The Issue The issue is whether, as provided by Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, Petitioner may discipline the correctional and law enforcement certificates of Respondent due to his failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes. If Respondent is subject to discipline, an additional issue is the penalty that Petitioner should impose.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer, holding certificate number 200241, and a certified correctional office, holding certificate number 182381. Petitioner certified Respondent as a correctional officer in 1998 and as a law enforcement officer in 2001. As a correctional officer, Respondent has worked at the South Florida Reception Center and Broward Correctional Institution. In December 2001, the Town of Golden Beach Police Department hired Respondent as a law enforcement officer. Respondent was employed at the Town of Golden Beach Police Department until December 31, 2002. He is presently unemployed. On December 12, 2002, Respondent visited a local lounge while off-duty. Sitting by himself, Respondent ordered a drink and visited the restroom before the server delivered the drink. Upon returning from the restroom, Respondent found the drink where he had been sitting. Respondent consumed the drink and went home. The next morning, Respondent reported to the police station and performed his usual duties, which included transporting witnesses to the State Attorney's Office, appearing in court, and picking up uniforms. Upon his return to the office, a fellow officer informed Respondent that the police chief had received a tip that Respondent had been smoking crack cocaine the prior night and had ordered Respondent to undergo a urinalysis. As directed by the chief, Respondent and the fellow officer immediately drove to the laboratory so that Respondent could provide a urine sample. Four days later, on December 17, 2002, the chief told Respondent that the urinalysis had returned a positive result for cocaine and placed Respondent on administrative leave. Two weeks later, Respondent resigned. The laboratory that conducted the urinalysis is certified by the National Institute of Drug Abuse as a forensic toxicology laboratory and is authorized by the Agency for Health Care Administration to perform drug-free workplace testing. On December 16, 2002, the laboratory screened the urine sample and found a positive result for a cocaine metabolite, benzoylecgonine. As is typical with initial screens that produce positive results, on December 20, 2002, the laboratory retested the urine sample by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC/MS), which is a sophisticated, sensitive test. The GC/MS confirmed the presence of benzoylecgonine at the level of 36,900 nanograms/milliliter (ng/ml). This level of cocaine metabolite is indicative of a large amount of cocaine ingested not long before the production of the urine sample. At the request of Respondent, the laboratory retested the urine sample a few months later and detected significant levels of a wide range of cocaine metabolites. At the request of Respondent's attorney, the laboratory sent part of the urine sample to a second, independent laboratory, which, performing GC/MS on December 10, 2003, reconfirmed the presence of cocaine metabolites. The reported level, presumably of benzoylecgonine, was over 10,000 ng/ml. The second laboratory reported a lower level because this was the maximum threshold of its testing equipment and protocol and possibly because the cocaine metabolites decompose over time, even in urine that has been frozen, as the first laboratory had done in preserving Respondent's urine sample. The only anomaly in the confirmatory test performed by the first laboratory appears at page 16 of Petitioner Exhibit 2. This document concerns the confirmatory testing performed on several samples, including Respondent's. In reporting testing parameters, the document states that the "ion ratio int. std." for Respondent's sample was 3.67. The bottom column suggests that the permissible range is 2.44-3.66. The form contains a statement at the very bottom: "REVIEWER: RESULTS OF GC/MS WERE WITHIN THE TOLERANCES ACCEPTABLE UNDER OUR SOP [STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE] FOR RETENTION TIME, QUANTIFICATION OF CONTROLS, MASS RATIOS, AND IDENTIFICATION WITH THE FULL SCAN MASS SPECTRUM." After this preprinted statement, the reviewer added in handwriting: "except 326340." This is the number assigned to Respondent's sample. Unfortunately, the parties did not address this anomaly in the confirmatory test, and the record does not explain the meaning of the reviewer's note or the out-of-range ion ratio. The only unusual feature of the first laboratory's confirmatory test, as revealed in the record, is that the laboratory used a smaller sample size because the results were so high that, absent a diluted sample, the first laboratory's equipment could not produce a concentration level. However, the process by which this adjustment is made is not unusual, and the first laboratory performed the necessary calculations to produce a correct result. The uncertainty introduced by the reviewer's note is eliminated, though, by the extremely high levels of cocaine reported by the second laboratory a few months later, and the wide range of cocaine metabolites reported by the first laboratory in its reconfirmation testing one year after the initial screening. Respondent's defense is that, unknown to him and while he was in the restroom, someone at the lounge poured a large amount of cocaine into his drink. This defense is unworthy of belief. Respondent claims that he conducted a personal investigation into his case after the drug test showed cocaine metabolites in his urine. In the course of this investigation, Respondent interviewed a bartender at a lounge some distance from the one that Respondent had visited on December 12, 2002. During this interview, a woman at the bar, Stacie Dalgleish, who had once been an inmate at a correctional facility at which Respondent had served as a correctional officer, overheard him talking about the facts of this case and interrupted Respondent's conversation to tell him that she had witnessed what happened to Respondent that night. As Ms. Dalgleish testified at the hearing, she told Respondent that, on the night in question, she had been at the same lounge and had seen another woman, Lisa Binger, who had been incarcerated with Ms. Dalgleish. While in a stall behind a closed door, Ms. Dalgleish witnessed Ms. Binger and another woman snort cocaine. Ms. Dalgleish explained that she had been able to see Ms. Binger because she was lined up perfectly with the crack between the stall door and the frame. Ms. Dalgleish testified that she then heard Ms. Binger tell her friend that she was going to get Respondent because he had gotten her friend. Later, while seated near the bar, Ms. Dalgleish testified that she saw Ms. Binger pour the white powdery contents of an envelope into Respondent's drink, while Respondent had left his drink unattended. For his part, Respondent "explained" that he had caused a friend of the Ms. Binger to lose her job as a bartender when he had reported to the bar owner that Respondent had seen the woman stealing cases of beer. The improbability that Ms. Binger would part with a large amount of cocaine to incriminate Respondent is moderate. The improbability of the chance encounter between Respondent and Ms. Dalgleish, while Respondent was conducting his investigation is high. The improbability that, in a public restroom, Ms. Binger would theatrically announce her plans to surreptitiously pour cocaine into Respondent's drink, as she recklessly snorted cocaine with another woman--all while observed by Ms. Dalgleish sitting in a closed stall, but peering through a crack in the door that happened to reveal the scene that she described--is incalculably high. Exacerbating these credibility problems was Ms. Dalgleish's performance as a witness. She was an eager witness who, upon concluding her testimony, quickly walked over to Respondent to obtain his approval of her unconvincing performance. Respondent is lying about how he came to ingest a large amount of cocaine a short time before his drug test.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order revoking Respondent's correctional officer and law enforcement officer certificates. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 James C. Casey, Esquire Slesnick & Casey, LLP 2701 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-6020 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professional Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent committed the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint, involving possessing and introducing onto the grounds of a state correctional institution, certain controlled substances and, if so, what if any penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Erlene Stewart, has been employed as a correctional officer at Union Correctional Institution (UCI). She was so employed on February 1, 1999, and had been employed there for almost five years at that time. The Respondent was working on Saturday, January 30, 1999. On that day, officers at UCI examined employees coming to work by conducting an "Ion Scan" of employees to attempt to detect any drug or drug residues on or about their persons when they entered the institution to go on duty. The Respondent was subjected to such an Ion Scan and successfully passed it. Thus, she was aware that a drug detection effort was being conducted on Saturday, January 30, 1999, at UCI. February 1, 1999, was the Monday after that Saturday. The Respondent was working that day in tower number five of UCI. She had driven to work that day in the black Pontiac Grand Am in question, which is registered in her name. She was working on the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., shift on that Monday. It was very unusual for a drug detection operation to be conducted on that Monday, immediately succeeding the Ion Scan drug detection operation which had been conducted on Saturday, two days before. Such a drug detection operation was conducted in the parking lot of UCI on Monday, February 1, 1999, however, using a drug detection dog. It was very unusual for a drug detection dog to be used so soon after an Ion Scan drug detection operation and also unusual for the dog to be used at 12:30 in the afternoon. The Respondent was surprised to find that a drug detection dog was being used in the parking lot of UCI on February 1, 1999. When the Respondent came to work on that day she locked her car leaving the windows slightly cracked and went inside to go on duty. Later that day, at approximately 12:30 p.m., a drug detection dog, handled by Sergeant Box of UCI, was examining vehicles in the parking lot and "alerted" to the presence or odor of narcotics inside or on the Respondent's vehicle. The dog had been trained and certified to be capable of passively alerting to the odors of four narcotics: marijuana, powdered cocaine, crack cocaine and heroin. After the dog alerted to the presence of contraband drugs in or on the Respondent's vehicle, the Respondent, who was then working in tower number five, was relieved of duty and summoned to her vehicle in the parking lot on the grounds of UCI. When she arrived in the vicinity of her vehicle, she was informed that a drug detection dog had alerted to her vehicle. She provided a written consent, to the officers present, to a search of her vehicle. The Respondent had to unlock her vehicle in order for the drug detection officers to begin their search of its interior. Upon gaining access to the interior of the Respondent's vehicle, Sergeant Mobley of Hamilton Correctional Institution, discovered an aluminum foil package containing a white powder suspected to be cocaine, on the passenger's side of her vehicle. Sergeant Mobley turned that package over to the custody of Inspector Bailey. Sergeant Dugger found what appeared to be marijuana on the driver's side of the Respondent's vehicle. Prior to his entry into the vehicle, Sergeant Dugger and Inspector Bailey had observed through the window what appeared to be marijuana and marijuana seeds on and about the driver's seat. The Respondent is familiar with the appearance of marijuana and cocaine. Moreover, she is aware that cocaine is commonly wrapped in aluminum foil. Her former husband had been known to use cocaine according to the Respondent's testimony. Inspector Bailey took custody of the suspected cocaine and marijuana and conducted two tests on both substances. The results of his field test and Ion Scan test were positive for marijuana and cocaine. The evidence was then turned over to Inspector Yaw who conducted another Ion Scan test on the white powder confirming it as cocaine. Sergeant Dale Pfalzgraf of the Union County Sheriff's Office, was summoned to UCI on that day, after the suspected drugs were located in the Respondent's vehicle. Inspector Yaw turned over to him a sealed plastic bag containing what appeared to be marijuana and a tin-foil package of what appeared to be cocaine. Deputy Pfalzgraf placed the Respondent under arrest and transported her and the evidence to the Sheriff's office. He placed the evidence into a secure locker with the evidence custodian, pending its transportation to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) laboratory. Deputy Tomlinson of the Union County Sheriff's Office was given the evidence that was seized from the Respondent's vehicle by the evidence custodian and transported it to the FDLE laboratory in Jacksonville, Florida, for testing. At the FDLE laboratory, Allison Harms received the evidence from Deputy Tomlinson. The evidence bag remained sealed until testing was performed by Ms. Somera, the FDLE chemistry analyst. Ms. Somera tested the substances contained within the bag and positively identified them as cannibis and cocaine. The Respondent maintains in her testimony that her former husband had access to her vehicle and had used it in the last several days with some of his friends. She contends that he is a known illicit drug user (cocaine). She also states that she left the windows to her car slightly cracked for ventilation when she parked it in the parking lot on the day in question to go to work. She states, in essence, that either the illicit drug materials found in her car were placed there without her knowledge by her former husband or his friends or, alternatively, that the correctional officers involved in the investigation planted the drug materials in her car in order to remove her from employment and/or licensure as retaliation for past employment-related friction she states she had with prison authorities. She also contends that another prison employee told her in private that she was being "framed" but that that person refused to testify on her behalf because of fear of potential loss of his job. In any event, her self-serving testimony is not corroborated by any other witness or exhibit and is not credited.