Findings Of Fact Wedgewood is the holder of Division of Beverage license number 62-1626, 4-COP SRX, which authorized Wedgewood to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises at retail only. Wedgewood is advertised as a resort with private villas, hotel rooms, two restaurants and a disco with live entertainment. An ad published on page 81 of Cruise Magazine, Volume 3, No. 4, however, makes no reference to any of the facilities except the appearance of an entertainment group known as The Village People. On the other hand, an ad in the November 19, 1977, issue of Florida Alive gives equal emphasis to hotel facilities, restaurant facilities and disco facilities. Wedgewood has promulgated and distributed a flyer advertising daily happy hour with special prices for alcoholic beverages. That same flyer advertises the sale of sandwiches and emphasizes that dining facilities are available nightly. Wedgewood has produced two menus. One appears to be a lunch menu which contains a soup, fifteen different sandwiches, three salads, five hot entrees, french fries, six desserts and beverages without reference to alcoholic beverages. Wedgewood has also produced a dinner menu containing appetizers, soups, five seafood entrees, five beef entrees, and two fowl entrees, with soup, salad and an assortment of desserts. The only reference to alcoholic beverages contained in the menu suggests that one's favorite after dinner drink is available. Wedgewood has two restaurants with complete facilities for serving and preparing for the requisite number of full course meals. For the period, June 15, 1977, through January 30, 1978, Wedgewood shows gross revenues of $162,685.00, composed of $22,991.00 for food sales and $139,694.00 for alcoholic beverage sales. These figures indicate that Wedgewood has derived approximately 14 percent of its total revenue from food services. One of the criteria contained in Rule 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code, used in determining whether or not the holder of a restaurant license is a bona fide restaurant is: The restaurant must derive at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. The 51 percent shall be determined by taking the average monthly gross revenue of the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages over a period of any calendar year. DABT urges that the gross receipts evidence of the approximate seven month period should be used in making a determination that the licensee is not a bona fide restaurant. However, DABT is arguing against its own regulations. Unless the revenues are analyzed over a calendar year as provided in the Rule, the percentage of revenue from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages may not properly be used as a criterion. Accordingly, the evidence as to the revenues will not be considered in the determination of the instant case. Wedgewood has advertised and held out to the public to be a place where meals are prepared and served, as evidenced by its comprehensive menus. The evidence shows that space is provided with adequate kitchen and dining room equipment and that there are employed sufficient numbers and kinds of employees for preparing, cooking and serving meals for guests. While Wedgewood obviously engages in the sale of alcoholic beverages, there is insufficient evidence to establish that such sale is subordinate to the sale of food. Equal advertising space is given to both functions and accordingly, it is found, as a matter of fact, that the principal business of the restaurant is to cater to and serve full course bona fide meals to the general public and the primary operation of the restaurant is for the preparation and cooking and serving of meals and not for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
Findings Of Fact Lincoln C. and Pearl H. Williams are the licensees under the State of Florida Alcoholic Beverage license number 26-1369, series 2-COP for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The Williams do business as the Three Star Diner. The series 2-COP license authorizes Williams to sell beer and wine for consumption on the premises. It was stipulated by respective counsel at the final hearing and it is found as a matter of fact that the Williams are licensees over which DABT has jurisdiction, that forty-four 12 ounce bottles of Miller High Life beer were seized on the premises as alleged and that the liquid contained in the bottles is an alcoholic beverage and a malt beverage. It was further stipulated that the word Florida was not printed or lithographed on the crown or lid of the bottles and that the excise tax was not paid for the beer. Detective John A. Zipper of the Jacksonville Sheriff's office seized the forty-four bottles of Miller High Life beer at the licensed premises on July 18, 1977. Detective Zipper found 19 or 20 bottles of Miller High Life in a cooler adjacent to serving counters. There was other beer and wine contained in the same cooler. Zipper saw no customers who had purchased the untaxed beer. Pearl Williams, one of the licensees, had no knowledge that the untaxed beer