Recommendation Based on the Foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent guilty of violations of Florida Statutes 561.29(1)(a) and 561.29 (1)(c), that respondent be fined $1,000.00 and that his beverage license be suspended for a period of six (6) months or until payment in full of the $1,000.00 fine, whichever last occurs. RECOMMENDED this 5 day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9575 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5 day of September, 1984.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida which has as its responsibility licensure and regulation of beverage license holders in the State. The Respondents hold Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco License Number 13-490, Series 2-COP. At all times pertinent here to Larry E. Bunton and Ronald L. Jennings were the sole owners and operators of the license and licensed premises, which is located at 8503-A Thomas Drive, Panama City, Florida. Between the dates of June 4, 1981, and July 17, 1981, a joint investigation of the subject Respondents was conducted by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco and the Bay County Sheriff's Office. On the evening of June 24, 1981, Investigator Mike Broadway and Agent Al Whitfield of the Bay County Sheriff's Department and the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, respectively, entered the licensed premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether controlled substances or drugs were either used, dispensed or sold on the premises. On that occasion they made the acquaintance of one Wendall Earl Holt ("Windowpane") and after talking with him inside the licensed premises and negotiating the purchase of drugs, the three went out into the parking lot by the front door of the licensed premises at which location Officers Broadway and Whitfield purchased three methaqualone tablets from "Windowpane" for ten dollars. Methaqualone or "quaalude" is a controlled substance within the purview of Chapter 893 Florida Statutes. The next evening on June 25, 1981, Officers Broadway and Whitfield entered the licensed premises once again, ordered a beer and engaged the bartender, Dan Barbeau, in conversation. During the course of that conversation they inquired of him of the possibility of purchasing drugs and Barbeau indicated that he was the "distributor" for "Windowpane" or Wendall Earl Holt. Shortly thereafter, in the course of the conversation, the two officers and the bartender agreed upon the sale and purchase of three round white tablets, which later proved to be methaqualone, from Dan, the bartender. This transaction occurred in plain view, over the top of the bar, during the course of which he handed to them the three tablets in return for a ten dollar-bill. On July 6, 1981, Officers Whitfield and Broadway again entered the bar and engaged in conversation with Dan Barbeau. They inquired of him about the possibility of purchasing a thousand to five thousand methqualone tablets. Barbeau agreed to make arrangements for the purchase of that quantity of methaqualone and also indicated that he could obtain a supply of marijuana. Barbeau then introduced the officers to an individual known as "Stargazer" and the Officers gave Dan, the bartender, thirty-five dollars to purchase a bag of marijuana from "Stargazer." They observed Barbeau keep out five dollars of that purchase for himself. The Officers visited the bar again on July 9, 1981, and bought a forty- dollar bag of marijuana from "Stargazer" at the bar, giving him the money at the bar, whereupon he went outside to obtain the goods. He returned to the bar and delivered the marijuana to them inside the licensed premises. On July 15, 1981, the Officers returned to the bar and were inside drinking beer and shooting pool when "Windowpane" Holt arrived and offered to sell them more methaqualone or quaalude tablets. This negotiation occurred inside the premises and the three then went outside to the parking lot where the Officers bought one tablet from Bolt. Thus, during six or seven visits to the licensed premises, the Officers made five separate drug purchases of illegal controlled drugs. These transactions occurred on June 24 and 25, July 6, July 9, and July 15, 1981. Two of the five purchases were made directly from the licensees' bartender, Dan Barbeau. The other purchases were made from the two patrons named above. On one occasion the acting manager was made aware of controlled substances on the premises because one of the Officers showed him a methaqualone tablet he had just purchased. During the course of the investigation and at no time during any of the transactions referred to above was either of the licensee-owners observed on the premises, nor were they observed dealing in drugs. They were not shown to be involved in any of the subject purchases of drugs. There was no showing that the licensees had any direct knowledge that drug transactions were occurring on the premises. The Respondents have been licensed for only a few months and have never been charged with a violation of the beverage or drug laws previously.
Findings Of Fact Richard Stephan Flatt, M.D., Respondent, is licensed by the Board of Medical Examiners, Department of Professional Regulation (Petitioner) as a medical doctor and was so licensed at all times here relevant. Respondent has been a Board certified Dermatologist since 1957 and has practiced Dermatology in Sarasota for some 20 years. He is 54 years old. Tana Williams was a patient of Respondent in 1971 when he first treated her for warts, and he also treated Ms. Williams' daughter. Afterward she left Sarasota but returned in 1975 or 1976, at which time she was divorced. She visited Respondent's office for treatment of warts on 5 April 1976. Her appointment was near the close of Respondent's office hours. During this visit she told Respondent she was divorced; that she liked older men; and that she would like to see him socially. He suggested she come back to the office after 5:30 p.m. when his nurse normally departed. Upon her return after 5:30, Respondent and Ms. Williams discussed an arrangement whereby he would contribute $250 per month towards her support and spend weekends at the apartment she would occupy. According to Respondent's testimony, at this time he was going through a mid-life crisis and was delighted with the prospects of being desired by a woman 23 years his junior. Some two weeks later the first weekend was shared. Although the situation was very satisfactory to Respondent, the $250 per month was insufficient even to pay the rent, let alone satisfy Ms. Williams' money requirements. Accordingly, Respondent found the liaison was costing more than he could fund from his ready cash. After the 5 April 1976 visit, Ms. Williams did not again visit Respondent's office, or consider herself Respondent' s patient. In addition to cash, Ms. Williams also wanted drugs for her nervous condition and Respondent began supplying her with Quaaludes in the latter part of 1978. By 1979, Ms. Williams was psychologically dependent on Quaaludes and was taking 10 to 12 per day. As Respondent became more financially strapped the Quaaludes were provided for the additional purpose of being converted by Ms. Williams into cash to help maintain her life style. In 1976 Respondent began ordering Quaaludes and Preludin from New York drug houses under his DEA authorization. The Quaaludes started out in quantities of 200 every few months but increased to 1,000 nearly every month by the end of 1979. Most, if not all, of the 11,000 300 mg. Quaaludes Respondent ordered on an Official Order Form for Controlled Substances were given to Ms. Williams. In addition, Respondent ordered Preludin which he also gave to Ms. Williams. Both Preludin and Quaaludes are Class II controlled substances. Due to Ms. Williams' increasing dependence on Quaaludes, nearly half of these drugs given her by Respondent were taken by her. Petitioner presented no evidence that Preludin was wrongfully prescribed or abused. During the nearly four years the relationship continued, several interruptions occurred, due largely to Ms. Williams' living with other men, one of whom she married for a short period of about two months. During the periods Ms. Williams was living with other men, she would contact Respondent to continue or renew their liaison and even threatened suicide and to publicize their relationship to his wife if he did not continue to see her. In the latter months of their association, assignations were arranged at motels at which Respondent gave Ms. Williams money and/or