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character as defined by the above-cited legal authority and that her certification be suspended for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 2nd day of April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Gabrielle Taylor, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Erlene Stewart Route 1, Box 52 Sanderson, Florida 32087 A. Leon Lowry, II Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the factual matters set forth in the Petitioner's emergency order of suspension received by Respondent on July 16, 1987. Those facts are set forth in the following paragraphs 1 through 14. The Stipulated Facts The records of the Petitioner disclose that 2000 Collins Avenue, Corp., is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 23-02639, Series 4-COP, for a licensed premises known as the Five O'Clock Club, which is located at 2000 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. On or about May 20, 1987, Petitioner's Investigators O. Santana and H. Garcia, entered the licensed premises of the Respondent as part of an ongoing narcotics investigation. While on the premises, Investigator Garcia purchased crack cocaine in plain view at the bar from a patron named "Maggy". Two male bartenders named Joe and Paul were also present. On May 27, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia returned to the licensed premises of the Respondent known as the Five O'Clock Club. Bartender Joe was on duty at this time. At approximately 6:45 p.m., Maggy appeared and inquired of Investigator Garcia whether he wished to purchase more crack cocaine. Investigator Garcia indicated that he desired to do so and gave Maggy $40.00 for the purchase. Maggy left Investigator Garcia, returned shortly thereafter and placed the crack cocaine in a napkin on the bar counter. Maggy cut a small piece of the crack cocaine rock and placed it in her mouth in plain view of the bartender and patrons on the licensed premises. On June 3, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia again entered the Five O'Clock Club in an undercover capacity. Once on the premises, the investigators were approached by a white male patron later identified as "Vincent". He asked if the investigators wished to purchase any drugs. The investigators indicated that they would take any thing that was available. The investigators indicated that they would prefer some powder cocaine and if it was unavailable some rock cocaine. Vincent went to the end of the bar and engaged in conversation with an unidentified latin male. He returned to the investigators and indicated that he could get some rock cocaine immediately from someone in the bar. Vincent indicated that he could get three cocaine rocks for $40.00 and the investigators agreed to purchase them. Vincent then returned to talk to the latin male who was also joined by Joe, the bartender on duty . During conversation between these three, Joe indicated that they should be careful to whom they sold as he did not want to get arrested. Vincent then returned to the investigators and requested identification to indicate that they were not police officers. Investigator Garcia removed his wallet showing Vincent false identification which Vincent accepted as legitimate. Garcia gave $40.00 to Vincent who then walked back over to the latin male. Vincent inquired of Joe whether Investigators Garcia and Santana were "okay". Joe indicated that the investigators were okay and were regulars at the bar. Vincent then placed a napkin on the bar in front of the investigators. When the napkin was opened on the bar top, three crack cocaine rocks were revealed. This transaction occurred, and the cocaine rocks exposed, in plain view of patrons and employees on the licensed premises. Joe made no effort at any time to terminate the transaction. On June 4, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia returned to the licensed premises known as the Five O'Clock Club in an undercover capacity. At that time, bartender "Billy" was on duty. After a period of time, the investigators observed a black male walk up to Billy and indicate that he was going to "make his rounds." The black male then proceeded from patron to patron speaking in short conversations. When the black male reached an unidentified male patron playing an amusement device, the investigators heard the black male ask the patron if he wanted some "crack". The patron indicated yes and handed the black male $10.00. The black male handed a small, clear plastic bag containing a brownish rock to the patron. Shortly after this transaction occurred, Vincent again returned to the licensed premises. He approached the investigators and inquired whether or not they desired to purchase some additional crack. The investigators indicated that they did, and Garcia handed Vincent $40.00 for the purchase. Vincent left the bar and returned a period of time later and placed a napkin with three cocaine rocks on the bar in front of the investigators. While the cocaine rocks were still in plain view on the bar, Billy served a beer to Vincent. Billy made no effort whatsoever to either complain about or terminate the drug transaction taking place in plain view on the licensed premises. On June 8, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia again returned to the Five O'Clock Club in an undercover capacity. While on the premises, the investigators observed a white female walk into the bar and engage several patrons in short conversations. She was stopped and handed a $20.00 bill by another white female patron identified as "Candy". The first white female reached into the front of her pants and pulled out a small plastic bag containing a white powder which she then handed to Candy. Candy stated, "I'm going to the restroom and have some fun." Shortly after this transaction occurred, the investigators left the premises. After exiting the Five O'Clock Club , they were confronted by Vincent. Vincent inquired whether the investigators intended to buy some crack from him on this date. The investigators indicated they would, however they did not wish to make a purchase on a public street. Vincent suggested they go back into the Five O'Clock Club and conduct the transaction at the bar. They did. While seated at the bar, Investigator Garcia gave Vincent $40.00. Billy, the bartender then on duty, stated to Vincent, "you are a great salesman." Vincent then left the bar and returned shortly thereafter placing 3 pieces of rock cocaine on the bar for the investigators and suggested that it was the "best crack on Miami Beach." After the investigators took possession of the cocaine, Billy remarked, "do you really like that stuff?" On June 15, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia again returned to the licensed premises of the Five O'Clock Club in an undercover capacity. After a period of time on the licensed premises, the investigators were unable to locate any patrons with whom they had previously transacted drug purchases. Upon leaving the premises, the investigators were approached by an individual known as "Eita", who had been previously introduced to them by Vincent. Eita and the investigators went back into the Five O'Clock Club. Eita informed the investigators that Vincent was incarcerated and that he, Eita, could obtain crack cocaine for them. The investigators agreed and provided Eita $40.00 . Eita left the premises and returned shortly with three cocaine rocks. Eita, in the presence of Billy the bartender, placed the three cocaine rocks on the bar of the licensed premises. He then wrapped the cocaine rocks in a brown piece of paper. Investigator Garcia picked the rocks up and placed them in his pocket. This transaction occurred in the immediate presence of Bill and other patrons on the licensed premises. On June 17, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia again returned to the Five O'Clock Club in an undercover capacity. At this time the licensed premises were being serviced by a barmaid known as "Toni". Eita again appeared on the licensed premises. Eita offered to sell crack cocaine to Investigators Santana and Garcia. The investigators agreed and in furtherance of the transaction provided Eita $40.00. Eita left the premises and returned shortly thereafter and seated himself next to the investigators. Eita opened his purse and began to place pieces of rock cocaine on the bar top. While this transpired Toni approached the group and placed a beer in front of Eita. Toni observed as Eita took three cocaine rocks and wrapped them in a cigarette wrapper and handed them to Investigator Garcia. Toni made no effort to either complain about or otherwise terminate the drug transaction taking place on the licensed premises. On the same date as indicated in paragraph 8 above, Investigators Santana and Garcia approached a patron known as "Paco" while on the licensed premises of the Five O'Clock Club. They engaged in a casual conversation with Paco who was known to them as a crack dealer in the Miami Beach area. They inquired of Paco whether or not he could obtain crack cocaine for them and he replied that he could. The investigators provided Paco $30.00. Paco handed Investigator Garcia three cocaine rocks which Garcia placed on the bar and subsequently wrapped in a napkin. This transaction occurred without complaint on the licensed premises in the plain view of Toni and other patrons. On June 22, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia returned to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Bartender Billy was on duty at this time. After a period of time, Paco arrived on the licensed premises and inquired of the investigators whether they needed "any thing" today. Investigator Garcia asked Paco if he could obtain some rock cocaine on this date. Paco indicated that he could. Paco left the premises, returned shortly thereafter and gave Investigator Garcia a large cocaine rock. Paco then demanded $40.00. This transaction took place in plain view at the bar in the presence of Billy and other patrons in the licensed premises. At no time did Billy complain about or terminate the transaction. On June 24, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia entered the licensed premises of the Five O'Clock Club in an undercover capacity. Bartender Joe was on duty at this time. Paco was on the licensed premises. The investigators listened while several other patrons approached Paco in an effort to obtain rock cocaine. Paco indicated that rock cocaine was presently unavailable. After a period of time, a black male came into the licensed premises and sat by Paco. The black male provided Paco several cocaine rocks which he distributed to the patrons who had made the previous requests. Further, Paco provided Investigator Garcia with a large cocaine rock for the purchase price of $30.00. These transactions took place at the bar and in the presence of Joe and other patrons. At no time did Joe object to the drug transactions taking place at the bar of the Five O'Clock Club On the same date identified in paragraph 11, shortly after the foregoing transactions occurred, Eita came into the Five O'Clock Club. Eita asked the investigators if they wished to purchase any rock cocaine and they indicated that they did. They provided Eita $35.00 whereupon he left the premises. Eita returned shortly thereafter and placed cocaine rocks on the bar in plain view of Joe and other patrons at the bar. The investigators then took possession of the cocaine. At no time did Joe protest the occurrence of this transactions. On July 13, 1987, Investigators Santana and Garcia returned to the licensed premises known as the Five O'Clock Club in an undercover capacity. While seated at the bar, the investigators purchased two cocaine rocks from a patron known as "Orlando". Bartender Billy was on duty at this time. The transaction took place at the bar in plain view of Billy and other patrons on the licensed premises. At no time did any employee of the bar make an effort to terminate the transaction. All substances purchased at the licensed premises and identified as cocaine have been laboratory analyzed and determined to be cocaine. Additional Facts In addition to the above stipulated facts, Respondent presented testimony upon which the following factual findings are based. Myrtle Klass is the predominant shareholder of the respondent, 2000 Collins Avenue Corporation. Mrs. Klass is 88 years of age, is in declining health, and requires the services of a full-time caregiver. Mrs. Klass's late husband purchased the building in which the Five O'Clock Club is located in the late 1950's. Upon his death a trust fund was created, 75% of which goes to Mrs. Klass and 25% of which is divided between the Klass's two children, Mrs. Marshall and her brother. Her brother, because of health problems, is totally dependent on the income from such trust fund. Portions of Mrs. Marshall's share of the trust fund are passed on to her children, one of whom is likewise dependent on such income. At the time of acquisition of the 2000 Collins Avenue building and license No. 23-2639, the neighborhood was a substantially better locale than at present. The neighborhood has significantly declined and is populated by "street people" whose involvement in drug dealing is endemic. Mrs. Klass, since 1963, has utilized the services of a certified public accountant-attorney and a property manager to manage the overall operation of the licensed property. She has utilized the same "on premises" manager since 1963 to supervise the day to day operation of the Five O'Clock Club. There have been no prior violations during the approximate 25 years in which the premises have been operated in this manner. The Klass family trust sold the building in early 1987 because of the decline in the neighborhood. The Five O'Clock Club was due to be closed permanently in September 1987. At the time of the service of the Petitioner's emergency order, license No. 23-2639, services 4-COP, was the subject of a contract for sale for $45,000 to the owner of a family restaurant located elsewhere on Collins Avenue. Because of the emergency order of suspension, the contract could not be completed. Because of Mrs. Klass's age and health, her daughter, Doris Marshall, represents that Mrs. Klass has no desire to hold any alcoholic beverage license, but only desires to sell the existing license so as not to deprive the trust and the persons dependent on the income therefrom of an asset valued at $45,000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license No. 23-2639, series 4-COP, subject first to a suspension of 120 days or such lesser period of time within which Respondent may sell the license, in an arms length transfer, to a duly qualified transferee who will agree to 1) operate such license at a location other than the present licensed premises 2) not employ any personnel of the Respondent that were present on the premises during the incidents set forth in the Notice To Show Cause and 3) operate the license under a name other than the "5 O'Clock Club." Upon completion of the license transfer in accordance with the above stated conditions or the expiration of the 120 day suspension period, whichever occurs first, the license, as to the Respondent in this case, shall stand revoked. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 29th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my ruling on proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent. All stipulated facts are included in findings numbered 1-14. Accepted in finding number 15. Accepted in finding number 16. Accepted in finding number 17. Accepted in finding number 18. Accepted in finding number 19. Accepted in finding number 20. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Moody, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Daniel Bosanko, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent held Florida Alcoholic Beverage License 2-COP No. 54-00184 at Stew's Bar located at Third Avenue, Maloney Subdivision, Stock Island, Monroe County, Florida. The parties stipulated that Robert Stanley Gardner, Respondent's husband, has a financial interest in the leased premises. Based on Respondent's testimony, it is clear that she did not understand the nature of her stipulation regarding Robert Stanley Gardner's interest in the licensed premises, and he in fact has no interest therein. Stew's Bar has had a reputation with the Monroe County Sheriff's Department as a trouble spot for a considerable period of time prior to the events which took place here. However, upon questioning, Major Somberg, who had a computer printout of all calls received by his office relating to this establishment, was unable to cite even one previous call relating to narcotics. Nonetheless, based on the records of law enforcement agencies in the area, an undercover operation was instituted against Respondent's establishment in late April and early May 1984. On April 25, 1984, at approximately 3:50 p.m., Gale Sampson, an investigator with the Miami office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, entered Respondent's bar in an undercover capacity. She spent a period of time observing patrons and employees and noticed a Latin male who had a towel rolled up under his arm. She observed this individual take a packet from the towel, wave it in the air, and say "Haircut." The bartender at the time, Geraldine Hook, laughed, as did several patrons, but made no effort to stop this individual. This packet, a plastic bag containing a white powdery substance, was consistent with the way cocaine is packaged. This package was not, however, confiscated, nor were the contents identified. The following day, at 5:45 p.m., Sampson again went into the bar. She saw Hook again working behind the bar and asked Hook if she knew where she, Sampson, could get some cocaine. Hook turned and asked a female by the name of Alvarez, who said "Yes." Alvarez and Sampson agreed upon a price of $45 for a half gram, and Sampson gave Alvarez $50. Somewhat later, Alvarez returned to the bar and gave Sampson a half gram package and $5 in change. The contents of this package were subsequently tested in the laboratory of the Monroe County Sheriff's Office and were determined to be cocaine. Hook categorically denies arranging this sale. She admits to knowing Alvarez, but denies knowing even if there was any deal between Alvarez and Sampson. She also contends that when Sampson approached her to buy cocaine, she refused to get Sampson any and told Sampson that if she wanted any, she would have to get it herself. This last admission serves to defeat the credibility of Hook's denial. Somewhat prior to this transaction between Sampson and Alvarez, Beverage Investigator Clark A. Raby, assigned to the Live Oak, Florida, office, but in Key West on the same undercover operation, entered Respondent's bar at 4:50 p.m. as a backup for Sampson. He sat at the bar and ordered a beer from Hook. During the course of the evening, he had a conversation with the bartender and various patrons. He saw one Latin and two white males light and pass around what appeared to him to be a marijuana cigarette right at the door. He later went into the men's room and found a Latin male and a white female in the men's room rolling a cigarette. When he excused himself, she said it was all right--she was in there all the time. Sampson went back into the bar at 11:35 a.m. on April 27 and went right to the bar. She was approached there by a Latin male subsequently identified as Vernesto Seguseo, who asked her to sit in a booth with him. She did, and during the conversation asked him if he was an employee of the establishment. He replied that he was a bouncer, but not on duty. She asked him if he could tell her where she could buy cocaine. He said he had it right there, and she asked him how much one-half gram would cost. He replied "$40," whereupon she paid him as requested. In response, he took a small plastic packet out of his pocket and gave it to her. The contents of this packet were subsequently chemically analyzed by the Monroe County Sheriff's Office and determined to be cocaine. Though this individual never specifically stated he was an employee of this establishment, and evidence indicates from Respondent's witnesses that he was employed as a bouncer at another bar in the area, he was nonetheless seen in this establishment previously in areas reserved for employees of the bar. The testimony of Ms. Otona, the bar manager, and at least one barmaid indicates that this individual was not employed by Respondent's establishment until May 15, 1984, and, at the time of this sale, was not a bar employee. Raby also entered the bar at 4:50 p.m. on April 27, 1984. He went to the bar, where he ordered a beer from Hook. Shortly afterward, a black male offered to sell him a "Columbian joint" for $1.50. Raby paid him $2 and got the cigarette. Hook was there all the time and did not try to stop the transaction. However, there is some doubt as to whether she saw it. Raby testified that when the transfer of the cigarette was made to him, the cigarette was passed at the level of, or even below the level of, the bar, and it is very possible that Hook did not see the transaction occur. Hook indicates that at that time she was wearing dark glasses to cover the effects of a beating she had received from her boyfriend and did not see anything like what Raby described. Consequently, it is most likely that she did not. This cigarette was subsequently analyzed by the laboratory of the Monroe County Sheriff's Office and determined to be marijuana. This same black male individual, subsequently identified by the initials "J. J.," told Raby at the time that there was good cocaine available for $40 from "Latin brothers." On that same afternoon, Raby overheard Geraldine Hook agree to smoke and saw her smoke what appeared to be and smelled like marijuana right outside the back door of the establishment. There is no evidence, however, whether or not the substance was in fact marijuana. On April 28, 1984, Raby went into the Respondent's bar at approximately 5:30 in the afternoon and ordered a beer from the bartender, Joyce. J. J. came up and asked how he liked the cigarette he had purchased the day before, then asked if he wanted to buy some cocaine for $40 a half gram. Raby indicated that he did, whereupon J. J. walked off for awhile and came back. When J. J. came back to the bar, Raby put two $20 bills out which J. J. took. He again went away and came back a moment later with a packet which he passed to Raby beside the bar. He did nothing to hide it, and Joyce was there and did nothing to stop it. Raby is not sure if Joyce saw this or not, however, as he was not looking at her at the time. The substance was subsequently identified by the laboratory as cocaine. Sampson was also at the bar early in the morning of April 28, sitting with Vernesto Seguseo. The barmaid, Joyce, said she was taking $15 from the register and someone would replace it later. Seguseo agreed. Beverage Investigator Beverly Jenkins, who had received word from a confidential informant that an employee of the bar, a maintenance man described as a short black male with a beer belly and no teeth, was selling cocaine. When she first went into the bar on May 14, she saw this man there behind the bar filling the orders and taking orders from Geraldine Hook, the barmaid. When Jenkins talked with him, he admitted he worked there all the time, but did not want to engage in any long discussions at the time. He asked Jenkins to come back without her partner. On May 15, at approximately 5:55 p.m., she went back alone. This individual previously mentioned, who was subsequently identified as "Peter," immediately approached her and offered to introduce her around and "do her right." Jenkins asked him for cocaine. Peter went to another employee, came back, and said he could not provide it. Later, however, he offered to use cocaine with Jenkins if she would go with him. She refused and said she was going to leave, at which point he asked her to wait for him to finish work. Jenkins agreed to this and later left the bar and went out to her car. Shortly thereafter, Peter came out and got in Jenkins' car, at which point he offered to sell her a half gram of cocaine for $40. He offered to reduce the price if she would buy more than one packet. Jenkins agreed to buy three one-half gram packets for $35 each. She paid Peter $105 and received from him a substance which was subsequently identified as cocaine after being analyzed by the Monroe County Sheriff's Office laboratory. At 6:20 p.m. on the following day, May 16, when Jenkins went back in the bar, Peter was not there, but Vernesto, a former employee, was. Within a few minutes, Peter came in and approached Jenkins, asking her if she wanted more cocaine. When she said she did, he asked her to come outside. She resisted at this time because she was playing pool. When she finished the game, Jenkins went over to Peter, who took her outside and sold her a half-gram of a white powdery substance for $30 on the condition that she always buy from him and not from someone else. The substance Jenkins purchased on this evening was subsequently analyzed and determined to be cocaine. While Jenkins was in the bar this evening, she noticed there was a lot of traffic going to and from the rest rooms. She saw Peter go into the rest room with a patron, and she noticed that as he entered the rest room he was taking from his pocket a plastic bag similar to those which he had sold her previously. Jenkins did not see this transaction go down, however, but later saw the patron leave the rest room. The following day, Jenkins noticed that Gerry (Geraldine Hook) was back behind the bar and looked tired. Jenkins noticed that a female patron followed Gerry and her boyfriend into the back, where she saw Gerry breathe in through her nose a white powder. Jenkins asked to join the party at the time, but was refused. The female patron was identified as Donna, a clinic employee, who said at the time they were all a friendly group. This same patron, Donna, went into the restroom later with a Latin male and shortly after came out, rubbing her nose in a fashion consistent with cocaine use. Geraldine Hook, on the other hand, denies under oath that she was ingesting cocaine. Hook contends that she was explaining to her boyfriend why she could not get off work early and that the other lady was translating her comments to her boyfriend, who does not speak English. Hook contends that she does not ever snort or ingest cocaine because she is allergic to all drugs that are in the cocaine family and in support of that statement submitted a medical record from the Florida Keys Memorial Hospital emergency room showing that on April 23, 1984, when who was treated in the hospital because of being beaten by her boyfriend, she listed as allergies novacaine and tetracycline, tetramycin, morphine, and drugs of a similar nature. Hook also contends that she has asthma and could not use cocaine without it closing off her breathing passages. Emergency room records reflect that she has been previously diagnosed as an asthma sufferer. Later on May 17, Jenkins went back into the bar and went to the ladies' room with Peter. Peter offered to sell her two bags of cocaine for $60. After they entered the rest room, Peter closed the door halfway prior to making the transaction; however, the substance which he passed to Jenkins on that occasion and for which he charged $60 was subsequently identified as cocaine. Later that evening, Jenkins again went into the bar and saw Peter working. They played pool for a while, and she asked him for more cocaine. They went to the ladies' room again, where she paid him $60 for one gram of a substance which was subsequently identified as cocaine. During this entire transaction, the door was not closed. That same evening, Jenkins also saw Peter go into the men's room with three Latin males who, shortly after entering with him, came out rubbing and wiping their noses. This practice of patrons going into the restrooms and coming out rubbing their noses was also observed by Beverage Agent Jose Iturralde, who entered the bar undercover on both the 14th and the 15th of May, but who was unable to make a buy from Peter or anyone else because, he believes, he and the other agents had already been identified as agents. A raid in conjunction with the Monroe County Sheriff's Office and other law enforcement agencies was conducted on the premises on May 18, 1984, pursuant to a search warrant properly issued. Arrested at that time were Seguseo, Geraldine Hook, and several other Latin named patrons. Pursuant to the search carried out, the following items were found: one and one-half grams of cocaine behind the jukebox; 26 clear baggies, each containing a half-grain of cocaine, behind the bar counter on the floor; a partially smoked marijuana cigarette on top of the cash register; 14 baggies, each containing cocaine, on the bar counter; a partially smoked cigarette below and behind the bar on the southeast corner of the bar on the floor; 22 baggies of cocaine on the floor behind the bar near the entrance (these 22 baggies were contained in a white envelope) 9 syringes in a small storage room off the main bar; and a Marlborough cigarette pack containing a clear plastic bag of cocaine on one of the booth seats. Geraldine Hook does not recall seeing any patron waving a plastic bag on April 25, as testified to by Agent Sampson; however, she contends that, because of the fact that the police frequently come into the bar looking for narcotics, it is a habit of some of the patrons, as a joke, to wave around clear plastic bags which do not contain cocaine. These instances generally result in the type of laughter described by Sampson. When Hook was hired by the manager, Ms. Otona, she was told, and she recalls that other girls who had been hired there are told, that they, as employees, cannot have or use drugs on the premises or allow anyone in who uses drugs; that if they see anyone they think is using drugs, they are to put that person out. Any violation of these rules results in discharge of the employee. Hook admits having seen mixed couples going into the rest rooms from time to time, but considers this to be acceptable behavior, since there are no locks on the doors. The rules for employees, which are made known to the employee when hired, were confirmed by another barmaid, Brenda L. Gillespie. She added to the no-drug policy such things as no drinking to excess and no kissing during work, and she herself recalled having barred numerous people and having seen others barred over the past few months because of the new management (that of Mrs. Gardner, Respondent, and Ms. Otona, manager) and their attempts to do away with the previously bad reputation the bar had for drugs. Because of this, the waitresses have taken substantial abuse. Ms. Gillespie confirmed Ms. Hook's comments regarding the joke made of the waving of plastic bags, contending that the patrons are trying to test the barmaids to see how far they can go. Gillespie also contends that she is the one who pried the locks off the restrooms to prevent patrons from locking themselves in the rooms to use drugs and has many times told patrons to keep the drugs out, going so far as to call the police. Notwithstanding the testimony of all of the beverage agents that they had never seen the Respondent or the manager on the premises, Gillespie opined that either one or both are there all the time or are immediately on call, since they live in the immediate vicinity of the bar. Further, she contends that the agents were there on irregular hours or were so busy pretending to be drunk that it was impossible for them to see anyone. She recognized the undercover agents as agents, but she did not let on because she wanted their help. Louise Otona, currently the manager of Stew's Bar for Katherine Gardner, the owner, indicated that she and Respondent realized about one and a half or two months ago that there was a problem at the bar because of Respondent's husband, Stanley Gardner. Mr. Gardner is a cocaine addict, but has no interest in the premises or in the license. Because of his problem, however, Ms. Otona keeps all the money from the sales, and none is left at the bar. Respondent and Ms. Otona have barred anyone they knew who had any connection with Mr. Gardner and his drug habit. Ms. Otona has also fired anyone she knows who has anything to do with drugs and has taken over from the barmaids throwing people out. Ms. Otona admits that drugs may have been sold in the bar, but not with her knowledge or with the knowledge of her employees, because both she and Respondent have tried to do their utmost to keep drugs out. The waitresses in Stew's Bar are hardworking girls who would not knowingly jeopardize their livelihood by selling or permitting drugs to be sold in the bar. Ms. Otona and Respondent have worked hard to make Stew's Bar clean again and have made progress. Ms. Otona has received many compliments from the police on these efforts. With regard to Peter, the Latin male who sold to Jenkins on several occasions, Ms. Otona contends that Peter was fired by her personally on May 15, 1984, and could not then have been an employee of the bar at the time the sales were made. However, many of the barmaids' boyfriends help behind the bar, as do some patrons. Consequently, it may appear that individuals are employees who are working behind the bar when, in fact, they are not. Respondent testified similarly to Ms. Otona. Respondent does not use drugs herself, nor does she drink. Her husband, Stanley, is a drug addict, and she has started work to have him committed because of his addiction. He has nothing to do with the bar, however, and he is not the landlord. As far as J. J.'s coming into the bar is concerned, J. J. was barred from this establishment prior to the incidents in question, but keeps coming back. Respondent has called the police to have him thrown out, but nothing seems to help.
