The Issue Pursuant to a Notice to Show Cause issued November 22, 1982, the Respondent was charged with two violations of the beverage laws of this state. Respondent was charged with allowing a person under 19 years of age to consume alcoholic beverages on her licensed premises. Respondent was also charged with continuing to sell alcoholic beverages after discontinuing the sale of full course meals in violation of Florida Statute 561.20(3)(1981) and Rule 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code. At the formal hearing, Petitioner called as witnesses Mr. W. R. Wiggs, a beverage officer for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; Mr. James Pistole, a deputy for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department; and Joe Circhirillo, also a deputy for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department. Respondent testified on her own behalf and called as witnesses Kathryn Singer, James D. DeBusk, and Heidi Buzbee. Petitioner offered no exhibits and Respondent offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit consisting of four photographs. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the undersigned Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not adopted herein, they were considered and determined by the Hearing Officer to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent held Beverage License No. 39- 00771, SRX Series 4-COP, issued to Sharon's Surf-n-Turf, located at 111 East Shell Point Road, Ruskin, Florida. During the course of the hearing, it was stipulated by and between the parties and it is now found that the beverage referred to in Count I of the administrative complaint was an alcoholic beverage. On October 29, 1982, W. R. Wiggs, an investigator for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, went to the licensed premises of Sharon's Surf- n-Turf Restaurant and Lounge. He arrived at approximately 9:30 p.m. and the lounge area was full of patrons. Before entering the licensed premises, Investigator Wiggs observed a sign outside the restaurant which reflected that the restaurant was open from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and there was live entertainment from 9:30 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. Beverage Officer Wiggs was accompanied by Beverage Officer Miller. Upon entering the licensed premises, Wiggs and Miller sat at the bar and each ordered a Michelob beer. Beverage Officer Miller asked if he could order a full course meal and the bartender responded that the kitchen was closed. Beverage Officers Miller and Wiggs were in the licensed premises approximately one and one-half hour and observed no food being served. The patrons in the lounge were consuming alcoholic beverages. The lights were not on in the restaurant portion of the licensed premises, and the door to the restaurant was locked. Neither Officer Wiggs nor Officer Miller checked the kitchen to determine if it was in fact closed. While in the licensed premises, Officer Wiggs, along with Deputy James Pistole, of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department, observed a young lady named Tammy Almond, sitting at one of-the tables and consuming an alcoholic beverage. She appeared to be younger than 19 years of age. After arresting Ms. Almond, it was determined from her driver's license that she was, in fact, 18 years of age, having a date of birth of March 28, 1964. When Officer Wiggs and Deputy Pistole arrested Ms. Almond, she stated that the drink which was seized belong to someone else and she was sipping out of it. There was no evidence that Tammy Almond had purchased the drink or that she had been personally served the drink. At the time Tammy Almond was arrested, all other persons in the lounge who appeared to be possibly underage were asked for identification. Tammy Almond was the only minor in the licensed premises that evening. Tammy Almond had previously been married and was now divorced. The Respondent and her employees were aware of her prior marriage. On this evening, James D. DeBusk was checking identification at the door to the licensed premises. He had checked Tammy Almond's identification and it had reflected that she was two or three months over 19 years of age. The identification appeared to be a Florida driver's license. There was nothing suspicious about the identification. The licensed premises always has a doorman checking identification on Wednesday night through Saturday night. The bartenders and waitresses would also check identification of patrons. The licensed premises is divided into a restaurant/ dining room area and a lounge. The lounge has tables, chairs, a dance floor, and bandstand. Food is served in the dining room area as well as the lounge area. Menus for food are posted on the wall just inside the doorway of the lounge. The Respondent, prior to and at the time of the incident involving Tammy Almond, had a strict policy against allowing minors to consume alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. On the nights when the lounge is busiest, Wednesday through Saturday, a doorman is on duty to check the identification of persons entering the lounge. Waitresses and bartenders were instructed to check the identification of persons who appeared to be younger than 19 years of age. The Respondent's policy was to require two acceptable forms of identification whenever a person produces or shows a questionable identification. If they cannot produce such identification, they are not permitted to enter the licensed premises. The restaurant and lounge are managed and supervised by the Respondent. At the time of Tammy Almond's arrest, the Respondent was in the kitchen area of the licensed premises training a new cook. Food is served at the Respondent's licensed premises from 11:00 a.m. to closing time. On the evening of October 29, 1982, the kitchen was open and food was actually ordered. At least four meals of steak and eggs were ordered and served after midnight. The licensed premises is primarily a restaurant operation and serves several different types of full course meals. These full course meals were available on the evening of October 29, 1982.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found not guilty of the violations charged in the Notice to Show Cause and that such Notice to Show Cause be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul S. Carr, Esquire Post Office Box 965 Ruskin, Florida 33570 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to derive at least 51 percent of its gross revenues from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages, in violation of Sections 561.20(2)(a)4 and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and failed to maintain its business records in English, in violation of Section 561.29(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61A-3.014(3), Florida Administrative Code. If so, an additional issue is what penalty the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco should impose.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has held license number 16-15136, series 4-COP SRX. Pursuant to this license, Respondent operated a Brazilian restaurant known as Flavor of Brazil at 4140 North Federal Highway in Fort Lauderdale. On July 20, 1999, a special agent of Petitioner inspected the restaurant to determine, among other things, the percentage of Respondent’s gross receipts derived from food and nonalcoholic beverages. In response to a request, the agent received large numbers of original customer tickets, which record the food and beverage items ordered by each customer. In response to a request to visit the agent at her office and provide a statement, the president of Respondent hand wrote a statement explaining: “Records were wiritten [sic] in Portuguese. Basically because most of our staff speak and write Portuguese (being that they are Brazilians). But this problem has already been corrected.” The customer tickets are written in a language other than English, presumably Portuguese. For a person unfamiliar with the language in which the customer tickets are written, it is impossible to determine from these customer tickets which items are alcoholic beverages and which items are food and nonalcoholic beverages. A 4COP-SRX Special Restaurant License form signed on January 26, 1999, by Respondent advises that the license requires that at least 51 percent of the gross revenues of the licensee must be derived from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. The form warns: “Since the burden is on the holder of the special restaurant license to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for the license, the records required to be kept shall be legible, clear and in the English language.”
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)3 and revoking Respondent’s license without prejudice to Respondent's reapplying for another CRX special license at any time after 90 days following the effective date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3227 Kenneth W. Gieseking Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Flavor of Brazil 4768 North Citation Drive, No. 106 Delray Beach, Florida 33445
The Issue By Notice to Show Cause dated October 24, 1977, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages, Petitioner, seeks to revoke suspend, or otherwise discipline the alcoholic beverage license of NAS, Inc. t/a The Down Beat, Respondent. As grounds therefor it is alleged that on or about August 25, 1977 Respondent failed to discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages when the service of full course meals had been discontinued; failed to maintain sufficient inventory to serve full course meals; failed to maintain sufficient dining room equipment and employees for the preparation, cooking and service of full course meals; and failed to maintain necessary china and tableware to handle the minimum seating capacity required, all in violation of Rule 3.15 F.A.C. Four witnesses were called by Petitioner, one witness testified in behalf of Respondent, and three exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact About 10:00 A.M. on August 25, 1977, three beverage agents entered The Down Beat and conducted a routine inspection after identifying themselves as beverage agents. Respondent holds special restaurant beverage license No. 16-692-SR Series 4 COP. At the time of the inspection the bar was open and alcoholic beverages were being dispensed. No personnel were available on the premises to prepare meals and the kitchen was reported to be closed at the time of the inspection. A count of the equipment in the kitchen disclosed 19 knives, 19 forks and 9 spoons clean and ready to be used. Upon inquiry one of the corporate officers produced a paper bag from under the sink which contained 51 spoons, 91 forks, and 161 knives. An additional package of ten plastic forks and an open package of 8 plastic spoons were produced. 163 dinner plates, 130 salad plates, 50 plastic cups, and 60 plastic glasses were counted. The two freezers in the kitchen contained frozen meats and fish. Other food items consisted of condiments, flour, one head of lettuce, sugar, bread, butter, cheese, celery, sausages, and potato mix. Respondent's witness testified that the cook was out shopping at the time of the inspection. The persons identified by name as cook and purchasing agent to the inspectors were not listed on the payroll for the previous month (Exhibit 1). Profit and Loss statement (Exhibit 1) for the month of July, 1977 shows only 4 female employees, each paid $60 per week, food sales of $5,022.50, food purchases of $1,235.47 including $429.30 to Coca Cola and Canada Dry bottling companies, alcoholic beverage sales of $3,086.65 and alcoholic beverage purchases of $3,428.06. Following completion of Respondent's testimony the administrative record of Respondent was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. This shows violations of a nature similar to those here under consideration occurred on 10/29/73 and 8/24/74. The latter violations were proven at a hearing held September 27, 1977.