drugs in exchange for sex. In addition to supplying Ms. Williams with drugs obtained on Official Order Forms, Respondent also wrote prescriptions in Ms. Williams' name, in the names of his children, or in the name of a fictitious person. Those prescriptions written in names other than Ms. Williams, Respondent took to Wallpole's Pharmacy personally and picked up the drugs. By this procedure from late 1978 through 1979 Respondent acquired an additional 1,249 300-mg. Quaaludes, 150 Preludin Endurettes, and 100 Preludin tablets which he gave to Ms. Williams. Using a confidential informant, the Sarasota police made two controlled buys of Quaaludes from Ms. Williams and on one of these occasions the informant was wired for sound so his conversations with Ms. Williams could be monitored. With information received from the confidential informant and a surveillance of Ms. Williams' residence, the police became aware that Respondent was Ms. Williams' supplier of drugs. On the morning of 8 February 1980, Ms. Williams was arrested at her home on charges of possession and sale of controlled substances. After being advised of her rights, she was taken down to the State Attorney's office where she was told that she could get up to 10 years in prison for possession and sale of drugs, but that if she cooperated with the police in their case against Respondent, the State Attorney's office would recommend probation rather than jail when she was sentenced. Prior to the arrest of Ms. Williams the Sarasota Police, state and federal drug authorities were aware of Respondent's involvement and were investigating. Respondent, too, was aware of his increasing vulnerability to criminal prosecution and requested a pharmacist to pass the word to the proper authorities that he would like to surrender his DEA certificate, under the authority of which he ordered controlled substances. On February 12, 1980 federal, state and local authorities, armed with information that Respondent had ordered some 11,000 Quaaludes from three New York drug companies during the period from 1976 to the present, visited Respondent's office, told him he was suspected of narcotics violation, read him his rights and asked to see his records. Respondent cooperated fully with the authorities and presented his records which confirmed that Respondent could not account for more than 10,600 Quaaludes during the period from 1976 to the date of the inspection. Respondent made a voluntary statement to the police in which he acknowledged many of the facts noted above. He also voluntarily surrendered his narcotics license. On 22 May 1980, Respondent pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County of two counts of possession of methaqualone and two counts of sale of methaqualone. Adjudication of guilt was withheld, but the Court sentenced Respondent to probation for a period of three years and a $5,000.00 fine on each of the two counts of possession and sale.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Reyes P. Ramos, was employed as a law enforcement officer by the City of Opa-Locka Police Department, and was duly certified by petitioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Department), having been issued certificate number 19-83-002-05 on October 29, 1983. On January 30, 1990, respondent, as part of his annual physical examination for the Opa-Locka Police Department, reported to Toxicology Testing Services (TTS) and provided a urine sample to be analyzed for the presence of controlled substances. Upon analysis, the sample taken from respondent proved positive for the presence of the cocaine metabolite, benzoylecgonine, in a concentration of 55 nanograms per milliliter. Such finding is consistent with the ingestion of cocaine, as cocaine is the only drug commonly available that, when ingested into the human body, produces the cocaine metabolite, benzoylecgonine. On February 5, 1990, the Opa-Locka Police Department notified respondent that the analysis of his urine sample had proved positive for the presence of cocaine, a controlled substance. In response, respondent offered to provide another sample for further analysis. Later that day, February 5, 1990, respondent provided a second sample of urine to TTS to be analyzed for the presence of controlled substances. Upon analysis, the second sample also proved positive for the presence of the cocaine metabolite, benzoylecgonine, but this time at a concentration of 9.2 nanograms per milliliter. Such reduced concentration is consistent with the initial concentration of 55 nanograms per milliliter disclosed by the first sample, assuming abstinence during the intervening period. In concluding that the urine samples respondent gave proved positive for the presence of cocaine metabolite, careful consideration has been given to the collection, storage and handling procedures adopted by TTS, as well as its testing methods. In this regard, the procedures and methods employed by TTS were shown to provide reliable safeguards against contamination, a reliable chain-of-custody, and produce, through Gas Chromograph/Mass Spectrometry (GCMS), a reliable measure of the concentration of cocaine metabolite in the body. 1/ While the testing demonstrates the presence of cocaine metabolite in respondent's system, and therefore the presence of cocaine, it does not establish how ingestion occurred. 2/ It may be reasonably inferred, however, that such ingestion was proscribed by law, absent proof that the subject drug was possessed or administered under the authority of a prescription issued by a physician or that the presence of cocaine metabolite could otherwise be lawfully explained. In response to the testing which revealed the presence of cocaine metabolite in his urine, respondent credibly denied the use of cocaine, and offered the testimony of a number of witnesses who know him well to lend credence to his denial. Those witnesses, who also testified credibly, observed that respondent is a person of good moral character who, among other qualities has the ability to differentiate between right and wrong and the character to observe the difference, has respect for the rights of others, has respect for the law, and could be relied upon in a position of trust and confidence. Moreover, from the testimony of those witnesses who have known respondent for an extended period of time, commencing well prior to the incident in question, it may be concluded that, in their opinions, it is the antithesis of respondent's character to have ingested or used cocaine. Apart from his denial, respondent offered two possible explanations for the presence of cocaine in his system: (1) that, during the week of January 18, 1990, he had been in contact with four to five K-9 training aids, which contained pseudo-cocaine, while cleaning out his dog's possessions, and (2) that he had been in contact with 10 bags of rock cocaine, during the course of duty, in the early part of January 1990. As to the first explanation, the proof demonstrates that respondent was, and had been for some time, a canine officer with the City of Opa-Locka Police Department, and had a dog named "Eagle" as his partner. "Eagle" was a cross-trained drug and work dog. In or about September 1988, respondent and his dog attended narcotic detection training through the Florida Highway Patrol, and received training aids, which contained "pseudo-cocaine," for use in training dogs in the detection of cocaine. These aids were comprised of newborn baby socks, inside of which was placed pseudo-cocaine. The socks were then closed at the top with rubber bands and placed inside a folded towel, which was then rolled and taped. According to respondent, he continued to use these aids 2-3 times a week, after leaving the Florida Highway Patrol course, to keep his dog proficient. Eagle died in early January 1990 and, according to respondent, the week of January 18, 1990, respondent cleared a number of items that were used in the care or training of Eagle from a small aluminum shed in his back yard. Among those items were the training aids, which contained pseudo-cocaine. According to respondent, he disposed of the training aids by cutting the tape from the towels, removed the sock, and then shook the pseudo-cocaine into a trash can, which caused some residue to become airborne and contact him. Respondent's counsel theorizes that such contact with the pseudo-cocaine, as well as the possibility that some residue could have been lodged under respondent's fingernails, when coupled with the fact that respondent occasionally bites his nails, could be an explanation for