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that the Respondent is guilty of misconduct involving the possession of cocaine. There is very little dispute regarding the facts in this case. The primary dispute concerns the determination of the appropriate penalty to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Alton J. Roberts, holds teaching certificate number 584629 issued by the Florida Department of Education. His certificate is in the area of Physical Education and is valid for the period 1991-1996. At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been, and continues to be, employed as a school teacher with the Dade County School System. He has been teaching in this capacity as a Physical Education teacher for approximately four years. On or about July 21, 1990, the Respondent and another adult male were in the process of driving from Miami to New York to return a van that belonged to the Respondent's brother. While the Respondent was sleeping and the other man was driving, law enforcement officers stopped the van for a traffic violation in the vicinity of Fort Pierce, Florida. As the van was coming to a stop, the driver woke the Respondent and told him that they were being stopped by law enforcement officers. When the van came to a stop, the driver got out first and went to speak to the officers. After the driver had gotten out of the car, the Respondent saw a small plastic container that he knew was the type of container customarily used for storing and sifting powdered cocaine. In an effort to conceal the container from the law enforcement officers, the Respondent picked up the container and put it in one of his back pockets. A few minutes later when the Respondent was asked to step out of the van, the law enforcement officers discovered the container in the Respondent's back pocket. Further examination of the container removed from the Respondent's back pocket revealed that it contained a small amount of white powder. The white powder was not weighed, but was perhaps as much as a gram in total weight. Described otherwise, the volume of the powder in the container removed from the Respondent's pocket was less than the volume of powder that would result from a crushed aspirin. The white powder was field tested and it tested positive for cocaine. As a result of the events described above, the Respondent was arrested and charged with felony possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. On February 25, 1991, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of cocaine and the other charge was dismissed. Adjudication was withheld and the Respondent was placed on probation for a period of two years. The Respondent was also required to perform 150 hours of community service, to pay $725.00 in court costs and fines, to pay $50.00 per month toward the cost of his probation supervision, and to receive a substance abuse evaluation. The Respondent has complied with all of the court-ordered requirements. The Respondent does not use cocaine. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been involved in any way with cocaine or any other illegal drugs at any time before or after the incident on July 21, 1990. The Respondent's arrest and subsequent court proceedings did not receive any notoriety in the Dade County area. The Respondent reported the matter to the principal of the school where he is employed. The principal reported the matter to administrators of the Dade County School System. After review of the matter, the administrators of the Dade County School System allowed the Respondent to continue to be employed as a teacher. Between the date of his arrest and the date of the hearing, the Respondent has taught all of one school year and most of a second school year. No evidence was offered of any problems or irregularities in his teaching during that period, nor was any evidence offered of any lack of effectiveness as a teacher during that period.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of a violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing a penalty consisting of the following: Issuance of a written reprimand from the Education Practices Commission to be placed both in the Respondent's certification file and in the Respondent's personnel file with the Dade County School System, and Placement of the Respondent on probation for a period of five years, the probation period to begin upon issuance of the Final Order and to include such terms as may appear necessary and appropriate to the Education Practices Commission to monitor the Respondent's performance as a teacher during the period of probation, including a provision for random drug testing of the Respondent at the request of the Education Practices Commission and at the expense of the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of April, 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 20th day of April, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, Aubrey Moran, who holds a Florida pharmacist's license, No. 0010982, was the managing pharmacist and the dispensing pharmacist at Lake Mary Pharmacy, 185 North Country Club Road, Lake Mary, Florida, a community pharmacy that holds permit No. 0007301. Half a block away from Lake Mary Pharmacy Robert L. Bevier, M.D., who was then Lake Mary's "principal general practitioner," had his office. COCAINE In the fall of 1981, Dr. Bevier brought respondent an article from a medical journal, which read, as follows: Make Your Own TAC; It Works Well Atlanta--An Atlanta emergency physician has reported good results with a topical anesthetic called TAC made of tetracaine, cocaine, and epinephrine. Dr. Michael Kessler, director of a seminar on Outpatient Surgical Techniques for the Non-Surgeon, said his group at a freestanding emergency clinic sees large numbers of pediatric patients, and TAC has worked well as a topical anesthetic for children as well as adults. The recipe for TAC (taken from the January 1980 Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians, according to Kessler) calls for 300 mg. tetracaine hydrochloride powder; one-fourth ounce (7,090 mg.) cocaine flakes; 30 cc 1:1000 inject epinephrine, and distilled water. The tetracaine is dissolved in a small amount of distilled water; the epinephrine and cocaine added; and the mixture combined with distilled water to make 60 cc volume. It should be stored in a brown bottle and has a shelf-life of 21 to 30 days. Dr. Bevier asked Mr. Moran to compound some of this mixture. Mr. Moran did not keep cocaine in stock ordinarily, but he acquired some from a wholesaler and dispensed 60 cc. amounts of the TAC solution to Dr. Bevier on three occasions. On each occasion Dr. Bevier wrote a prescription for himself on a form on which "AB 8796510" appeared just under his signature. The prescriptions were dated September 8, November 3 and November 23, 1981, and were filled on the dates written, except for the first, which was not filled until September 14, 1981, perhaps because of a delay in obtaining ingredients. Mr. Moran was under the impression that Dr. Bevier was using the solution as a local anesthetic in his practice for procedures like the removal of warts. Solutions of this type are also used to anesthetize mucous membranes. Cocaine in solution with epinephrine is of no use to an abuser. Deposition of Charles L. Park, p. Testimony of Respondent. (T. 112) In early December of 1981, Dr. Bevier asked Mr. Moran for the TAC ingredients to keep on hold in his office so that he could mix the solution up along, as needed. Mr. Moran's only information about shelf life was what he had read in the article from the medical journal Dr. Bevier had shown him. He did in fact deliver the ingredients to Dr. Bevier, including four quarter ounce packages of cocaine hydrochloride flakes, on December 3, 1982. Dr. Bevier signed the official Drug Enforcement Administration form (DEA 222) required in connection with this transaction, and delivered it to the pharmacy. INVESTIGATOR ARRIVES After the cocaine flake purchases, Will A. Merrill, an investigator for petitioner Department of Professional Regulation visited Mr. Moran in the course of investigating Dr. Bevier. On May 27 and 28, 1982, Mr. Merrill examined respondent's records, and talked to Mr. Moran. Precisely what was said is a matter of dispute. At the very least, Mr. Merrill advised Mr. Moran that irregularities in Dr. Bevier's record keeping regarding Schedule II drugs were being looked into. Cocaine, Demerol (Meperidine) and Dilaudid are all controlled substances, and are listed on Schedule II in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. The investigation culminated in an emergency suspension of Dr. Bevier's license to practice medicine on September 12, 1982. Thereafter the investigation of respondents began. DEMEROL AND DILAUDID Lige Williams, a cancer victim, was Dr. Bevier's stepfather. On July 14, 1982, and again on August 2, 1982, Mr. Moran filled prescriptions for Mr. Williams written by Dr. Bevier, each for sixty 100 milligram tablets of Demerol. He dispensed the medicine to Mr. Williams. On August 9, 1982, Mr. Moran dispensed a 20 milliliter ampule of Demerol to Dr. Bevier for office use after Dr. Bevier signed the appropriate Form 222. Dr. Bevier himself came into Lake Mary Pharmacy with a prescription for one hundred 100 milligram tablets of Demerol for Lige Williams on August 13, 1982, and Mr. Moran filled the prescription. On August 16, 1982, Mr. Moran dispensed a second 20 milliliter ampule of Demerol to Dr. Bevier for office use, again after Dr. Bevier signed the appropriate Form 222. Three days later Dr. Bevier presented another prescription for a hundred 100 milligram tablets of Demerol for Lige Williams, which Mr. Moran filled. On August 26 and September 8, 1982, Dr. Bevier signed two more Form 222s and Mr. Moran dispensed two more 20 milliliter ampules of Demerol for office use. Dr. Bevier told Mr. Moran that the Demerol ampules were "primarily . . . for Mr. Williams' use." (T. 103) The parties stipulated that Mr. Moran dispensed another fifty 100 milligram tablets of Demerol at some time "from or about May 1, 1981 until August 30, 1982" to unspecified person(s) under unspecified circumstances. On September 9, 1982, Mr. Moran filled a prescription Dr. Bevier wrote and personally presented for Lige Williams for 100 four milligram tablets of Dilaudid. When Mr. Moran questioned the quantity of tablets, Dr. Bevier said that Lige Williams was leaving Lake Mary to go back to his own home and that he "want[ed] him to have enough tablets to get him up there and hold him until he can be seen by a physician up there." (T. 93) Dilaudid and Demerol in the sequence and dosages to be inferred from the prescriptions Mr. Moran filled for Mr. Williams, even assuming Mr. Williams received the full contents of all four ampules, are commonly and appropriately prescribed for terminally ill cancer patients, according to the uncontroverted medical testimony.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaints filed against respondents. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II 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 21st day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. C. Hutchison, Jr., Esq. Hutchison & Mamele 230 North Park Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wanda Willis, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Pharmacy 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are framed by the Notice to Show Cause issued by the Petitioner, the Department of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Department), on or about October 9, 1991. The Notice to Show Cause contains a total of 32 counts. Twenty nine (29) counts accuse the Respondent, Bernard Jordan, d/b/a Club Zanzibar, of permitting an agent, servant, patron, or employee to unlawfully possess, sell or deliver a controlled substance (cocaine) to an undercover informant or law enforcement officer on the licensed premises in violation of Sections 893.13(1)(a) and 893.13(1)(f) within Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. One count accuses the Respondent of permitting an agent, servant, patron, or employee to unlawfully possess, sell or deliver five (5) liters of non tax paid whiskey (moonshine) to an undercover informant or law enforcement officer on the licensed premises in violation of Sections and 562.451 within Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. 1/ One count accuses the Respondent of unlawfully keeping or maintaining the licensed premises for the illegal keeping, using, selling or delivering of substances controlled under Chapter 893.03, in violation of Sections 823.10 and 893.13(2)(a)(5), within Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Finally, the last count accuses the Respondent of failing to exercise due diligence in supervising the licensed premises, allowing it to be used by agents, servants, patrons, or employess for the purpose of possessing, selling, delivering and using illegal substances controlled under Chapter 893.03 (coccaine) and 562.451 (moonshine), 2/ in violation of Sections 823.10 and 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bernard Jordan, has owned and operated the Club Zanzibar, located at 2132 Main Street, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, for approximately nine years. He holds alcoholic beverage license number 39-00839, series 4-COP, issued by the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. (He also operates a package store on the premises.) When the Respondent began operating under his license in 1983, there was much less drug activity in the vicinity than there is now. The clientele of the Club Zanzibar was mixed, in the sense that it included the community's professional and blue collar workers, and also law enforcement employees; but the clientele generally was a stable and settled crowd. Supporters of a local community boys' club regularly met at the Club (and continued to meet there up to the time of the emergency suspension on October 10, 1991.) During the early years of the Club, the package store part of the business had two entrances, and the less controlled access to and egress from the premises did not present a problem for the Respondent. There was relatively little loitering and drinking on the street in front of the Club. Notwithstanding the relatively stable environment, the Respondent did not ignore the potential for unlawful activity on the premises. He utilized an Employee Handbook that all new employees had to read and, after completing a month of probationary employment, sign. Among other things, the handbook informed the employees: If a customer is suspected of performing any unlawful acts in this business, the police will be contacted. . . . Do not accuse a customer of any unlawful acts, if not seen by the employee of the establishment. If the employee is using, has or obtaining [sic] drugs, they will be dismissed immediately. (PLEASE READ NOTICE CONCERNING DRUGS). * * * DUE TO RECENT SUSPICIONS OF DRUGS AND OTHER ILLEGAL MATTERS BEING BROUGHT ON THESE PREMISES, ANYONE ENTERING THIS ESTABLISHMENT IS SUBJECT TO BEING POLITELY CHECKED, AS A MEASURE TO PROTECT THE OPERATION OF THIS BUSINESS. WE OFFER OUR DEEPEST APOLOGIES, BUT POSITIVELY NO DRUGS OR ANY OTHER ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES ARE ALLOWED. * * * No one is allowed to LOITER on the grounds of the establishment and no one should be standing in front of door exits or entrances. 