Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Blue Sun, Inc. d/b/a Phillip's Corner Cruise-Thru, was a licensed beer vendor having been issued Series 2-APS license number 39-01076 by petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). Respondent uses its license at a business known as University Texaco located at 2245 East Fletcher Avenue, Tampa, Florida. The store is located close to the University of South Florida campus. Its manager is Nancy Krueger, who appeared on behalf of the licensee. On the evening of December 4, 1987 a Division investigator, Keith B. Hamilton, conducted an investigation of respondent's licensed premises to determine if respondent was selling beer to minors. The investigation was prompted by an unidentified complaint that beer was being sold to minors. It was the Division's practice that when such complaints were received, it sent a minor onto the premises for the purpose of purchasing alcoholic beverages. In this case, a sixteen year old minor, Scott Meredith, drove his personal car to the store and, while Hamilton stayed across the street and observed the transaction, ordered a twelve ounce can of Budweiser beer. The store clerk, John A. Damm, did not check Scott's identification or verify his age and sold him the beer. Afterwards, Hamilton met with Damm, obtained his identification and issued a criminal citation for Damn to appear in court for selling beer to a minor. Around 10:45 p.m. on July 8, 1988 Hamilton and a Division investigative aide, James Leschner, who was then 17 years of age, visited respondent's licensed premises for the purpose of determining if Leschner could purchase beer. While Hamilton stayed across the street and observed the transaction, Leschner drove to the front of the store in his own car and ordered a six-pack of Budweiser beer. The clerk, Brian Szcinski, did not check Leschner's identification or verify his age and sold him the beer. Szcinski was issued a citation requiring him to appear in court. After the incident occurred, Szcinski advised the manager what had happened. On September 10, 1988 Hamilton and Leschner returned to respondent's licensed premises. Again, while Hamilton observed from across the street, Leschner drove his own car to the front parking area and ordered a can of Budweiser beer. The order was initially placed with an unidentified male clerk but Krueger accepted the money and handed the beer to Leschner. The minor's identification was not checked. After the sale took place, Hamilton issued Krueger a criminal citation requiring her to appear in court. Also, a notice to show cause was later issued against the licensee seeking to impose a fine and suspend its license. Krueger blamed the three incidents on a high turnover of employees and the failure of a few employees to conform to store policy. According to Krueger, despite posting signs, advising employees of the rule on sales to minors, and instituting a policy of checking the identification of every person who looked under thirty years of age, these three sales inadvertently occurred. She asked for leniency given the number of years the business has been operating and the isolated instances of misconduct. She also complained that after the December 4, 1987 sale occurred, the Division did not personally advise her or the owner of the incident but merely served a citation on the clerk. According to agency records, respondent entered into consent agreements with the Division in 1983 and 1985 for the same type of violation. The agency does not have a rule containing suggested penalty guidelines for violations by licensees. However, its investigator recommended the imposition of a 60-day suspension of respondent's license and a $3,000 civil penalty as being appropriate under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987) on three occasions. It is further recommended that respondent's APS license number 39-01076 be suspended for sixty days and it pay a $3,000 civil penalty. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1989.
The Issue The issues in this case are as set forth in the attached copy of the Notice to Show Cause and by its attachment this copy becomes a part of the Recommended Order. This Notice to Show Cause in its various counts raises the question of whether the action of the Respondent which took place on March 21, 1978, through its "bar spending" practice (i.e., the practice of a representative of manufacturer or a wholesaler purchasing drinks for consumers at the premises of a retail licensee) has violated the provisions of Subsection 561.42(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact By agreement and stipulation the parties, in the person of their counsel, have offered a Statement of Facts. This Statement of Facts is accepted by the Hearing Officer to be the evidential fact determination from which the outcome of the matters here in dispute will be concluded. To that end the Statement of Facts is attached to this Recommended Order and made a part of the Recommended Order. This stipulation of the Statement of Facts appears as it was offered at the time of the formal hearing conducted on May 22, 1979. The Respondent, as a brewer of malt beverages licensed under the laws of Florida, has been charged with the giving of financial aid and assistance to a number of vendors licensed by the State of Florida. There are sixteen licensed vendors named in the allegation in eighteen separate counts. This activity on the part of the Respondent has purportedly violated the conditions of Section 561.42, Florida Statutes (1977), which contains the following language: Section 561.42 Tied house evil; financial aid and assistance to vendor by manufacturer or distributor prohibited; procedure for enforcement; exception.-- No licensed manufacturer or distributor of any of the beverages herein referred to shall have any financial interest, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or business of any vendor licensed under the Beverage Law, nor shall such licensed manufacturer or distributor assist any vendor by any gifts or loans of money or property of any description or by the giving of any rebates of any kind whatsoever. No licensed vendor shall accept, directly or indirectly, any gift or loan of money or property of any description or any rebates from any such licensed manufacturer or distributor; provided, however, that this shall not apply to any bottles, barrels, or other containers necessary for the legitimate transportation of such beverages, or advertising materials, and shall not apply to the extension of credit, for liquors sold, made strictly in compliance with the provisions of this section. This particular provision of law has application to the malt beverage business through the finding of the Florida Supreme Court in Castlewood International Corp. vs. Wynne, 294 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1974). The specific portions of Subsection 561.42(1), Florida Statutes (1977), which are at issue in this cause, are those provisions dealing with the meaning of the words "gifts" and "rebates" found in the subject Subsection. (The parties, in the course of their argument, conceded that the portion of that Subsection dealing with loans of money or property is not to be regarded.) In determining the meaning of the words "rebates" and "gifts", as set forth in Subsection 561.42(1), Florida Statutes (1977), the Petitioner has promulgated rules in the Florida Administrative Code which define those terms. The recitation of those roles is as follows: 7A-1.09 Rebate. The term 'rebate' (often referred to as accumulative promotion or retroactive discount) shall include any refund or discount made or allowed other than such discounts as are permitted under Section 561.42, Florida Statutes; and as such they are prohibited. 