The Issue The primary issues for determination are whether Brother J. Inc., d/b/a A.J.’s Sports (Respondent) violated Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and secondarily, if Respondent committed such a violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency vested with general regulatory authority over the alcoholic beverage industry within the state, including the administration of the laws and rules relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner, having been issued license number 47-02607, Series 4-COP by Petitioner. That license allows Respondent to make sales for consumption on premises of liquor, wine, and beer at his establishment located in Tallahassee, Florida. Events at issue in this proceeding revolve around a fraternity/sorority party held at Respondent’s establishment on the evening of March 30/April 1, 2005. Members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity and the Delta Nu Zeta sorority decided that they would host a “construction” theme party. To facilitate the party, the social chairman of Phi Kappa Psi contacted Respondent to make arrangements. Respondent’s establishment has several large areas on its ground floor and a single, 1,800 square foot room on the second floor. Respondent agreed to reserve its upstairs room for the Phi Kappa Psi/Delta Nu Zeta party, to waive its cover charge for party patrons, and to make “dollar wells, dollar beers” (i.e. discounted prices on certain alcoholic beverages) available to party participants for a fee of $300.00. On the night in question, most of the participants met at the Phi Kappa Psi house before going out for the evening. They gathered around 10:00 p.m. and socialized. Some people were getting their “construction” costumes together; others were “pre- partying” –-drinking before going out to minimize the size of the bar bill when they go out later. The majority of the people at the frat house at that time were drinking. At some point around 10:30 or 11:00 p.m., the party moved from the Phi Kappa Psi house to Respondent’s establishment, with party members leaving in groups of three or four to drive from the fraternity house to Respondent’s establishment. It was estimated that 15 or so sorority members and 15 to 30 fraternity brothers attended the party, and that somewhere between a third and a-half of those people were not of legal drinking age. When they arrived at Respondent’s establishment, the sorority and fraternity party makers used a side entrance set up for them by Respondent for use in getting to the party. A doorman was posted at the side entrance that checked the age of each of the patrons. He would place a “Tybex®” wristband on those persons who were over the age of 21 and would mark the hand of those under 21 with an indelible marker. Once inside, party members would go upstairs, where there was a bar with a bartender, a disk jockey, and a dance floor. The party continued on until around 2:00 a.m. on the morning of April 1, 2005, at which time the bar closed and the patrons left. During the course of the evening, 244 alcoholic beverages were served at the upstairs bar at Respondent’s facility. No evidence was presented that established with any degree of accuracy how many fraternity and sorority members actually were at the party and how many were of legal drinking age. The evidence of party attendance provided at hearing varied widely and was in each instance an estimate or a guess. Numerous persons who were not members of Phi Kappa Psi or Delta Nu Zeta were in attendance. There is no accurate estimate of how many legal drinkers were at the party or how many drinks each legal patron may have had. The Underage Drinkers Shane Donnor was observed drinking at the frat house that night. He did not, however, appear to be intoxicated when he left the frat house. He had a wristband indicating that he was over 21, which allowed him to drink at Respondent’s establishment, even though he was not of legal age. It is unknown how he obtained his wristband. Donnor was observed to have a glass in his hand while at Respondent’s establishment, but no one could confirm that he was drinking alcohol. While at Respondent’s establishment, various witnesses described him as appearing under the effects of alcohol and thought he appeared quite intoxicated. By 2:30 a.m. on April 1, Donnor had a blood alcohol level of 0.27. This corresponds to at least 10 drinks and probably more. It is an extremely high level of intoxication, which could result in a coma or even alcohol toxicity in some persons. He was quite drunk and had been so for some time. Stephanie Reed was carded upon entering Respondent’s establishment, as was her boyfriend and all the others in her party. She had one or two drinks, but she didn’t buy them herself. One of the fraternity brothers purchased her drinks for her. Reed testified at one point that she did not receive a wristband when she entered the establishment (signifying legal drinking age); later, she testified that she did due to the intervention of some unknown man who told the doorman to give her a bracelet. Reed’s testimony on this point is inconsistent and cannot be credited. Christopher Lowe was carded as he entered Respondent’s establishment. He received marks on the back of his hand indicating that he was underage. Although he was marked as being underage, Lowe was able to purchase two drinks from the bartender. He ordered the drinks; did nothing to conceal the underage marks on his hand; was served; and left money on the bar. Tania Vasquez was carded upon entering Respondent’s establishment and was marked as being underage. She did not buy any drinks while at the party, but was given an alcoholic beverage by a friend that she consumed while on the premises. Elizabeth McKean, and everyone who entered with her, were carded when they arrived at the party. McKean was marked as being underage. She did not buy any drinks for herself, but was given a shot of tequila by someone else. She drank the shot quickly to avoid detection by Respondent’s staff. David Moser had a roommate who manufactured fake i.d. cards. When he entered Respondent’s establishment, he was carded and presented a false drivers license that made it appear that he was over the age of 21. He was marked as though he was over the legal drinking age and was able to buy and consume drinks at the bar, which he did. Lee Habern had several sips of a friend’s drink that was “snuck” to him. Prevention Of Underage Drinking It is well recognized that underage persons will seek to obtain alcoholic beverages at bars. This action by underage youths results in a “cat and mouse” game whereby the bar will change its tactics in trying to prevent underage drinking and the underage drinkers will change their methods of trying to obtain drinks. Respondent tries to combat underage drinking by creating a culture of compliance. This starts with the initial hiring of employees by Respondent. Respondent’s policy is that no underage drinking will be tolerated. This policy is stated in the Employee’s Handbook. Every employee is given a copy of the handbook upon becoming employed and is required to sign an acknowledgement that he or she received it. The policy is reiterated in informal training at every staff meeting. Every new employee at Respondent’s establishment is required to go through formal training with regard to liquor laws, the effect of alcohol on the human body, dealing with customers who have had too much to drink, and related topics. These courses are known as “PAR”, “TIPS”, and “Safe Staff” and are offered by the Florida Restaurant Association and Anheiser-Busch. Respondent has also offered training provided by agents of Petitioner. These formal training programs are offered continuously to employees, and at least one of the programs is offered three times each year. The initial formal training is accomplished within 30 days of the employee being hired. Records are maintained by Respondent as to who receives what training, and when it is provided. Respondent has a policy that everyone who is served alcohol is to have his or her age checked. When the bar is not busy, this is accomplished by having the waitress check the patron’s I.D. When the bar is busier, a doorman is posted at the entrance to check the patron’s I.D. If the patron is over age 21, he or she is given a wristband; if under age 21, an indelible mark is placed on the back of the hand. Since Respondent has experienced persons copying their “over 21” designation, it is changed on a nightly basis. Fake identification cards, if detected, are confiscated. On busier nights, Respondent might confiscate 20 to 30 of such fake identifications. On the night in question, the doorman confiscated five altered cards. Respondent also has a floor manager on duty at all times that the bar is open. The floor manager will circulate throughout the establishment to make sure that all of the policies and procedures, including the prevention of underage drinking, are being carried out. On the night in question, the floor manager, Bo Crusoe, is documented to have worked and in the nominal course of events would have checked the upstairs area of the premises several times. On busy nights, Respondent will hire one or more off- duty City of Tallahassee police officers to serve as security at the bar. The officers work in their police uniforms. These officers serve first and foremost as high visibility deterrents to unlawful activity. Their mere presence serves to minimize underage drinking. Respondent regularly has off-duty law enforcement on the premises. Respondent also has a security consultant, Officer John Beemon, who is a Tallahassee Police officer. He evaluates the need for additional security and communicates those needs to the owners. When he becomes aware of a new wrinkle in underage persons obtaining alcohol, he works with Respondent to prevent the practice. He assists the doormen in identifying fraudulent I.D.s. Respondent has always implemented whatever recommendations Beemon makes to them. Generally, the security measures used by Respondent have proven effective. From time to time, Petitioner will try a “sting operation” at Respondent’s establishment by sending a minor into Respondent’s bar to see if they are able to purchase alcohol. On every such “sting operation” Petitioner’s decoy was identified and stopped at the front door and was not allowed to purchase alcoholic beverages. Carrie Bruce is Petitioner’s special agent for the Tallahassee area. She is familiar with most Tallahassee alcoholic establishments and her testimony establishes that Respondent’s establishment is not considered a “problem bar” by Petitioner and is considered to be better than other area bars in preventing underage drinking. To the best of the owner’s knowledge and Beemon’s knowledge, no one has ever knowingly served a drink to a minor at Respondent’s establishment. Further, Respondent has never previously been charged with serving alcohol to minors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is