4/ Club employees also were informed on a regular basis that no illegal drugs were allowed on the premises and that employees should keep them out if they could or, if not, should notify the Respondent, who either would take care of it himself or call the police. The Respondent also would "bar" anyone caught with or strongly suspected of having, illegal drugs on the premises. The "bar" was permanent or until lifted by the Respondent. The employees are told to enforce the "bar," and if someone who has been barred ignores an employee's enforcement measures, the employee is supposed to tell the Respondent, who enforces it himself or, if necessary, calls the police. But the Respondent did not hold regular, formal meetings to remind the employees of Respondent's prohibition against the possession, use or sale of illegal drugs and of their responsibility with respect to patrons violating the policy. He did not require his employees to complete employment applications or be screened. Nor did he polygraph his employees. The Respondent also posts five-by-seven inch placards in conspicuous places throughout the premises informing customers and employees alike: Illegal Activities Warning: This establishment is firmly against any illegal behavior! . . . Drugs: Drugs are positively prohibited on these premises! Anyone seen or reported with any form of Narcotics will IMMEDIATELY be reported to the police without warning! (A similar message is related as to dangerous weapons.) Although the Respondent makes efforts to enforce the basic "no drugs" policy, he does not always follow the letter of his warnings and announced enforcement measures. He does not, for example, report drug violators to the police "immediately" and "without warning," as the placards state. Indeed, there is no evidence that the Respondent ever reports drug violations to the police or asks for police or Department assistance to address the issue of drugs on the premises. In recent years, the environment around and in the Club Zanzibar has changed drastically. In recent years, crack cocaine has become a serious problem in the vicinity. Crack is sold predominantly by a crowd that is younger than the historical Club Zanzibar clientele. This younger crowd now mixes with the historical Club clientele. It also loiters around in the street in front of the Club and in the general vicinity. Street sales of crack are so frequent in the area that the street has been likened to a drug supermarket. Anyone, anywhere in Tampa, can come to Main Street in this part of the city and buy crack with almost no wait. The problem has become so bad that the Tampa Police Department has opened a sector office nearby; yet, the drug problem in the area persists despite the greater police presence. Because of changed circumstances in the neighborhood, the Respondent has altered the premises to eliminate one of the two entries to the package store to make it a little easier to monitor those going in and out of the package store. The Respondent also has placed a mirror in the premises to allow whoever is tending bar to monitor the foyer of the Club for possible loitering or illegal activity from a particular vantage point near the cash register. But he did not take steps to improve the lighting in the licensed premises. Nor did he vigorously police his establishment. The Respondent did not hire a manager or adequate security guards to police the licensed premises. The Respondent has volunteers who work for him on weekends and, to some extent, watch for illegal activities on the premises. But these volunteers are retirees who are not particularly effective and their primary function seems to be to collect the cover charge for the Respondent. Even assuming that they were actively policing the establishment, they were not capable of doing the job that should have been done. In response to apparent complaints, the Department sent an undercover special agent and an undercover confidential informant (the CI) into the Club Zanzibar on or about May 31, 1991. (An undercover Tampa Police detective also went as a back-up.) The CI and Agent Murray entered the Club and took a seat at the bar. In a short while, a black male known to the CI as a drug pusher who went by the initials "C.C." walked up to them. (C.C. also had told the CI that he (C.C.) was the Respondent's brother, but the evidence did not prove that C.C. was in fact the Respondent's brother.) The CI told C.C. he wanted to buy "a 20" ($20 worth of crack cocaine.) C.C. left for the men's room and returned with a plastic baggy. He held it up waist high or higher to show them that the baggy contained crack cocaine. He removed some of the crack from the baggy and gave it to the CI. 5/ After examining the crack, the CI told Agent Murray to pay C.C. the $20. There were about 15 people in the Club during the transaction on May 31, 1991. The participants in the transaction spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, the juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversations probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. 6/ No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on May 31, 1991. /7 But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. The evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on May 31, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On June 7, 1991, Agent Murray and the CI again entered the Club. There they talked to Wayne Fowler, who gave them the impression that he was employed at the bar as a manager or bouncer. (However, the evidence did not prove that Fowler was ever employed by the Respondent in any capacity.) The CI asked for C.C. Fowler told him that he (Fowler) was "holding C.C.'s stuff" and asked if they wanted to buy from him or wait for C.C. The CI said they would buy from Fowler, and Fowler passed some crack to the CI's lap, under the level of the bar (but not actually underneath the bar counter top). Agent Murray similarly passed a $20 bill to the CI, who passed it to Fowler. There were about 20 people in the Club during the transaction on June 7, 1991. But the evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on June 7, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On June 12, 1991, the CI and Agent Murray, together with a backup from the Tampa Police Department, again went to the Club. This time, they did not see anyone in the Club to buy drugs from, and the CI and Agent Murray were leaving when Fowler came in and met them in the foyer, which was not visible from throughout the Club's interior. Fowler immediately asked them if they wanted to buy crack. They said yes, and Fowler sold them "a 20." The whole transaction took no more than four or five seconds. The participants in the transaction on June 12, 1991, spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, the juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversations probably could be overheard only by someone passing through the foyer at the time. Although there ordinarily are people entering and leaving the Club through the foyer at fairly regular intervals, it was not proven that anyone passed by during the couple of seconds the drug deal lasted. 8/ The evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on June 12, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On June 14, 1991, the CI and Agent Murray again went to the Club Zanzibar to make a drug buy. Shortly after they entered and sat down at the bar, Fowler came in and went over to them at the bar and asked if they wanted to buy crack. They told him they did, and Fowler left the premises. He returned a short while later and walked up behind the empty stool between them and shook some crack out of a handkerchief onto the empty stool. (The bar stools had a back; and the seats were below bar level.) The CI picked up the crack and gave it to Agent Murray, who gave Fowler a $20 bill. There were about 15 people in the Club during the transaction on June 14, 1991. The participants in the transaction spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, the juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversations probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on June 14, 1991. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. The crack was blocked from general view by the bar on one side, by the bar stool back and Fowler on the opposite side, and by the CI and Agent Fowler on either side of the empty stool. The whole transaction took only about five seconds. Although there were people moving about in the Club, as usual, the evidence did not prove that anyone in the bar during the transaction on June 14, 1991, observed the drug deal. On June 18, 1991, the CI, Agent Murray and their backup undercover detective from the Tampa Police Department returned to the Club Zanzibar to make drug buys. Although there were about 15 people in the premises, apparently no one was selling drugs to them, and the CI left to try to find Fowler. The CI found out that a man named Don Vanderhorst was holding Fowler's crack and would sell some to them. Vanderhorst returned with the CI to the Club. There, Vanderhorst showed them a plastic bag containing crack, holding it in a partially concealed manner between waist and chest height, sold them $10 of crack and left. After buying from Vanderhorst on June 18, 1991, the three law enforcement personnel stayed on the premises. A short time later, Fowler came in and went directly over to the CI and Agent Murray to see if they wanted to buy some more crack from him. Fowler passed to the CI, at waist level, a piece of crack folded up in a torn piece of brown paper the size of a quarter coin. Fowler said he would sell it to them for $10. He changed a $20 bill for them and made the sale. There were about 15 people in the Club during the transactions on June 18, 1991. The participants in the transactions spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, the juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversations probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transactions on June 18, 1991. But neither were the transactions done in an open manner for all to see. View of the Vanderhorst transaction was blocked from the back and sides by the three participants. Although customers generally move around and about inside the Club on a fairly regular basis, these transactions took place on the side of the "U"-shaped bar opposite the entrance to the Club, between the bar and the right hand perimeter wall of the premises, near the corner where one end of the bar "dead-ends" on that side into the front perimeter wall of the inside of the premises. There generally is much less traffic in this area since it is a "dead end." An unidentified female bartender might have been able to observe the transactions, but the evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on June 18, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On June 19, 1991, the CI and Agent Murray returned to the Club Zanzibar. This time, Fowler was seated at a table inside. After they were seated at the bar, Fowler approached them and asked them what they wanted. Agent Murray answered that they wanted "a 20." Fowler told them quietly and privately that they would have to wait because of the customer seated next to Agent Murray. When the customer left, Fowler proceeded to take out a folded up torn piece of brown paper. Holding it at waist level, he showed them the crack that was in it. He took two pieces and passed them to the CI, who passed them to Agent Murray, who gave the CI a $20 bill to give to Fowler. There were about 15 people in the Club during the transactions on June 19, 1991. The participants in the transaction spoke in a quiet tone in the presence of the customer seated next to Agent Murray but otherwise in a normal conversational tone. The juke box was playing, as usual, and the normal conversational tone probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on June 19, 1991. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. The participants partially blocked the view from the back and sides. The evidence did not prove that anyone in the bar observed the drug deal on on June 19, 1991. On June 24, 1991, Fowler and Vanderhorst were outside talking when the CI and Agent Murray arrived at the Club Zanzibar. Shortly after they entered, Fowler came in and approached them to ask them if they wanted to buy crack. Fowler said that Vanderhorst was "holding my stuff." He left and went to the back of the bar (where the bathrooms are). (Apparently, Vanderhorst also had entered the Club with Fowler and went to the back of the premises, perhaps to the bathroom.) Fowler returned with two pieces of crack which he passed to the CI. Agent Murray gave Fowler $20. There were about ten people in the Club during the transaction on June 24, 1991. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction. The evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on June 24, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. When the CI and Agent Murray arrived at the Club Zanzibar on July 1, 1991, once again Fowler and Vanderhorst were outside on the street. Fowler followed the two inside and approached them to ask if they wanted crack. They said they did, and Fowler passed some crack to the CI for $20. There were about 20 people in the Club during the transaction on July 1, 1991. The participants in the transaction spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, the juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversations probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on July 1, 1991. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. This transaction also took place on the part of the bar near the corner where it "dead-ends" into the front perimeter wall of the inside of the premises. See Finding of Fact 22, above. The evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 1, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On July 5, 1991, the CI and Agent Murray entered the Club Zanzibar to buy drugs but did not see anyone to sell to them. The CI had to go outside looking for Fowler. He found Fowler, who told him he (Fowler) was waiting for his "supply," i.e., the person supplying him with cocaine. The CI brought Fowler back into the Club with him. There, Agent Murray asked Fowler for "some play," i.e., some crack to buy. Fowler told her he would have to "cut" it, i.e., convert it to crack, and left. About five minutes later, Fowler came back in and passed a piece of crack to the CI. There were about 10-15 people in the Club during the transaction on July 5, 1991. The Respondent and his sister were working on the premises on July 5, 1991. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on July 5, 1991. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. This transaction also took place on the part of the bar near the corner where it "dead-ends" into the front perimeter wall of the inside of the premises. See Finding of Fact 22, above. The evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 5, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On July 8, 1991, Fowler again was outside on the street when the CI and Agent Murray arrived at the Club. Fowler followed them inside. The Respondent was tending bar. Fowler quietly and privately told the CI and Agent Murray that they would have to watch out for the Respondent. Fowler left them and returned in a minute or two. Fowler kept a close eye on the Respondent and, about three or four minutes later, got an opportunity to do the drug deal without the Respondent seeing it. While keeping a close eye out for the Respondent, Fowler passed two pieces of crack to the CI, who passed the crack to Agent Murray. Murray passed $20 back to Fowler through the CI. Besides the Respondent, there were about 10 people in the Club during the transaction on July 8, 1991. Except when they were lowering their voices so the Respondent would not hear them, the participants in the transaction spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, the juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversations probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. Except for the efforts to keep the Respondent from seeing it, no other extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on July 8, 1991. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. This transaction also took place on the part of the bar near the corner where it "dead-ends" into the front perimeter wall of the inside of the premises. See Finding of Fact 22, above. The evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 8, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. When the CI and Agent Murray arrived at the Club on July 16, 1991, they again saw Fowler outside on the street. Fowler followed them in but stopped in the foyer area and beckoned them to come to the foyer. There, Fowler informed them that the Respondent had barred him from the Club and that they would have to do the deal on the street. The CI protested that he did not want the police to see him. Fowler left, and the CI and Agent Murray returned to the Club. When they left the Club some time later, Fowler met them in the foyer. Within a matter of five to ten seconds, Fowler had passed a single piece of crack to the CI, and Murray passed $20 to Fowler. Although there ordinarily are people entering and leaving the Club through the foyer at fairly regular intervals, it was not proven that anyone passed by during the couple of seconds the drug deal lasted. The evidence was not clear whether anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 16, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On July 18, 1991, Fowler was sitting outside on the street when the CI and Agent Murray arrived at and entered the Club. Fowler did not follow them in. Vanderhorst was inside, and they asked him for crack, but he did not have any to sell. Eventually, they left. Fowler apparently had been waiting for them in the street and, as the CI opened the door to exit the premises, Fowler met him and kept the door propped open while he offered to sell them crack. Fowler passed crack to CI, and Murray gave the CI $20 to give to Fowler. People were walking by on the street, and it would have been possible for someone in the street or walking into the foyer to observe the drug deal that took place on July 18, 1991. But it was not proved that anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 18, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On July 22, 1991, Fowler stopped the CI and Agent Murray before they could even get into the Club. Again dealing in the doorway with the door propped open, Fowler passed crack to the CI (in a manner such that Murray herself, who was not looking directly at the transaction, was unable to observe it). The CI passed the crack to Murray, who gave Fowler $20. Again, as on July 18, people were walking by on the street, and it would have been possible for someone in the street or entering the foyer to observe the drug deal that took place on July 22, 1991. But it was not proved that anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 22, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. The next day, the CI and Agent Murray returned to the Club Zanzibar. They didn't see Fowler or Vanderhorst. The CI saw someone named Eddie Hall, who was known to the CI to be a "watch dog" for drug pushers. The CI approached him and asked for Fowler and Vanderhorst. Hall left looking for them and returned to tell them that the Respondent had barred Fowler from the Club and that he couldn't come in. Hall told the CI that Fowler was outside and would sell them "a half a packet" (apparently, four pieces of crack) for $20. Just then, Fowler appeared just inside the entrance to the Club and beckoned the CI and Murray to come to him. In all, Fowler was inside the Club for just a matter of seconds (four to five). Fowler met them in the foyer, and the CI told him that they declined the offer to sell "a half a packet" because they were looking for a full "packet." Fowler became irate, apparently at the illogic of their refusal to buy anything. He yelled and screamed and carried on for thirty seconds to a minute until they were in the street. Eventually, the CI and Agent Murray relented in their dubious position and bought a "half a packet" for $20 on the street in front of the Club. 9/ Except for Fowler's yelling and carrying on in the foyer and in the street, the participants in the transaction on July 23, 1991, spoke in a normal conversational tone. The juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversational tone probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. As for the Fowler's yelling and screaming, it might have been heard by the bartender, a female named Brunette, and she did not do anything about it before they all moved into the street, but the evidence did not prove that she would have been able to tell that Fowler's yelling and screaming necessarily involved a drug deal. The evidence did not prove that anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 23, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On July 25, 1991, the CI and Agent Murray again went to the Club Zanzibar. The Respondent was behind the bar. His sister was working there, too. After a time, the Respondent left, and Eddie Hall approached them. He told them that the Respondent was gone and that Fowler wanted to see them outside. The CI objected to doing the deal in the street and went to the front door of the Club and called out to Fowler to come in. Fowler went as far as the foyer and met them there. No employees were nearby. In conducting the transaction, Fowler accidentally dropped a white crack "rock" on the foyer floor. He nonchalantly bent down as if he were tying his shoe and picked it up. 10/ Fowler passed the crack to CI, who passed it to Agent Murray, who gave the CI $20 to give to Fowler. Other than Fowler's effort to pick up the crack he had dropped without attracting attention, no other extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on July 25, 1991. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. It was conducted in the foyer where no employee saw it. Indeed, there is no evidence that anyone saw the transaction other than the participants. There is no evidence that anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 25, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On July 26, 1991, the CI and Agent Murray returned to the Club Zanzibar. As they were about to enter, they saw Vanderhorst just outside. Vanderhorst followed them in. The CI went over to Vanderhorst to ask about crack. Vanderhorst said Fowler was waiting to get some from his girl friend. He left to look for them. Later, Vanderhorst returned and told the CI and Murray that Fowler had some crack and would meet them in the foyer. They went to meet Fowler and bought $20 of crack from him. The participants in the transaction spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, the juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversations probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on July 26, 1991. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. It was conducted in the foyer where no employee saw it. Indeed, although there were 10-15 people in the Club at the time, there is no evidence that anyone in the bar during the transaction on July 26, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On August 2, 1991, Vanderhorst followed the CI and Agent Murray into the Club Zanzibar. Vanderhorst approached them and told them his crack was in his car. Vanderhorst left and returned with a $10 piece of crack. The drugs and money passed inside the bar. There were about 10-15 people in the Club during the transaction on August 2, 1991. The participants in the transaction spoke in a normal conversational tone. However, the juke box was playing, as usual, and the conversations probably could be overheard only by someone sitting immediately adjacent to the participants. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on August 2, 1991. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. This transaction also took place on the part of the bar near the corner where it "dead-ends" into the front perimeter wall of the inside of the premises. See Finding of Fact 22, above. The evidence did not prove that anyone in the bar during the transaction on August 2, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On August 14, 1991, the CI and Agent Murray went to the Club Zanzibar and apparently found no one to sell them drugs. The CI went outside to find someone named "Dragon," who was leaving when they came in. The CI returned with someone named James Royal, who had "some dubs" and sold them "a 20" of crack. Royal passed the crack to the CI at chest height (i.e., above the bar). Holding it between his two fingers, the CI showed it to Murray for a few seconds (three or four) before giving it to her. Murray gave Royal $20 for the crack. There were about 15 people in the Club during the transaction on August 14, 1991. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction on August 14, 1991. This transaction also took place on the part of the bar near the corner where it "dead-ends" into the front perimeter wall of the inside of the premises. See Finding of Fact 22, above. The evidence did not prove that the two female bartenders on duty--Pat and Lena--or anyone in the bar during the transaction on August 14, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. On August 26, 1991, the Respondent was working in the package store when the CI and Agent Murray entered the Club Zanzibar. Lena was tending the bar. A man known as Adelbert Cliatt or Al Clyde (Clyde) came up to the CI, who asked if Clyde was "still in the business." Clyde said he was but that someone else was holding his "stuff" to reduce the chances that he would get caught. During the conversation between Clyde and the CI, the Respondent came into the Club to try to fix the juke box. The Respondent was kneeling with his back to the bar, about 8-10 feet away from where they were sitting at the bar. While the Respondent was still working on the juke box, someone named Toby Adams came in and joined them. Clyde told Adams, apparently the person holding Clyde's crack, that the CI had asked for "a 20" and to go get. Adams gestured towards the Respondent, afraid to discuss it further or to deal while the Respondent was there. Clyde and Adams then left the Club. When they returned with the drugs, Clyde and Adams just stood behind where Murray and the CI were seated at the bar and waited until the Respondent was finished with the juke box and returned to the package store. Then Clyde took out a piece of crack on a piece of paper to display it to the CI at about chest level. Twice during the five or seven seconds Clyde was displaying the crack to the CI, the CI told Clyde in hushed tones to lower the crack so that it would not be as easy for others to see. The CI also complained that it was not "a 20," but Clyde insisted that it was, pointed out that he was also selling the "shake," i.e., the loose crack particles, that was on the paper. Clyde then folded the paper and gave it to the CI. While the Respondent did not return to the bar area while the transaction was taking place on August 26, 1991, Lena was in the vicinity the whole time and was able to see what was happening, but she showed no interest and did nothing to stop it. It was not proven that the Respondent or any other of the 15 or so people in the Club, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. Two days later, on August 28, 1991, Agent Murray and the CI returned to the Club Zanzibar and met Fowler on the street outside the Club. As the three headed towards the entrance, Fowler reminded them that he was barred from the Club, and Fowler passed crack to Murray in the foyer. There was no evidence that anyone other than the participants saw the transaction or knew that drugs had been passed. Agent Murray and the CI then continued into the Club. Although Fowler had not yet been paid for the crack, he did not follow them but stopped at the end of the bar nearest the entrance. The Respondent saw Fowler and went over to talk to him. The evidence was not clear what was said, but no more than a minute later, Fowler left. 11/ While the CI and Agent Murray were inside the Club, someone named Clements came in and approached them to tell them that Fowler was "waiting for his package," i.e., his $20. The CI told him, "later," and Clements left. A little while later, Fowler came back into the Club, went up to the CI and Murray at the bar near the entrance, and began to yell at them for not giving Clements Fowler's money. The CI or Murray apparently told Fowler to keep it down, because Fowler informed them that he had seen the Respondent leave, apparently to assure them that it was safer now (even though Brunette still was there). While Agent Murray handed Fowler the money, the CI explained to Fowler that they were not sure Clements would give Fowler the money and that they wanted to give it to him personally. This seemed to satisfy Fowler. Brunette was able to hear Fowler arguing loudly with Murray and the CI and did not intervene or try to find out what the argument was about. But the evidence did not prove that Brunette could hear or could tell what it was that they were saying. The CI and Agent Murray were back at the Club on September 10, 1991. Apparently, there was no one inside to sell them drugs, so the CI went outside. On his return, he told Murray that Fowler was outside "doing a deal." A while later, Fowler came into the Club and joined them. He held a small brown bag up to about chest level to show them the crack inside and then gave it to them. Agent Murray gave Fowler $20. During the conversation between the CI and Fowler on September 10, 1991, the CI asked if Fowler was "back in with " the Respondent, to which Fowler answered that he was. The evidence was not clear whether the CI meant, or that Fowler understood, anything by the question other than that the CI thought Fowler was barred from the Club and was surprised to see him back inside. The CI also asked Fowler if Fowler worked at the Club. Fowler glanced back at the CI, making a face as if to ask, "are you crazy?" and answered, "no way." The CI then asked, "you mean [the Respondent] wants to bar you but still wants you to do favors for him?" and Fowler answered, "yes." However, again, the meaning of this exchange was ambiguous. There were about ten people in the Club during the transaction on September 10, 1991. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction. The Respondent was not there. The bartender on duty, Debra, was new and did not work at the Club very long before her employment was terminated. The evidence was not clear whether she witnessed the transaction or heard the conversation, or heard or saw anything suspicious (although it is possible that she did.) The transaction took place on the side of the bar opposite the entrance to the Club, between the bar and the right hand perimeter wall of the premises, half way to the corner where the "U"-shaped bar "dead-ends" on that side into the front perimeter wall of the inside of the premises. Although customers generally circulate fairly regularly throughout the premises, there generally is much less traffic in this area since it near the "dead end." See Finding of Fact 22, above. There were people playing dominos at a low table in the corner behind the bar where the transaction occurred, but it was not proven that the transaction could have been observed from the domino table. The evidence did not prove that anyone in the bar during the transaction on September 10, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. The CI and Agent Murray returned to the Club on September 13, 1991. The Club was crowded; there were 20-25 people there. Lena was tending bar; the Respondent's wife was in the package store; the Respondent himself was not there. At one point, while the CI and Murray were seated at the bar, a man called "Big John" Polite walked up to them, and the CI told him that Murray wanted "a 20." Polite asked if they wanted to do the deal in the Club, and the CI said, "yes." Polite left to go to the men's room, where he said his crack was, and returned to where they were sitting. He walked up between them and passed the crack to the CI under bar level. The CI passed it to Murray, who put it on a napkin on the bar counter top, wrapped it up, and put it in her pocket. Murray then passed $20 to Polite. The man sitting next to Murray at the bar on September 13, 1991, easily could have seen the crack, but the evidence did not prove that he did, or that he would have known what it was. Others also could perhaps have recognized that a drug transaction was occurring, but the evidence did not prove that anyone else in fact knew it was happening. With the juke box playing, and the crowd making noise, probably only someone actually involved in the conversations with Polite would have been able to hear them. When the CI and Agent Murray were in the Club on September 17, 1991, it was again crowded, with about 25 people inside. Brunette and a man named Carl were tending bar. There was confusion in the testimony as to who Carl was. The CI understood him to be the Respondent's cousin, Carl Jordan. The Respondent testified that he had no cousin named Carl Jordan. He admitted he had a cousin name Carl Warmack, who sometimes accompanied him to the Club, but said his cousin Carl was severely retarded and incapable of tending bar or doing anything other than simple menial chores. The CI and Agent Murray did not seem to think that the person they identified as Carl Jordan was retarded. Seated at the bar on September 17, 1991, on the side where there is less traffic circulating, 12/ Murray and the CI observed an unidentified female patron holding three crack "rocks" in her open palm while fingering them with her other hand. She did this in the open so that others seated on that side of the bar also would have been able to see. But it was not proven that anyone else in fact saw what she was doing or knew she had crack in her hand. A little later, Clyde walked up to them, and Murray asked for "a 20." Clyde left and returned shortly to pass some crack to Murray under bar level. Murray put the crack in her pocket and passed $20 to Clyde. "Carl" did nothing about the drug deal between Clyde and Murray. Much of the time while this transaction was taking place, "Carl" was talking to the CI within about three feet from where Murray was sitting. He could have seen the transaction but the evidence did not prove that "Carl" in fact saw it or knew it was taking place. Nor did the evidence prove that Brunette saw the transaction or knew it was taking place. On September 19, 1991, Agent Murray and the CI again went to the Club. Lena was tending bar. The Respondent's daughter also was there. It was crowded, with about 25 people inside. During the time they were there, Murray saw Clyde and asked him for "a 20." Clyde pulled a small brown bag out of his shirt pocket, took out three pieces of crack, and passed them to Murray below the level of the bar where they were sitting. Murray then passed Clyde $20. There were people sitting all around the bar, but the evidence did not prove that anyone saw the transaction to that point. Then, Murray held the crack up for Lena to see and asked her if it was "hard white," a common illegal drug dealing slang intended to describe the potentially dangerous kind of crack that is "cut" with baking soda. Lena lit a cigarette lighter to see it better, looked at it for a moment and answered, "it looks beige to me." Crack that is "cut" in the acceptable manner has a beige-like color and is referred to as "beige" in illegal drug dealing slang. It is found that Lena was using the drug dealing slang. On September 26, 1991, Agent Murray and the CI were at the Club sitting at the bar. The CI called over to a man named David Glover, a/k/a Jake, who was playing dominoes. Glover came over and sat in the bar stool next to the CI. There, Glover sold the CI crack for $25. There were 15-20 people in the Club on September 26, 1991. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. This transaction took place on the side where there is less traffic circulating. See Finding of Fact 61, above. However, after the deal, the CI called the bartender, Debra, over and asked for a napkin. He put the crack on the napkin on the bar counter top and asked her if she knew what it was. She looked at it and, knowing what it was, simply said, "you better get it off the bar." Debra was terminated shortly afterwards for reasons not disclosed by the evidence. (The Respondent said only that "she didn't work out.") According to the evidence, Agent Murray's last visit to the Club Zanzibar was on October 8, 1991. She and a backup sat at the part of the bar closest to the domino table. Clyde walked up, and Murray asked for "a 20." She gave him $20, and Clyde went to the domino table to talk to someone and then left. The unidentified person with whom he had spoken came over and told Murray that he could get whatever she wanted if Clyde couldn't. Murray told him that Clyde had just left with her money and that she hoped Clyde had what she wanted. A little later, Clyde returned and passed Murray a crack "rock" at the bar under bar level height. After the deal with Clyde, the Respondent walked behind and past where Clyde and Murray were, but the evidence did not prove that the Respondent saw anything suspicious occurring. After the drug deal with Clyde, Murray beckoned to the unidentified male with whom she had spoken earlier. He gestured acknowledgement and came over shortly. Murray asked him for $10 worth of crack. He said he would get it and returned shortly to say it would have to be "a 20." Murray said, "OK," and passed him a $20 bill. He passed her the crack at waist level as he walked past her. There were about 15 people in the Club on October 8, 1991. The Respondent was there. Brunette and "Carl" were behind the bar. No extraordinary effort was made to hide the transaction. But neither was the transaction done in an open manner for all to see. From where Murray was sitting, her back and Clyde's back were between the transaction and the domino table. The unidentified pusher sneakily slipped the crack to Murray as he walked past between her and the vantage from the domino table. The evidence did not prove that anyone in the bar during the transaction on October 8, 1991, other than the participants, observed the drug deal or heard any of the related conversation. The Respondent testified that he later barred Clyde for drug activity. On or about October 10, 1991, the Club Zanzibar was raided by Tampa Police, arrests were made, and an Emergency Suspension Order issued by the Department was served. The Club has not been in operation since then. There is no evidence that the Respondent ever asked the Division or the Tampa Police for help in controlling illegal drug use on his premises. He did not ask the police to send undercover agents into the area and his establishment to make cases against customers who broke the drug laws or to "test" his employees. There is no evidence that the Respondent gave the Tampa Police intelligence information regarding the source of illegal drugs in the area. Nor did he work as closely or as diligently with local community leaders as he could have. Since the Club Zanzibar has been closed, illegal drug activity in the immediate vicinity has decreased markedly. This is a common occurrence for some period of time after a police raid. Longer periods of decreased drug activity also can be explained by the arrest of some of the participants in the illegal activities and by the fewer number of people in the area, which translates to fewer potential drug buyers in the area. The extended duration of decreased illegal drug activity after the raid in this case (almost two months, through the time of the final hearing) is somewhat unusual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order suspending the Respondent's license for six months from entry of final order and fining the Respondent $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1992, 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 February, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence, and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Sweet's Lounge, Inc., held alcoholic beverage license number 16-350, Series 2-COP, for the location of Sweet's Lounge, 706-710 Northwest First Street, Dania, Florida, at all times relevant to the charges in this case. On April 24, 1985, Beverage Investigator Frank Oliva drove his automobile to the front of the premises of Sweet's Lounge. He was approached by a male who asked what he wanted, and Oliva responded that he wanted "Boy," a street name for heroin. The male answered that he did not have any. Another male approached Oliva, who again indicated that he wanted some "Boy". Oliva observed the male enter the premises of Sweet's Lounge. Beverage Investigator Alphonso Junious was inside the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge and observed the entire transaction with Oliva. He observed the male enter the premises of Sweet's Lounge and approach a female patron known as Ramona, who handed the male a tinfoil package. The male returned to Investigator Oliva and exchanged the tinfoil package for $20.00. The male then reentered Sweet's Lounge and gave the $20.00 to Ramona. The substance alleged to be heroin was laboratory analyzed to contain no controlled substances. On April 25, 1985, Beverage Investigator Frank Oliva returned to the front of the premises of Sweet's Lounge. He discussed the purchase of some "Boy" from an individual named William Rainey. Rainey went inside the premises of Sweet's Lounge and returned with a tinfoil package which he delivered to Oliva in exchange for $20.00. The substance alleged to be heroin was laboratory analyzed to contain no controlled substances. On April 25, 1985, Investigator Junious returned to the premises of Sweet's Lounge. The on-duty barmaid, Beatrice, left the premises for a short time and asked a female, later identified as the barmaid Linda, who was sitting at the end of the bar counter smoking a marijuana cigarette, to watch the bar until Beatrice returned. Beatrice said nothing to Linda about the marijuana cigarette. Linda walked behind the bar and continued smoking the marijuana cigarette while performing bartending duties. When Beatrice re-entered the premises, Ramona was standing in the doorway handing a tinfoil package to a male in the view of Beatrice. Junious entered into conversation with Ramona and, during the conversation, Ramona delivered a small tinfoil package to an unknown male patron. Investigator Reylius Thompson was also inside the premises of Sweet's Lounge on April 25, 1985. He observed several patrons smoking marijuana cigarettes, which he was able to identify through their appearance, smell, and the manner of smoking. On May 1, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge. They observed the bartender Beatrice seated at the bar counter with two male patrons who were smoking a marijuana cigarette. After the bartender Linda came on duty, the officers observed her remove a marijuana cigarette from her purse and begin to smoke it behind the bar counter. Junious asked Linda for change for a $20.00 bill so he could buy cocaine. Linda asked what Junious wanted, and he told her a $10.00 piece of cocaine. Linda removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse behind the counter and sold the cocaine to Junious for $10.00. While Investigator Thompson was seated at the bar on May 1, 1985, he also asked Linda for some cocaine. Linda again removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse and delivered it to Thompson in exchange for $10.00. On May 3, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge. While Beatrice was bartender, Junious observed several patrons smoking marijuana cigarettes. After Linda came on duty, Junious asked to purchase $10.00 piece of cocaine from her. Linda requested Beatrice to hand her her purse, from which she removed a tinfoil package of cocaine. Junious observed a plastic bag containing numerous tinfoil packages inside of Linda's purse. Linda sold the package of cocaine to Junious for $10.00 While Investigator Thompson was sitting at the bar on May 3, 1985, he asked Linda for some cocaine. Linda asked Beatrice to pass her purse to her from behind the bar. Beatrice handed the purse to Linda and Linda took out a tinfoil package of cocaine which she sold to Thompson for $10.00 On May 8, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to Sweet's Lounge. While the investigators were seated at the bar counter, they observed three male patrons also seated at the bar counter smoking a marijuana cigarette in the presence of Beatrice, the bartender. After Linda came on duty, Junious asked her for a $10.00 piece of cocaine. Linda removed her purse from behind the bar, removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse, and sold the cocaine to Junious for $10.00. Later that evening, Thompson asked bartender Linda for a $10.00 piece of cocaine. She again removed a tinfoil packet containing cocaine from her purse and sold the cocaine to Thompson. ll. On May 10, 1985, Investigators Junious, Thompson and McKeithen went to Sweet's Lounge. Junious asked the bartender Linda for $10.00 worth of cocaine, and she replied that she only had rocks. Junious agreed to purchase the rocks and received a tinfoil package of cocaine from Linda, which she had removed from her purse behind the bar. Later that same evening, Investigator Thompson also asked Linda for $10.00 worth of cocaine. She removed from her purse a tinfoil package containing cocaine which she sold to Thompson for $10.00. That same evening Investigator Thompson observed a male disc jockey smoking marijuana in the presence of patrons and passing the marijuana cigarette to some of the patrons. On May 14, 1985, Investigators Thompson and McKeithen returned to Sweet's Lounge. Thompson observed four patrons seated at a table cutting a white powder and snorting it from the top of the table. He also observed Ramona and a male patron, while seated at the bar, snort a white powder through an empty cigarette paper tube in view of the bartender Beatrice. On May 15, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson returned to Sweet's Lounge. Junious asked the bartender Linda if she had any cocaine, and she responded that she did but Junious would have to wait until she served a customer. After serving a customer, Linda sold Junious a small tinfoil package containing cocaine for 510.00. Junious also observed several patrons smoking marijuana cigarettes, sniffing white powder, and removing tobacco from regular cigarettes, inserting white powder into the cigarettes, and smoking same. On that same date, Investigator Thompson also asked Linda for cocaine. She replied that she had rock or powder cocaine and Thompson ordered rock. Linda walked into the package store portion of the lounge and returned shortly to Thompson, handing him a tinfoil package containing a small rock of cocaine in exchange for $10.00. On that same date Thompson observed Ramona using an empty cigarette paper tube to snort a white powder. On May 22, 1985, Investigators Junious and Thompson entered the licensed premises of Sweet's Lounge. The officers observed patrons seated at the bar counter smoking a marijuana cigarette in the presence of bartender Beatrice. The officers also observed Ramona seated at a table with several male patrons, all of whom were snorting a white powder from the table top and smoking a white powder in cigarettes. On May 29, 1985, Investigator Thompson returned to Sweet's Lounge. He observed Linda smoking a marijuana cigarette behind the bar counter and observed Ramona sitting on the west side of the premises with a quantity of white powder on the table. Thompson approached Ramona, sat down next to her, and began to talk to her about cocaine. While Thompson was seated with Ramona another female patron smoked a marijuana cigarette. Later that same evening, Thompson asked bartender Linda for cocaine and she responded that she had rock or powder. He ordered powder and Linda removed a tinfoil package of cocaine from her purse, which she sold to Thompson for $10.00. On the majority of the occasions described above when the investigators were inside the premises of Sweet's Lounge, there was a pervasive odor of marijuana smoke throughout the entire premises. The white powder which was being sniffed by patrons on the licensed premises at the various times described above was cocaine. In brief summary, the following relevant events took place at the licensed premises during the period of the investigation: 4/24/85: A patron participated in sale of a counterfeit controlled substance. 4/25/85: A patron participated in sale of a counterfeit controlled substance, an employee smoked a marijuana cigarette while on duty, and a patron delivered two small tinfoil packages to other patrons, and several patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes. 5/01/85: Two patrons smoked a marijuana cigarette, an employee smoked a marijuana cigarette while on duty, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/03/85: Several patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/08/85: Three patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes in immediate presence of an employee, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/10/85: A disc jockey smoked marijuana and shared it with patrons, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/14/85: Six patrons sniffed cocaine; two did so in immediate presence of an employee. 5/15/85: Several patrons smoked marijuana and sniffed cocaine, and an employee made two sales of cocaine. 5/22/85: Several patrons smoked marijuana cigarettes in the immediate presence of an employee and several patrons sniffed cocaine. 