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application to transfer Alcoholic Beverage License No. 3900441/4COP should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, in consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Petitioner is an individual. At some time in the past, Petitioner, Ms. Hudson, Mary Pease, and Scott Wetmore incorporated as Peace and Love Enterprises, Inc. (P&L). P&L holds Alcoholic Beverage License No. 3900441/4COP (beverage license) issued by the Division. The Division is the state agency charged with the administration (including licensing), regulation, and enforcement of Florida’s alcoholic beverage laws pursuant to section 20.165(2)(b) and chapters 561 through 568, Florida Statutes (2018).3/ All applications filed with the Division are subject to investigation pursuant to section 561.18. Applications for the transfer of an alcoholic beverage license are considered pursuant to section 561.32. Ms. Scott is currently the Division’s senior management analyst II, over the Tampa, Fort Myers, and Orlando district offices. Ms. Scott supervises the processing and reviewing of applications for alcoholic beverage licenses, tobacco licenses, transfers of licenses, and permits. Once an application for the transfer of an alcoholic beverage license is submitted to the Division, it is reviewed for specific information. The Division looks at the named current license holder to ensure that the signature on the application matches the name of someone authorized to sign the application. The Division verifies that the application information is complete on its face, the alcoholic beverage license is current and can be transferred, and there are no “flags” on the license that would prevent a transfer. The Division must determine if the transferee has a current alcoholic beverage license or not. The Division then looks at the person, corporation, or LLC that wants the alcoholic beverage license transferred to it, and conducts background checks on all persons associated with the application. Once all the background checks are completed, then a recommendation of approval or denial is made. If the approval is given, an invoice on the transfer is generated and the applicant is told to pay the fee to complete the application transfer. If there is an intended denial, a notice is sent to the applicant with the reasons stated for the action. Prior to the transfer application, P&L used the beverage license to operate a restaurant/bar, The Manhattan Dolce Bar and Bistro (The Manhattan). Ms. Hudson was the primary force for The Manhattan’s operation on behalf of P&L. Petitioner or Ms. Hudson met an individual, John Clay Weldy, who wanted to get involved in the business. Mr. Weldy became associated with P&L and took actions that made it appear as though he had authority over the beverage license and The Manhattan. No evidence was presented that the P&L Board of Directors, officers, or shareholders conferred any authority on Mr. Weldy to make any P&L decisions or to act on its behalf. Additionally, no credible evidence was presented by Petitioner that the P&L Board of Directors, officers, or shareholders conferred any authority on Petitioner or Ms. Hudson to make any P&L decisions or to act on its behalf. At some point, when Ms. Hudson became too ill to run The Manhattan, Ms. Oliverio became its manager until she was fired by Mr. Weldy. At some point, Ms. Oliverio and her boyfriend attempted to purchase the beverage license from Mr. Weldy, but he made the offer too burdensome for that sale to be completed. On August 15, 2016, Petitioner filed an application to transfer the beverage license from P&L to Petitioner. On August 25, 2016, Beverage Law Institute, Inc. (BLI), filed an application to transfer the same beverage license from P&L to BLI. Ms. Oliverio was not an officer of P&L, and was not familiar with the details of the P&L corporate structure. Further, Ms. Oliverio did not participate in Petitioner’s transfer application. Mr. Housler worked at The Manhattan. Mr. Housler did not have any knowledge of the sale of the beverage license or the attempted transfer of the beverage license. The Division had completed its investigation of Petitioner’s application filed on August 15, 2016, and had signaled its intent to approve it by issuing an invoice for the transfer. However, the invoice had not been paid when the second application to transfer the same beverage license was filed by BLI. On September 7, 2016, the Division issued to Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Deny License, setting forth the following as the grounds for the denial: Authority: 561.18 and 561.32(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Reason: Due to transfer application and supporting documentation submitted to the Division by the Beverage Law Institute on August 25, 2016, the Division is unable to determine whether a bona fide sale of the business has been made such that the licensee may obtain a transfer. On September 7, 2016, the Division issued to BLI a Notice of Intent to Deny License, setting forth the following as the grounds for the denial: Authority: 561.18 and 561.32(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Reason: Due to transfer application and supporting documentation submitted to the Division by Marie Antoinette Rochette on August 10, 2016,[4/] the Division is unable to determine whether a bona fide sale of the business has been made such that the licensee may obtain a transfer. Ms. Hudson testified that a sale of P&L to either Petitioner or BLI had not and has not happened. Ms. Scott assisted Petitioner and Ms. Hudson as they attempted to maneuver the transfer application through the Division’s process. The affidavit of the applicant form fails to list the “DBA” (doing business as) on Petitioner’s August 15, 2016, transfer application, but contains Petitioner’s notarized signature. The affidavit of the transferor form also fails to list the “DBA,” but contains Petitioner’s notarized signature. Ms. Scott testified that although the Division records provided that Petitioner was authorized to sign on behalf of P&L, the transfer application was denied because a second transfer application was received prior to Petitioner’s transfer invoice being paid. In the August 25, 2016, BLI transfer application, the affidavit of the applicant form lists the “DBA” as “ESCROW,” and contains Horace Moody’s notarized signature. The affidavit of the transferor form also lists the “DBA” as “ESCROW” but contains Mr. Weldy’s notarized signature. Ms. Scott testified that the Division records also provided that Mr. Weldy was authorized to sign on behalf of P&L. This transfer application was denied because the first transfer application had been submitted. The two competing interests, each asserting that P&L wanted to transfer the beverage license to different transferees, made it impossible for the Division to approve either transfer application.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order denying Marie Antoinette Rochette’s application for the transfer of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 3900441/4COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 2019.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether the Respondent, Kindred, Inc., d/b/a Raceway Café, should be disciplined for: in Case No. 98-5046 (DBPR Administrative Action Case No. CL-62- 980016), alleged failure to maintain a bona fide restaurant as required of special restaurant (SRX) licensees by Section 561.20(2)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141; and, in Case No. 98-5515 (DBPR Administrative Action Case No. CL-62-9800159), alleged failure to produce records as required of SRX licensees by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.014.