7A-1.10 'Gift'. The term `gift' shall apply to the giving of free goods or things of value as a discount not otherwise permitted by law or reward for purchasing any given quantity of alcoholic beverages whether at one time or over a period of time; and as such they are prohibited. A close reading of the role definition of "rebate", establishes that rebates as considered in cases interpreting the meaning of the beverage laws in the State of Florida; rebates which constitute accumulative promotion or retroactive discounts; and refunds or discounts made or allowed other than such discounts permitted under Section 561.42, Florida Statutes, are prohibited by Subsection 561.42(1), Florida Statutes, as implemented by the definitional statement found in Rule 7A-1.09, Florida Administrative Code. This definition found in the rule establishes the parameters for prosecuting claims against this Respondent. Likewise, the definition found in Rule 7A-1.10, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with the term "gifts" sets the limits beyond which Petitioner may not venture in its efforts to penalize the Respondent for alleged violations of Subsection 561.42(1), Florida Statutes (1977) premised on the theory that the licensee has given a vendor a gift. "Gift" within the meaning of the rule is constituted as the giving of free goods; the giving of things of value as a discount not otherwise permitted by law; or the giving of a reward for purchasing any given quantity of alcoholic beverages either at one time or over a period of time. In examining the numerous possibilities for establishing a "rebate" or "gift", the most reasonable beginning is to establish those discounts which are allowed. The reference in the rule defining "rebate" describes this form of discount as a discount permitted by Section 561.42, Florida Statutes. In particular, Subsection 561.42(6), Florida Statutes (1977), provides: (6) Nothing herein shall be taken to forbid the giving of trade discounts in the usual course of business upon wine and liquor sales. Therefore, any discount given in the usual course of business is allowed. Moreover, in view of the construction of the grammar in Rule 7A-1.09, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with "rebates", any refund given in the ordinary course of business will be allowed. Turning to that element of the definition of "gifts" found in Rule 7A-1.10, Florida Administrative Code, which establishes that discounts net otherwise permitted by law are prohibited, when that language is considered in view of the statement of Subsection 561.42(6), Florida Statutes (1977), it demonstrates that trade discounts in the usual course of business are not gifts. A discount in the usual course of business is defined in Subsection 561.01(10), Florida Statutes (1977), which states: 'Discount in the usual course of business means a cash discount given simultaneously at the time of sale. The same discounts shall be offered to all vendors buying similar quantities. Any discount which is in violation of this section shall be considered an arrangement for financial assistance by gift. The next point in the inquiry is whether the activities in the case sub judice, constitute the giving of a discount in the usual course of business from the manufacturer to vendors. Obviously, the answer is no. Whatever final characterization should be given the activities, they were not cash discounts given simultaneously at the time of a sale between the manufacturer and vendors in the sixteen establishments. Consequently, the conflict must be resolved by the systematic analysis of the remaining terms and phrases found in the definitions set out in Rules 7A-1.09 and 7A-1.10, Florida Administrative Code. The first of these terms and phrases to be examined is the term "rebate". This terminology involves a consideration of the meaning of the term "rebate" in its common meaning and the term "rebate" as specifically defined in the subject rule, as being an accumulative promotion or retroactive discount. The Petitioner in its Proposed Recommended Order advances the economic theory that a vendor may not assume that his products will be sold within a given period or at a given price. Under this theory, the Respondent's purchase of the beer at retail prices reduced the vendor's cost of acquisition giving him a so-called automatic and predictable profit, thereby effecting a "rebate" of the vendor's purchase price by increasing cash flow and giving a guaranteed profit to the vendor. This theory in the mind of the Petitioner is supported by the fact that when free beer was given to customers of a vendor, the reasonable implication is that the vendor would give away more products during the free beer party time sequences then he would normally sell during the free beer party time sequence. That hypothetical may be true; however, the facts stipulated to in the course of this hearing do not establish that more beer was consumed on the premises because it was given away than would have been the case if the patrons had to pay the retail price, and no official notice or recognition can be taken of that proposal. To establish the desired facts, the Petitioner would need to have proved these facts or gained a stipulation from the Respondents to that effect. Having failed to establish the increased volume theory, the Petitioner is unable to demonstrate increased profits due to increased volume, ergo there is no "rebate" or retroactive discount that has been shown by the Petitioner in its proof. Moreover, the ordinary meaning of the word "rebate" does net lend itself to the establishment of a "rebate" by the evidential facts adduced in this hearing. (See Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition's definition of the term "rebate".) Again, looking at the definition of "rebate" in the subject role dealing with the terms "refund" or "discount", there is no showing that the Respondent was repaying, making restoration or returning money to the vendors as a form of restitution or repayment when it purchased the alcoholic beverages for the benefit of the patrons of the vendor, (see Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition's definition of the term "refund", and it has already been concluded that the payment from the manufacturer to the vendor was not a retroactive discount. There is no showing that the vendors paid any less than usual when they purchased the products which were subsequently given away to the general public and paid for by the Respondent at the usual prices. The Petitioner has also failed to prove that the "bar spending" constituted a "gift" within the meaning of Rule 7A-1.10, Florida Administrative Code. The free goods that were given were goods given to the general public and, absent a showing that the volume of sales would have been increased due to Respondent's purchase of the alcoholic beverages, it cannot be shown that the vendors were extended free goods. (The discount theory offered under the definition of "gift" has been discussed in examining the meaning of the word "rebate", and no further reference is necessary.) Additionally, it has not been shown that any form of reward was extended to the vendors for purchasing given quantities of alcoholic beverages either upon a single event or over a period of time, because the proof is insufficient to demonstrate that any greater volume of alcoholic beverage was sold under the "bar spending" arrangement, than would have bean sold ordinarily and having failed to make that showing, it cannot be successfully argued that the vendors reaped the rewards of extra profits from the activities which transpired in their licensed premises, either as direct profits on sales or tips for its employees. Finally, the Petitioner's assertion that the mere act of having the promotional staff of the Respondent put on the bar party constituted a "gift" or reward is not convincing for reason that the proof does not indicate that particular benefit. In summary, Petitioner has failed to prove that the activities constituted "rebates" or "gifts" within the meaning of Subsection 561.42, Florida Statutes (1977), and although the Petitioner may be philosophically opposed to the arrangement which this Respondent had with the several vendors to promote "bar spending" in the licensed premises of the vendors, to reach that result it would be necessary to strain the construction of Subsection 561.42(1), Florida Statutes (1977), and its attendant Rules 7A-1.09 and 7A-1.10, Florida Administrative Code, beyond allowable bounds. The parties have availed themselves of the opportunity to submit Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations and to the extent that these proposals are consistent with this Recommended Order they have been considered and utilized; to the extent that they are inconsistent with this Recommended Order, they are, after consideration, specifically rejected.