the positive reading respondent received. Notably, respondent offered no proof at hearing, through representatives from the Florida Highway Patrol or otherwise, as to the chemical composition of the pseudo-cocaine. Under such circumstances, there is no showing of record that the pseudo-cocaine could have resulted in the positive reading he received, and it would be pure speculation to conclude otherwise. As to respondent's second explanation, that in early January 1990, during the course of duty, he had been in contact with 10 bags of rock cocaine, it likewise does not provide a rational explanation for his positive test results. Notably, according to respondent, that rock cocaine was bagged and, necessarily, he would not have had physical contact with the substance. Moreover, even if touched such would not explain its ingestion, and, considering the lapse of time from the event and his testing, is not a rational explanation for the source of his positive results. While the explanations respondent advanced at hearing were not persuasive, such does not compel the conclusion that his testimony is to be discredited. Indeed, if respondent never used cocaine, it is not particularly telling that he could not offer a plausible explanation for what he perceived to be an aberration. Here, while the results of the urinalysis point toward guilt, respondent's credible testimony, the character evidence offered on his behalf, and respondent's employment record suggest otherwise. With regard to respondent's employment history, the proof demonstrates that respondent was on active duty with the United States military from 1966 until 1972, and with the Florida National Guard (FNG) from 1974 until 1983. Prior to reverting to an inactive status with the FNG, respondent attended and graduated from the Southeastern Institute of Criminal Justice, a police academy, and was thereafter certified as a law enforcement officer. Following certification, respondent was employed by the Village of Indian Creek as a police officer for one year, and from January 1985 until his severance in 1990 as a police officer with the City of Opa-Locka. Currently, respondent is employed by the FNG, with the rank of Sergeant First Class, as a military criminal investigator assigned to counter drug programs for the Department of Justice. From respondent's initial employment as a police officer through his current employment, but for the incident in question, respondent has consistently been recognized as a professional, loyal and dedicated police officer who has also dedicated substantial personal time and resources to community service. During this service, he was frequently commended for his performance, and he has further demonstrated dedication to his profession through continued training in the law enforcement field. Among those who testified on his behalf, and spoke approvingly of respondent's good moral character, were Christina Royo, a sworn law enforcement officer with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and Alejandro Suarez, a Sergeant First Class with the United States Military, employed as a criminal intelligence analyst, and currently attached to respondent's FNG unit. Each of these witnesses are employed in positions of trust involving sensitive areas of law enforcement, and have known the respondent well for over fifteen years. In their opinions, which are credible, respondent enjoys a reputation reflecting good moral character and, it may be gleamed from their testimony, the use of controlled substances by respondent would be most uncharacteristic. Given the nominal amount of cocaine metabolite disclosed by testing and the credible proof regarding respondent's character, the inference that would normally carry petitioner's burden following proof of a positive test for cocaine metabolite, that such finding reflected the unlawful ingestion of cocaine, cannot prevail. Rather, considering the proof, no conclusion can be reached, with any degree of certainty, as to the reason for the positive test results. Accordingly, such results, standing alone, do not support the conclusion that respondent unlawfully ingested cocaine or that he is lacking of good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the administrative complaint filed against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of March 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 24th day of March 1995.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent, Londonaire Lounge, Inc., was the holder of License No. 26-664, a Series 4-COP license held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. On January 22, 1975, the Respondent, Londonaire Lounge, Inc., licensed under the Beverage Laws as a corporation, had listed Robert Larson as its vice president/secretary in its statement on file with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. In fact, Robert Larson had served in that capacity from November 27, 1973 to January 28, 1974 and subsequent to that time, Nicholas Balistreri was, in fact, the corporate secretary and had been serving in that capacity for more than ten (10) days subsequent to Robert Larson's removal as vice president/secretary. On January 23, 1976, the Respondent, Londonaire Lounge, Inc., licensed under the Beverage Laws as a corporation, had listed Robert Larson as its vice president/secretary in its statement on file with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. In fact, Robert Larson had served in that capacity from November 27, 1973 to January 28, 1974 and subsequent to that time, Nicholas Balistreri was, in fact, the corporate secretary and had been serving in that capacity for more than ten (10) days subsequent to Robert Larson's removal as vice president/secretary. On or about the evening of January 6, 1976, Nicholas Balistreri, a corporate officer and employee of the Respondent went to the licensed premises at 1553 South Lane Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida about the time of closing. He was in the company of a man names Paul Spencer and both of these individuals were riding in Balistreri's automobile. Spencer and Balistreri entered the licensed premises and Spencer went into the office of the licensed premises and was joined by Balistreri and another individual who was an agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration. Spencer had in his possession approximately 35 grams of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance listed under Title 21, United States Code, Section 812(c). Spencer removed the cocaine and Balistreri, the agent, and Spencer ingested a quantity of the cocaine. The agent was acquainted with Spencer from some other occasion. After the individuals had ingested the cocaine, Balistreri told the agent and Spencer that no sale of that substance could be made in the licensed premises. Balistreri and Spencer then left with the agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration and returned to Balistreri's apartment in Balistreri's car, at which time Balistreri and Spencer were arrested. Balistreri was subsequently charged and convicted of having in his possession with the intent to distribute the substance, the aforementioned cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, listed under Title 21, United States Code, Section 812(c), in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. He was sentenced to three years confinement for that offense. Subsequent to the arrest of Balistreri, charges were placed against the Respondent, i.e., a Notice to Show Cause was filed against the Respondent corporation. Balistreri remained as an employee of the corporation until after the informal conference with the Division of Beverage and the date of Balistreri's dismissal from the corporation occurred in May, 1976. The above facts were as stipulated to by the parties.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts and conclusions of law, and in consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the agreement of the counsel of the Petitioner that the Petitioner does not seek revocation or suspension, it is recommended that the Respondent, Londonaire Lounge, Inc., be fined in the amount of $750.00, against its License No. 26-664, Series 4-COP. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 H. R. Fallin, Esquire 1239 King Street Jacksonville, Florida 32204