Findings Of Fact On or about June 26, 1998, the Respondent, Kindred, Inc., applied for a series 4-COP (consumption on premises) special restaurant alcoholic beverage (SRX) license and obtained a temporary 4-COP SRX license (number 62-09319) for the Raceway Café, located at 12670 Starkey Road, Largo, Pinellas County, Florida. The Respondent opened for business on July 2, 1998. On July 13, 1998, at approximately 1:30 p.m., DABT Special Agent Paul Cohen entered licensed premises to inspect and verify compliance with SRX license requirements. It was Cohen's impression that the Raceway Café had adequate service area (over 2,500 square feet) but that there were not enough seating and table settings to serve 150 diners at one time and that the Raceway Café was not a bona fide restaurant. Cohen left and returned at approximately 4:00 p.m. with an intern and a camcorder to video the premises and inspect in detail--i.e., count tables, chairs, plates, and eating utensils. The Respondent's sole owner, Marouane Elhajoui, was present in the premises at the time of the detailed inspection. The evidence was clear that Elhajoui knew the purpose of Cohen's inspection and completely understood the SRX requirements. (He had another SRX license for other premises.) Cohen first videotaped the outside and inside of the licensed premises. Cohen and the intern then counted tables and chairs and found that the licensed premises contained seating for a maximum of 122 people. Of these seats, approximately 80% were bar stools, and there was not enough table space to serve full- course meals at all 122 seats. Several of the bar stools were at the bar counter, which was cluttered with video game machines, and several cocktail tables were too small to accommodate full- course meals for all four or five bar stools placed at those tables. Elhajoui told Cohen about a grand opening celebration that had taken place on the premises on July 11 and 12, 1998. Elhajoui explained that restaurant tables and chairs had been removed from the premises and stored in an adjacent, empty storefront to accommodate a live band and dance floor for the grand opening. Elhajoui told Cohen that, if Cohen would wait, Elhajoui could replace the tables and chairs and have adequate seating in a matter of minutes. Cohen did not dispute Elhajoui's claim or ask to see the stored tables and chairs. He declined the request to wait a few minutes and Elhajoui's offer to replace the tables and chairs. Cohen testified to having no recollection of any conversation with Elhajoui concerning a grand opening, the removal of tables and chairs, or their storage in an empty storefront next door. While raising a question as to Cohen's truthfulness on this point, it could be that Cohen did not recall the conversation because he did not attach great importance to the circumstances explaining why there was inadequate seating at the time of his inspection. After Elhajoui told Cohen that there were more than 150 place-settings in the restaurant, Cohen and the intern were able to count only approximately 75 forks, 96 spoons, and 75 plates. Elhajoui testified that Cohen and the intern did not count either baskets or wooden plates also used to serve meals and did not count eating utensils in boxes in a cabinet under a counter in the kitchen. But Cohen specifically asked Elhajoui to show him all of the plates and eating utensils in the restaurant so that his count would be accurate and fair to the Respondent, and Cohen and the intern counted everything Elhajoui showed them. When Cohen told Elhajoui that he did not have enough plates and utensils, Elhajoui pointed to the "line" and asked if Cohen had counted what was there; Cohen indicated that he had counted those items. Elhajoui never specified any utensils in boxes in the cabinet under the counter. If they were there at the time, it is inexplicable that Elhajoui would not have made sure they were counted. Instead, upon completion of the inspection, Elhajoui read and signed without explanation or excuse an inspection report indicating that there were inadequate plates and eating utensils. It is found that Cohen's count was accurate. It can be inferred based on the facts on July 13, 1998, that the Raceway Café did not have capacity to serve 150 meals at one time at any time between opening on July 2 and July 13, 1998. No such inference can be drawn from the evidence after July 13, 1998. Besides alleging inadequate seating and place settings, Cohen also alleged that the Respondent was not operating a bona fide restaurant. The question whether the Raceway Café is a bona fide restaurant cannot be answered simply by counting tables and chairs and place settings. This allegation raises the more nebulous question of when can a bar be a restaurant, and when does a restaurant become a bar? Cohen based his allegation of "bad faith" on several factors. Starting from the outside, there was a temporary sign advertising drink specials but no food. (Elhajoui explained that the sign was owned and controlled by the shopping center and was advertising for the grand opening; he stated that it usually displayed meal specials.) A sign on the building seemed to describe the Raceway Café as a "Sports Lounge," but being (or having) a "sports lounge" may not necessarily turn a restaurant into a bar. There were neon beer signs in the windows, but they also are not uncommon in bona fide restaurants. Inside the building, there is a rather large bar, and Cohen perceived it to be especially prominent on entering the premises; but there are two other entrances that are not so close to the bar. Cohen was not greeted by a host or hostess or, he thought, any instructions regarding restaurant seating, which he considered normal in a bona fide restaurant; but Cohen overlooked a theme-sign incorporated in a parking meter which stood near one of the other entrances and invited customers to seat themselves. Cohen also overlooked a "chalkboard" used to advertise daily specials common in restaurants. Cohen also noted that there were three dart boards in the bar area, juke boxes, and more theme decorations (a Harley Davidson motorcycle in a corner of the licensed premises, and plans to hang a race car--or at least the side panel of a race car body--from the ceiling), but none of those things in themselves are incompatible with a bona fide restaurant. Finally, Cohen only observed food consumption on one of his visits. But his only extended visit was at 4:00 p.m. on July 13, 1998, and none of the other visits were during normal meal times. Cohen made no mention of the full meal menu that has been used at Raceway Café since its opening. In truth, Cohen's allegation of "bad faith" probably was influenced by his finding of inadequate numbers of tables and chairs and place settings. Cohen returned to the licensed premises on July 14, 1998, to serve DBPR Administrative Action Case No. CL-62-980016. He made no observations on July 14, 1998, that he could recall. Elhajoui and his witness testified without contradiction that the Respondent had enough seating and place settings to serve at least 150 meals at one time on and after July 14, 1998. They also testified without contradiction that the signage advertised meal specials. Cohen returned to the licensed premises on September 2, 1998, to serve a notice to produce all records documenting gross sales of alcoholic beverages and food and non-alcoholic beverages (including source documents--i.e., guest checks) for July and August 1998. Production was required to be made by September 12, 1998, at DABT offices in Clearwater, Florida. Cohen made no observations on September 2, 1998, that he could recall. Elhajoui testified that he attempted to deliver the records on Monday, September 7, 1998, but that the DABT offices were closed for Labor Day. The next day, he telephoned DABT to advise that he had attempted to deliver the records and was told that DABT would be mailing him something he understood to be another administrative complaint. It is doubtful that such a conversation took place since there still were four days in which the Respondent could comply with the notice to produce. The Respondent never produced the requested documentation, and on September 30, 1998, returned to the licensed premises, to serve DBPR Administrative Action Case No. CL-62-9800159. Cohen made no observations on September 30, 1998, that he could recall. The Respondent produced documentation at final hearing establishing that 51.63% of its gross sales in July 1998 and 51.28% of its gross sales in August 1998 were food and non- alcoholic beverages. Based on all the evidence presented, it is found that DABT failed to prove that Raceway Café is not a bona fide restaurant except to the extent that its meal service capacity was inadequate from July 2 through July 13, 1998.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order imposing a $1,000 fine and revoking the Respondent's temporary SRX license without prejudice to obtain any other type license, but with prejudice to obtain the same type of special license for 5 years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam S. Wilkinson Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 June, 1999. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph N. Perlman, Esquire Belcher Place 1101 Belcher Road, South Largo, Florida 33771 Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent failed to maintain separate records of purchases and gross sales of all alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and food in violation of Section 561.20, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141, and if so, what penalty, if any, is appropriate. (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated. Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect of the date of this Recommended Order).