Conclusions Respondent is ordered to pay a civil penalty in an amount equal to the actual consideration paid the 16 vendors and 18 counts on the Notice to Show Cause, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B". Where tips were paid, 15 percent of the actual consideration paid to the particular vendor is assessed as a penalty. DONE and ORDERED this * day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee. CHARLES A. NUZUM, DIRECTOR Division of Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-7891 * NOTE: The Final Order filed with DOAH has an unreadable issue date; the 30th has been used for the ACCESS Index.
Recommendation It is recommended that the allegations in this cause be DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis LaRosa, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 T. Michael Carpenter, Esquire Associate General Counsel and Donald S. McDonald, Esquire, General Counsel Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 721 Testalozzi Street St. Louis, MO 63118 Paine Kelly, Jr., Esquire Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Hex 1531 Tampa, Florida 33601 Attachment 1 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF BEVERAGE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE - NOTICE OF INFORMAL CONFERENCE NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY YOUR DIVISION OF BEVERAGE LICENSE/CIGARETTE PERMIT SHOULD NOT HAVE A CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSED AGAINST IT OR BE SUSPENDED OR REVOKED. LICENSE OR PERMIT NUMBER 26-1312 YOU ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. TRADING AS ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. LOCATED 111 Busch Drive, Jacksonville Florida are hereby notified by the Director of the Division of Beverage, Department of Business Regulation, State of Florida, that he has been presented certain evidence which, if true, is good and sufficient cause for him, pursuant to Section 561.29/210.16, Florida Statutes, to assess a civil penalty against or to suspend or revoke your Division of Beverage license/permit, license/permit number 26-1312 issued to you by the State of Florida under the laws of Florida for the current license year, or any renewal thereof, over which the Division of Beverage has jurisdiction said cause being for any one of the following: On or about the 21st day of March, 1978, you ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; JACK FORST, did financially assist a retail vendor, to wit; SUDER-GOODRICH, INC., DBA MAC'S BAR, Licence number 74-452, located at 2000 S. Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach Shores, Volusia County, FL, by the giving of a gift, loan of money or property or by the giving of a rebate, to wit; check, check number 2, in the amount of $361.00, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER-BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT, and endorsed by SUDER GOODRICH, INC. MAC'S BAR, contrary to F.S. 561.42 (1). On or about the 21st day of March, 1978, you ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employe, to wit; JACK FORST, did assist financially, a retail vendor, to wit; GREGORY L. CALDWELL, DBA THE PUB, License number 74-837, located at 3304 S. Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach Shores, Volusia County, FL, by the giving of a gift, loan of money or property or by the giving of a rebate, to wit; a check, check number 4, in the amount of $210.00, dated March 21, 1978, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER-BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT and endorsed by THE PUB, contrary to F.S. 561.42(1). On or about the 21st day of March, 1978, you ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; MIKE FEHLING, did assist financially, a retail vendor, to wit; 427 N. ATLANTIC AVE., INC., DBA BIG MOTHERS, License number 74-210, located at 525 N. Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, by the giving of a gift, loan of money or property or by the giving of a rebate, to wit; a check, check number 1, in amount of $440.00, dated March 21, 1978, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER-BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT and endorsed by BIG MOTHERS DISCO, 427 N. ATLANTIC., INC., contrary to F.S. 561.42(1). On or about the 21st day of March, 1978, you ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; MIKE FEHLING, did assist financially, a retail vendor, to wit; 427 N. ATLANTIC AVE., INC., DBA BIG MOTHERS, License number 74-210, located at 525 N. Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, by the giving of a gift, loan of money or property or by the giving of a rebate, to wit; a check, check number 2, in the amount of $150.00, dated March 21, 1978, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER-BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT and endorsed by BIG MOTHERS DISCO, 427 N. ATLANTIC, INC., contrary to F.S. 561.42 (1). On or about the 21st day of March, 1978, you, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; JACK FORST, did assist financially, a retail vendor, to wit; ANN L. METZ, DBA. ENTER METZO #1, License number 74-205, located at 3278 S. Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach Shores, Florida, Volusia County, by the giving of a rebate, to wit; a check, check number 3, in the amount of $310.00, dated March 21, 1978, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT and endorsed by ENTER-METZ-O, contrary to F.S. 561.42(1). On or about the 22nd day of March, 1978, you ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; MIKE FEHLING did financially assist a retail vendor, to wit; JEANE B. HALL, DBA, PIT STOP ARCADE, License number 74-722, located a 1114 Main Street, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, by the giving of a rebate, to wit; a check, check number 3, in the amount of $750.00, dated March 22, 1978, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER-BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT and endorsed by PIT STOP ARCADE, J. HALL, contrary to F.S. 561.42 (1). On or about the 22nd day of March, 1978, you, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; JACK FORST, did financially assist a retail vendor, to wit; F.B. & L., INC., DBA, SHARK LOUNGE, License number 74-372, located at 730 Broadway Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, by the giving of a rebate, to wit; a check, check number 7, in the amount of $280.00, dated March 22, 1978, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER-BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT and endorsed by SHARK LOUNGE & PACKAGE, contrary to F.S. 561.42(1). On or about the 22nd day of March, 1978, you, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; MIKE FEHLING, did financially assist a retail vendor, to wit; BOOT HILL, INC., DBA BOOT HILL SALOON, License number 74-5, located at 310 Main