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should suspend or revoke Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, pursuant to Section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes (1995),1 and Florida Administrative Rule 61A-2.022,2 because Respondent operated the licensed premises in a manner that was a public nuisance and permitted others to violate state criminal laws prohibiting the possession and use of controlled substances, or both.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating alcoholic beverage licenses. Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license number 15-02695, series 2-COP for the Red Top Lounge located at 2804 Kennedy Street, Mims, Florida (the "licensed premises"). Respondent is the sole proprietor of the licensed premises. On February 13, 1997, two of Petitioner's special agents ("SAS") and other undercover law enforcement officers entered the licensed premises as part of an ongoing narcotics investigation. Several patrons of the licensed premises were consuming marijuana and rolling marijuana cigars in plain view of Respondent's employees and managers. Respondent was not present at the time. On February 28, 1997, the same SAS and law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises incident to the same investigation. The SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from a patron who identified himself as "Black." On March 14, 1997, the same SAS and law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises incident to the same investigation. After midnight on March 15, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from a patron who identified himself as "Marty." On March 15, 1997, the same SAS and law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises, incident to the same investigation. After midnight on March 16, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from an unknown patron. The disc jockey routinely encouraged patrons over the public address system to smoke marijuana inside the licensed premises. On April 25, 1997, one of the same SAS, another SAS, and other law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises incident to the same investigation. The SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from a patron who identified himself as "Kenny Harvey." On April 26, 1997, the same SAS and law enforcement officers involved in the investigation on the previous day returned to the licensed premises. After midnight on April 27, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of cocaine for $10 from Kenny Harvey. On May 2, 1997, two SAS previously involved in the investigation and other law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises. After midnight on May 3, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of cocaine for $10 from Kenny Harvey. After midnight on May 3, 1997, two SAS previously involved in the investigation and other law enforcement officers returned to the licensed premises. The SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from a patron who identified himself as "Roy." After the previous transaction on May 3, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of cocaine for $10 from Kenny Harvey. After midnight on May 4, 1997, the SAS purchased a small package of marijuana for $10 from an unknown patron. Subsequent to each purchase of marijuana by the SAS, the items purchased were chemically analyzed in a laboratory and found to be marijuana. Subsequent to each purchase of cocaine by the SAS, the items purchased were chemically analyzed in a laboratory and found to be cocaine. The SAS involved in the investigation have extensive experience and training in narcotics investigation and detection of controlled substances. They have conducted numerous undercover investigations. Each agent has personal knowledge of the appearance and smell of marijuana. The open, flagrant, and notorious drug activity on the licensed premises was the worst each agent had observed in his career. Each time the SAS entered the licensed premises, underage patrons consumed alcoholic beverages. More than half of the patrons present on each occasion consumed and rolled marijuana cigars. The second-hand marijuana smoke inside the premises was so great that the SAS were concerned for their personal health and the affect the second-hand smoke could have on each agent if subjected to a random drug test, pursuant to agency policy. The purchase, consumption, and use of marijuana occurred in plain view of Respondent's employees and managers. Respondent's managers and employees never attempted to prohibit the illegal drug activity. Respondent was never present on the licensed premises. She was caring for her daughter who died on April 2, 1997. During the time she was caring for daughter, Respondent relinquished management and control of the licensed premises to her granddaughter and her boyfriend.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's alcohol and tobacco license. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 7th day of August, 1997.
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that the Respondent is guilty of misconduct involving the possession of cocaine. There is very little dispute regarding the facts in this case. The primary dispute concerns the determination of the appropriate penalty to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Alton J. Roberts, holds teaching certificate number 584629 issued by the Florida Department of Education. His certificate is in the area of Physical Education and is valid for the period 1991-1996. At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been, and continues to be, employed as a school teacher with the Dade County School System. He has been teaching in this capacity as a Physical Education teacher for approximately four years. On or about July 21, 1990, the Respondent and another adult male were in the process of driving from Miami to New York to return a van that belonged to the Respondent's brother. While the Respondent was sleeping and the other man was driving, law enforcement officers stopped the van for a traffic violation in the vicinity of Fort Pierce, Florida. As the van was coming to a stop, the driver woke the Respondent and told him that they were being stopped by law enforcement officers. When the van came to a stop, the driver got out first and went to speak to the officers. After the driver had gotten out of the car, the Respondent saw a small plastic container that he knew was the type of container customarily used for storing and sifting powdered cocaine. In an effort to conceal the container from the law enforcement officers, the Respondent picked up the container and put it in one of his back pockets. A few minutes later when the Respondent was asked to step out of the van, the law enforcement officers discovered the container in the Respondent's back pocket. Further examination of the container removed from the Respondent's back pocket revealed that it contained a small amount of white powder. The white powder was not weighed, but was perhaps as much as a gram in total weight. Described otherwise, the volume of the powder in the container removed from the Respondent's pocket was less than the volume of powder that would result from a crushed aspirin. The white powder was field tested and it tested positive for cocaine. As a result of the events described above, the Respondent was arrested and charged with felony possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. On February 25, 1991, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of cocaine and the other charge was dismissed. Adjudication was withheld and the Respondent was placed on probation for a period of two years. The Respondent was also required to perform 150 hours of community service, to pay $725.00 in court costs and fines, to pay $50.00 per month toward the cost of his probation supervision, and to receive a substance abuse evaluation. The Respondent has complied with all of the court-ordered requirements. The Respondent does not use cocaine. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been involved in any way with cocaine or any other illegal drugs at any time before or after the incident on July 21, 1990. The Respondent's arrest and subsequent court proceedings did not receive any notoriety in the Dade County area. The Respondent reported the matter to the principal of the school where he is employed. The principal reported the matter to administrators of the Dade County School System. After review of the matter, the administrators of the Dade County School System allowed the Respondent to continue to be employed as a teacher. Between the date of his arrest and the date of the hearing, the Respondent has taught all of one school year and most of a second school year. No evidence was offered of any problems or irregularities in his teaching during that period, nor was any evidence offered of any lack of effectiveness as a teacher during that period.