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 and that his license number 26-2026 be suspended for a period of fifteen days. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 15th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr. Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph S. Farley, Jr., Esquire 350 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco is the state agency charged with regulating the alcohol beverage and tobacco laws in Florida. Respondent, Rueben McCall, Jr., d/b/a McCall's Champagne Lounge, is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 62-00231, series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as McCall's Champagne Lounge which is located at 618 22nd Street South, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. On or about February 11, 1992, Officer T. Brockman of the St. Petersburg Police Department (SPPD) met with Respondent as licensee to discuss illegal activities which were ongoing in and around his licensed premises. Officer Brockman notified Respondent that controlled substances were being sold in and about the licensed premises and that underaged persons were being permitted to consume alcoholic beverages. Respondent was also notified of other illegal activities including weapons and firearms violations which were occurring on Friday and Saturday nights. On or about July 26, 1992, the Division's Special Agent, Cummings and other undercover law enforcement agents went to Respondent's premises as part of an ongoing narcotics investigation. While inside the premises, Cummings met a patron known as "Andy Griffin" regarding the purchase of marijuana. As a result of that meeting, Special Agent Cummings handed Andy Griffin $10.00 in exchange for a small plastic bag containing marijuana. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be marijuana. At the time, two employees were located a few feet away from the site where the marijuana was delivered. At the time, several patrons were also openly consuming and selling controlled substances in the presence of Respondent and his employees. On or about July 31, 1992, Cummings again reentered the licensed premises with other undercover law enforcement agents in furtherance of their investigation. While inside the premises, Special Agent Cummings met with an unknown patron regarding the purchase of "crack" cocaine. Subsequently Special Agent Cummings handed the unknown patron $10.00 in exchange for a small quantity of a substance which was analyzed and found to be cocaine. This transaction took place in plain view at the bar in the presence of Respondent and several employees. At the time, several patrons inside the premises were openly smoking marijuana in the presence of Respondent and his employees. On August 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 15, Special Agent Cummings and other law enforcement agents reentered the licensed premises as part of their ongoing narcotics investigation. While inside the premises, on each ocassion except August 8, Special Agent Cummings purchased narcotics for $10.00. On each occasion the substance purchased by Special Agent Cummings was laboratory analyzed and found to be marijuana. During the August 8, 1992 visit by Special Agent Cummings and the other law enforcement agents, several patrons were observed openly consuming marijuana in the presence of Respondent and several employees. At no time did Respondent or his employees make efforts to prevent that activity from occurring inside the licensed premises. On each occasion while in the premises, Special Agent Cummings observed several patrons openly consuming and selling controlled substances in the presence of employees. At the outset of the narcotics investigation, Officer Tim Brockman met with Respondent and advised him that he was a community police officer who was on call and would be walking the "beat" in and around the licensed premises. Officer Brockman made it known to Respondent that he was there to improve the quality of life and that he would be in contact with community leaders to try to get a handle on the extensive criminal activity which appeared to be ongoing in and around the licensed premises. As part of their efforts, Officer Brockman tried to develop a crime watch as the community residents felt threatened by the extensive criminal activity ongoing in and around the licensed premises. Officer Brockman advised Respondent that their primary goal would be to try to rid the area of drug sales. Respondent was specifically advised of the extensive drug activities that were ongoing both inside and outside of the licensed premises. Respondent's cooperation and assistance was requested by Officer Brockman and be agreed to assist. Officer Brockman made it known to Respondent that loitering was a problem outside the building and that alcoholic sales were being made in the building to minors. Finally, Officer Brockman told Respondent that he had observed patrons purchasing alcoholic beverages in the bar and who would later bring the open containers outside into the parking areas in and around the building in apparent violations of the local ordinances. Officer Brockman analyzed the phone calls which had been logged through the St. Petersburg Police Departments switchboard from the lounge and for law enforcement assistance in that area. The number of calls to Respondent's lounge greatly exceed the number of calls for law enforcement assistance in other areas of the City. Josephine McCall, Respondent's wife, denies that she ever saw drugs in the licensed premises. Ms. McCall maintains that Respondent would "come home sick as he could not stand the smell of marijuana." Thomas E. Hines, is a patron who occasionally frequents the bar during the early evening hours. During the times that he has frequented the club, he has not witnessed ellicit drugs being sold in the area nor would he recognize "reefer" if he saw it. Kathy Burgess has been a barmaid at Respondent's lounge in excess of thirteen years. Ms. Burgess contends that Respondent did not allow drug sales to occur and that if such sales were made, she told employees to "get them out of the premises." Bonny Bostick serves as a janitor at Respondent's lounge and works on the admissions door on Friday and Saturday nights. Bostick recalls having to get Respondent to curtail drug activities on four or five occasions. 0/ To the extent that the testimony of Respondent and witnesses J. McCall, T. Hines, K. Burgess and B. Bostick is in conflict with that of Officers Cummings and Brockman, their testimony is not credible. The testimony of Officers Cummings and Brockman is more credible and is more worthy of belief as they had no interest in the outcome of the proceedings. At all times throughout the investigation, Respondent was in the licensed premises while the illegal activities referred to herein were taking place. Respondent's employees either ignored or overlooked illegal activities as it was occurring inside the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order prevailing that Respondent, Rueben McCall, Jr., d/b/a McCall Champagne Lounge, license number 62-00231, series 2-COP be revoked. It is further recommended that this location be deemed ineligible for having an alcoholic beverage license issued for the maximum period allowable under the alcoholic beverage law. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1992 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 4th day of November, 1992.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the notice to show cause dated June 16, 1992; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent owns an alcoholic beverage license, license number 5803205, for a business known as Tiffany & Suzy Q's Fun and Munch located in Apopka, Florida. Mr. Bowers, Respondent's husband, does not own the subject business or license, and may not as he has prior felony convictions within the last past five years that preclude his eligibility to own or hold an alcoholic beverage license. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Mr. Bowers was on the licensed premises acting as the manager or other person in charge of the business activities. Acting on information from a confidential source, the FDLE commenced an investigation of several vendors rumored to be involved in illegal foodstamp activity. FDLE retained several confidential informants (CI) to offer foodstamps for sale at substantially reduced prices. One of the confidential sources, Ella Mae Davis, posed as the seller at Respondent's licensed store. Acting in concert with another CI, Ms. Davis went to the store and offered foodstamps for sale to Respondent's husband. Ms. Davis alleged that the foodstamps had been stolen by her boyfriend, and that she wanted to sell them. Her instructions were to make Mr. Bowers (or other person at the store if there had been another) aware that the stamps were illegal, and to determine if a sale would be possible. On the first occasion, Mr. Bowers was receptive to the offer made by Ms. Davis and the CI. Ms. Davis observed Mr. Bowers go into a backroom at the store with the other CI who had possession of the foodstamps. When the CI came out, and the two women left the premises, the CI had the money received in exchange for the foodstamps. On a second visit to the store, Ms. Davis met Mr. Bowers who introduced her to a second male. Ms. Davis observed a second exchange of foodstamps for cash with the second male. This transaction took place at the licensed premises. During each of the transactions at the licensed premises, Ms. Davis observed Mr. Bowers' physical proximity to the exchange of foodstamps for cash. On each occasion the rate of exchange for the foodstamps was approximately fifty percent of the face value of the stamps. The Respondent was not on the licensed premises on either occasion when foodstamps were exchanged by Ms. Davis or her partner CI.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking Respondent's beverage license. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. 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 21st day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4808 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein Chief Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Para Bowers, pro se 104 East 18th Street Apopka, Florida 32703 Richard W. Scully, Director Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Donald D. Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue The issues in this case are framed by the Notice to Show Cause issued by the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Department), on or about January 22, 1992, in DBR Case No. TA-39-91-0555. The Notice to Show Cause alleges that the Respondent, Florida Premier Clubs, Inc., d/b/a Mako's Bay Club, through its employees, sold alcoholic beverages to minors on November 6, 1991, in violation of Sections 562.11(1)(a) and 561.29(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991). The Respondent denies the charges and also asserts mitigating circumstances and the Florida Responsible Vendor Act defense under Section 561.706, Fla. Stat. (1991).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Florida Premier Clubs, Inc., operates several establishments known as Mako's Bay Club in Pinellas County, Florida. All are licensed for consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises. All are relatively large establishments that feature multiple bars and dancing. All cater to a relatively young clientele. All stress strict compliance with the Beverage Law, including the prohibition against sales to minors, and all employees receive training approved by the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Department), under the Florida Responsible Vendor Act, which includes training in how to avoid illegal sales to minors. New employees receive this training either before they begin working or within approximately a month of beginning work. In addition, the management of the establishments hold periodic meetings that include a reminder about the prohibition against sales to minors and the establishment's policies for avoiding illegal sales to minors. On or about January 23, 1991, the Respondent opened a Mako's Bay Club at 901 North Franklin Street, Tampa, Florida, under alcoholic beverage license number 39-03295, Series 4-COP. Before the establishment opened for business, all employees received training approved by the Department under the Florida Responsible Vendor Act, which included training in how to avoid illegal sales to minors. New employees have received this training either before beginning work or within approximately a month of beginning work. Generally, new employees are not permitted to serve alcoholic beverages until completing this training, except under supervision. In addition, the management holds monthly meetings with all staff that include a reminder about the prohibition against sales to minors and the establishment's policies for avoiding illegal sales to minors. 1/ The Mako's Bay Club in Tampa, at least, allows underage clientele (18 years old and up) to enter the premises on Wednesdays and Saturdays. On these nights, as on all others, clientele who appear to be relatively young are "carded" at the entrance. If they are under 21, the back of their right hand is marked in permanent ink with a large "X". If they are 21 or over, they are given a tight-fitting band to wear around their wrist. Bartenders and servers know they can only serve someone with the wrist band and without the "X" mark. If a customer has neither, and appears to be possibly under 21, the bartender or waitress is to ask to see proof of age. The bar's bouncers circulate during the evening and are alert to underage drinking, loose wrist bands, and underaged clientele in the company of authorized drinkers having more than one drink in front of them. Although the Department has investigated complaints concerning underage sales at establishments operated by the Respondent, prior to November 6, 1991, the Department never made a case of selling to minors against any establishment operated by the Respondent, and the Department has considered the Respondent to be in compliance with the Beverage Law prohibiting sales to minors. In response to complaints of underage drinking in the Mako's Bay Club in Tampa, the Department conducted an investigation that included sending undercover underage operatives (aides) into the establishment under the supervision of Department special agents. The aides are selected from among applicants who are college students 18 to 19 years old and who look their age. Often, they aspire to careers in law enforcement. They are instructed to carry correct identification, not to dress to appear older than they are, not to try to deceive the management and employees of the establishment they are investigating, and to give their correct age and identification if asked. Following these instructions, they are to enter the premises and see if they can buy a drink. They operate in pairs, and each pair is accompanied by special agent, who keeps them in sight, particularly when they are attempting to make a buy. The investigation of the Mako's Bay Club in Tampa took place on November 6, 1991. Three teams of special agents and aides entered the premises separately between approximately 9:30 and 10:00 p.m. After a short period of orienting themselves and spreading out in the establishment, the aides went to work. One, Asim Brown, a young-looking 18 year-old, ordered a Budweiser beer from a waitress the second time she approached the table where he and 19 year- old Belvin Sanchez were sitting. (Sanchez declined.) The waitress was new and, against normal procedures, was pressed into service before she was completely trained. She did not ask Brown's age or ask to see proof of age. She left, placed Brown's order at a bar, and later returned to the bar to get the beer to serve at their table. Brown paid for the drink. The transaction was observed by Special Agent Powell, who was seated nearby. Sanchez later went to the "front bar" where he ordered a wine cooler while being observed by Special Agent Powell. He put the money on the bar counter while waiting for his drink. The bartender served him and took the money. Brown went to another bar where he ordered another Budweiser beer, this time from a female bartender. She served him, and he paid for the beer. 19-year old Ricky Salgado, who was teamed with Special Agent Hamilton and aide Steve Towe, also ordered a wine cooler at the front bar. He was served and paid for his drink. Special Agent Hamilton observed this transaction. Apparently about this time, the bartender recognized Special Agent Hamilton and spread the word for the staff to be extra careful to be in compliance with the Beverage Law. The next time aide Sanchez tried to buy a wine cooler at the front bar, the bartender escorted him to a manager and had him evicted. When aide Towe tried to buy a drink, he was evicted, too. The female bartender who had sold beer to Brown later evicted both of the other aides, who were 17 year-old females, as well as two other minors, for trying to buy alcoholic beverages. The evictions ended the investigation. Later, the special agents returned to arrest those accused of selling to minors and to serve a Notice to Show Cause on the Respondent. The Respondent attacked the credibility of the Department's special agents and aides, essentially accusing them of fabricating the evidence, primarily on the basis that: (1) the Mako's Bay Club staff knew Special Agent Hamilton was on the premises and was being especially cautious; and (2) Brown could not have been served Budweiser. As to the first point, the evidence was not clear when Special Agent Hamilton was spotted and when all the staff became advised of his presences. As to the second point, the Respondent contends that the waitress from whom Brown and Powell say he purchased the Budweiser beer remembers that she did not serve any Budweiser that night. A bartender testified that she was assigned to his bar and was required by the bar's procedures to place her orders through him. He had $1 Corona specials at his bar, and he contends that it would have been rare for someone to order a Budweiser at his bar, rare enough for him and the waitress to remember it. He also claims to have checked his drink orders on the night in question and to have found no order for Budweiser beer. 2/ But the evidence is clear that the waitress had not completed her training and was working without supervision for the first time. She may not have followed all of the Mako's Bay Club's usual procedures. In addition, the evidence revealed that she was very upset at having been accused of selling to a minor because she was about to join the military and did not want a criminal record to come out of the incident. She had a motive to attempt to defend herself, perhaps by telling untruths about what happened.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the Notice to Show Cause in this case. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1992.