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license number 69-02639, series 4COP SRX. An SRX license authorizes Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of Jon's Bar & Grill, located at 2485 N. Highway 17-92, Lake Monroe, Florida ("the licensed premises"). Persons issued "SRX" licenses must meet certain statutory requirements to ensure that they are operating bona fide restaurants. Among other requirements, Respondent must maintain separate records of all purchases and gross sales of all alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and food. Respondent's license application specifically informed Respondent that he must meet the specific requirements of this type of license. On March 17, 1997, Petitioner's Special Agent Richard Hurlburt met with Respondent for the purpose of conducting an SRX inspection to determine Respondent's compliance with SRX license requirements. An SRX inspection includes an audit of the licensee's records to determine the percentage of gross revenue derived from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. Respondent was unable to produce the records he is statutorily required to maintain. Agent Hurlburt issued a notice to produce records relating to the operation of the restaurant. On August 12, 1997, Petitioner issued a notice of administrative complaint against Respondent for failure to maintain separate records of all purchases and gross sales for non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages and food in violation of Section 561.20. Respondent has not produced the records he is statutorily required to maintain.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a $1,000 civil penalty against Respondent and revoking alcoholic beverage license no. 69-02639, series 4COP SRX, without prejudice to obtain any other type license, but with prejudice to obtain another SRX special license for 5 years from date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon county, Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 George Lewis, Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jon Gustafson, pro se 956 Lake Ashby Road New Smyrna, Florida 32069
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Moishes Steakhouse & Seafood, Inc., timely submitted an application to record a lien for license number 23-02731 4COP.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 3, 1999, Armar Inc., Arnaldo Bou, individually, and Martha Pinango, individually, as debtors, and the Petitioner, by Eugenio D'Arpino, as president of the company, the secured party, executed a security agreement (chattel mortgage) related to beverage license 23-02731, series 4COP. Such security agreement recognized a priority lien for the Petitioner, Moishes Steakhouse & Seafood, Inc., and included a promissory note executed by the debtors. The promissory note, dated March 3, 1999 (presumably executed on or about that date), provided: THIS NOTE IS NOTE ASSIGNABLE AND NON- ASSUMABLE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE SECURED PARTY. THIS NOTE IS SECURED BY A SECURITY AGREEMENT (CHATTEL MORTGAGE) AND UCC-1 WHICH SHALL CREATE A PRIORITY LIEN (1ST PLACE LIEN) ON STATE OF FLORIDA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE NO: 23- 01686, series 4 COP quota. The security agreement and promissory note were not provided to the Department within 90 days of March 3, 1999. Apparently, the fact that the note and security agreement make reference to different alcoholic beverage license numbers is not an issue. Neither party has raised that issue. The Petitioner forwarded the note and security agreement to the Department for recordation on or about September 21, 1999. At that time the Department received an application to record a lien for license no. 23-02731, series 4COP. On October 11, 1999, the Department sent Petitioner a letter declining the application because it was not made within 90 days after the creation of the lien. The Department requested a newly executed security agreement so that the dates would show the request for recording within 90 days of the application. It is the Department's position that the lien application should have been submitted within 90 days of its creation in order to comply with the mandatory guidelines of the statute. For purposes of this case, the Department argued that the "creation of the lien" was on or about March 3, 1999, or, at the latest, March 15, 1999 (a date noted in the escrow agreement). The Petitioner timely sought an administrative review of the Department's decision. It is the Petitioner's position that the lien did not "break escrow" until August of 1999, and that, as a matter of law, that is the point in time from which the 90 day period should run. From the Petitioner's perspective, the "creation of the lien" as used by the statute dates from when the transaction broke escrow. All parties agree that the statute does not specifically address escrow transactions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order approving the Petitioner's application to record a lien on the subject alcoholic beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherrie Barnes, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Major Jorge R. Herrera Department of Business and Professional Regulation 8685 Northwest 53rd Terrace Augusta Building, Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33166 Louis J. Terminello, Esquire Terminello & Terminello, P. A. 2700 Southwest 37th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133-2728 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether petitioner's application to change its corporate officers should be denied because the proposed officer allegedly lacks good moral character.
Findings Of Fact The Village Zoo holds alcoholic beverage license no. 16-839, Series 4- COP SR, authorizing it to serve alcoholic beverages at its bar (the "licensed premises") at 900 Sunrise Lane, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On September 22, 1982, the Village Zoo filed an application with DABT to change corporate officers by adding James C. Dowd as a vice president1. While this application was pending, James C. Dowd was employed as one of the managers at the Village Zoo. One of his duties was to help the bartender serve alcoholic beverages on an as-needed basis. On November 5, 1982, undercover Beverage Officer Tom Wheeler, 24, entered the licensed premises to investigate complaints of alleged sales of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons--persons under the age of 19. He paid a cover charge at the door, his identification was not checked. Inside, he saw 50-75 young patrons crowded in the area of the second floor bar. Two persons were tending bar, one of whom was James C. Dowd. Officer Wheeler saw two young patrons, William Esler, 17, and Kelly Heatherman, 18, approach the bar and ordered drinks from Mr. Dowd, who then served them two alcoholic beverages. (William Esler ordered and was served a Whiskey and Seven- up; Kelly Heatherman ordered and was served a Budweiser beer). Mr. Dowd served them these drinks without asking their age or checking their identification. When these two underaged individuals ordered the drinks, they were standing at the bar and in plain view of Mr. Dowd; they were neither standing behind others nor hidden from view. After Mr. Dowd served these two drinks, he was arrested and charged with the crime of serving alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 19. When Kelly Heatherman and William Esler, the two underaged persons, entered the premises that evening, they paid a cover charge but their age was not questioned at the entry door. Neither was their identification checked. The Village Zoo has a reputation in the community as a popular gathering place for young people. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman had been there before. William Esler had been there twice, prior to the November 5, 1982, incident, and once since. His identification had never been checked, although he did not order a drink on his last visit. Kelly Heatherman had been there every week from approximately September (1982) to November 5, 1982. During most of his visits, he ordered alcoholic beverages. One time, his identification was checked at the door and he was turned away. Since the November 5, 1982, incident, he has returned to the Village Zoo a couple of times. James C. Dowd was aware of Heatherman's continued patronage of the Village Zoo and described Heatherman as a regular customer. Heatherman continued to order and was served alcoholic beverages during his visits to the Village Zoo after November 5, 1982. After November 5, 1982, Heatherman continued to enter the Village Zoo without having his identification checked, despite the fact he was identified to the Village Zoo and James C. Dowd, on November 5, 1982, as being under the legal age (19) to possess or consume alcoholic beverages. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman were, as of the date of the administrative hearing on this case, under the age of 19 years. James C. Dowd knew or should have known that Kelly Heatherman's consumption of alcoholic beverages served by the Village Zoo after November 5, 1982, was contrary to the Beverage Law. (This paragraph contains findings of fact which are in addition to those found by the Hearing Officer. Such additional facts are not contrary to those found by the Hearing Officer, rather they amplify the same and are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the form of sworn testimony of Kelly Heatherman, William Esler and James C. Dowd). The Village Zoo had an announced policy prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to underaged persons and prohibiting their entry onto the licensed premises. To enforce this policy, two persons were posted at the entryway to check identification and collect cover charges from patrons. Peter Balcunas, and off-duty Fort Lauderdale policeman, was also hired to provide security and assistance to the door-checkers. He was ordinarily posted near the front door, outside the premises. Under this Village Zoo policy, the two door-checkers had the primary responsibility to check the identification of patrons and prevent underaged persons from entering the premises. All employees, however, had the duty to check the identification of any patron if there was any question or doubt about whether the individual was of drinking age. Both William Esler and Kelly Heatherman fall within this "questionable or doubtful" category. From their demeanor and outward appearance at hearing, it is difficult to determine their true age. Their faces are mature for their age and they could reasonably pass as 18, 19 or 20-year olds. On the evening of November 5, 1982, Kelly Heatherman and William Esler entered the premises, walking past the door-checkers and Officer Balcunas. They then proceeded to the second floor bar and ordered drinks from Mr. Dowd. Their age was not questioned and their identification was not checked. The Village Zoo's announced policy of forbidding sale of alcoholic beverages to minors, including steps taken to enforce it, compares favorably with those of similar businesses in the area serving alcoholic beverages. James C. Dowd, the person allegedly lacking in good moral character, has a reputation in the community as an honest trustworthy, hardworking and law- abiding man. He attends church regularly. His business associates view him as a man who honors his financial obligations and who has good moral character. Mr. Dowd does not recall serving alcoholic beverages to William Esler and Kelly Heatherman on November 5, 1982. There was a crowd of customers near the bar at the time, and he was helping the bartender serve drinks as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, in his haste, he violated the Village Zoo policy. He served alcoholic beverages to two youthful-looking persons whose age was difficult to determine, without inquiring as to their age or checking their identification. There is no evidence that he knowingly and intentionally sold alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. (Two sentences contained in the Recommended Order at this place, were deleted as such constitute conclusions of law, not of fact). Although there was evidence that the two underaged persons had been served alcoholic beverages at the Village Zoo prior to and after November 5, 1982, it was not shown that Mr. Dowd served them or that (as one of the managers) he was culpably responsible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Village Zoo's application to change corporate officers be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 29th day of June, 1983.