5/24/85: A patron had cocaine in open view on a table, a patron smoked a marijuana cigarette, an employee on duty smoked a marijuana cigarette, and an employee made one sale of cocaine. Mr. Ebbie Sweet was never on the licensed premises on any of the occasions described above when the investigators were on the licensed premises. At all times material to this case, Mr. Andrew Johnson has been the manager of Sweet's Lounge. The owner, Mr. Ebbie Sweet, has given the manager various instructions about the operation of the premises. The instructions include: (a) keep the premises clean, (b) keep drugs out of the premises, (c) tell all employees to do the same, (d) put up signs about what can and cannot be done on the premises [including a sign reading "No Drugs Allowed"], (e) post the DABT flyer, and (f) put a "no loitering" sign outside the premises. The "no loitering" sign has not worked very well. When Mr. Andrew Johnson is on the premises he spends most of his time in the package store portion of the premises and very little of his time in the bar portion. On one occasion prior to the events described above, the Dania Police Department told Mr. Andrew Johnson there was a drug problem in Sweet's Lounge. He told them to come in anytime they wanted to and to arrest anyone they wanted to. Mr. Johnson did not change any procedures at Sweet's Lounge after the Dania Police Department told him about drug problems. Mr. Andrew Johnson knows Ramona. He has never seen her buy or use drugs, but he has heard that she is suspected of being a drug user. Ramona was a frequent visitor at Sweet's Lounge. Mr. Ebbie Sweet is the president of and the principal functionary of Sweet's Lounge, Inc. A sister and a nephew of Mr. Sweet also have some nominal connection to the corporation, but neither of them is active in running the licensed business. Mr. Ebbie Sweet enjoys an excellent reputation in his community. He is active in community affairs and has engaged in various charitable activities for the betterment of his community. It has always been his desire to run a reputable business and if he had known what was going on inside the lounge he would have fired those involved and would have closed the place up himself. In sum: Mr. Ebbie Sweet appears to be a good citizen who was trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, for both him and the community, he wasn't trying quite hard enough. Some time ago Mr. Ebbie Sweet's wife passed away. As a result of that misfortune Mr. Sweet slowed down a lot and became less active in many things, including the amount of time and energy he devoted to the licensed business. He had at one time visited the licensed premises on a regular basis, but during the past ten months he only made a couple of trips a month to the licensed premises, and those were primarily to check on the inventory. During the past ten months he has hardly ever visited the licensed premises after dark. Mr. Sweet was relying on Mr. Andrew Johnson to manage things for him at the licensed premises even though he knew that Mr. Johnson was not the most reliable of managers. As Mr. Sweet put it, Mr. Johnson "has a few faults." Some years ago Mr. Sweet had an alcoholic beverage quota license which permitted him to sell all types of alcoholic beverages at Sweet's Lounge. When he had that license he had written instructions for his employees, he had doormen, and he had security guards. Since he sold the quota license and obtained his present license (which is limited to beer and wine sales), he has not had written instructions for his employees, he has not had doormen, and he has not had security guards. Mr. Sweet does not perform polygraph examinations or background checks on his employees. He has thought about hiring undercover people to patrol the premises, but has never done anything about it. The area of town in which Sweet's Lounge is located is one in which controlled substances are readily obtainable. Sweet's Lounge has had a recurring problem with undesirable people loitering in front of the lounge, people Mr. Sweet described as "hoodlums." All of the employees who worked in the bar portion of the licensed premises knew that marijuana and cocaine were being used by patrons inside the licensed premises on a regular, frequent, and flagrant basis. None of the employees took any action to prevent, discourage, or terminate the use of controlled substances by patrons. The foregoing findings of fact include the majority of the findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner. They do not, however, include any proposed findings based solely on the testimony of Investigator McKeithen. Some of the proposed findings based on McKeithen's testimony are irrelevant to the disposition of this case. Other proposed findings based solely on McKeithen's testimony are rejected because much of her testimony was neither persuasive nor convincing. While I have no doubts at all about her candor, honesty, or integrity, I have certain doubts about her attention to detail and her ability to recall and describe with accuracy events that took place in her presence. In making the finding that the employees who worked in the bar portion of the licensed premises were aware of the extensive use of drugs by patrons, I have not overlooked the testimony of the employees denying such knowledge. I find the denials to be unworthy of belief in light of all the other evidence in the record.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 16-350, series 2-COP issued to Sweet's Lounge, Inc., for the premises located at 706-710 Northwest First Street, Dania, Florida. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of August, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 16th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa Hargrett, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Chesley V. Morton, Esquire 604 Southeast Sixth Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr. Secretary The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether the certificate issued to Mr. Ramsey by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission should be revoked for his failure to maintain good moral character through the use of cocaine.
Findings Of Fact Charles Ramsey was issued a certificate on October 2, 1981, by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, number 19-81-502-01, as a correctional officer. On April 12, 1988, Mr. Ramsey went to the Mount Sinai Medical Center for Industrial Medicine at 4300 Alton Road, Miami Beach, Florida 33140. The overall purpose of the visit was not clear, but as a part of his activities at the Center, Ramsey provided urine specimen for analysis. Before providing the specimen, Ramsey had disrobed, was wearing a hospital gown, and was escorted to a bathroom at the site, where he was given two marked specimen bottles. The first bottle was for the main sample, the second for any overflow if Mr. Ramsey's urine donation was greater than the size of the first bottle. Each bottle was a 60 ml. pharmaceutical round bottle. The specimen bottles had his name on them, a bar code identifying the bottles as bottles from an employee of the Metro-Dade Law Enforcement Department, and the unique specimen number of 117270. At that time, Mr. Ramsey initialed the information on the bottle acknowledging that it was correct. After he exited the bathroom and delivered the urine bottle it was sealed with evidence tape by the technician at Mount Sinai, Sonia Abreu, and was placed in a locked cabinet. The cabinet was opened with a key belonging to the courier for the Toxicology Testing Service of Miami, Florida. The urine was kept under lock and key until it was removed and brought to the screening room at Toxicology Testing Service. The technician there broke the seal and dispensed a sample into an automated clinical analyzer which performed an EMIT screen test on 3 ml. of urine. That test showed the presence of cocaine metabolites, i.e., substances left in the body after cocaine has been ingested and been processed by the metabolic action of the body. Based on this initial positive screening test result, another 3 ml. of the sample was used to perform the screening test again. When the screening test again was positive for cocaine metabolites, a more specific test for the presence of cocaine metabolites was performed by Dr. Terry Hall, who holds his doctorate in chemistry, and has specialized in forensic toxicology. The test was performed using a gas chromatograph and a mass spectrometer. The study showed the presence of methylecganine in the urine, which is a cocaine metabolite. The concentration of the methylecganire in the sample was such that it is likely that Mr. Ramsey used cocaine within the previous two weeks. Exposure to trace amounts of cocaine, such as from airborne cocaine which might be inhaled while measuring cocaine seized as part of a drug arrest, could not have yielded the high level of methylecganine found in Mr. Ramsey's urine. The level of metabolite is such that Mr. Ramsey would have had to ingest approximately 10 grams of cocaine.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the certificate held by Charles Ramsey be revoked for failure to maintain good moral character. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles Ramsey 1064 Northwest 61st Street Miami, Florida 33127 Daryl McLaughlin, Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Florida corporation. Gary Popkin is its sole corporate officer and stockholder. He holds the positions of President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the holder of alcoholic beverage license #16- 03 032 2-COP issued by Petitioner. The licensed business is a bar that operates under the name of Lynda's Lounge. It is located at 8007-8009 Kimberly Boulevard in North Lauderdale, Florida. C.G. is a paid confidential informant. The North Lauderdale Police Department is among the law enforcement agencies for whom he works. On the afternoon of July 19, 1989, C.G. entered Lynda's Lounge, sat down and ordered a drink. While in the bar, C.G. was approached by Vinnie Lavarello, another of the bar's patrons. They were joined by Popkin. A conversation ensued. Popkin advised C.G. that he had some "good pot" and asked him if he wanted to buy some. He suggested that C.G. act quickly because he only had a little left. Both Popkin and Lavarello told C.G. that there was no need to worry because everyone in the bar "smoked pot" and was "cool." C.G. informed Popkin that he would "let him know." He thereupon left the bar and paged Detective Gary Harris of the North Lauderdale Police Department. Harris instructed C.G. to meet him at the North Lauderdale police station, which is a short distance from the bar. In accordance with Harris' instructions, C.G. went to the police station. He provided Harris with a description of Lavarello and Popkin, as well as their names. Harris searched C.G. and C.G.'s car for drugs and found none. He then gave C.G. $20.00 with which to purchase marijuana from Popkin. C.G. drove back to the bar. He was followed by Harris in another vehicle. They arrived at the bar at approximately 5:55 p.m.. C.G. entered the bar, while Harris waited outside. Once in the bar, C.G. walked up to Lavarello and indicated that he was interested in consummating the deal they had discussed earlier that day. Popkin apparently overheard C.G. He gave C.G. a package containing marijuana (cannabis). In return, C.G. gave Popkin the $20.00 he had been given by Harris. Following this transaction, there was a discussion concerning the possibility of C.G. purchasing additional drugs, including cocaine, from Popkin. Popkin quoted C.G. prices for various quantities of the drug and encouraged C.G. to come back and do business with him. At approximately 6:10 p.m., fifteen minutes after he entered the bar, C.G. left and drove in his vehicle to a prearranged location to meet Harris. Harris observed C.G. leave the bar and followed C.G. in his vehicle to their predetermined meeting place. After they both exited their vehicles, C.G. handed Harris the marijuana he had purchased from Popkin and told Harris what had happened in the bar. Harris field tested the marijuana. It tested positive. Harris placed the marijuana in a sealed bag and forwarded it to the crime laboratory of the Broward Sheriff's Office. Tests performed at the crime laboratory reflected that the substance that Popkin had sold C.G. was indeed marijuana. After consulting with Harris regarding the matter, C.G. returned to Lynda's Lounge on July 21, 1989, to make arrangements to purchase an ounce of cocaine. As he had been told to do by Popkin, C.G. discussed the matter with Lavarello. C.G. and Lavarello agreed on a purchase price. C.G. then left the bar to get money to make the purchase. After leaving the bar, C.G. went to the North Lauderdale police station and met with Harris. Harris searched C.G. and C.G.'s vehicle for drugs and found none. He then gave C.G. money with which to purchase an ounce of cocaine from Lavarello. Although C.G. and Lavarello had agreed upon a purchase price of $700.00, because it is a common practice of drug dealers to raise their prices immediately before the transaction is to take place, Harris gave C.G. $800.00 in the event Lavarello raised his price. C.G. then drove back to the bar, followed by Harris in another vehicle. After parking, C.G. exited his vehicle and entered the bar. Harris remained outside, across the street from the bar. C.G. approached Lavarello. It was too noisy inside the bar to talk so C.G. and Lavarello left and continued their conversation in C.G.'s vehicle, which was parked in the lot in front of the bar. Lavarello indicated to C.G. that he did not have the cocaine with him and needed to pick it up, but that C.G. would have to give him the entire purchase price before he did so. C.G. then excused himself. He thereupon contacted Harris and they both returned to the North Lauderdale police station. Harris did not want C.G. to give Lavarello that much money and have to wait for the cocaine to be delivered. He therefore decided to have C.G. purchase an eighth of an ounce, instead of an ounce, of cocaine from Lavarello, the purchase price of which, C.G. had been told, was $150.00. Accordingly, Harris took back $600.00 of the $800.00 he had given C.G. earlier that day. Harris then again searched C.G. for drugs and found none. C.G. thereupon headed directly back to the bar, with Harris following behind him in another vehicle. C.G. met with Lavarello at the bar. He told Lavarello that he wanted to purchase a eighth of an ounce, rather than an ounce, of cocaine. He gave Lavarello $200.00 and made arrangements to meet Lavarello later that day at the bar to receive delivery of the cocaine he had purchased. At Lavarello's request, C.G. drove Lavarello to Lavarello's girlfriend's house. C.G. then returned to the North Lauderdale police station. At all times during this journey, C.G. and his vehicle were under Harris' observation. At the police station, Harris again searched C.G. for contraband and found none. Later that day, C.G. and Harris went back to Lynda's Lounge in separate vehicles. Harris remained outside, as C.G. exited his vehicle and headed towards the front door of the bar, where he encountered Lavarello. C.G. and Lavarello then proceeded to C.G.'s vehicle, where Lavarello handed C.G. a package containing cocaine. Upon receiving the package, C.G. complained that it appeared that he had received less cocaine than he had been promised. Lavarello admitted that he had given his girlfriend some of the cocaine that originally had been intended for C.G. To compensate for the missing cocaine, Lavarello gave C.G. a package containing marijuana. In addition to the cocaine and marijuana, Lavarello also gave C.G. a $20.00 bill and a gas receipt reflecting the amount of money he had paid for gasoline during his trip to pick up the cocaine. Following this transaction, C.G. and Lavarello went their separate ways. As he had done after the buy he had made on July 19, 1989, C.G. met Harris at a prearranged location. He handed Harris everything that Lavarello had given him. Harris searched C.G. and found no additional contraband. Harris then field tested both the cocaine and the marijuana. The test results were positive. After conducting these field tests, Harris placed the cocaine and marijuana in a sealed bag and forwarded the bag to the crime laboratory of the Broward Sheriff's Office. Tests performed at the crime laboratory reflected that the substances in question were indeed cocaine and marijuana. Popkin and Lavarello were subsequently arrested by Harris. 1/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes, charged in the January 9, 1990, Notice to Show Cause and revoking alcoholic beverage license #16-03032 2- COP held by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this & day of October, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675