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent's beverage license should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for maintaining a licensed premises where illegal drugs are sold and solicitations for prostitution take place. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses Carol Houston, Michael Collins, Chester L. Copeland, Vincent Rodriguez and John T. Allen. Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence six exhibits. Respondent offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit. Mr. Samuel Williams testified on behalf of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds and at all times material to this action held beverage license No. 39-684, Series 4-COP. The licensed premises under that license is located at 2801 Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Mr. Samuel Williams is president of the Respondent, Skylight Corporation, and owns 60 percent of the stock of that corporation. On the evening of July 27, 1983, Beverage Officer Carol Houston went to the licensed premises, The Blue Room Lounge, to conduct an undercover investigation. Upon entering the lounge Officer Houston took a seat at the bar and ordered a drink. After the shift change, Officer Houston talked to Brenda Brock, the bartender on duty. Officer Houston told Ms. Brock she liked to get high and asked if there was anyone in the bar from whom she could buy "reefer". Reefer is a street or slang term for marijuana or cannabis. Brenda Brock told Officer Houston that the person who usually sells reefer wasn't in the lounge at that time. Ms. Brock also related that she was high herself and had smoked a joint before coming on duty. When Officer Houston had entered the bar, Officer Michael Collins of the Tampa Police Department was already present in the lounge. Officer Collins, also working undercover, asked Brenda Brock where he would purchase some marijuana. When he asked Ms. Brock this question, she pointed out a black male named Chunky and said that he sold marijuana. Officer Collins then asked Brenda Brock to get Chunky for him and she did. The young male named Chunky approached Officer Collins and said he didn't have any marijuana but would have some later. At some time later in the evening, a young black male named Ace entered the lounge and Brenda Brock pointed to him and said to Officer Collins "that's him." Ace walked over to Officer Collins and asked if he was the guy looking for some marijuana. Officer Collins told him that he was but that he had promised to buy from someone else. Ace then asked Brenda Brock to verify to Officer Collins that he had been sent by Chunky and Brenda Brock said that he had in fact been sent by Chunky. As Ace had walked up to Officer Collins, he had three plastic bags of marijuana (cannabis) in his hands. He sold one of these bags to Officer Collins. Ace then sold a second bag of marijuana to a woman named Celeste who was sitting next to Officer Collins. Celeste was the bartender who had been relieved by Brenda Brock. Celeste purchased a $5 bag of marijuana from Ace and the exchange took place in the open and was observed by Officer Collins. After making the sales to Officer Collins and to Celeste, Ace approached Beverage Officer Houston who was still seated at the bar in a different area than Officer Collins and Celeste. He asked Officer Houston if she wanted to purchase some marijuana. She said yes and further stated that she wanted a $5 bag. He handed her a plastic bag containing marijuana and Officer Houston laid it on the bar in the open. Brenda Brock walked over and told her to put the bag up. Officer Houston then placed the bag of marijuana in her purse. Officer Houston then asked Brenda Brock if she had any papers she could use to roll a "joint". A joint is a slang term or street term referring to a marijuana cigarette. Brenda Brock said she did not have any papers. The purchase by Officer Houston of the marijuana took place in the open and was observed by Officer Collins from a different area of the bar. Later in the evening of July 27, 1983 two white females came into the lounge. Brenda Brock pointed to them and said those two ugly bitches called themselves prostitutes. At the time that the purchases of marijuana were made by Officer Collins, Celeste and Officer Houston, Brenda Brock was on duty as bartender and made no effort to stop the transactions. Mr. Samuel Williams had been in the lounge earlier in the evening, but was not present in the lounge when the marijuana transactions took place. On July 28, 1983, Officer Houston returned to the licensed premises approximately 7:00 p.m. When she arrived Samuel Williams was present in the lounge. Mr. Williams was talking with two men seated at the bar and was overheard by Officer Houston to say that before he would have those two prostitutes on the phone all night, he would have it taken out. Brenda Brock was the bartender on duty that evening and Officer Houston asked her if Ace was around. Ms. Brock replied that no one was around who had any reefer. Officer Houston left the lounge approximately 8:30 p.m. and returned at approximately 11:30 p.m. Upon entering, she ordered a drink from Brenda Brock and asked Ms. Brock if Ace had been back in because she wanted to get some reefer now. Ms. Brock replied that he was in the lounge and that she would get him for her. Shortly thereafter, Ace came over and asked Officer Houston what she wanted. She told him she wanted some reefer. Ace then walked away and shortly returned with a plastic bag containing marijuana. Officer Houston handed Ace a $20 bill and because Ace indicated he had no change, Officer Houston handed the $20 bill to Brenda Brock who gave her two $5 bills and one $10 bill as change. Officer Houston then handed a $5 bill to Ace as payment for the bag of marijuana. Also on the evening of July 28, 1983, while Officer Houston was seated at the bar, Brenda Brock told her a gentleman wanted to speak to her. The gentleman was Officer Collins, also working undercover. Officer Houston walked over and spoke to him briefly and the two of them returned to where Officer Houston had been seated in front of the cash register. There they discussed the price of a "date". A date is a common palance or street term for a sexual encounter for money or prostitution. A "date" is also referred to as a "trick". After agreeing upon a price, Officer Houston handed her purse and drink to Brenda Brock and asked Ms. Brock to hold them while she went outside to do a trick. Brenda accepted the purse and drink and Officer Houston left the bar with Officer Collins. Approximately 20 minutes later, Officer Houston returned and Brenda Brock gave her back her purse and her drink. At no time did Brenda Brock object to or inquire about Officer Houston's activities. On July 30, 1983, Beverage Officer Houston returned to The Blue Room Lounge at approximately 5:30 p.m. She entered the lounge and took a seat at the bar and ordered a drink from Brenda Brock who was on duty as bartender. While she was seated at the bar a young black female came up and asked her if she wanted to buy some reefer. Officer Houston had seen this young woman in the bar previously. She told her she did not want to buy any marijuana and after the young woman left she asked Brenda Brock who the young woman was. Brenda Brock said she was Ace's sister and in response to Officer Houston's questions, indicated that it was alright to buy reefer from her. Later that evening Ace came in and asked Officer Houston if she wanted to buy some marijuana. She told him that she had met his sister and Ace then called the young black female over and introduced her to Officer Houston as his sister. Officer Houston told Ace that she wanted to buy a $5 bag of marijuana. Ace then went over to his sister and brought back a clear plastic bag of marijuana. Officer Houston handed him a $20 bill and he indicated he did not have change. She then obtained change for the $20 bill from Brenda Brock and handed $5 of the change to Ace. Brenda Brock was standing right in front of her at the bar when she handed Ace the $5. In the early morning hours of July 30, 1983, just after midnight, Beverage Officer Hamilton entered the The Blue Room Lounge. He came over and talked with Officer Houston about a "date". While they haggled over a price Brenda Brock was seated directly across the bar from Beverage Officer Houston. After agreeing upon a price for the date, Officer Houston handed her purse to Brenda Brock and asked her to hold it while she did this trick. Brenda Brock took the purse and agreed to hold it. Beverage Officer Houston then left the lounge with Officer Hamilton. A few minutes later Beverage Officer Houston returned to the bar and Brenda Brock gave her her purse and put the drink which she had been drinking back on the bar. On August 1, 1983, Officer Houston returned to the licensed premises at approximately 9:30 p.m. She took the same seat near the cash register where she had sat on the previous evenings. Ace was present in the lounge. Officer Houston asked Brenda Brock to ask Ace to bring her a dime bag of marijuana. (A dime bag is a $10 bag. Brenda Brock went over to Ace and Ace then approached Officer Houston and asked her how much she wanted. At that time Officer Houston asked him if he could sell her some cocaine. He said he didn't have any but would have some later. Officer Houston then purchased two bags of marijuana from Ace for which she paid him $10. She handed him a $20 bill and he gave her $10 in change and when this exchange took place, Brenda Brock was in the area nearby on the other side of the bar. Officer Collins also went to the licensed premises on August 1, 1983 at approximately 10:55 p.m. After entering the lounge he told the barmaid, Brenda Brock, that he wanted to buy some