Findings Of Fact From October 1, 1975, up to and including April 14, 1976, the Respondent, Bobbie P. Miles, d/b/a D. J. `s Lounge, held State of Florida Alcoholic Beverage License No. 26-91, Series 2-COP, for operation at a premises of 6644 Arlington Road, Jacksonville, Florida. A copy of this license is found in Composite Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. Sometime in the beginning of April, 1976, Detective Claude Locke with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, received information from an informant that a minor female was selling alcoholic beverages in D. J.`s Lounge. This minor female was identified as being 5 foot 7 inches tall with reddish blonde hair. Locke went to D. J.`s Lounge and was served a beer by a woman fitting that description. No other employee in the bar was serving alcoholic beverages while he was there for 45 minutes. Subsequent to his investigation of the bar, Officer Locke contacted the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, about his activities. Officers B. W. Rowe and K. A. Boyd of the Division of Beverage acting on Officer Locke's report went to D. J.`s Lounge on April 14, 1976. The officers took a seat at the bar and a white female who was playing the pinball machine went to the bar and served them alcoholic beverages by serving the beverage and taking the money and returning the change from the purchase. This person who served them had reddish blond hair and was later identified in the course of the hearing as being one Darlene Usury. After Darlene Usury served the beer to the officers she went behind the bar and poured herself a beer and began to drink that beer. Her glass of alcoholic beverage was checked by the officers on the basis of their expertise and found to be an alcoholic beverage, and is offered into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 3, admitted. The alcoholic beverage served them was also tasted, based upon their expertise and found to be an alcoholic beverage. There was another woman working at the bar on April 14, 1976. This woman was Donna Moody. Ms. Moody indicated that Usury was not employed in the bar and that she had never checked her identification because the owner of the bar, Bobbie P. Miles, had allowed Darlene Usury to drink on other occasions. Later in the evening of April 14, 1976, the owner and Respondent, Bobbie P. Miles, came to the bar and indicated that he had met Darlene Usury at another establishment which he was operating and had been shown an identification. This identification was a Pennsylvania license issued to Debra Yanni, and this identification showed Darlene R. Usury to be more than 18 years of age on April 14, 1976. The identification card is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The identification card does not have a photograph. The identification card was initially shown to Bobbie P. Miles at the Jubille Bar a year or more before April 14, 1976. Darlene R. Usury was in fact 17 years old on April 14, 1976, at the time she served the alcoholic beverages to the beverage officers and consumed an alcoholic beverage. Darlene Usury explained that her action of serving the beer to the beverage officers was an isolated incident and she only did it to help out Donna Moody, the person in charge of the bar on that night. Bobbie P. Miles said that Darlene R. Usury was not employed on that night or on any other night. Although Darlene R. Usury had served the alcoholic beverages to Officers Rowe and Boyd, Donna Moody was also working behind the bar at that time. Officer Locke was unable to identify Darlene R. Usury as the woman who had served him alcoholic beverages on the prior occasion in April, 1976.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the licensee, Bobbie P. Miles, be fined in the amount of $150.00 for the violation as established by the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Bobbie P. Miles pro se 6644 Arlington Road Jacksonville, Florida
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's beverage license, Series 14BC, No. 39-03729, should be disciplined because of the matters outlined in the Notice to Show Cause filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Division was the state agency responsible for the licensing of establishments for the dispensing and sale of alcoholic beverages and enforcement of the beverage laws of the State of Florida. McKown's, Inc., a corporation whose sole stockholders are Duncan and Gloria McKown, holds 14ABC license number 39-03729, located at The Cabin, an establishment situated at 8205 North Dale Mabry Highway in Tampa. This license is a license to operate a bottle club on the premises, and allows patrons to bring their own bottles into the club to drink from. Patrons may either bring their bottle each time they come, or they may leave it at the club to be used each time they visit. Patrons must drink from their own bottle or as the guest of another bottle holder, but cannot buy alcoholic drinks from the licensed establishment. The establishment may sell only ice, setups and food - no alcohol. Mr. McKown is Secretary-Treasurer of McKown's, Inc., the licensee in issue here. He has been in the restaurant and service business since 1937. He opened a large restaurant and lounge in Dunedin, Florida in the early 1960's, and opened The Cabin approximately fifteen years ago with a county bottle club license. When state licensure became required, approximately three years ago, he secured one of those as well. Mr. McKown claims he was open every day from 2 to 7 AM. His clientele was mostly made up of people in the service industry - people who work at night and get off early in the morning. These are people such as waitresses, cooks, restaurant and bar managers. Many of his patrons work at or manage high quality restaurants, and the interior of The Cabin is decorated with T-shirts from many of them. He believes that as a general rule, his clientele is of good quality and is law abiding. The Cabin is made up of one building and a patio. It has one front door, which is manned by a security guard, and there is a sign posted on the inside of the front door which indicates the facility is a private club, non- members of which must pay a service charge. Though it once was private, it is now open to anyone of legal age. If the door is closed, an individual approaching from the outside can not see the sign. Security is designed to keep out minors and to insure that persons admitted have a bottle with them or already inside. The two Messrs. Bailey are the security guards. They wear uniforms similar to those worn by law enforcement people and carry firearms. McKown claims this i s because a firearm was discharged on the premises some time ago and the guards' firearms and uniforms tend to dissuade drunks. Many companies have bottles for their employees. It is Mr. McKown's policy, which he believes is consistent with state law, that two or more people can come into a bottle club and drink from one bottle. It is also a practice of his to allow people to leave their bottles on the premises for future use. Many of his customers are repeat customers who are recognized by security and other employees. If the patron is known to the security guard, he or she might not be checked. Each entrance requires the payment of a $7.00 service fee which authorizes the patron two setup chips. When the patron comes in with a bottle, the cashier puts the patron's name on it using a role of waterproof tape on which is marked the name in color-coded pen, depending on what month it is. Bottles are discarded after three months, whether empty or not. Once a bottle is brought in and given to the bartender, it is kept on the service island behind the bar. At one time, the licensee maintained a membership list. The practice was abandoned when it was decided to seek patrons from the service industry. The inside of the bar is lighted but dark. Music is provided by a jukebox which plays continuously. If patrons do not put money in, the machine comes on automatically after twelve minutes, and the volume is loud, though Akins did not think so. There are speakers both at the jukebox and in the ceiling. The men's room has one stall and two urinals. Mr. McKown removed the door to the stall to keep illegal activity, such as drug sales or homosexual activity, from going on inside. By removing the door, he can readily check to determine that nothing improper is going on inside the stall. The ladies' room has two stalls with cafe doors. He put that type of door in at the same time he removed the men's stall door for the same reason. Both restrooms are to be checked periodically by the manager, by Mr. McKown or the cashiers, as available. The Cabin is busier on weekends than during the week and the staff is adjusted accordingly. On the weekends, there are two cashiers as opposed to one during the week. By the same token, on the weekend, three bartenders are on duty as opposed to two during the week. A maintenance man is also employed. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Special Agent Jennifer Akins was a special agent with the Division and had been since December, 1989. She was a certified law enforcement officer and, prior to May, 1994, had been involved in between fifteen and twenty undercover operations, of which at least ten involved narcotics. She was trained in the identification of narcotics and street level narcotics activities by the Drug Enforcement Agency, and has taken other professional courses in the subject. Prior to the institution of this undercover operation, Akins had been in The Cabin four or five times. S/A Murray is also an experienced agent with twenty-five to thirty undercover investigations to her credit. At least half involved narcotics. She, too, had been at The Cabin prior to the onset of this investigation. On January 12, 1994 Akins went to The Cabin where she was stopped outside the door by the security guard, Mr. Bailey. He advised her it was a bottle club and inquired if she had a bottle. When she said she had, he also told her that her name would be placed on it and it would be kept behind the bar and drunk from when she was there. She gave over the bottle of rum she had brought. She was not required to fill out an application form nor to pay a membership fee. Akins went back to The Cabin with S/A Murray at approximately 5:15 AM on May 10, 1994. They were met at the door by Mr. Bailey and paid a $7.00 per person cover charge to Mr. Sparks, an employee, who was stationed inside the door. This cover charge entitled them to two drink chips which they would exchange for setups. Additional chips could be bought at $3.50 each. Once inside, they gave their bottle of rum to Mr. Sparks who, after placing a piece of tape with Murray's name on it on the bottle, gave it to the bartender. Akins asked where the bottle of rum was she had brought in on January 12, 1994, and was told it was gone. Bottles are disposed of after ninety days if not consumed first. Consequently, the only bottle the agents had on May 10, 1994 was the bottle they brought that visit. That night, Akins and Murray sat at the bar and were served one or two drinks each from the bottle they had brought in. Later on that evening, Akins was served a drink made with vodka by Mr. Strauss, a bartender. Akins saw Strauss make the drink and knows he did not use the bottle they brought in. Besides, when she tasted it, she recognized it was vodka, not rum. She paid for the drink with one of the chips she got upon entering. She drank only a small part of the drink in order to comply with Division policy that undercover agents will not drink enough to become impaired. Akins and Murray left The Cabin about 6:50 AM without taking the rum bottle they had brought, but while there, Akins observed a white male she recognized as Victor near the women's restroom talking with a white couple. Victor received money from the male in the couple, counted it, and gave the man something in return. This procedure is consistent with what she had observed in other drug transactions. Later on that evening, she again saw Victor near the men's restroom. Victor approached a black male who, after entering and exiting the restroom, handed Victor a small package and received something in return. While this was going on, both were furtively looking around. Akins didn't see what was transferred. Even later, Akins saw Victor exchange something with a black male near the front door. Again, she could not see what it was. S/A Murray also observed this activity and it appeared to be drug activity to her as well. Akins and Murray went back to The Cabin about 5:00 AM on May 11, 1994. As they approached the door they were met by two employees who let them in, and they paid a white female cashier upon entry. On this occasion they did not have a bottle with them. When asked, they said they had a bottle there from the previous visit and were allowed in. Akins ordered two or three drinks from Mr. Sparks, who was behind the bar that evening. The first drink she had was rum, but she does not know from which bottle it was poured. She later ordered a vodka drink which Sparks poured without asking if she had a vodka bottle there. She paid for the vodka with a chip. Later that evening, Mr. Leal, also an employee of The Cabin, offered her a drink. He had called out that the police were outside and that everyone had to stay inside. He sweetened the call by saying he would buy a drink for everyone. At this time, Akins asked for a Zambuca, which they did not have, and they gave her Amaretto instead. Though she saw Mr. Sparks make the drink, she could not tell if there was a name on the bottle or not. Leal offered Murray a drink as well. All this time, Mr. McKown, whom she knew, was present in the facility, going in and out from the back office talking to people. He had done this the previous night as well. Akins left the premises at 7:00 AM and returned again at 5:00 AM the following day, May 12, 1994, accompanied by S/A Murray. They did not bring a bottle this time because they had not taken their bottle with them the previous night. They went through the usual routine of passing the guard, who asked what bottle they would be drinking from. When they said they had one inside, the guard went to check and thereafter allowed them. After paying the cover charge, they were admitted. Inside, Akins saw two black males and a white male exchanging something outside the men's restroom. They were looking around and speaking quietly, and she did not see what was exchanged. That evening, she spoke with the Bartender, Lee, and with Mr. McKown. She also spoke with a patron, Mr. LaRuso, who approached her and commented that she was either a cop or seeking cocaine. In response, she said she wasn't a cop. The two agents both ordered rum from the bartender who poured the drinks from a bottle with their name on it. The rum ran out while the drinks were being poured, so the bartender finished pouring from another bottle which was not theirs. Mr. McKown was in and out of the back office all during this period and would stop and talk with patrons. He appeared quite normal and was not drinking at the time. They returned on May 17, 1994 at 5:20 AM. Mr. Bailey was the security guard who admitted them. On this occasion they had a bottle of rum with them and paid the cover charge. Their bottle was marked by the bartender and Akins ordered a drink from him which was made from their bottle. Later on she also ordered and was served a vodka drink by the bartender who did not inquire from whose bottle he should pour it. S/A Murray was also served a vodka. Akins paid for the vodka drink with a chip even though neither she nor Murray had ever brought a bottle of vodka to the establishment. That evening, she spoke with Mr. Sparks, Mr. Mille and Mr. McKown. Sparks and Mille were both employees. Sparks said he had been divorced because he used too much cocaine. Mille said he had been arrested for cocaine. These discussions took place at the bar or at the cashier stand and were carried on in a normal tone of voice. The agents went back to The Cabin on May 24, 1994 at 4:45 AM with a confidential informant, (CI). They were met at the door by a white male who allowed them to enter. When they did, they paid the cover charge to Mr. Sparks. They brought a bottle of scotch with them even though they had previously brought in at least two bottles of rum. At that point, Akins did not know if the last rum bottle they had brought on May 17, 1994 was still there, so they brought the scotch to be sure they would be admitted. The bottle of scotch was marked and placed behind the bar by Mr. Sparks. Mr. Strauss and a white female were tending bar. Akins approached Strauss who asked if she wanted what she had just brought in or rum instead. When she replied she preferred rum, Strauss went to look for some in the back. When he came back, he said he could find none, but would give her vodka instead. Akins agreed and Strauss made a vodka drink for her. It was, in fact, vodka, and she paid for it. She also had another vodka drink that evening, made for her by Mr. Strauss, who did not use any of the bottles the agents had brought in. Agent Akins, in a conversation with Mr. Sparks that evening, asked him if he had any more cocaine like that which she had purchased on May 17, 1994. This conversation took place near the juke box which was playing, but not loudly. Their conversation was in a normal tone. Strauss walked away after her question and she went up to the cashier's booth and was talking with some people when Sparks returned. He handed her a small package in front of Mr. Bailey and Agent Murray. It consisted of a small cellophane wrapper containing a white powder for which Sparks would not take any money. Akins put the package in her pocket and it was later analyzed at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, (FDLE), laboratory and determined to be cocaine. After that purchase was made by Akins, the CI purchased a substance from a lady known as Michelle, who Akins described as an employee of The Cabin. Mr. McKown denies this, however, and it is found that she was not an employee. Prior to the purchase, the CI had informed the agents he thought he could make a purchase and Agent Murray searched him before he approached Michelle. Determining he had no cocaine on his person, he was released to make the buy, which he did, on the premises. Michelle gave him a package of a substance, later determined to be cocaine, for which he paid with $30.00 given him previously by Murray. He then delivered the substance to Murray who in turn gave it to Akins for evaluation. It was later tested and determined to be cocaine. That same evening, Akins also saw three white males