Street, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, by the giving of a rebate, to wit; a check, check number 5, in the amount of $356.00, dated March 22, 1978, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER-BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT, and endorsed by BOOT HILL, INC., contrary to F.S. 561.42(1). On or about the 22nd day of March, 1978, you, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; JACK FORST, did financially assist a retail vendor, to wit; OLIVER A. BELL, DBA CARNIVAL MOTOR INN, by the giving of gifts, loans or money or property or by the giving of a rebate, to wit; a check, check number 5, dated March 22, 1978, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER-BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT and endorsed by CARNIVAL MOTOR INN BAR, MANAGERS ACCOUNT, FRIDAY'S NIGHT CLUB contrary to F.S. 561.42(1). On or about the 23rd day of March, 1978, you ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; JACK FORST, did financially assist a retail vendor, to wit; DOUGLAS SILVER, DBA BLACKBEARD'S TAVERN, by the giving of gifts, loans of money or property or by the giving of a rebate, to wit; a check, check number 13, in the amount of $276.00, dated March 23, 1978, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER-BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT and endorsed by BLACK BEARD'S TAVERN, SILVER, contrary to F.S. 561.42(1). On or about the 23rd day of March, 1978, you ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; MIKE FEHLING, did financially assist a retail vendor, to wit; GRADY SCOTT HENSLEY, DBA, THE ELBOW ROOM, by the giving of gifts, loans of money or property or by the giving of a rebate, to wit; a check, check number 6, in the amount of $200.00, dated March 23, 1978, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER-BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT and signed by SCOTT HENSLEY, contrary to F.S. 561.42(1). On or about the 23rd day of March, 1978, you, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; MIKE FEHLING, did financially assist a retail vendor, to wit; CONSOLIDATED INN OF DAYTONA BEACH, INC., DBA HOLIDAY INN SURFSIDE, by the giving of gifts, loans of money or property or by the giving of a rebate, to wit; a check, check number 5, in the amount of $900.00, dated March 23, 1978, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER-BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT and endorsed by CONSOLIDATED INNS OF DAYTONA BEACH, INC., DBA HOLIDAY INN SURFSIDE, contrary to F.S. 561.42(1). On or about the 23rd day of March, 1978, you, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; JACK FORST, did financially assist a retail vendor, to wit; SAM L. BERRY, DBA BROADWAY SAM'S, by the giving of gifts, loans of money or property or by the giving of a rebate, to wit; a check - three checks totaling $640.00, contrary to F.S. 561.42(1). On or about the 24th day of March, 1978, you, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; MIKE FEHLING, did financially assist a retail vendor, to wit; P.J.'S OF DAYTONA, INC., DBA, P.J.'S, License number 74-473, located at 400 Broadway Avenue Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, by the giving of gifts, loans of money or property or by the giving of rebate, to wit; a check, check number 9, in the amount of $240.00 dated March 24 1978, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER-BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT, contrary to F.S. 561.42(1). On or about the 24th day of March, 1978, you, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; JACK FORST, did financially assist a retail vendor, to wit; PINK PUSSY CAT, INC., DBA, RED GARTER CLUB, License number 74-356, located at 1001 Main Street, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, by the giving of gifts, loans of money or property or by the giving of a rebate, to wit; a check, check number 14, in the amount of $270.00, dated March 24, 1978, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER-BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT and endorsed by RED GARTER, PINK PUSSY CAT, INC., contrary to F.S. 561.42(1). On or about the 24th day of March, 1978, you, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; JACK FORST, did assist a retail vendor financially, to wit; McMILLIAN AND WRIGHT, INC., DBA, THE OCEAN PIER, License number 74-771, located at Main Street Over the Ocean, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, by the giving of gifts, loans of money or property or by the giving of rebates, to wit; a check, check number 5, in the amount of $850.00, dated March 21, 1978, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER-BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT and endorsed by McMILLIAN & WRIGHT, INC., OPERATING OCEAN PIER CASINO, contrary to F.S. 561.42(1). On or about the 24th day of March, 1978, you, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; JACK FORST, did assist financially a retail vendor, to wit; McMILLIAN and WRIGHT, INC., DBA, THE OCEAN PIER, License number 74-771, located at Main Street Over The Ocean, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, by the giving of gifts, loans of money or property or by the giving of rebates, to wit; a check, check number 6, in the amount of $150.00, dated March 21, 1978, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER-BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT and endorsed by McMILLIAN & WRIGHT, INC., OPERATING OCEAN PIER CASINO, contrary to F.S. 561.42(1). On or about the 24th day of March, 1978, you, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., a licensed manufacturer or distributor and/or your agent, servant or employee, to wit; MIKE FEHLING, did financially assist a retail vendor, to wit; DAYTONA SAFARI MOTEL, INC., DBA, THE WRECK, License number 74-546, located at 7 S. Wild Olive, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, by the giving of gifts, loans of money or property of by the giving of rebates, to wit; a check, check number 8, in the amount of $420.00, dated March 24, 1978, drawn on the account of ANHEUSER-BUSCH DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT and endorsed by WRECK BAR, RINGO, contrary to F.S. 561.42(1). Attachment 2
The Issue Whether Respondent, the holder of a license to sell alcoholic beverages, sold an alcoholic beverage to a minor as alleged in the Administrative Action dated June 17, 1997, and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Mahmoud Mohamed, was doing business as Kwik Stop, which is a convenience store located at 1200 Broadway, Riviera Beach, Florida. Respondent holds license number 60-02476, series 2APS, which authorizes him to sell alcoholic beverages at his business location (the licensed premises). On June 13, 1997, the Division initiated a general investigation to determine whether persons under the age of 21 were being sold alcoholic beverages by licensees of the Division. As part of that general investigation, two special agents employed by the Petitioner and an investigative aide employed by the Petitioner made a random stop at the licensed premises between 8:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. One of the special investigative agents was Andrew Panzer, an experienced law enforcement officer. The other special agent was Agent Panzer's partner, who did not testify. The investigative aide was Casey Fand, a seventeen-year-old high school student. The special agents instructed Mr. Fand to enter the licensed premises and to attempt to purchase a beer. Mr. Fand entered the premises first, and shortly thereafter, Mr. Panzer entered the store. The other agent remained outside the premises. Mr. Fand went to the cooler, selected a 12-ounce can of Budweiser beer, and walked to the counter where Respondent was working. Mr. Panzer