good marijuana. She signaled to Ace and Ace came over to her. She whispered to Ace. Ace had walked up with a bag of marijuana already in his hand and after speaking with Brenda Brock he walked over and sold the bag of marijuana to Officer Collins for $5. Brenda Brock never objected to discussions regarding drugs or refused to get involved. There were no signs in the bar saying "No Drugs, No Loitering, No Prostitution", or signs with rules of management. On the evening of August 1, 1983, Officer Chester L. Copeland of the Tampa Police Department was also in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. While standing at the bar Officer Copeland talked with Brenda Brock and asked her if Carol Houston was "dating". Brenda Brock said she didn't know. Ms. Brock then walked over and whispered something to Carol Houston and then returned to where Officer Copeland was standing and informed him that Carol was "dating". Officer Copeland then went over to Officer Houston and conversed with her about the price of a date. Brenda Brock was standing nearby during this conversation and made no objection to the discussion. After agreeing on a price Officer Houston handed her purse to Brenda Brock and left the lounge with Officer Copeland. Officer Collins also present in the lounge, observed Officer Houston and Officer Copeland leave the lounge together. Prior to this occasion Officer Collins had asked Brenda Brock if Officer Houston dated. Ms. Brock had indicated she didn't know and he had told her to go ask. She did go ask Officer Houston and came back and informed Officer Collins that she did date. Officer Collins then asked Ms. Brock the price of a date and she said she didn't know. Officer Collins asked her to go ask. Ms. Brock walked over and spoke with Officer Houston and came back and said the price was $50. On this particular evening of August 1, 1983, after he observed Officer Houston and Officer Copeland leave the bar, Officer Collins asked Brenda Brock if Officer Houston was coming back. Ms. Brock said she didn't know. Officer Collins then asked her if Carol (Officer Houston) was out on a date and Brenda Brock replied that she thought so. On each of the occasions that Officer Collins discussed prostitution with Brenda Brock he instituted the conversation, but Ms. Brock freely discussed it and made no objection to the discussions. Shortly after she had left with Officer Copeland, Carol Houston returned to the licensed premises. Officer Collins then approached her and talked about a "date". After a short discussion he and Officer Houston left the bar together. On August 3, 1983, Officer Houston again returned to the licensed premises at approximately 10:30 p.m. She took a seat at the bar directly in front of where Brenda Brock was working as bartender. Seated near her at the bar was a latin male who kept asking her to come over. After she had been there a short time, Brenda Brock came over to Officer Houston and said that the latin male wanted to know how much she charged for a date. Officer Houston did not respond and Brenda Brock shouted to the latin male $100. A short time later Brenda Brock came back over to Officer Houston and said that the latin male said he had some cocaine. Officer Houston then told the latin male in a loud voice that he better also have lots of money. That same evening Brenda Brock also told Officer Houston that another male, Officer Collins, wanted a date and had some cocaine. On the evening of August 3, 1983, Officer Copeland also entered the licensed premises. While seated at the bar, Officer Copeland met the young man named Ace. Ace came over and asked if he wanted to buy a $5 bag of reefer. He indicated that he did and gave Ace $5, and Ace handed him a plastic baggie of marijuana. On August 9, 1983, Officer Houston entered the licensed premises approximately 10:30 p.m. She took a seat at the bar, ordered a drink, and asked Brenda Brock, the bartender on duty, if Ace was around. Brenda Brock indicated that he was over at the Pac-Man machine but he had left the lounge. Later Ace came in and Brenda Brock said "there he is" to Officer Houston. Ace came over to Officer Houston and said he had some cocaine and asked if she still wanted to buy some. She asked now how much it would cost. Ace indicated he had "nickel" ($5) pieces. Ace stated that it was back at his room and he left and then returned with a small foil pack. Officer Houston gave Ace $5 and he handed her the small foil pack. The small foil pack contained cocaine, a controlled substance under Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. That same evening Officer Houston observed two black males rolling some type of cigarette. She observed a plastic bag containing material similar to marijuana. She observed Brenda Brock obtain some rolling papers from behind the bar and hand them to the two males. On August 10, 1983, Officer Houston entered the licensed premises approximately 10:00 p.m. Ace was not in the lounge when she arrived, but approximately 10:15 p.m. Ace entered the lounge and came over and asked if she wanted to buy some "coke". "Coke" is a slang or street term for cocaine. She said she would like to buy some and he said he would have it later. At approximately 11:30 p.m., Ace came over to Officer Houston and stated that he had coke. Officer Houston told him that she wanted two hits and she then bought two foil packs from Ace. Officer Houston gave Ace a $20 bill but he had no change. She then handed the $20 bill to Brenda Brock who gave her change. She paid $10 for the two foil packs which contained cocaine. That same evening a black male was seated at the bar smoking a marijuana cigarette. Brenda Brock who was the bartender on duty stated "Do I smell dope?" She then looked at the male smoking the marijuana cigarette, but made no effort to stop him. On August 11, 1983, Officer Houston was again on the licensed premises. While seated at the bar, Officer Houston observed a white female smoking what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette Brenda Brock came over to Officer Houston and said that the white female had just gotten some reefer and wanted to know if she wanted some. Officer Houston told her that she did not. Mr. Samuel Williams the president of the Respondent corporation was the manager and owner of the licensed premises. During the time of the charges in this case, Mr. Williams would open the bar in the mornings and remain at the bar all day until the shift change at approximately 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. He was not present in the bar when the various transactions took place and was generally not present in the bar in the evening. A Mr. Raifield had been hired by him to manage the bar at night. However, Mr. Raifield had been terminated shortly before the transactions which are the subject of this case. Brenda Brock had become a full-time bartender on July 26, 1983. Prior to that time she had worked part-time and Mr. Williams had no indication that she used drugs or allowed other people to use drugs or solicit for prostitution on the licensed premises. At no time was Mr. Williams aware that Brenda Brock was permitting drug transactions and solicitations for prostitution to take place in the licensed premises. There is a substantial prostitution problem in the Nebraska Avenue area where the licensed premises is located. Mr. Williams has been active in civic attempts to eliminate the prostitution from this area. Within a year of the charges which are the subject of this case, Mr. Williams' life was threatened by a pimp operating along Nebraska Avenue and the tires and convertible top of his car were slashed. One of the reasons that Mr. Williams was not in the lounge in the evening was because he had been advised by the police that it would be safer for him to not be in the lounge in the evenings. This occurred following the threat on his life. Mr. Williams had no policy of random visits or inspections to the lounge in the evenings. There have been no prior complaints or charges brought against the Respondent's license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, and imposing a civil penalty of 1,000 and suspending Respondent's beverage license for a period of sixty (60) days. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Samuel Williams 3513 Rivergrove Drive Tampa, Florida Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether the facts alleged in the Notice to Show Cause in this case are true and whether those facts, to the extent that they are true, warrant revocation, suspension or other discipline of the license of Respondent. The Notice to Show Cause explicitly alleges several drug-related and one disorderly conduct violations on the licensed premises and implicitly alleges the Respondent's culpable responsibility for the violations under Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statues. The Notice To Show Cause also alleges that Respondent maintained the licensed premises as a place where controlled substances were illegally kept, sold, or used in violation of Sections 823.01 and 561.29(1)(e), Florida Statutes and Sections 893.13(2)(c) and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Rene Tamer, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-07334, series 2-COP, for the licensed premises known as El Emperador, located at 36-38 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. On January 27, 1986, Beverage Investigator Carlos Baixauli went to the licensed premises of El Emperador. While there, he saw a black latin female walk over to a dog that was lying on the floor. Baixauli heard the woman ask the dog in spanish if he (the dog) wanted to have sex. The woman then fondled the dog's penis for approximately 20 minutes. Night manager Luis Tamer was present when this incident occurred. On February 5, 1986, Investigator Baixauli, while inside of the licensed premises of El Emperador, arranged to purchase one gram of cocaine from a white latin male, known as El Indio (the Indian). El Indio told Baixauli that he needed the $60.00 "up front." When Baixauli expressed concern as to whether El Indio would return with the cocaine or his money, El Indio stated that he worked at El Emperador, was always around and could be trusted. Baixauli gave El Indio $60.00. El Indio left the premises, returned and handed Baixauli a small plastic package of cocaine wrapped in a white napkin. Baixauli opened the napkin and conspicuously inspected the package of cocaine by holding it up to approximately eye-level and tapping it with his fingers. Luis Tamer was present and behind the bar at the time. On February 10, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of El Emperador. While Baixauli was at the bar talking to on-duty manager Luis Tamer, El Indio went over and asked Baixauli if he wanted to buy some "yeyo," a Spanish term for cocaine. Baixauli agreed to purchase one gram of cocaine and gave El Indio $60.00. El Indio subsequently returned and again interrupted a conversation between Baixauli and Luis Tamer. El Indio handed Baixauli a matchbook, from which Baixauli removed a plastic package containing cocaine. Baixauli held up the package and showed to his partner Garcia. El Indio told Baixauli that he could be found at El Emperador between 2:00 and 4:00 A.M. performing clean-up duties and at 11:00 A.M. stocking the beer coolers or running errands for Rene Tamer. On February 12, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of El Emperador. While there, Rene Tamer asked Baixauli: "Are you still working for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages?", to which Baixauli feigned ignorance and replied that he did not know what Rene Tamer was talking about. Rene Tamer, Luis Tamer and other employees then briefly retired to the kitchen where Baixauli observed them "looking out" at him as if to get a better view. El Indio arrived at El Emperador at approximately 2:00 P.M. and began stacking beers and cleaning the premises. El Indio asked Baixauli if he wanted any cocaine and Baixauli handed him $60.00 in front of Luis Tamer. El Indio later returned and handed Baixauli a matchbook. Baixauli removed a plastic package containing cocaine from the matchbook, held it up while inspecting it and showed it to his partner, Garcia. Luis Tamer was at the front counter during the transaction. On February 13, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of El Emperador. El Indio asked Baixauli if he could bring him anything. Baixauli gave El Indio $60.00 for one gram of cocaine. At approximately 4:00 P.M. El Indio returned and handed Baixauli a plastic package containing cocaine, which Baixauli held up and tapped with his finger. Luis Tamer, the manager, was standing behind the bar and observed Baixauli's inspection of the cocaine. Luis Tamer smiled and said nothing. On February 17, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of Emperador. Baixauli went to the bar and struck up a conversation with Luis Tamer. El Indio went over and asked Baixauli if he needed anything, to which Baixauli replied "yes" and gave El Indio $60.00. El Indio returned with some cocaine while Baixauli was still speaking with Luis Tamer. Baixauli removed the plastic package of cocaine from the matchbook and held it up to inspect it. Once again, Luis Tamer just smiled. On February 24, 1986, Investigator Baixauli returned to El Emperador. Baixauli went over to off-duty employee Camaquay and struck up a conversation. El Indio approached them and asked Baixauli if he wanted any cocaine. Baixauli responded that he did and gave El Indio $60.00, at which time Camaquay started laughing and said that he had been told that Baixauli was a "Narc" and must be setting up El Indio. El Indio later returned to where Baixauli was seated at the bar talking to Camaquay and manager, Luis Tamer, and handed Baixauli a matchbook. Baixauli removed a plastic package of cocaine from the matchbook and held it up for inspection, tapping it with his finger. Neither Camaquay nor Luis Tamer said anything to Baixauli. Later on in the evening of February 24, 1986, Baixauli asked Camaquay if El Indio was coming back to El Emperador. Camaquay told Baixauli not to worry, because he, Camaquay, could get cocaine from the same source as El Indio. Baixauli, after obtaining change from Luis Tamer, gave Camaquay $30.00 for a half-gram of cocaine. Camaquay later returned and tossed a plastic package of cocaine onto the bar in front of Baixauli. Baixauli held up the bag at eye level and tapped it with his fingers in view of manager Luis Tamer and other patrons. On February 26, 1986, Investigator Baixauli went to El Emperador and asked Luis Tamer if Camaquay was in. Camaquay went over to Baixauli, showed him a plastic bag containing marijuana and asked if he wanted to smoke. Baixauli said no. Camaquay then went into the restroom from which Baixauli then smelled a strong odor of marijuana. Manager Luis Tamer asked Baixauli where Camaquay was and Baixauli told him that Camaquay was in the bathroom smoking marijuana. Later at El Emperador on February 26, 1986, El Indio approached Baixauli and asked if he needed anything. Baixauli gave El Indio $60.00 for some cocaine. El Indio later returned and gave Baixauli a matchbook. Baixauli removed a plastic package of cocaine from the matchbook, held it up and tapped it with his fingers. Luis Tamer was standing behind the bar looking at Baixauli and Camaquay was standing by the pool table looking at Baixauli. After Baixauli received his cocaine from El Indio on February 26, 1986, Camaquay approached several patrons playing pool and asked if they wanted to buy drugs. Camaquay showed them a plastic package of marijuana which he took from his pocket, in full view of Baixauli, and Luis Tamer the manager, who were all looking in his direction. After Camaquay's attempt to sell marijuana to the pool playing patrons, he approached Baixauli and asked if he could bring him anything. When Baixauli agreed, Camaquay left the premises and shortly returned, tossing a plastic package of cocaine onto the bar in front of Baixauli and Luis Tamer, who was standing behind the bar in front of Baixauli. Baixauli held up the plastic bag and tapped it with his fingers. On March 4, 1986, Investigator Baixauli returned to El Emperador. Luis Tamer yelled to El Indio that his "friends" were there. El Indio approached Baixauli and Baixauli gave him $60.00. While El Indio was out obtaining Baixauli's order, on-duty employee Camaquay went over to Baixauli and asked if he wanted to buy some cocaine. Baixauli said "yes" and handed Camaquay $30.00 over the bar. El Indio returned shortly with a plastic package containing cocaine. Baixauli held up the package and showed it to his partner, Garcia. Camaquay later returned and handed Baixauli a plastic package of cocaine. Baixauli raised the bag and tapped it with his fingers. On March 11, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited El Emperador. Luis Tamer was present and tending the bar. El Indio approached Baixauli and asked him if he needed any cocaine. Baixauli said "yes" and gave El Indio $30.00 for a half gram of cocaine. El Indio later returned and handed Baixauli a matchbook containing a plastic package of cocaine. Baixauli performed his usual post-sale inspection of the cocaine by holding the package up to approximately eye-level and tapping it with his fingers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking the alcoholic beverage license number 23-07334, series 2-COP, held by Respondent, Rene Tamer. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 22nd day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Mr. Rene Tamer El Emperador 36-38 Ocean Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33149 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Kearney Secretary The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire General Counsel 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offense alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 14, 2012, and, if so, what penalties, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact PTL Associates, Inc., d/b/a 7 Eleven Store No. 32599A (PTL), is a convenience store located at 4401 Colonial Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33912. Lucia D'Costa is the sole shareholder of PTL. Since October 12, 2011, and at all times material to this case, the Respondent has been licensed by the Petitioner to sell alcoholic beverages under license number BEV 4604710, Series 2APS. According to a document titled "Record of Inspection-- Official Notice," on July 19, 2012, an employee of the Respondent sold an alcoholic beverage to an underage individual after checking the individual's identification. The document advised the Respondent that a follow-up compliance check would take place within the subsequent 12 weeks. The Petitioner took no disciplinary action against the Respondent based on the July 19, 2012, compliance check. The Respondent has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary proceeding related to the license referenced herein. On August 2, 2012, the Petitioner conducted an undercover compliance check as a follow-up to a compliance check done on July 19, 2012, to determine whether the Respondent was selling alcoholic beverages to underage individuals. The compliance check was performed by two of the Petitioner's agents, Jennifer Nash and David Foraker, with the assistance of a 16- year-old female identified as Investigative Aide FT0205 (IA). On August 2, the IA entered the store accompanied by Agent Nash, while Agent Foraker remained in the vehicle outside the store. Ms. D'Costa was present in the store, behind the counter and operating multiple store sales registers. Two employees were also present, occupied with various cleaning tasks. The IA walked to the beverage cooler and withdrew a 16 ounce Coors Light, carried it to the counter area, and stood in line to pay for the beer. Ms. D'Costa took the beer from the