheets had not been used, but were testified to by the officers as being paraphernalia used to bet on the outcome of football games. This testimony is unrefuted, although the witness indicated that the purpose he held these parlay sheets for was to use as scratch paper. Additionally, the officers found a cardboard backed set of sheets which were football pools and a baseball pool. These pools were designed for the placing of a bet with the proceeds going to the winner. This particular document was found in the bar proper and is identified as number 6 on Respondents' Exhibit 1. The Respondent, Frank Beyo, admitted participating in this betting pool as shown in Exhibit 6 but indicated that the "lions share" of the proceeds went for purposes of buying equipment for youth athletic teams. Petitioner's Exhibit 4, the items of liquor; Exhibit 5, the parlay sheets; and Exhibit 6, the football pools and baseball pool were admitted into evidence.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED, based on the violation as established in this cause, that the Respondents be fined in the amount of $400. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 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: Lawrence D. Winson, Esquire Robert B. Staats, Esquire Division of Beverage 317 Magnolia Avenue The Johns Building Panama City, Florida 32401 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 14th of March, 1976, Pearlie Mae Smith, a licensed vendor, did have in her possession, permit or allow someone else, to wit: Junior Lee Smith, to have in their possession on the licensed premises, alcoholic beverages, to wit: 5 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to s. 562.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact On March 14, 1976, and up to and including the date of the hearing, the Respondent, Pearlie Mae Smith, held license no. 72-65, series 2-COP with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. The licensed premises is located at 1013 West Malloy Avenue, Perry, Florida. On the morning of March 14, 1976, Officer B.C. Maxwell with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage acting on an informant's information, searched the informant to determine if the informant had monies other than the money that the officer had given him or any alcoholic beverages on his person. Once the informant had been searched and it was determined that the informant was carrying with him only the money that the officer had given him to purchase alcoholic beverages, the informant was sent into the subject licensed premises. The informant returned with a half-pint bottle of alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold on the licensed premise and indicated that this purchase was made from one Junior Lee Smith. Later in the morning, around 11:30, officers of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage entered the licensed premises and an inspection of those premises revealed a bag containing 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka in the kitchen area of the licensed premises. This bag and contents were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit #2. The 5 half-pint bottles of Smirnoff Vodka are alcoholic beverages which are not allowed to be sold under the series 2-COP license on the subject premises. When the officers entered, the same Junior Lee Smith was in the licensed premises and indicated that he was in charge of the licensed premises and had been selling alcoholic beverages for "quite some time" together with his wife, Pearlie Mae Smith, the licensee. The bag he indicated, had been whiskey that had been left over from the night before.
Recommendation It is recommended that based upon the violation as established in the hearing that the licensee, Pearlie Mae Smith, have her beverage license suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 19th 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 Mrs. Pearlie Mae Smith 1013 West Malloy Avenue Perry, Florida
Findings Of Fact Charles J. Evans and Inez P. Hamer, t/a Nezzers, hold beverage license No. 52-00669 and held this license at all times relevant hereto. On July 13, 1983, Beverage Agents Brown and Rozar, following up on a complaint of gambling at Nezzers, visited Nezzers around 7:30 p.m. It was a quiet night in the bar. Upon entry they observed two men playing pool at Table A (Exhibit 2), which is the nearest to the bar of the four pool tables in the room. Table A is a time table and the players pay based on the time the table is used. The other three tables are coin tables which are activated for play by depositing $.50 in coins in the table for each game. Brown and Rozar each bought a beer and commenced playing pool on Table D (Exhibit 2). Some 15 to 30 minutes later two other men started playing pool at Table B (Exhibit 2). At this time, in addition to the six pool players, the only people in the bar were the bartender, Marjorie Hamer, and two or three other patrons. Brown and Rozar observed the men at Table B, later identified as Valencourt and Mosely, flip a coin to see who would break. Thereafter, the agents several times observed Valencourt and Mosely exchange money at the conclusion of a game. One would toss a bill on the pool table and the winner [presumably] would pick it up and put it in his pocket. Hayman and Foreman playing at Table A were overheard to say one or the other was "one down" or "two down" and were seen putting a bill on the end of the bar away from the cash register from where it was picked up by the other player. On several occasions the players were observed getting change from Marjorie Hamer. Table A is closer to the bar than to Table D. Accordingly, Marjorie Hamer, setting behind the bar, was in as good or better position to observe the exchange of money as were agents brown and Rozar. Marjorie Hamer, the 22-year- old daughter of Inez Hamer, has worked at establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages and is generally familiar with beverage laws prohibiting gambling at a licensed establishment. Two large signs are conspicuously posted in the room which say "NO GAMBLING." On July 13, 1983, neither of the owners was present during the time the agents were in Nezzers. Inez Hamer had worked until 6:00 p.m. when she was relieved by Marjorie. Marjorie had earlier told her mother that she did not feel well and would like not to come in on July 13, but Inez told her it would be a quiet night without much business and Marjorie came in. Marjorie Hamer concurred with the testimony of Brown and Rozar that there were three pool tables occupied and few other people were in the bar. Marjorie spent most of the evening reading the paper and testified she did not see any of the pool players give money to his opponent at the end of a game or overhear any conversation that would lead her to believe gambling was going on.
Findings Of Fact Although there was a detailed evidentiary presentation at the hearing, there was no real disagreement between the parties on the essential facts: Petitioner's husband is disqualified to hold a beverage license on account of a previous felony conviction. He has invested a substantial sum in Ye Olde English Pub, including the real estate that houses the business. Petitioner failed to disclose her husband's interest on forms submitted to respondent in connection with her application to transfer a beverage license to her from the bar's former owner.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for license transfer. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Allen, Esquire 417 Eaton Street Key West, Florida 33040 Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