selected a soft drink and followed Mr. Fand to the counter. Mr. Panzer stood behind Mr. Fand and was in position to observe and hear what transpired between Mr. Fand and the Respondent. There is a dispute in the record as to what happened next. Respondent testified that when Mr. Fand came to the counter with the beer, Respondent asked him for identification. Respondent further testified that Mr. Panzer then took the beer from Mr. Fand. Respondent testified that Mr. Panzer paid for the beer and the soft drink. The testimony of Mr. Fand and Mr. Panzer conflicted with Respondent's testimony. Both Mr. Fand and Mr. Panzer testified that Respondent never asked Mr. Fand for identification and that Mr. Fand paid for the beer and left the store. They both testified that Mr. Panzer thereafter paid for the soft drink and left the store. Mr. Panzer testified that after he conferred outside with his partner and Mr. Fand, he re- entered the premises, advised Respondent of the violation, and issued him a notice to appear. In resolving the conflicts in the evidence, it is determined that the clear and convincing testimony of Mr. Fand and Mr. Panzer is more credible than that of the Respondent. In reaching this conclusion, the undersigned has considered the demeanor of the witnesses, the training and experience of Mr. Panzer, and the fact that neither Mr. Panzer nor Mr. Fand has an apparent motive to fabricate evidence. Based on the more credible testimony, it is found that on June 13, 1997, Respondent sold a beer, which is an alcoholic beverage, to a minor, Mr. Fand, without asking for identification. Respondent's license has not been previously disciplined by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order that incorporates the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that the Final Order impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000 and suspend his license for a period of seven days. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Martin, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Mark R. Hanson, Esquire 415 Fifth Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Captain Debbie Beck 400 North Congress Avenue, Suite 150 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues presented are those set forth in a notice to show cause filed by Petitioner against Respondents in Case No. AY-74-87-0201. In particular, it is alleged that on March 16, 1988, October 21, 1988 and February 24, 1989, that the Respondents or their agents, servants or employees sold alcoholic beverages to minors in violation of Sections 561.29, Florida Statutes and 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times which pertain to this Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint, Respondents were doing business at 238-240 Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida under the business name Speidi Shack and pursuant to a beverage license issued by Petitioner. That license number was and continues to be number 74-01802, Series 2-COP. On March 16, 1988, and again on October 21, 1988, Michael Vanorder, whose birthday is March 27, 1969, purchased a Light beer from employees of the Respondents in the licensed premises. On February 24, 1989, Tina May purchased a Light beer from an employee of the Respondents in the licensed premises. Her date of birth is August 4, 1968. The Light beers that were purchased by those two individuals are alcoholic beverages. In the incident of March 16, 1988, Vanorder entered the licensed premises as an underage operative of the Petitioner. The purpose of underage operatives is to assist the Petitioner in investigations to ascertain whether suspected alcoholic beverage license holders will sell alcoholic beverages to minors. Vanorder was provided money from the Petitioner to purchase the alcoholic beverage if the licensees, their agents or employees would sell. Betty Warner and Tanya Pandarakis, who are Alcoholic Beverage Agents for Petitioner were in the bar and watched as Vanorder was asked by the bartender what Vanorder wanted. Vanorder indicated that he wanted a Light beer. Mark Barker, the bartender, brought a Light beer to Vanorder and accepted payment for that beer. In this purchase, Vanorder was not asked to produce any identification nor was he asked how old he was. Vanorder was under instructions from Petitioner's agents to validly respond to any questions about his age and to provide accurate identification in support of his remarks. The beer that he was given had been opened by the bartender. These events occurred around 8:35 p.m. The beer that was purchased was then given from Vanorder to Warner. Barker was then arrested by Warner and another Alcoholic Beverage Agent, Fred Dunbar, for selling alcoholic beverages to a minor. The arrest occurred when Dunbar entered the licensed premises following the sale and identified himself as an Alcoholic Beverage Agent. Prior to leaving the premises on that occasion, Respondent John M. Macker was told of the arrest and why an investigation had been made in the first place about suspected sales to minors in the licensed premises. Macker came the next day to meet with Dunbar at the invitation of Dunbar. Macker was told that a complaint file would remain open and that underage operatives would continue to be sent into the licensed premises to see if Macker had corrected the problem of selling to underage patrons. Respondent Macker promised that he would have closer supervision and would give training to his employees about proper identification techniques for sales of alcoholic beverages in the licensed premises. An official notice was given to the Respondents, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 which was admitted into evidence. That notice is dated March 17, 1988 and is issued from Dunbar and is acknowledged as having been received by Respondent Macker. It identifies the facts of the sale to a minor and the arrest of Mark Barker and warns Respondents that if the violation occurs again, that Respondents could be charged with the violation of March 16, 1988 and any future violations. Throughout this warning phase associated with the sale of March 16, 1988 Respondent Macker was cooperative in his attitude. As forecast, Petitioner sent Vanorder back into the licensed premises on October 21, 1988 to see if Respondents, their agents, servants or employees would sell him alcoholic beverages. Beverage Agent John Szabo, Agent Dunbar, Lt. Powell and Vanorder went to the licensed premises on that evening. Their activities at the licensed premises commenced around 8:55 p.m. At this time, there were around 10-20 patrons in the bar. Szabo went in first and sat down at the bar and ordered a beer. Vanorder came in some 2-3 minutes later and sat down at the bar. A white female bartender who was identified later as Beth Ann Marsden approached Vanorder and asked him what she could get for him. He asked for a Bud Light. The bartender went to the cooler and came back with an open can of Bud Light and said that the cost of that beer would be $1.25. Vanorder paid her and she gave him back change. Vanorder then went outside the licensed premises and gave the beer to Dunbar. During the course of this purchase, Vanorder was not asked his age or asked for any form of identification which would demonstrate his age. As before, Vanorder was prepared to show a valid identification and give his correct age. After Dunbar was given the beer, he came into the licensed premises and he and Szabo confronted the bartender with the fact that she had sold beer to an underaged patron. They asked if the owner was on the premises and she said that he was not. The bartender was then charged with selling to a minor. She was given a Notice of Appearance for October 25, 1988 which constituted of a letter of final warning to the licensee. A third phase of the investigation occurred on February 24, 