IA, scanned the beer into the sales register, and completed the transaction. Ms. D'Costa did not ask the IA to produce any form of identification to verify the IA's age. While the transaction occurred, Agent Nash observed the AI and Ms. D'Costa, initially from inside the store, and then from outside while looking through large windows on the storefront. Although while in the store Agent Nash spoke to Ms. D'Costa to ask for driving directions, Agent Nash did not interfere with the sale of beer to the IA. There is no evidence that Agent Nash prompted Ms. D'Costa to sell the beer to the IA, or that she interfered in the transaction in any way. Some, but not all, of the Respondent's cash registers have software to prompt a register operator to verify a customer's age during the sale of an alcoholic beverage. When Ms. D'Costa sold the beer to the IA, she used a register that did not prompt the sales clerk to verify the customer's age. Ms. D'Costa testified that she does not usually operate the sales registers and that the clerks are usually responsible for the counter operation. She testified that, at the time of the compliance check on August 2, 2012, the two employees present were cleaning the store in anticipation of a monthly inspection, and, therefore, Ms. D'Costa was working alone at the sales registers. The inspection referenced by Ms. D'Costa is a routine monthly inspection conducted by corporate representatives at a time unknown to the licensee until the representatives arrive. It is reasonable to presume, given the nature of the inspection, that store cleaning would be an ongoing obligation of a licensee. The testimony fails to suggest that a licensee is exempt from compliance with laws prohibiting underage alcohol sales when employees are busy. After completing the purchase, the IA left the store and delivered the beer to Agent Foraker. The Petitioner's agents then went into the store to notify Ms. D'Costa that the transaction had taken place and to deliver to her a "Record of Inspection--Official Notice" and a "Notice to Appear." Ms. D'Costa testified at the hearing that she believed the IA to be at least 30 years of age on August 2, 2012. The IA participated in seven undercover compliance checks on August 2, 2012. The Respondent was the only store that did not check the IA's identification during a compliance check. Ms. D'Costa also testified that the franchise agreement could be breached by a suspension of the alcoholic beverage license. The franchise agreement was not offered into evidence at the hearing. The Petitioner has a written policy of not utilizing children or other relatives of the Petitioner's employees as IAs. At the time the compliance check was conducted on August 2, 2012, the Petitioner was apparently unaware that the IA was related to an employee of the Petitioner. After the Petitioner learned of the relationship, the IA was not again utilized in making compliance checks. The evidence fails to establish that the relationship between the IA and an employee of the Petitioner prompted Ms. D'Costa to sell the beer to the IA without checking whether the IA was of legal age to purchase alcohol.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order suspending the license referenced herein for a period of seven days and imposing a fine of $1,000 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew R. Fier, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 42 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Timothy Joseph Perry, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant and Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Allen Douglas, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020
Findings Of Fact Bay Street, Inc., trading as Howard's G" String, is located at 102 E. Bay Street, Jacksonville, Florida. This facility has been licensed by Petitioner at all times relevant to these proceedings, (Beverage License No. 269l9, Series 4-COP) Case No. 81-1825 contains ten counts, five of which were voluntarily dismissed by Petitioner. The remaining counts involve alleged lewd and lascivious acts and an alleged offer to commit prostitution. These charges were based on an undercover investigation by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office in May, June, August and September, 1980. The testimony of Officer Beacham established that on May 8, 1980, the dancer Karen Wood rubbed a male patron's groin with her buttocks and the dancer Rosetta Smith allowed a male patron to rub her groin area. This conduct took place while the dancers were performing for individual customers. In both cases, their breasts were bare and in close proximity to the patrons' faces. The testimony of Officer Bennett established that on June 26, 1980, the dancer Catherine E. Maryon permitted a male patron to fondle her groin area and to fondle her nude breasts. This conduct continued over a period of about five minutes while Maryon was performing for the patron. The testimony of Officer Hall established that on August 30, 1980, the dancer Darlene Veldon Hughes allowed a male patron to massage her genital area and the insides of her legs while she was performing for him. She wore a bikini brief, but was otherwise nude during this procedure. The testimony of Officer Perret established that on September 2, 1980, the dancer Trudy A. Blincoe offered to engage in sexual intercourse with him for $100. This was established by the nature of their discussion and her statement that she would give "no oral sex, just straight sex." Petitioner conducted a separate investigation of Respondent in February, 1981, through its beverage officers who visited the licensed premises in undercover capacities. This investigation culminated in the 29 charges contained in Case No. 81-1824. The testimony of Beverage Officer Johnson established that the dancer Belinda asked him to buy her a drink on February 11, 1981. The drink was delivered by the bartender-waitress, Kathy, who received the money for the drink. Kathy also approached Johnson and the dancer Laura on that date, and asked if Laura wanted another drink. Laura then asked Johnson for a drink, which he purchased from Kathy. Johnson's testimony further established that the dancer Ursala Kadlecik asked him to purchase a drink for her on February 27, 1981. The testimony of Beverage Officer Arguelles established that on February 18, 1981, the dancer Barbie asked him to buy drinks for her on two occasions. Arguelles purchased the drinks as requested. The testimony of Beverage Officer Lachman established that on February 11, 1981, the dancers Susan and Elizabeth each asked him to buy drinks for them, and on February 14 and 27, 1981, Susan again asked Lachman to buy drinks for her. On February 18, 1981, the dancers Karen, Angie and April each asked Lachman to buy drinks for them. He purchased the drinks as requested on each of these occasions. The testimony of Beverage Officer Balaguer established that on February 12, 1981, the dancer Belinda asked him to buy her a drink and on February 18, 1981, the dancer Laura asked him to buy her a drink. He purchased the drinks as requested. The testimony of Beverage Officer Sams established that on February 25, 1981, the dancer Belinda asked him to buy her a drink. She repeated the request and Sams purchased the drink. The testimony of Beverage Officer Johnson established that on February 12, 1981, the dancer Marty approached him and performed her dance at his table. During this procedure, she rubbed his hand against her groin and also held it against her nude breast. The testimony of Beverage Officer Lachman established that the dancer Susan performed dances at his table on February 25 and 27, 1981. On each occasion she rubbed her nude breasts against his face. The testimony of Beverage Officer Johnson established that on February 5, 1981, the dancer Susan suggested a "date" to him. She stated that the price was $75 for the night and $25 as a penalty for her to leave the bar. She also stated that they would go to a motel and she would do "anything he wanted." Johnson's testimony further established that on February 11, 1981, the dancer Lisa suggested that she and Johnson go to a "party" at a motel. She stated that the price for this would be $30 for the bar plus either $50 for one- half hour, $100 for an hour or $200 for the whole-night. She also said Johnson could do "anything" so long as he did not "get rough." The testimony of Beverage Officer Arguelles established that on February 28, 1981, the dancer Lucy Brightwell offered to "go out" with him. She stated that the charge for this service was $100, which included $25 to leave the bar. She told Arguelles that he could do anything he wanted except "the back door." She also motioned to her vaginal area and stated, "straight fuck." The testimony of Beverage Officer Lachman established that on February 27, 1981, he discussed leaving the bar with the dancer Ramona Strickland. The discussion involved three dancers leaving with the three undercover beverage officers (Lachman, Sams and Rowe) . Strickland stated that the price would include $25 for each dancer to leave the bar and a total charge of $248. Lachman later paid the bartender-waitress, Kathy, $88 for the three dancers to leave the bar. The testimony of Beverage Officer Sams established that he discussed going to a hotel room with the dancer Belinda on February 27, 1981. She stated that the charge for this would be $25 to leave the bar and $50 per one-half hour for each dancer. The testimony of Beverage Officer Rowe established that on February 25, 1981, he discussed "going out" with the dancers Laura and Belinda. He asked Laura if he would "get his money s worth," and she said that he would and that she was "good in bed." Rowe continued the discussion on February 27, 1981, when he asked Laura if the "deal was still on." She stated that it was and asked him if he had made room arrangements. Laura also stated that she did not want "to fuck" in the same room with others. Rowe also discussed the transaction with the bartender-waitress, Kathy, who told him to meet the dancers at the side door and to have them back in 30 minutes. Although no records were produced to establish that the dancers identified herein were employed by Respondent, the fact of employment was evident from the control exercised over them by the bartender-waitress, their costumes, their periodic dances on stage and their movements from one customer to another while performing individual dances and collecting fees for this service. Testimony in this regard was given by all Petitioner's witnesses and was not rebutted by Respondent. It was not shown that the identification of some dancers by their first names or nicknames only created any ambiguity in the charges or prejudice to Respondent.