was on the premises. Pearl Williams had recently purchased ten cases of properly taxed Miller High Life beer from the Miller High Life delivery man on the previous Friday. She purchased no other beer. A Mr. Ed Knuton, Jr., testified and claimed to have been hired by the licensees' son to clean up the licensed promises on July 18, 1977. While sweeping out the store, says Knuton, a man in a pick up truck drove up and offered to sell him Miller High Life Beer. Knuton purchased three cases of the beer for $9.00. Knuton then took two six packs and placed them in the case so they would become cool enough to drink and put the remainder on the floor of the licensed premises with the rest of the beer. Knuton then drank 10 to 12 bottles during the remainder of the day and gave 6 to 8 bottles away to friends. During this time the licensees' son was present along with some customers but neither of the licensees were present themselves.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Bennie L. Terry was the holder of license No. 26-2105, Series No. 2-APS, a license issued by the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, which allowed the sale of wine and beer for takeout, i.e., package sales only at the licensed premises in Jacksonville, Florida. A routine inspection was made of that premises on February 21, 1983, at 10:00 a.m. At that time, the license premises was open for business. Robert Terry, father of the licensee was in charge of the licensed premises on the date in question. In the course of the inspection, a 200 milliliter bottle of gin was found in a cooler which was located in the bar proper. In addition, other gin and whiskey was found in the living quarters of Robert Terry, which is found within the diagram description of the extent of the licensed premises. Gin and whiskey are spirituous liquors not allowed for sale under the terms of the license held by Respondent. By way of explanation, Respondent established that the whiskey and gin found in his father's bedroom was there for the benefit of a private club which held meetings in the licensed premises once a week. Respondent knew of the placement of the whiskey and gin in the bedroom and the conduct of the meetings and had allowed these matters to transpire. Subsequent to the date of the inspection, several other inspections have been conducted and no violations have been detected related to Respondent Terry's license.
The Issue Whether or not on or about November 1, 1976, Stella Lee Hill, licensed under the beverage laws, and/or her agent, servant, or employee, to-wit: Jacob Hill, did sell or cause to be sold or delivered intoxicating liquors, wines, or beer to-wit: one-half pint labeled Seagrams Extra Dry Gin, in Santa Rosa County, that which has voted against the sale of such intoxicating liquors, wines or beer, contrary to Section 568.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact Stella Lee Hill is the holder of license no. 67-129, series 1-COP, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. Stella Lee Hill has held this license from October 1, 1976, up to and including the date of hearing. This license is held to operate at Munson Highway, Route 6, Box 190, Milton, Florida, and to trade as Vonnie Branch Tip Inn, the trade name of the licensed premises. A series 1-COP license is a license which entitles the licensee to make beer sales for consumption on the premises. Santa Rosa County, Florida through its voters has determined that only beer may be sold in that county, of a weight 3.2% alcoholic content. No other form of alcoholic beverages may be sold in Santa Rosa County. On November 1, 1976, around 7:00 p.m., Central Standard Time, agent Roy Cotton, of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage met with an undercover agent, one Robert Lewis. Robert Lewis was not shown to be a member of any law enforcement agency. The meeting took place on the east side of Milton, Florida, in an open field. At that time a discussion was entered into between Cotton and Lewis on the subject of making an alcoholic beverage purchase of unauthorized alcoholic beverages, at the Respondent's licensed premises. Cotton search Lewis to make sure that he did not have any money or alcoholic beverages on his person and also search Lewis' automobile to insure that no alcoholic beverage was in that automobile. After making such search, Cotton provided Lewis with $5.00 in United States currency to make the aforementioned purchase. Lewis drove to the licensed premises in one automobile and Cotton in another. Cotton stationed himself so that he could see the licensed premises and the surrounding buildings, but did not go in the licensed premises. Lewis entered the licensed premises and while in the licensed premises spoke with the brother of the licensee, one Jacob Hill and asked for a half pint bottle of liquor. Jacob Hill left the licensed premises and went to an adjacent house which was the home of the mother of the licensee and returned to the licensed premises and presented Lewis with a one half pint bottle of Seagrams Extra Dry Gin. Lewis paid Jacob Hill for the half pint bottle of Seagrams Extra Dry Gin, a liquor containing more than 3.2% alcohol by weight, and left the premises. This sale was consummated in the presence of Stella Lee Hill, the licensee. The facts as established, show that intoxicating liquors were sold by an agent of the Respondent, to-wit: Jacob Hill, in a county where the voters had decided against the sale of specific intoxicating liquors. Therefore, the Respondent has violated Section 568.02, F.S.