1989 when Tina May, an underaged operative for the Petitioner assisted in the investigation of sales to minors. Around 10:50 p.m., Officer Szabo, Beverage Officer Sullivan and Tina May went to the licensed premises. Szabo went in the bar first. One customer was in the bar. Szabo asked for a beer and was asked for his identification and showed his license and was served a beer. Before Tina May entered the license premises, she had been instructed to dress in normal attire and to carry her drivers license and to tell the truth about her age and to give the correct identification. Once inside the licensed premises, May sat where she could be seen by Officer Szabo. The other patron left the bar. Around 11:00 p.m., May was approached by Beth Ann Marsden who asked May what she wanted. May replied that she wanted a Bud Light. The bartender asked for identification and a driver's license was produced which showed May to be underage. Marsden was seen to count on her fingers when shown the identification. She opened up a Bud Light beer for May and gave it to her and said that the price of the beer was $1.25. May gave her $5.00 and received change. She then gave the beer to Szabo. Szabo then told the bartender that he was a Beverage Officer. Marsden recognized Szabo from the prior incident with Vanorder on October 21, 1988. Marsden told Szabo that May was 21 years old. Szabo got the driver's license from May and showed it to the bartender who admitted that she had made a mistake and that she didn't look at the month of the birth. She had only looked at the year, 1968. Out of this incident, an Official Notice was prepared, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. It sets out the violations of March 16, 1988, October 21, 1988 and February 24, 1989 and the intention of the Petitioner to file administrative charges against the Respondents for sales to minors. Since the Respondents were not there, the list was left with a Rosemarie Savini. That notice was served on November 2, 1989. Before the time of the final hearing in this case, the sole ownership of the licensed premises had been left with John M. Macker. Linda F. Williams no longer is involved with the license in question. Respondent Macker's principle business is that of a commercial fisherman. During the pendency of this investigation, he was gone a lot from his licensed premises because of his other work and relied on his employees to act appropriately concerning sales to minors. In the period 1985 until January, 1989, he had not experienced problems with this. He had posted notices around the bar about sales to minors and had instructed his employees about being careful not to sell to minors. He has calendars from beer distributors which assist in ascertaining the age of minors. March 16, 1988 was Barker's first day on the job, as was October 21, 1988 the first day on the job for Beth Ann Marsden. His instructions to his employees was to check identification if people did not look at least in their fifties or older than Respondent. Since these events, Respondent has taken more detailed steps and placed other signs to avoid sales to minors. He doesn't wish these problems to occur again and regrets that they happened on this occasion. On the other hand, he did not ask for help from the Petitioner after the October 21, 1988 incident as was offered. Following the third sale, he has moved into the licensed premises to maintain better control of the circumstance. No other incidents were reported to have occurred beyond that adjustment concerning sales to minors.
Recommendation Having considered the facts, and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which fines the Respondents in the amount of $500 for these violations. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2457 Those facts as suggested by the Petitioner are subordinate to facts found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John B. Fretwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John M. Macker 238-240 North Atlantic Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Everett R. Rogers d/b/a Circus Bar (Respondent), has been licensed by Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division), to sell alcoholic beverages under License No. 39- 602, Series 2-COP, for licensed premises located at 1118 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, at all times pertinent to this case. Respondent's most recent license expired by its terms on September 30, 1985. Respondent voluntarily closed the business operated under his license on or about February 2, 1985. On or about February 2, 1985, Respondent initiated personal bankruptcy proceedings which encompassed the business which he was operating at the licensed premises. The licensed premises and Respondent's license have been turned over to Respondent's trustee in bankruptcy. On February 2, 1984, three marijuana cigarettes were possessed, sold and delivered at the licensed premises with the knowledge of Respondent's bartender, Bobby Warner.2 On February 3, 1984, the licensed premises were visited by a person named Melvin Stusse and undercover police officer Paul Miller for the purpose of the sale of cocaine, although no sale took place. On February 3, 1984, three grams of marijuana were possessed, sold and delivered at the licensed premises. On February 3, 1984, undercover police officer Thomas Kinsella possessed marijuana on the licensed premises with the knowledge of bartender Warner. Kinsella asked Warner for something in which to place a baggie of marijuana, and Warner took Kinsella to the stockroom to give him a paper clip box for that purpose. On February 6, 1984, bartender Warner and patrons of the licensed premises gambled on the pool table in the licensed premises. On February 8, 1984, the sale of eight marijuana cigarettes was negotiated at the bar in the licensed premises but the delivery took place outside the premises and there was no evidence that the marijuana was possessed in the licensed premises. On February 9, 1984, three marijuana cigarettes were sold, delivered and possessed at the licensed premises with the knowledge of Respondent's manager, Joan Sammons. On February 13, 1984, the sale of approximately two and one-half grams of marijuana was negotiated at the licensed premises with the knowledge of bartender Warner. The marijuana was delivered outside the licensed premises, and there was no evidence that marijuana was possessed on the licensed premises. On February 24, 1984, six marijuana cigarettes were sold, possessed and delivered on the licensed premises with the knowledge of manager Sammons. On February 28, 1984, approximately two and one-half grams of marijuana were sold, possessed and delivered on the licensed premises with the knowledge of bartender Warner. On March 5, 1984, bartender Warner possessed, sold and delivered five marijuana cigarettes on the licensed premises. On March 6, 1984, manager Sammons sold, possessed and delivered approximately two grams of marijuana on the licensed premises. On March 7, 1984, manager Sammons purchased $50.00 worth of USDA food stamp coupons for $25.00 on the licensed premises. On March 19, 1984, manager Sammons purchased $150.00 worth of USDA food stamp coupons for $75.00 on the licensed premises. Also on March 19, 1984, four marijuana cigarettes were possessed, sold and delivered on the licensed premises with the knowledge of manager Sammons. On March 21, 1984, approximately 1.2 grams of marijuana were possessed, sold and delivered on the licensed premises. It was not proved that any of Respondent's employees were aware of this transaction. On March 30, 1984, Respondent's bartender, Steve Keller, possessed, sold and delivered approximately three and one-half grams of marijuana on the licensed premises. Manager Sammons also knew about this transaction. Respondent had a policy against illegal drug activity and gambling on the licensed premises. He enforced the policy when he was on the licensed premises. Respondent posted signs prohibiting gambling and told employees that they should evict patrons suspected of illegal drug activities or gambling. But Respondent did little or nothing to ensure that his policies were followed evenings and weekends when he was not present at the licensed premises. Respondent performed no background checks on his employees and continued to employ Sammons as his manager although he knew she had been arrested. Respondent had no written employment application or written instructions for his employees. Respondent did not polygraph his employees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking alcoholic beverage license number 39-602, Series 2-COP, held by Respondent, Everett R. Rogers d/b/a Circus Bar, 1118 W. Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. L LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 19th day of December, 1985.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Willie Coachman, was a licensed beer vendor having been issued license number 39-02165 by petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). Respondent uses his license at a business known as Willie's Fina Station located at 1312 East Columbus Drive, Tampa, Florida. The license is a Series 1-APS which authorizes Coachman to sell beer by package only for consumption off premises. On August 17, 1988 a Division investigator, Keith B. Hamilton, conducted an investigation of Coachman's licensed premises to determine if respondent was selling beer. He did so since Coachman's license was then under a suspension. After finding the beer coolers sealed with tape, Hamilton left the premises and stood outside the front door. He then observed a black male enter the premises carrying two boxes filled with cartons of cigarettes. The black male gave them to the store clerk, and Hamilton observed the clerk pay the male $80 from the cash register for the cigarettes. The cigarettes were then placed on the floor near Coachman's office. The male was not driving a vendor's truck nor was he dressed in a vendor's uniform. Hamilton telephoned another Division investigator, William P. Fisher, who came to the premises some ninety minutes later. The two entered Coachman's store, identified themselves to a clerk and inspected the stock room. According to Hamilton, Coachman is authorized to buy cigarettes from two area cigarette wholesale distributors, Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) and Eli Witt Corporation (Eli Witt). Each wholesaler has a distinctive stamp on its cigarette packages so that an investigator can easily determine from which wholesaler a vendor obtained cigarettes. Upon examining the cigarettes in Coachman's stock room, including the two boxes just sold to the cashier, Hamilton and Fisher noted that approximately 3,137 packs did not have a Costco or Eli Witt stamp. After the clerk could not produce invoices to verify that the cigarettes were purchased from a licensed wholesale dealer, the 3,137 packs were seized and taken to an evidence vault. At that time, the clerk acknowledged that Coachman had authorized her to make cigarette purchases from patrons. Coachman arrived at the premises as the investigators were leaving. He objected to the seizure saying that some of the cigarettes being taken were "good." Coachman was told the cigarettes would be returned if he could produce invoices establishing that they were validly purchased. During the course of the inspection on August 17, investigator Fisher observed nine bottles of Chivas Regal Scotch on a desk in Coachman's office. The bottles were unopened. According to Hamilton, it is unlawful for a beer vendor to have such alcoholic beverages on the premises even for personal consumption. Thus, even though Coachman maintained, without contradiction, that the scotch was for his own use, it was improper for him to store the same on his premises. After the cigarettes were placed in the evidence vault, Coachman produced certain invoices for the Division and also had several wholesalers telephone the Division to confirm various sales to Coachman. This resulted in 540 packs being returned to Coachman. Some 2,502 packs still remain in the Division's custody. At hearing, Coachman indicated that he normally buys some $30,000 to $40,000 of cigarettes monthly from various wholesalers. Also, he offered into evidence various receipts for purchases made in July and August 1988 and documentation verifying that a large quantity of cigarettes was obtained through transfers (exchanges) of cigarettes with other vendors. This latter situation occurs whenever one vendor has a slow-moving brand and exchanges them for a different brand with another vendor. However, each transfer must be documented with paperwork. The Division did not inventory the seized cigarettes by brand or dealer. Its evidence vault receipt, which has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 3, reflected only that 2502 packs of cigarettes were taken. However, by credible testimony it was established that none of the confiscated cigarettes had indicia to show that they were purchased from Costco or Eli Witt. This was not contradicted. On the evening of August 31, 1988 investigator Turner and two informants carried fifteen cases of beer to another licensed premises operated by Coachman. The beer was transported in an unmarked, private vehicle. They offered to sell the beer to Coachman for $4.00 per case but then agreed to sell it for $3.00 per case, which is substantially below the fair and wholesale market value. The sale took place at the house of Coachman's children but Turner was paid with monies from respondent's cash register. Prior to the sale, Division personnel placed special markings on the bottom of the cans for identification purposes so that they could be later identified. On September 6, 1988 investigator Freese went inside respondent's premises and purchased a six pack of Busch beer for $2.69. The package was one of those previously sold to Coachman on August 31. Coachman denied reselling the Busch beer and contended it was purchased for personal consumption and use by his children. However, this testimony is not accepted as being credible. Also, he contended that all cigarettes were legally purchased from wholesalers or by exchange with other dealers and that he had appropriate documentation on hand at all times. However, such documentation was not on hand on the night the cigarettes were taken, and Coachman did not show that any of the cigarettes referred to on the documents supplied at hearing were the same that were seized by the investigators on August 17. Thus, the documentation was not sufficient. Coachman's license has been subject to disciplinary action on two other occasions. It was first suspended for thirty days effective January 6, 1987 for Coachman dealing in stolen property and purchasing cigarettes from other than a wholesale dealer. It was suspended a second time for a twenty day period effective August 9, 1988 for respondent (a) purchasing cigarettes from other than a wholesale dealer, (b) failing to maintain invoices of cigarette purchases on the premises, (c) possessing beverages not permitted to be sold under his license, (d) gambling and possession of gambling paraphernalia, and (e) conducting a prohibited lottery. Under petitioner's policy, as explicated at hearing, a license is revoked after repeat violations occur.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as charged in the notice to show cause, as amended, and that his APS license number 39-02165 be REVOKED. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1989.