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner find Respondent guilty as charged in Counts l through 7, 9 through 17, 19, 21 through 24 and 26 through 29, Case No. 81-1824, and Count 9, Case No. 81-1825. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner dismiss all other charges against Respondent. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner suspend Respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 26-919 for a period of 45 days. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 26th day of August, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the stipulations of the parties, the documentary evidence presented and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: The Respondent, Ceola Virginia Cutliff is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License No. 23-06844, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Club Night Shift, located at 6704 N.W. 18th Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. On or about September 18, 1987, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) Investigators R. Campbell, R. Thompson and C. Houston entered the licensed premises as part of an ongoing narcotics task force investigation. An individual named "Frances" was on duty at the bar. The investigators observed Frances sell what appeared to be narcotics to several patrons on the licensed premises. At approximately 7:50 p.m., Investigator Houston approached Frances and asked to purchase narcotics. Frances and Investigator Houston then went to the rear of the bar where Frances sold 2 pieces of "crack" cocaine to Investigator Houston for $10.00. Approximately fifteen minutes later, Investigator Campbell asked Frances if he could purchase narcotics. Frances presented a piece of rock cocaine which Investigator Campbell purchased for $5.00. This transaction took place in plain view of other individuals in the licensed premises. Frances, upon making a sale, would take the money and give it to a black male called "Spider" a/k/a Arthur Dorsey. Spider would then retain the money. On September 19, 1987, Investigators Houston and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as Club Night Shift. On duty that night, was a black female known as "Josephine". Spider was also on the licensed premises positioned in the D.J.'s booth, apparently trying to fix a speaker. Houston and Thompson had observed a black male, named "Gary", exchanging an unknown substance for money with various individuals, immediately outside the licensed premises. Gary, upon receiving money in exchange for the unknown substance, would go into the licensed premises and hand the money to Spider. Later that evening, Investigator Houston noticed that Spider had a brown paper bag in his hand. Gary and Spider proceeded to the bathroom on the licensed premises. After exiting the bathroom, Gary left the premises and Spider went behind the bar and began counting a large amount of money onto the counter of the bar. Spider placed the money in his back pocket. Investigator Thompson then inquired whether Spider could sell him some crack cocaine. Spider acknowledged that he could and proceeded with Thompson to the rear of the bar, where Spider sold Thompson 20 pieces of rock cocaine for $100.00. On September 22, 1987, Investigators Houston and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as Club Night Shift. Bartender Josephine-was on duty at that time along with another black female known as "Niecey". When the investigators inquired as to the whereabouts of Spider, Niecey replied that "he went home to cook up the stuff because they were very low on supply." Niecey reiterated the above statement on numerous occasions when individuals would enter the bar searching for Spider. At approximately 10:30 p.m., Spider appeared on the licensed premises with a brown paper bag in his possession. Patrons that had been waiting outside the premises came inside and Niecey locked the doors to the front and rear exits of the bar. Spider went to the D.J.'s booth and pbured the contents of the paper bag onto the counter inside the booth. The bag contained approximately 200 small zip-lock bags containing suspected crack cocaine. The patrons who had been waiting outside for the arrival of Spider then proceeded to line up in front of the D.J.'s booth in order to make purchases. Niecey would take the money from the individual patrons and Spider would deliver the crack cocaine. Investigator Houston got in line and upon arriving at the booth, purchased 20 packets of crack cocaine from Spider in exchange for $100.00. These transactions took place in plain view on the licensed premises. On September 23, 1987, Investigators Houston, Thompson and Campbell entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. The barmaid on duty was Josephine. Spider was positioned in the D.J.'s booth making sales to patrons of what appeared to be crack cocaine. Investigator Campbell walked over to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase ten (10) pieces of crack cocaine from Spider. Approximately 200 zip-lock packets of suspected crack cocaine were positioned in front of Spider. Spider motioned for Campbell" to pick them out." Campbell then picked out ten (10) packets in exchange for $50.00 which he gave to Spider. This transaction occurred in plain view of other individuals on the licensed premises. Before leaving Spider went behind the bar, obtained a .357 magnum pistol, placed it inside his pants and exited the premises. On September 29, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. The bartender on duty was Josephine. Shortly after the investigators arrived, Spider appeared on the premises and went behind the bar where he took a pistol from inside his pants and placed it under the bar counter. Spider then removed a brown paper bag from under the bar counter and went to the D.J. s booth. Investigator Thompson proceeded to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase two (2) large pieces of crack cocaine. Spider reached into the bag and gave Investigator Thompson two (2) large pieces of crack cocaine in exchange for $100.00. On October 3, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. Investigator Campbell approached an unknown black male who Campbell had seen selling narcotics on prior occasions. Campbell made inquiries relative to the purchase of cocaine and the unknown black male indicated that he could sell Campbell crack cocaine. The unknown male then gave two five dollar ($5.00) pieces of crack cocaine to Investigator Campbell in exchange for $10.00. This transaction took place in plain view on the licensed premises. On October 6, 1987, Investigators Campbell and Thompson again entered the licensed premises known as the Club Night Shift. Shortly after the investigators arrived, they observed Spider on the premises selling crack cocaine to patrons from the D.J.'s booth. Subsequently, Investigator Thompson went to the D.J.'s booth and asked to purchase twenty (20) pieces of crack cocaine. In response thereto, Spider left the licensed premises and proceeded to a pickup truck parked outside. Spider then retrieved a brown paper bag from the vehicle, returned to Investigator Thompson and handed him twenty (20) pieces of crack cocaine in exchange for $100.00. The substance purchased on this occasion was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. The Respondent licensee admitted to being an absentee owner. The Respondent did not maintain payroll, employment or other pertinent business records. The licensee was aware that drugs were a major problem in the area surrounding the premises and that drug transactions were known to take place immediately outside of the licensed premises. The licensee did nothing to prevent the incursion of narcotics trafficking onto the licensed premises. The licensee, CeoIa Cutliff, is engaged to Arthur Dorsey. Ms. Cutliff gave Mr. Dorsey a key to the premises and knew or should have known that he was operating in the capacity of a manager on the licensed premises. Josephine, the bartender generally on duty, referred to Mr. Dorsey as "boss man" and Mr. Dorsey directed her activities in the licensed premises. Mr. Dorsey a/k/a Spider utilized the licensed premises as if they were his own and was operating in the capacity of a manager at the Club Night Shift.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent's beverage license 23-06844, Series 2-COP, located in Miami, Dade County, Florida, be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of November, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4482 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. 2. (Petitioner has two paragraphs numbered 2) Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. 8. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 9. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10, 11 & 12. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent (None Submitted). COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Moody, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 R. Scott Boundy, Esquire 901 E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Daniel Bosanko Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