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of a violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing a penalty consisting of the following: Issuance of a written reprimand from the Education Practices Commission to be placed both in the Respondent's certification file and in the Respondent's personnel file with the Dade County School System, and Placement of the Respondent on probation for a period of five years, the probation period to begin upon issuance of the Final Order and to include such terms as may appear necessary and appropriate to the Education Practices Commission to monitor the Respondent's performance as a teacher during the period of probation, including a provision for random drug testing of the Respondent at the request of the Education Practices Commission and at the expense of the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of April, 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations in the Notice to Show Cause herein, Respondent, Grand Saloon Tavern, Inc., was the holder of a valid alcoholic beverage license number 15-00028, Series 4-COP issued by Petitioner (DABT) to Respondent for the Inner Room located at 74 North Orlando Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida. On the evening of April 24, 1984, Beverage Investigator Gloria Smith and Special Agent Terry Altman, both in an undercover capacity, entered Respondent's licensed premises and took a seat near the disc jockey's booth. Smith asked an employee of the bar, a dancer named Janice Decker, who used the stage name "Angel," whom she had met weeks previously and established a friendship with, if Angel could get her some cocaine. Angel agreed and made arrangements for some cocaine, which she told Smith and Altman would arrive in about a "half hour." Somewhat later, Angel came up to the two agents where they were sitting in the bar, told them the cocaine had arrived, and received a $100 bill from Smith. Smith saw Angel engage in an exchange between Angel and the courier known to Smith as "Tommy" after which Angel came back to the agents' table and delivered to them a match box and told them it contained cocaine in two half-gram packages. When Angel left the table, Smith opened the match box and observed it contained two clear plastic bags which both had a white powder in them subsequently properly identified as cocaine. She took one of the bags out of the match box to check it. In Altman's opinion, the disc jockey saw her do this but that individual denies having done so. He contends that, given her position in the booth, with the lights adjusted as they are, he cannot see the people sitting at the tables below him and he knows nothing of any sale of drugs by Angel to Smith. Smith and Altman had gone into the Inner Room as a part of an ongoing investigation of several establishments to see if they could purchase drugs in them. Smith had met Angel at the Show Bar, another Cocoa Beach bar, in early March when Angel, who was working there at the time, did a personal dance for Agent Altman. After that, she made several purchases from Angel at the Show Bar using the cover story that she the, widow of an older man, who had been left a good income, and was now out looking for some "fun" with some younger man of whom Altman was supposed to be one. She said she wanted the cocaine for recreational use. The first time she want into the Inner Room she went in part to meet people and see the atmosphere of the place. On the first occasion, when she asked for Angel, Angel was not there. Smith returned to the Inner Room on May 10, 1984, this time in the company of United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent Eslingor and the two of them sat along the east wall of the lounge. On this occasion, she met Mr. Johnson, one of the owners who introduced her to the other owner, Mr. Crockett. The licensed premises is divided into three general areas--a small lounge, a larger lounge, and a game room. The east wall, where Smith sat, is in the area near the disc jockey's booth. Smith spoke with Angel about Angel's inability to deliver the cocaine she had promised on a previous occasion and asked her if she knew of anyone else who might have any cocaine for sale. When inquiry by Angel failed to reveal any available sources that evening, Smith gave Angel $100.00 for 1 gram of cocaine to be delivered the next night. Just about that time, Smith observed another dancer, Danielle, going into the restroom and followed her in. She went after Danielle because, based on information she had received from a third dancer, Deosia, she thought Danielle might have some for sale. When she got into the restroom, Smith asked Danielle if she had any cocaine to which Danielle replied she had only a little in her personal stack, of which she could give Smith a "line." Danielle then poured some white powdery substance, subsequently identified as cocaine, from a plastic triangular bag into a cellophane cigarette wrapper and handed it to Smith. Smith does not recall if Danielle asked for payment, but when Smith handed her $5.00 and when asked if that was enough, Danielle replied, "That's what I usually get." When Smith and Eslinger went back the following night, approximately 11:15 p.m., Angel, to whom Smith had given $100.00 the previous evening, told her that she had the cocaine Smith had asked for. She then delivered the substance, later identified as cocaine, and stated that she had taken a "line" for herself out of it. Smith agreed to that. Smith does not recall if the cocaine was delivered in a matchbook or in a folded $1.00 bill. In either case, however, consistent with her routine practice, upon delivery she checked the delivered substance out in the open by opening the package, tapping the enclosure on the table, and examining it, a procedure, he feels, that takes about 10 seconds. On this occasion, as on all other occasions, when she was in this lounge, she sat in an area off to the side of the bar which is visible from all other areas of the bar except the entrance. There are also other tables there as well. On May 25, 1984, Smith, Altman and Eslinger went into the Inner Room, actually at about 12:15 a.m. on May 28. On this occasion, Angel told Smith she had gotten rid of the cocaine she had promised to get for Smith because she had fronted the money for it. However, she stated she would have her husband bring some more, and later the same evening came back to the table where Smith and the others were sitting, sat down with them, and handed Smith a folded $1.00 bill for which Smith gave her $100.00. From this $1.00 bill, Smith took a small plastic bag which contained a substance later identified as cocaine. Not all cocaine sales ware arranged at the licensed premises, however. On June 4, 1984, Agent Smith phoned Angel at home and suggested that Angel get her some cocaine and deliver it at the Inner Room. She thereafter took $100.00 to Angel at her home and made the definite arrangements for the delivery of the cocaine at the licensed premises. When Smith, Altman, and Eslinger went to the Inner Room at approximately 9:30 p.m. that evening, Angel came over to them and delivered a cigarette package to Smith. After Angel left, Smith took a plastic bag from the cigarette pack and checked it on top of the table so that it could be seen by other patrons and Hank, the manager, was standing over near the disco booth talking with two men who appeared to be Cocoa Beach police officers. Smith cannot say that her actions were seen by these people, but the package contained what was later identified as cocaine. Smith was not arrested by these police officers even though they did not know she was an undercover agent. This leads to the conclusion that her "checking out" of the deliveries was not so open or notorious as, by Smith's own admission, had they seen what she was doing, they probably would have had cause to arrest her. When Smith first bought cocaine from Angel in the Inner Room, she had already made two or three purchases from her at another bar in the area and it was always Smith who made the purchases. She also paid Angel to "dance" for her "boyfriend" Altman several times and for each "dance" paid Angel $3.00. Over the period of the investigation, including this establishment and others, she got to know Angel and liked her. In doing so, she built up Angel's trust in her which Angel contends was the only reason she sold Smith cocaine. Smith purchased