The Issue Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 28, 1976, one Leouigildo Hernandez, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in his possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance; cocaine, and whether said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 in U.S. currency, and whether said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage license premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage license premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine contrary to Section 893.13, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 30, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage license premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc. d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $100 U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, on the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about November 4 & 5, 1976, one Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales, an agent, servant or employee of the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did have in her possession, with the intent to sell, a controlled substance, to wit; cocaine, and whether or not said cocaine was sold to one E. Santiago, for the price of $2,200, U.S. currency, and whether or not said sale was consummated at the aforementioned beverage licensed premises, on the aforementioned date, contrary to Section 893.13, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. A count seven was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. A count eight was originally charged against the Respondent, but that charge was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing. Whether or not on or about November 20, 1976, a bottle of non-tax paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered on the licensed premises, and whether or not said bottle bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid, contrary to Section 562.16, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about September 1, 1976, and continuing until on or about November 24, 1976, the beverage licensed premises of Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, did maintain a public nuisance, to wit; maintain a place where controlled substances were illegally sold, kept or used, contrary to Section 823.10, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not investigation revealed that on or about November 20, 1976, the Respondent, its agent, servant, or employee, did remove, deposit, or conceal a beverage, to wit, one (1) 2,000 cc bottle of Ron Medeliin Rum, with the intent to defraud the state of tax, contrary to Section 562.32, F.S. and Section 562.30, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this complaint the Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, was the holder of a license no. 23-1901, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, and that license was for the premises located at 1601 Collins Avenue Miami Beach, Florida. The management of the licensed premises makes arrangements to hire entertainment in the form of musicians. This arrangement is made through agreement with the band leader. One of these agreements was made with a band leader who had as his band member Leouigildo Hernandez. On September 28, 1976, Officer E. Santiago, of the Miami Beach, Florida, Police Department entered the licensed premises and while in the licensed premises entered into discussion with Hernandez. Hernandez left the bar proper and came back with an amount of a substance known as cocaine. Santiago paid Hernandez $100 for the quantity of cocaine and the sale was consummated in the licensed premises. On October 30, 1976, Officer Santiago returned to the licensed premises. Santiago had been in the licensed premises many times prior to that occasion. Among the persons he had seen in the bar was Thelma Bilbao, a/k/a Thelma Clemencia Cruz, a/k/a Thelma Morales. Morales was the girlfriend of Anthony Bilbao, one of the principals in the ownership of the licensed premises. Morales had also served Santiago drinks in the bar on more than 50 occasions. On the evening in question, October 30, 1976, discussion was entered into between Santiago and Morales about the purchase of a substance known as cocaine. Morales produced a quantity of the cocaine and reached across the bar that she was standing behind and handed the quantity of the substance cocaine to Santiago, who was in the area where customers were served at the bar. Santiago paid her $100 for the cocaine. In the late hours of November 4 and early hours of November 5, 1976, Santiago again entered the licensed premises, his purpose for going to the licensed premises was to purchase a large quantity of cocaine from Morales. This arrangement had been entered into based upon the sample of cocaine that had been provided him on October 30, 1976. Morales left the licensed premises and returned 3 to 5 minutes later with a quantity of cocaine, for which Santiago paid her $2,200. On one of the above occasions of a purchase of cocaine from Morales, while in the licensed premises, Morales had conferred with Anthony Bilbao. In the course of that conference, Bilbao told Morales to be careful to whom she sold because "you don't know him", meaning Santiago. In the course of an investigation in the license premises on November 28, 1976, a bottle of non-tax-paid alcoholic beverage, labeled Ron Medeliin Rum, was discovered in the licensed premises, which bore no federal strip stamp or any other indication that the lawfully levied federal and/or state taxes had been paid. The size of the bottle was 2,000 cc.
Recommendation Based upon the violations as established in the hearing on the notice to show cause, it is recommended that the license no. 23-1901 held by Respondent, Intimo Lounge, Inc., d/b/a Intimo Lounge, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee ,Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Michael B. Solomon, Esquire Division of Beverage Theodore M. Trushin, Law Office The Johns Building 420 Lincoln Road, Number 600 725 Bronough Street Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Nathaniel Barone, Esquire 777 N.E. 79th Street Miami, Florida 33138
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finding Of Facts and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that petitioner Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco,enter a final order: Holding respondent Clarece Hicks d/b/a Sand-spur Saloon guilty under the third charge in the Notice To Show Cause; Imposing a civil penalty of $500; and Dismissing the other charges in the Notice To Show Cause. Jurisdiction is retained for purposes of the ruling on the Division's Motion For Costs And Attorneys Fees, served February 25, 1985, filed simultaneously with this Recommended Order and for purposes of determining the Division's reasonable expenses, including attorney fees. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1985.