in a corner of the bar making what she considered a suspicious transaction. They were looking around and acting furtively. There was a big crowd in the bar that evening - at least 35 people. The lighting was good and Akins had no problem seeing. Mr. McKown was also in and out that evening. The two agents returned to the Cabin on June 27, 1994 at about 3:50 AM. When they arrived, they were met at the door by the security guard who asked them who they were, where they worked, and other similar questions. Akins got the impression that he did not want to let them in even though she had indicated that they had a bottle of scotch inside. While this was going on, Mr. Sparks came out and vouched for them and they were admitted. After paying the cover charge, Akins ordered a scotch. The drink was poured from her bottle by the bartender, Ms. Hart, but she noticed at the time that the bottle was almost empty even though she and Agent Murray had had few drinks from it. Akins paid for the drink with one of her chips. Because Akins did not drink the scotch, she was offered another drink by Ms. Hart and asked for a rum drink. The bottles of rum which she and Murray had brought in on May 10 and 17, 1994, had previously been used up, and she noted that there was no ownership label on the bottle from which her drink, and that for Murray, were poured. In any event, they paid for the drinks and when they tasted them, determined they were made from rum. That same morning, Akins saw a black male enter the bar without paying the cover charge. He bypassed the cashier and went toward the restrooms where he was approached by Mr. Strauss, to whom he passed something and got something in return. At this point, Akins was approximately 12 feet away, and though she could not see what was actually passed, she saw Strauss put what he had received into his pocket. Strauss then went back to the bar and the black male left. Shortly thereafter, Mr. McKown entered the bar. He seemed normal and walked around, talking with his customers. Akins left soon thereafter without taking her bottle of scotch. On July 27, 1994, Akins and Murray arrived at The Cabin at approximately 3:30 AM and were admitted by Mr. Bailey. This time they brought a bottle of rum. The scotch, which they had brought previously, was gone even though neither agent had had more than one or two drinks out of it. At this time, a female bartender asked her what she wanted and Akins ordered a peppermint schnapps. Without any questions regarding whose bottle it should be poured from, the bartender poured the requested drink from a bottle which bore a name that Akins could not see. It was not hers, however. She tasted the drink and found it was, in fact, peppermint schnapps. That same evening, Akins and Murray were approached at the bar by a white female, Ronnie, who asked them to split an 8-ball of cocaine. An 8-ball is one eighth of an ounce. No effort was made by Ronnie to hide her solicitation. In response, Akins said she didn't have any cocaine with her, but if Ronnie could find some, she, Akins, would go in with her. With that, Ronnie spoke with several customers but did not come back that evening. Mr. McKown was present but was not a participant in the conversation. When Akins left the bar that morning, she did not take the bottle of rum she brought in with her. The agents went back to The Cabin on August 9, 1994, at approximately 3:05 AM, and met three men, Beltran, Ramos and Encena, in the parking lot. As the five approached the door, they were met by Bailey and Sparks and were admitted, even though they did not have any alcohol with them. Once inside, Akins ordered from Ms. Hart a tequila drink which was poured from a bottle with no name on it. She had first asked for rum, but all that was available was spiced rum. When she tasted the drink, she found that it was tequila. Later on, she ordered a Kamikaze, which contained vodka, from Ms. Hart. Hart did not ask her whose bottle she should pour it from but poured from a bottle with no name tag on it. The drink was vodka. She paid for both drinks she ordered that evening with chips purchased at the door. During the morning, Akins spoke with Mr. Beltran, one of the men she had come in with, who was a patron at the bar. While they were still outside, however, before entering, Beltran had asked the two agents if they used cocaine. When they replied that they did, he said he would have to go inside to get it. When Akins later spoke with him at the bar, he told her to get her friend and that he had obtained the cocaine. Beltran and Ramos had the two agents follow them outside and to Beltran's car where the substance, later tested and identified as cocaine, was produced by Beltran and Ramos and given to the two agents. After Ramos ingested some of the substance, they went back inside and Akins put the substance she had received into her purse for later testing. After the parties went back inside to the bar, the men were ejected because they annoyed Ms. Hart. Mr. McKown was there at the time. After the men were ejected, Akins and Murray had a discussion with a patron named Guinta who said Akins had white stuff under her nose. Akins wiped her nose and denied the allegation. Guinta then asked Murray and Akins if they had any cocaine. Akins said she did not but would see if she could get some. She spoke with Mr. Sparks who said he had none available. All this was in a regular tone of voice, and all during this conversation, Mr. McKown was within three to five feet of them. Later on, there was a quite loud conversation between Guinta and another individual about cocaine. Afterwards, the parties went outside to Murray's car where Guinta gave them a substance later tested and identified as cocaine. Both agents went back to The Cabin on August 16, 1994 at approximately 3:30 AM. On this visit they had no alcohol with them. Mr. Bailey was on duty as the security guard and Strauss and Hart were the bartenders. Akins ordered a vodka Kamikaze from Hart. Later on, Hart asked her if she wanted another drink. When Akins agreed, Hart offered to make it with tequila instead of vodka. She made the drink from a bottle not marked with an owner's name, and when Akins tasted the drink, she found it was tequila. Murray also had two rum drinks which were poured from a bottle with no name on it. Akins spoke with Charles Bailey that evening at the bar. She asked him for some cocaine, and he said he could give her a "bump", (a small amount of cocaine), but could not sell her any. Akins and Murray went back to The Cabin on August 26, 1994. On that occasion, again, they had no alcohol with them. The bottle of scotch and the rum they had brought on two separate prior occasions was gone. They met three other patrons outside. Mr. Bailey, the security guard, let them in and after paying the cover charge, Akins spoke with Mr. Mille and thanked him for the cocaine she had received previously from Mr. Guinta. At first Mille seemed confused, but when she explained, he seemed to understand, but denied he had any more available. Akins had several drinks that evening. The first was made with tequila which she got from Ms. Hart. Neither Akins nor Murray had ever brought tequila to the bar. The tag on the bottle said "Killian's", but Akins did not know anyone by that name or where the bottle came from. Nonetheless, she paid for the drink, tasted it, and determined it was tequila. She also had a drink made with Amaretto that evening which she bought from Mr. Strauss. In this case, also, she was served a drink made with a beverage she had not brought in. Murray was served a rum drink from a bottle marked "hooters". She did not work for or know anybody from Hooters. Apparently, that same evening, Akins was looking quite tired as she sat at the bar. She was approached by Julio Pabone who said he could get her something that would wake her up. He then spoke with Mr. Leal, after which he came back to Akins and asked for money. She gave him $20.00 to add to what he already had, and he returned to Leal, gave him the money, and received a baggy with white powder in it in return. Returning to Akins, Pabone gave the baggy to her. The substance in the bag was later tested and identified as cocaine. Leal is an employee of the licensee. That same evening, Murray saw two women in the restroom use what appeared to her to be cocaine near the sink. On September 9, 1994, the agents again went to The Cabin and were admitted by Charles Bailey. After paying the cover charge, and while sitting at the bar, Akins saw a patron identified as Manuel pull out a wrapper containing a white substance and give it to another male who gave him money in return for it. At the time of this transaction, Mr. McKown was standing approximately five feet away. Later on, a male identified as Julio approached Akins and said he needed $30.00 for cocaine. She gave him the money and he went into the men's room followed by Leal and another individual. When Julio came out, he gave Akins a package with white powder in it which was subsequently tested and identified as cocaine. Mr. McKown was present in the bar at the time, but Akins cannot say whether he observed this transaction. On the evening of September 30, 1994, Sergeant Woodrow A. Ray, a longtime employee of the Division, was the supervisor of the raid conducted at The Cabin. When he arrived, he entered the establishment