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license no. 67-129, series 1-COP, held by the Respondent, Stella Lee Hill, be suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Collett, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Stella Lee Hill Munson Highway Route 6, Box 190 Milton, Florida
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner should fine the Respondent up to $1,000 for alleged violation of Section 561.14(3), Fla. Stat. (1995).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Billy Boy’s of Pinellas, Inc., d/b/a Big Shots, holds a temporary Series 4-COP license, license number 62- 00601, for licensed premises at 3934 49th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The previous licensee for the premises transferred the license to the Respondent, effective July 3, 1996. The sole owner and corporate officer of the Respondent is William Kovic. Within a week after assuming ownership and control of the licensed premises, the Respondent’s head bartender told him that several items of bar supplies and inventory needed to be replenished, including Budweiser beer in cans. Kovic told his bartender that he was going to the nearby Publix and would buy the needed items there. He took money out of the bar cash register to pay for the purchases. Kovic returned with the Publix purchases a short time later and gave them to his bartender for her use. Included among the Publix purchases were four 12-packs of Budweiser beer in cans. The bartender placed some of the Budweiser beer in the bar’s stock of inventory for resale and resold it in the course of bar business. The rest of the beer was stored in the cooler. Two days later, the bartender told Kovic that some of his customers were requesting particular brands of beer that were not available at the bar. Included among these were Icehouse, Red Dog and Michelob Lite. She told Kovic that these customers likely would take their business elsewhere if the bar could not sell their preferred brands. Once again, Kovic said he would go to Publix to get them and took money out of the bar cash register to pay for them. A short time later, Kovic returned to the bar with a case each of Icehouse, Red Dog and Michelob Lite. As before, the bartender placed some of the beer in the bar’s stock of inventory for resale and resold it in the course of bar business. The rest of the beer was stored in the cooler. The Respondent maintained receipts for these beer purchases among his other receipts evidencing purchases of alcoholic beverages for resale at the bar. Publix is a licensed retail vendor of beer. It is not licensed as a manufacturer, bottler or distributor. Nor is Publix involved in any pool buying group with the Respondent. Although Kovic did not testify, his defense to the charge in this case was that he bought the beer in question for use at a private party at his parents’ motel room thrown to celebrate his new bar. His former and current managers testified in support of this defense. Both testified that beer indeed was purchased for a private party and that it was set aside and labeled as such and was not sold at the bar. The former manager testified that it was his error to place the receipts in with the other receipts evidencing purchases of alcoholic beverages for resale at the bar. The testimony and evidence raised questions as to existence and time of the alleged party. But even if the testimony of Kovic’s former and current managers was truthful, neither was a witness to any conversation between Kovic and his former head bartender concerning these beer purchases, and neither could directly dispute the former bartender’s testimony that at least some of the Publix beer purchases were resold at retail. Both Kovic’s former and current managers also testified that the former head bartender, who informed the DABT of these alleged violations, was fired on or about July 15, 1996, was disgruntled, and had a motive to falsely accuse Kovic. However, they had no direct information from which they could conclude that the former head bartender was lying; they had to take Kovic’s word for it. While it is possible that the former head bartender was lying, it is found to be more likely that Kovic’s defense was fabricated and that his former and current managers testified to help Kovic avoid license discipline.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the DABT), enter the final order: (1) finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 561.14(3), Fla. Stat. (1995); and (2) imposing a $1,000 fine.RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 FAX FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1997.