from only Angel and Danielle at the Inner Room. There is no evidence of other drug sales by other employees to other agents nor does Smith have any personal knowledge of any drugs on the premises except for those forming the bases of the allegations here. Altman played the part of the hanger-on sponging off a rich lady consistent with Smith's cover story. He was introduced to one of the co-owners, Mr. Johnson, on one occasion but had no conversations with him or anyone else regarding drugs. He made no drug purchases because his DATF investigation related to firearms. Though he was in the Inner Room quite a few times with and without Smith, he never saw any independent opportunity to buy drugs except for Smith's buys and he has no personal knowledge of anyone other than Angel or Danielle who had drugs for sale or were dealing drugs there. While in the Inner Room, Smith had several general conversations with owner Johnson during which she says she may have mentioned her "mid-life crisis" cover story. She denies any conversations with him, however, in which she tried to entice him into using drugs with her or when he said he did not use drugs or permit them on the premises. She does not recall them discussing what steps he took to keep drugs out. She did not notice any posted rules or notices regarding drugs. On each occasion Smith was in the Inner Room, either one or both of the owners were there in addition to a manager. She does not know what this latter individual's responsibilities were. There were also always men at the door but she does not knew what their function was other than to collect the entrance fee. Angel, whose real name is Janice M. Decker, was employed at the Inner Room as a dancer. She had just returned there prior to April 24, 1984, after working at the Show Bar, another club in Cocoa Beach, for 9 months. Prior to that, she worked at the Inner Room for 3 1/2 years. When she was first hired, she was instructed by owners that their rules included no drugs, no alcohol, and no solicitation for prostitution on the premises and during the first 3 1/2 years she worked there, she never had any drugs or saw any there. She first met Agent Smith at the Show Bar in July 1983 and developed a friendship with her. Smith did not make any requests for cocaine until their fourth meeting. By this time, Angel had accepted Smith's cover story and thought she was a nice lady. They had talked of going shopping together and of going out to dinner with their respective man as couples. In fact, Smith gave Angel her home phone number, but whenever Smith would call Angel, she would say she was out of town. Smith's first request for cocaine from Angel came at the Show Bar. Angel contends that even though she did not use cocaine and did not have any, because of her friendship for Smith and the fact that she felt sorry for her, she agreed to try to get some from someone. She found a source and whenever she bought any for Smith, she would deliver all she got and keep more for herself. She also felt close enough to Smith to front the money for these purchases and each time Smith requested cocaine, the purchase details ware always secondary to social conversation and "girl talk." When Angel quit the Show Bar and went back to the Inner Room, though she had fears about bringing drugs into the premises because she knew the owners' anti-drug policy, she did so because: (1) she knew her reputation there was as a "straight," and (2) she felt sorry for Smith and wanted to help her. As a result, she deceived her employers. On several of the occasions alleged, Angel didn't want be deliver on the premises but Smith insisted she deliver there. Their agreement was to meet outside for the transfer on two occasions, but each time Smith was not there and since Angel had to go to work, she had to go inside and when Smith showed up deliver there. Aside from the sales to Smith, Angel contends she has never had any drugs inside the Inner Room, nor has she ever seen any other employee with it in their possession there. She got the cocaine from a supplier she knows as Terry who she would meet at McDonald's-- never her husband. When she would get cocaine for Smith, she would keep it in her work purse with her in the lounge and not in her street purse in her locker. Neither she nor her locker has ever been searched for drugs. In her opinion, the licensees run a legitimate operation. They are strict about people who break the rules and seem to know what is going on there. Either one or both owners are on the premises every night along with two security people. This opinion is shared by other club employees like the dancers Angie and Danielle. Angie worked for the licensees for 11 months before they closed on June 8 and never saw any drug dealings or employees with drugs on the premises. Customers have asked her about drugs on various occasions but she always refused to get involved. When she was hired, she was advised that the club rules included no use or sale of drugs and called for the employee to be fired if this rule was violated. Danielle, who has worked there for 9 or 10 months, had the same understanding of the rules. When she was hired, she was given a copy of the posted rules and the owners have periodic meetings of the employees at which they are reminded of the rules regarding no alcohol, no drugs, no prostitution, and the need to report any infractions. She knew that a violation of those rules would result in termination. Regarding the sale to Smith, Danielle admits the transfer, but contends she at first refused and gave Smith the cocaine only after Smith said it was for her boyfriend who needed it badly. She didn't ask Smith for any money, intending it to be a gift even though she had never met Smith before. After the transfer, Smith threw her $5.00 and left. She is concerned about her job even though she has not been told she was fired. The disc jockey, Ken Carlin, who has worked at the Inner Room for 4 years, relates much the same story regarding the owners' efforts to keep drugs out as do the dancers. There are frequent meetings of all personnel regarding illegal activities and anyone caught involved in them is fired. Whereas the dancers disclaim any knowledge of any employees involved in drugs, Mr. Carlin, however, indicates at least one a month is fired. This must be for other reasons, however, because, according to him, he has seen drugs on the premises only once about a year ago and had fired the dancer who had them immediately. In addition to his job as disc jockey, his responsibilities also include policing the premises on a frequent basis and this includes inspecting the dancers' dressing room which he does about three times each night. When he does these inspections, he does not go into the house, however. In addition to the owners, the managers and Carlin, all of whom exercise the responsibility to check the premises for drugs, Gary O. Greenwald, one of the doormen and bouncers, also patrols the inside for violations. He has bean briefed regarding certain known drug users or dealers who are barred from entering the club. He has also been instructed to throw anyone suspected of possessing drugs out and if anyone is caught with it, he is to hold that person and call the police. During the three months he has worked there, ha has not observed any drugs on the premises. The Inner Room's reputation with at least a portion of the Cocoa Beach police force is high. William McDonald, who has been an officer for 11 years, has visited the licensed premises two or three times a week for 11 years and has never, at any time, seen any drug activity there. He has been called there by the owners several times (never for drugs) and has made some arrests for such offenses as drunk and disorderly, firearms, and assaults. In his opinion, none of the bars in the area are completely drug-free, but comparing this bar with others in the area, it is run better because the owners are more conscientious. Mr. Johnston has talked with him repeatedly about the effort made to keep drug activity out of the bar and considering the fact that the owners are not police, he feels they do a good job of it. So, too, does David E. Schoch, also a Cocoa Beach Police Officer who has gone into the Inner Room three to four times a week on duty and at least one night a week off duty for the past several months. In all that time, he has never seen drugs on the premises except one time when he was called there on duty. By the time he arrived, one of the owners and the bouncer had the situation under control and had confiscated some cocaine. He