to insure that all other agents were in place. Sometime thereafter, Agent Miller, also a long time employee of the Division, arrived to serve an Emergency Order of Suspension on the licensee. Miller contacted Mr. McKown, read the Search Warrant and the Emergency Order of Suspension to him, and advised him of his rights against self-incrimination. While this was being done, Mr. McKown expressed surprise regarding the narcotics allegations but admitted he may have sold some alcohol. He stated this four times in different ways. He stated, "We may have sold some alcohol but no drugs"; "Maybe my people sold liquor, but I don't know about drugs"; "We sell a few drinks to help the guys, but no drugs"; and "If drugs were sold, I never knew it - maybe drinks but no drugs." Agent Miller helped with the ensuing search, in the course of which he went into the office to seize the license. He also searched the adjoining storage area in which he discovered a black bag. He asked McKown if the bag was his, which McKown denied. McKown indicated that only himself, Mr. Leal, and Charles Bailey had access to this room. Miller then went to get Bailey, who had been detained on the patio, advised him of his rights, and asked if the bag was his. Bailey acknowledged it was. Miller took Bailey back inside where he placed him in a chair under guard. Miller had Bailey identify the bag and when he did, Miller asked if there was anything in it he should know about. Bailey thereafter gave his permission to search the bag. Before the bag was opened, however, Miller had it taken outside to be sniffed by the narcotics detection dog on the scene who alerted on it. Miller then opened the bag, and inside, in an ammunition box, found drug paraphernalia and approximately 98.6 grams of a white powder which was subsequently tested and identified as cocaine. On or about February 4, 1993, Gene Leal, who was the manager of The Cabin, cashed a check there for Julio Pabone in the amount of $120.00 which was subsequently dishonored. When contacted about this, Pabone agreed to pay off the check in periodic cash payments, and in fact, did so, making a payment of $20.00 on August 26, 1994. The payment which Leal received on that date was not for cocaine but in repayment of a portion of the dishonored check. Company policy regarding illegal drugs is simple. If seen going on, the activity is to be stopped and the individual expelled from the facility forever. Mr. McKown recalls this as having happened at least six times in the year prior to closing. He claims he has no use for drugs and never has. He has a "no tolerance" policy for any drug activity he knew about, and his employees knew that. This policy is not in writing, however. Mr. McKown has not had any of his employees trained in drug identification, and even though he is aware of the state's responsible vendor program, neither he nor any of his employees have participated in it. Mr. Leal has worked for The Cabin for approximately eight years, as has Mr. Sparks. Both were instructed regarding the company's drug policy. Most of The Cabin employees have been on staff for between eight and fifteen years. Mr. McKown claims he would have periodic meetings with employees to inform them of his policy and to solicit reports of illegal activity. In addition to these instructions, employees are furnished with trespass warning slips which are to be issued when patrons are expelled for drug use. Two of these were introduced into evidence. Byron L. Bailey, one of the security guards, confirms this. Though usually stationed at the front door, he would make between four and five checks per night of the restrooms to be sure they were not being used for drug activity or for drinking. He did not, however, look to see what was going on in the lounge. Kathryn Katz, also formerly an employee of The Cabin, was instructed in the company's policy when hired. Not only was the use or transfer of drugs prohibited but so was the sale of alcohol. She was told that only those individuals who had a bottle with them or already inside could be admitted. It is possible that some people lied about this, but she had to take their word. If they said they had a bottle inside, she would admit them. She also checked the ladies' restroom periodically. The Cabin welcomes law enforcement officers as patrons. When deputies from the sheriff's office periodically come out and park in the lot of the neighboring Steak and Ale, they are always welcome. Approximately a year prior to the hearing, Mr. McKown was reportedly told that a van was in his lot from which drugs were being sold. He claims he called 911 and an arrest was made. However, over the fifteen years he's operated The Cabin, Mr. McKown claims there has never been an arrest made inside the club. Concerning the "admissions" he made to Agent Miller at the time of the service of the warrant and the Order of Suspension, Mr. McKown was reading a copy of the affidavit as Miller was reading it to him. As he read it, he was shocked to discover that his own people, whom he felt were family, were doing such things. He admits that perhaps his employees made a mistake in selling drinks. He does not condone it and he definitely does not condone any sales of illegal drugs. His admissions were not meant to specific dates or incidents but were rhetorical more than actual. He admitted his employees had the opportunity to sell unlawful drinks. He does not believe, in his heart, however, that they made any drug sales. He is wrong. No bottles of alcohol were seized by law enforcement officials at the time of the raid. Approximately two weeks after the closing, Mr. McKown conducted an inventory of the bottles on the premises. At that time, there were approximately one hundred fifty bottles, all of which, he insists, had patrons' names on them. Of that number, thirty to forty were establishment bottles. The balance were owned by individuals. Several prominent restaurant owners and managers who patronize The Cabin have known Mr. McKown for several years. None has ever observed any illegal drug activity inside the establishment and had they done so, would have left and not returned. Mr. Caballero, a former Tampa City Councilman, has patronized The Cabin since it was opened. Because of his public position, he was very sensitive to any possibility of illegal activity in his presence, and though he would be at the club once or twice a month, never saw any such conduct. All of these individuals claim to be friends of Mr. McKown. Dr. Poritz and Mr. Queen, a chiropractor and private investigator, respectively, have also patronized The Cabin periodically for several years. Neither has ever seen any illegal activity in there. Mr. Queen, while a member of the Tampa Police Department's Narcotics Division, would patronize the establishment periodically and was always comfortable there. Had he seen any illegal activity on the premises, he would taken appropriate action as a law enforcement officer and would have reported what he saw. A previous Administrative Complaint was filed against the Respondent in 1993 for violation of liquor sales laws. At that time, the Respondent and the Division entered into a Consent Agreement which called for Respondent to pay a civil penalty of $500.00 plus investigative costs of $14.50, and to provide a letter of corrective action. This letter, dated July 31, 1993, and signed by Mr. McKown and several of his employees, such as Mr. Bailey, Mr. Leal, Mr. Strauss and Ms. Hart, all of whom are referenced in the instant action, indicated the signatories had come up with a good system "to keep people without a bottle from coming in" which should "tighten it up and not break down as it did." From the evidence presented, it appears they were wrong and that their system did not work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's alcoholic beverage license No. 39-3729, Series 14BC, be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 31st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 94-5882 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein, except that the evidence indicates the January 12, 1994 visit occurred prior to the commencement of the instant investigation. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 9. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 10. & 11. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 12. - 14. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 15. & 16. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 17. - 21. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 22. - 24. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 25. & 26. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 27. - 29. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 30. & 31. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. 32. - 34. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. - 37. Accepted and in substance incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not probative of any material issue. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 45. Accepted and incorporated herein. 46. & 47. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 J. Thomas Wright, Esquire Suite A 2506 Tampa Bay Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33607 Linda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John J. Harris Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