The Issue The primary issues for determination are whether Brother J. Inc., d/b/a A.J.’s Sports (Respondent) violated Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and secondarily, if Respondent committed such a violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency vested with general regulatory authority over the alcoholic beverage industry within the state, including the administration of the laws and rules relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner, having been issued license number 47-02607, Series 4-COP by Petitioner. That license allows Respondent to make sales for consumption on premises of liquor, wine, and beer at his establishment located in Tallahassee, Florida. Events at issue in this proceeding revolve around a fraternity/sorority party held at Respondent’s establishment on the evening of March 30/April 1, 2005. Members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity and the Delta Nu Zeta sorority decided that they would host a “construction” theme party. To facilitate the party, the social chairman of Phi Kappa Psi contacted Respondent to make arrangements. Respondent’s establishment has several large areas on its ground floor and a single, 1,800 square foot room on the second floor. Respondent agreed to reserve its upstairs room for the Phi Kappa Psi/Delta Nu Zeta party, to waive its cover charge for party patrons, and to make “dollar wells, dollar beers” (i.e. discounted prices on certain alcoholic beverages) available to party participants for a fee of $300.00. On the night in question, most of the participants met at the Phi Kappa Psi house before going out for the evening. They gathered around 10:00 p.m. and socialized. Some people were getting their “construction” costumes together; others were “pre- partying” –-drinking before going out to minimize the size of the bar bill when they go out later. The majority of the people at the frat house at that time were drinking. At some point around 10:30 or 11:00 p.m., the party moved from the Phi Kappa Psi house to Respondent’s establishment, with party members leaving in groups of three or four to drive from the fraternity house to Respondent’s establishment. It was estimated that 15 or so sorority members and 15 to 30 fraternity brothers attended the party, and that somewhere between a third and a-half of those people were not of legal drinking age. When they arrived at Respondent’s establishment, the sorority and fraternity party makers used a side entrance set up for them by Respondent for use in getting to the party. A doorman was posted at the side entrance that checked the age of each of the patrons. He would place a “Tybex®” wristband on those persons who were over the age of 21 and would mark the hand of those under 21 with an indelible marker. Once inside, party members would go upstairs, where there was a bar with a bartender, a disk jockey, and a dance floor. The party continued on until around 2:00 a.m. on the morning of April 1, 2005, at which time the bar closed and the patrons left. During the course of the evening, 244 alcoholic beverages were served at the upstairs bar at Respondent’s facility. No evidence was presented that established with any degree of accuracy how many fraternity and sorority members actually were at the party and how many were of legal drinking age. The evidence of party attendance provided at hearing varied widely and was in each instance an estimate or a guess. Numerous persons who were not members of Phi Kappa Psi or Delta Nu Zeta were in attendance. There is no accurate estimate of how many legal drinkers were at the party or how many drinks each legal patron may have had. The Underage Drinkers Shane Donnor was observed drinking at the frat house that night. He did not, however, appear to be intoxicated when he left the frat house. He had a wristband indicating that he was over 21, which allowed him to drink at Respondent’s establishment, even though he was not of legal age. It is unknown how he obtained his wristband. Donnor was observed to have a glass in his hand while at Respondent’s establishment, but no one could confirm that he was drinking alcohol. While at Respondent’s establishment, various witnesses described him as appearing under the effects of alcohol and thought he appeared quite intoxicated. By 2:30 a.m. on April 1, Donnor had a blood alcohol level of 0.27. This corresponds to at least 10 drinks and probably more. It is an extremely high level of intoxication, which could result in a coma or even alcohol toxicity in some persons. He was quite drunk and had been so for some time. Stephanie Reed was carded upon entering Respondent’s establishment, as was her boyfriend and all the others in her party. She had one or two drinks, but she didn’t buy them herself. One of the fraternity brothers purchased her drinks for her. Reed testified at one point that she did not receive a wristband when she entered the establishment (signifying legal drinking age); later, she testified that she did due to the intervention of some unknown man who told the doorman to give her a bracelet. Reed’s testimony on this point is inconsistent and cannot be credited. Christopher Lowe was carded as he entered Respondent’s establishment. He received marks on the back of his hand indicating that he was underage. Although he was marked as being underage, Lowe was able to purchase two drinks from the bartender. He ordered the drinks; did nothing to conceal the underage marks on his hand; was served; and left money on the bar. Tania