finds this bar to be one of the better and safer bars in the area due to the preventive actions of the management. He is convinced it is one of the more drug-free bars in the area due primarily to these efforts and considers that, considering their lack of training, the owners do a good job of it. Lamar L. Johnston has been a co-owner of the Inner Room with Jesse Crockett for 8 1/2 years. During that time, the bar has never been cited for any infractions of the beverage laws. He has what is to him a lot of money invested in this bar and to keep from losing it, he has worked hard and been through in indoctrinating his people on the no drug policy. He has published a list of employee rules which are made known to every employee at monthly meetings and are posted in the dancers' dressing room, behind the bar, and in the disc jockey booth. He keeps tabs not only on his employees but also on his clientele and if he sees someone in the bar who he knows to be involved in any type of illegal activity, he advises his bouncers to keep that person out. He personally patrols the bar on a regular basis each night and has his disc jockey, managers, 2 bouncers, and security men do the same. He requests the Police Department to come in on duty and has given off-duty policemen passes to come in without paying the admission charge. With the exception of the one occasion described by Officer McDonald, he has never seen any drugs in his club. With regard be the personnel he hires, he keeps tabs on all dancers in the area including as far away as Orlando and Daytona Beach, by real and stage names, who have been arrested or fired for prostitution or drugs. If one of these apply for work, he will not hire them. However, he contends he cannot prevent an employee from breaking a rule if that person is bent on doing so. All he can do is publicize the rules and warn his employees of the consequences of breaking them. He checks the dressing room six times a night and, recognizing that thirty pairs of eyes are better than one, put into effect the rule relating to firing employees who have knowledge of but fail to report drug activity. His bar is not brightly lighted because, in his experience, bar patrons do not like a brightly lighted bar. Because of that, he tries to patrol as much as possible. On top of that, his lounge caters to a higher element clientele such as engineers from Cape Kennedy Space Center, Administrators from Brevard Community College, and professional people. His bouncers are instructed to keep the lower element out and a dress code is enforced.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 11, 1990, and issued certificate number 4-90-502-02. On May 31, 1990, Dawn Rees was working in concert with the Police Department of Williston, Florida, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as a confidential informant regarding illegal drug activity in the Williston area. In the course of her work, Rees would meet with various individuals and attempt to buy illegal drugs. As a prelude to each of these meetings, Rees would be searched by law enforcement officials to determine that she had no illegal drugs on her person. Then, she would be "wired" or fitted with sonic monitoring equipment and sent to negotiate the illegal drug purchase. Upon her return from the drug rendezvous, Rees would turn over any contraband purchased by her and submit again to a personal search. Rees' conversations with the persons from whom she sought to buy drugs was monitored and recorded by authorities via the broadcast of those communications to them through the "wire" worn by Rees. On the evening of May 31, 1994, Rees went to the residence where Respondent lived and spoke with William Lynch, a friend of Respondent who also resided in the house, concerning the purchase of an ounce of marijuana. The conversation between Lynch and Rees took place on the front porch of the residence. Lynch told Rees that he could get the marijuana for her. Later that evening, Rees, equipped with the hidden listening device described above, returned and entered the residence to get the promised marijuana. Sometime later, Rees left the residence and met with law enforcement authorities. As stipulated by the parties at the final hearing, a field test of the substance obtained from Lynch in the residence by Rees, and provided to authorities that night, identified the drug as marijuana. As established by Rees' testimony at the final hearing, she was involved in several other investigations as a confidential informant during the same general time span that she was also involved in the drug purchase at Respondent's residence. Rees testified from the basis of her recollection of events that had occurred several years prior to final hearing. Respondent was present and operating a "Nintendo" game when Rees entered the house. Respondent engaged in conversation with Rees, but did not observe the later exchange of money for marijuana between her and Lynch. The exchange, as established by Lynch's candid and credible testimony, took place in a back bedroom of the house, out of the presence of Respondent. Respondent testified that he had no knowledge of the transaction or the presence of illegal drugs in the house. Accordingly, Rees' testimony, absent further corroboration by other direct admissible evidence, that Respondent knew illicit drugs were on the premises and observed the drug transaction, cannot be credited. A transcript, presented at the final hearing and purportedly derived from the tape of conversations had between Rees and persons in the residence garnered via the "wire" worn by Rees, offers no proof in support of a contention that Respondent was aware of the presence or sale of illegal drugs on the premises. As established by the credible testimony of Respondent, and corroborated by Lynch, Respondent was unaware of the presence of illicit drugs in the residence or the sale of such drugs in the residence at any time, contrary to allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Later, Lynch moved out of the residence. Respondent was arrested several months later in connection with the incident. By stipulation of the parties, it is established that those charges were subsequently nolle prossed by the Office of the State Attorney, 8th Judicial Circuit of Florida. The evidence presented by Petitioner of Respondent's knowledge and possible participation in the possession and sale of an illicit drug, marijuana, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, is met by Respondent's credible denial of any knowledge as to the alleged events. Further, Respondent's assertion of innocence is corroborated by the testimony of William Lynch. It is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent knew that drugs were in the house on the night in question or that Respondent knew of the drug sale to Dawn Rees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of June, 1994. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2 Accepted. 3-4 Rejected, the transcript reference shows that Respondent was arrested on February 5, 1991, following the May, 1990 incident. 5-6 Accepted. 7-8 Subordinate to HO's findings on these points. Specifically, Ms. Rees is found to have been mistaken about the content of her conversations with Respondent and without a basis to draw the conclusion that Respondent was a willing and knowledgeable participant in illegal activity. Subordinate to HO findings. Respondent had the transcript admitted to show its lack of probative value. At no time does Respondent adopt the transcript in order to prove the case against himself. Rejected, relevance. Accepted. Rejected, relevance. Accepted. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Pauline Ingreham-Drayton Attorney at Law Florida Department of Law Enforcement 711 B Liberty Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard Bova, Jr. 624 S.W. 70th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32608 Leon Lowry, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Steve Martin, d/b/a The Hustler Bar, held alcoholic beverage license number 68-929, series 2-COP, for licensed premises located at 5748 Swift Road, Sarasota, Florida, at all times relevant to the charges contained in the Notice To Show Cause and at the time of the final hearing. On November 10, 1984, Respondent received an official notice from the Division that charges would be filed against him for violations of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. On January 11, 1985, Deputy Sheriff Bernie Vanderweert entered the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. He observed patrons engaged in playing pool for money in the presence of the bartender Jim Sealmayer. Deputy Vanderweert played pool with bartender Sealmayer for $1.00 to $2.00 a game. On January 17, 1985, Deputy Venderweert again observed patrons playing pool for money inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. The pool table was in view of the bar, where bartender Dory Korowold was on duty. Deputy Vanderweert played dice at the bar with bartender Dory for drinks. On January 18, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert played the game of pool with various patrons for money. He additiogally gambled with bartender Jim Sealmayer on the pool table. On January 24, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert observed patrons playing pool for money inside The Hustler Bar and himself gambled on the pool table with patron Greg Sullivan. On January 29, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert gambled on the pool table with other patrons inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar while bartender Dory was on duty. On January 31, 1985, Beverage Investigator James Woodrow visited the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. He overheard licensee Steve Martin discuss wagering on games of pool with a patron named Leo. Martin and Leo agreed to play pool for $25.00 a game. Investigator Woodrow observed Martin and Leo playing pool, but did not actually see an exchange of money. On February 5, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert observed patrons gambling on games of pool inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar and himself wagered on a game of pool with patron Greg Sullivan. Dory Korswald was on duty behind the bar during this activity. Deputy Vanderweert observed the bartender Dory smoke a marijuana cigarette inside the premises with several patrons. Vanderweert approached Greg Sullivan and asked if he had a marijuana cigarette. When Greg responded that he did, Vanderweert purchased a marijuana cigarette from him while seated at the bar in the vicinity of bartender Dory and other patrons. On February 7, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert gambled on games of pool with patron Sullivan for $1.00 to $5.00 a game while on the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. Deputy Vanderweert overheard licensee Steve Martin attempting to induce a patron to play the game of pool with him for $1,000.00 per game. When the patron would not play for that amount of money, Martin and the patron played games of pool for $5.00 to $10.00 a game. Vanderweert purchased marijuana from patron Greg Sullivan while they were seated at the bar. Respondent was present in the bar at the time of the transaction. On February 14, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert played games of pool with patron Sullivan for $5.00 to $10.00 a game. Respondent Steve Martin was present during the gambling and was aware that gambling was taking place. Investigator Woodrow observed Sullivan produce a package of marijuana while he was standing at the bar. Sullivan asked the bartender Maggie and the officers if they had rolling papers but received negative replies. On February 19, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert observed Greg Sullivan obtain cigarette rolling papers from bartender Dory Korswald and smoke a marijuana cigarette with her while inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. While Vanderweert and Sullivan were seated at the bar in the presence of bartender Dory, Vanderweert purchased a plastic baggie of marijuana and a plastic baggie of cocaine from Sullivan. On February 21, 1985, Investigator Woodrow was approached by Sullivan inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar and asked if he would like to buy cocaine. Sullivan delivered a plastic package of cocaine to Woodrow while they were seated at the bar. Respondent Martin came into the bar during the negotiations and was seated three seats away at the time of the transaction and bartender Dory Korswald was on duty behind the the bar. On February 26, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert played games of pool with patron Greg Sullivan for money. While Vanderweert was seated at the bar, he purchased a plastic package of suspected cocaine from patron Sullivan while bartender Dory Korswald was on duty behind the bar. But the Division never proved that the substance was cocaine. On February 28, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert engaged in playing pool for money on the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. Vanderweert observed bartender Dory Korowald smoke a marijuana cigarette with patrons inside the premises. Investigator Woodrow observed Greg Sullivan produce a baggie of marijuana and roll a marijuana cigarette while he was seated at the bar. After Sullivan finished rolling his cigarette, Vanderweert purchased the remainder of the baggie of marijuana from him. Woodrow purchased a plastic package of cocaine from Sullivan while they were seated at the bar in the presence of bartender Dory Korawald. On March 5, 1985, Investigator Woodrow purchased from patron Greg Sullivan, inside the licensed premises of The suspected LSD. The transaction took place at the bar. However, the Division could not prove that the substance was LSD. On March 7, 1985, Deputy Vanderweert purchased from patron Sullivan, inside the licensed premises, what was described to him to be two hits of LSD. Again, the Division could not prove that the substance was LSD. On March 11, 1985, Investigator Woodrow purchased from patron Sullivan what was described to him to be two hits of LSD inside the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar. Respondent Martin was seated at the bar during the transaction. Again, the Division could not prove that the substance was LSD. Respondent Martin works at the licensed premises of The Hustler Bar between 11:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. every day, but is seldom there at night. He has never seen or possessed illegal drugs inside the bar. He is aware that patrons gamble on the pool tables and has done so himself. He stopped all gambling on the tables after charges were brought by the Division. Respondent cannot afford a manager and has only two full time employees, with one additional fill in. He does not require his employees to fill out an employment application and cannot remember if he checked his employees' prior employment records. He has no signs posted concerning drugs but does have posted a letter from the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent was told by employees and customers that Greg Sullivan was involved in drug transactions and barred Sullivan from the premises. No evidence was presented as to what, if any, changes were made in Respondent's management of the premises after he received notice in November 1984 that drug transactions were alleged to have occurred on the premises.
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 68-929, Series 2-COP, held by Respondent, Steve Martin, d/b/a The Hustler Bar. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Craig Soria, Esquire 766 Hudson Avenue Suite B Sarasota, Florida 33577 Lt. Tom Ewing 2665 Cleveland Avenue Ft. Myers, Florida 33482 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 Sough Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 85-3914 The following are specific rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact as required by Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). The following proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are accepted as substantially factually accurate and are incorporated in the Findings Of Fact in the same or similar format to the extent necessary: 1-5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 19. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact 6 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the second sentence was not proved. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact 7 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the evidence was that other patrons, not Sullivan, were gambling with Vanderweert. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact 11 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is in part subordinate. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact 14, 16, 17 and 18 would have been included verbatim in the Findings Of Fact except that the evidence never proved the identity of the alleged substances. Respondent did not submit any proposed findings of fact.