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined on the ground Respondent allegedly violated Section 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: When the events herein occurred, Respondent, David Carl Boston, operated a restaurant and lounge under the name of Mr. D's Restaurant and Lounge at 2262 Orchard Street, Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent has been issued special restaurant license number 26-0701, series 4COP SRX, by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). Respondent began operating his restaurant and lounge in February 1996, but ceased doing business in July 1997. Respondent's license authorizes him to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises, so long as the restaurant has at least 2,500 square feet of service area, it can seat at least 150 patrons at tables, and at least 51 percent of the gross revenue is derived from the sale of non-alcoholic beverages and food. Respondent was aware of this requirement when he applied for a license. Indeed, item 10 on his application specifically noted these special requirements. Accordingly, Respondent knew, or should have known, that he would need adequate records to show that these requirements were being met. To enforce the above requirements, the Division performs periodic audits of all restaurants holding special licenses. As a part of that audit process, on February 3, 1997, special agent Myers contacted Respondent and requested that he "[p]roduce within 14 days all records including but not limited to all sales receipts, register tapes, invoices for food, alcoholic bev. & non-alcoholic bev., employee time records, all purchase and sales receipts, as required per Florida law." The records were to cover the twelve-month period from February 1996 through January 1997. Respondent acknowledged receiving the Notice to produce the records on February 3, 1997, by signing the Notice in agent Myers' office. Within a few days, Respondent produced a large plastic shopping bag full of records, which has been received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The bag includes receipts for alcoholic beverage purchases and other miscellaneous items, but virtually no receipts for food purchases. There are also so- called "summary sheets," which are handwritten summaries of receipts for food and alcoholic beverage sales for most of the months during the audit period, and cash register tapes which ostensibly support the entries on the summaries. The records are poorly organized and unsophisticated, and they are very difficult for a third person to analyze. Thus, they fail to comport with Division Rule 61A-3.0141(3)1., Florida Administrative Code, which requires that a licensee must "maintain separate records of all purchases and gross retail sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages and all purchases and gross retail sales of alcoholic beverages." Because of the lack of receipts for food purchases, the Division could not establish a percentage of food sales for the audit period. Receipts for food purchases are typically used by the Division as a measuring stick against purchases of alcoholic beverages to determine an allocation of revenues. Despite several subsequent conversations between agent Myers and Respondent in an effort to obtain further clarification and documentation, agent Myers could not establish the appropriate division of revenues between food and alcoholic beverages. On the evening of February 6, 1997, agent Myers visited Respondent's premises between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. He found approximately five customers on the premises, all at the bar, and only one employee, who was acting as bartender. The kitchen was shut down, and no food was visible to the naked eye. Agent Myers did notice a bag of frozen chicken wings in a freezer, but no other food was on the shelves or in the refrigerator. He also counted the chairs on the premises and found only 111. On February 18, 1997, agent Myers returned to the premises and found only 107 chairs for patrons. On both visits by agent Myers, Respondent had less seating capacity for food customers than is required under his special license. In addition, contrary to a Division rule requirement, full-course meals were not available at those times even though the restaurant was serving alcoholic beverages. At hearing, Respondent initially contended that he was confused as to the requirements for his license. Given the plain language in item 10 of his application, however, which clearly identifies the restrictions, this explanation has not been accepted. At the same time, it is noted that Respondent offered to voluntarily surrender his license to the Division in July 1997, since he knew that he could not meet the special conditions imposed under the law. The Division refused, however, on the ground an Adminstrative Action was pending against his license. Respondent acknowledged that on both February 7 and 18, 1997, he had less chairs for food customers than is required. Therefore, this portion of the charges has been sustained. In mitigation, he attributed this to his birthday party on one of those evenings and a "talent show" to be held on another evening, although virtually no customers were on the premises on either date when the inspections took place. Respondent has a menu from which customers can order, and he says he also has a daily luncheon buffet. In explaining the lack of food purchase receipts, Respondent claimed that most of his food was purchased from Premier Meats in Jacksonville, Florida, a retailer that caters to small businesses, such as Respondent's. According to a representative of Premier Meats, Nathanial A. Griffin, that firm conducts a "cash and carry" business, with no accounts receivables, and thus it does not invoice its customers. Griffin recalled that Respondent regularly made weekly purchases of chicken wings, gizzards, and white filets, which totaled between $60.00 to $80.00 per week, on average. Assuming this to be true, this equates to approximately $250.00 to $300.00 per month in food purchases from that vendor. The undersigned has independently reviewed the summary sheets, which Respondent says were prepared on a contemporaneous basis from cash register tapes. They reflect that the following revenues were derived from food and alcoholic beverage sales during the months of February 1996 Food through December 1996: Alcohol February 119.70 86.00 March 1200.10 851.85 April 3678.10 731.20 May 3121.27 1170.00 June 3026.90 956.00 July 1401.50 770.04 August 1771.25 1540.70 September 1504.85 2789.32 October 372.25 742.25 November 2941.01 2217.50 December 1376.04 948.50 Total 20513.97 12803.36 If the testimony of witness Giffin is accepted, then Respondent's food purchases from Premier Meats during the eleven month period would be no more than $3000.00. Given the lack of any other food receipts, the large number of receipts for purchases of alcoholic beverages, and the description of the premises on the two occasions when agent Myers inspected the closed kitchen, it is found that the summaries are not credible, due to a lack of underlying documentation. Therefore, it is found that Respondent did not derive at least 51 percent of his gross revenue from sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages, as charged in the Administrative Action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's special restaurant license no. 26-07010 for violating Section 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes, without prejudice to obtain any other type of license, but with prejudice to obtain another SRX special license for five years from the date of the Final Order. Respondent should also have a $1,000.00 administrative fine imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 24th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Thomas D. Winokur, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 David Carl Boston 2262 Orchard Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