Vasquez was carded upon entering Respondent’s establishment and was marked as being underage. She did not buy any drinks while at the party, but was given an alcoholic beverage by a friend that she consumed while on the premises. Elizabeth McKean, and everyone who entered with her, were carded when they arrived at the party. McKean was marked as being underage. She did not buy any drinks for herself, but was given a shot of tequila by someone else. She drank the shot quickly to avoid detection by Respondent’s staff. David Moser had a roommate who manufactured fake i.d. cards. When he entered Respondent’s establishment, he was carded and presented a false drivers license that made it appear that he was over the age of 21. He was marked as though he was over the legal drinking age and was able to buy and consume drinks at the bar, which he did. Lee Habern had several sips of a friend’s drink that was “snuck” to him. Prevention Of Underage Drinking It is well recognized that underage persons will seek to obtain alcoholic beverages at bars. This action by underage youths results in a “cat and mouse” game whereby the bar will change its tactics in trying to prevent underage drinking and the underage drinkers will change their methods of trying to obtain drinks. Respondent tries to combat underage drinking by creating a culture of compliance. This starts with the initial hiring of employees by Respondent. Respondent’s policy is that no underage drinking will be tolerated. This policy is stated in the Employee’s Handbook. Every employee is given a copy of the handbook upon becoming employed and is required to sign an acknowledgement that he or she received it. The policy is reiterated in informal training at every staff meeting. Every new employee at Respondent’s establishment is required to go through formal training with regard to liquor laws, the effect of alcohol on the human body, dealing with customers who have had too much to drink, and related topics. These courses are known as “PAR”, “TIPS”, and “Safe Staff” and are offered by the Florida Restaurant Association and Anheiser-Busch. Respondent has also offered training provided by agents of Petitioner. These formal training programs are offered continuously to employees, and at least one of the programs is offered three times each year. The initial formal training is accomplished within 30 days of the employee being hired. Records are maintained by Respondent as to who receives what training, and when it is provided. Respondent has a policy that everyone who is served alcohol is to have his or her age checked. When the bar is not busy, this is accomplished by having the waitress check the patron’s I.D. When the bar is busier, a doorman is posted at the entrance to check the patron’s I.D. If the patron is over age 21, he or she is given a wristband; if under age 21, an indelible mark is placed on the back of the hand. Since Respondent has experienced persons copying their “over 21” designation, it is changed on a nightly basis. Fake identification cards, if detected, are confiscated. On busier nights, Respondent might confiscate 20 to 30 of such fake identifications. On the night in question, the doorman confiscated five altered cards. Respondent also has a floor manager on duty at all times that the bar is open. The floor manager will circulate throughout the establishment to make sure that all of the policies and procedures, including the prevention of underage drinking, are being carried out. On the night in question, the floor manager, Bo Crusoe, is documented to have worked and in the nominal course of events would have checked the upstairs area of the premises several times. On busy nights, Respondent will hire one or more off- duty City of Tallahassee police officers to serve as security at the bar. The officers work in their police uniforms. These officers serve first and foremost as high visibility deterrents to unlawful activity. Their mere presence serves to minimize underage drinking. Respondent regularly has off-duty law enforcement on the premises. Respondent also has a security consultant, Officer John Beemon, who is a Tallahassee Police officer. He evaluates the need for additional security and communicates those needs to the owners. When he becomes aware of a new wrinkle in underage persons obtaining alcohol, he works with Respondent to prevent the practice. He assists the doormen in identifying fraudulent I.D.s. Respondent has always implemented whatever recommendations Beemon makes to them. Generally, the security measures used by Respondent have proven effective. From time to time, Petitioner will try a “sting operation” at Respondent’s establishment by sending a minor into Respondent’s bar to see if they are able to purchase alcohol. On every such “sting operation” Petitioner’s decoy was identified and stopped at the front door and was not allowed to purchase alcoholic beverages. Carrie Bruce is Petitioner’s special agent for the Tallahassee area. She is familiar with most Tallahassee alcoholic establishments and her testimony establishes that Respondent’s establishment is not considered a “problem bar” by Petitioner and is considered to be better than other area bars in preventing underage drinking. To the best of the owner’s knowledge and Beemon’s knowledge, no one has ever knowingly served a drink to a minor at Respondent’s establishment. Further, Respondent has never previously been charged with serving alcohol to minors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is