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: (1) declaring that Southeast Liquor Importers has not shown "good cause" under Section 565.095(5), Florida Statutes (1983), for withdrawal of the registered brand Aguardiente Antioqueno from Florida Beverage Corporation; and (2) prohibiting Southeast Liquor Importers from withdrawing Aguardiente Antioqueno from Florida Beverage Corporation. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of September, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1984.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-1.0101/ is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and whether the 1997 repeal of Rule 61A-4.058 was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner TWM is a licensed retail vendor of alcoholic beverages. It operates nine stores in Florida that sell alcoholic beverages, including distilled spirits, by the package. TWM was created in March 2005. Respondent ABT is the state agency authorized by Section 561.02, Florida Statutes, to regulate the alcoholic beverage industry, including manufacturers, distributors and vendors of alcoholic beverages within the State of Florida. Intervenor ABC is a licensed retail vendor of alcoholic beverages, holding in excess of 100 licenses authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages, including distilled spirits, by the package. The Governing Statutes Florida has a three-tiered system of alcoholic beverage distribution. Manufacturers produce the product and sell to distributors, distributors sell the product at wholesale to licensed vendors, and vendors sell the product to the general public at retail. § 561.14(1)-(3), Fla. Stat. The federal government and many states, including Florida, enacted "Tied House Evil" laws to prevent the "evils" that arose from relationships between vendors of alcoholic beverages and manufacturers and distributors which caused the vendors to be controlled by or "tied" to the distributors and manufacturers. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., v. Schenck Co., 662 So. 2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Musleh v. Fulton Distributing Co. of Florida, 254 So. 2d 815, 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Florida's Tied House Evil law, set forth in Subsection 561.42(1), Florida Statutes, provides: No licensed manufacturer or distributor of any of the beverages herein referred to shall have any financial interest, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or business of any vendor licensed under the beverage laws; nor shall such licensed manufacturer or distributor assist any vendor by any gifts or loans of money or property of any description or by the giving of any rebates of any kind whatsoever. No licensed vendor shall accept, directly or indirectly, any gift or loan of money or property of any description or any rebates from any such licensed manufacturer or distributor; provided, however, that this does not apply to any bottles, barrels, or other containers necessary for the legitimate transportation of such beverages or to advertising materials and does not apply to the extension of credit, for liquors sold, made strictly in compliance with the provisions of this section. "In-store servicing" of alcoholic beverages refers generally to distributors or manufacturers placing stock on shelves, rotating stock, and affixing prices on the vendor's premises. ABT interprets Subsection 561.42(1), Florida Statutes, as prohibiting in-store servicing of alcoholic beverages because it constitutes a gift of "free labor" to the vendor. TWM does not dispute ABT's interpretation of Subsection 561.42(1), Florida Statutes, as prohibiting in-store servicing, but TWM contends that subsequent legislation resulted in the removal of the prohibition. In 1975, Section 561.423, Florida Statutes, created an exception for in-store servicing of beer and malt beverages: Nothing in s. 561.42 or any other provision of the Beverage Law shall prohibit a distributor of beer or malt beverages from providing in-store servicing of malt beverages. "In-store servicing" as used herein means quality control procedures which include, but are not limited to: rotation of malt beverages on the vendor's shelves, rotation and placing of malt beverages in vendor's coolers, proper stacking and maintenance of appearance and display of malt beverages on vendor's shelves, price stamping of malt beverages on vendor's licensed premises, and moving or resetting any product or display in order to display a distributor's own product when authorized by the vendor. In 1977, Subsection 561.424(2), Florida Statutes, created an exception for in-store servicing of wine: Nothing in s. 561.42 or any other provision of the Alcoholic Beverage Law shall prohibit a distributor of wine from providing in-store servicing of wine sold by such distributor to a vendor. "In-store servicing" as used herein means: placing the wine on the vendor's shelves and maintaining the appearance and display of said wine on the vendor's shelves in the vendor's licensed premises; placing the wine not so shelved or displayed in a storage area designated by the vendor, which is located in the vendor's licensed premises; rotation of vinous beverages; and price stamping of vinous beverages in a vendor's licensed premises. This section shall not apply to distilled spirits. (Emphasis added) No similar statute was created to expressly authorize in-store servicing of distilled spirits by distributors. The Legislature's creation of express exceptions for in-store servicing of beer and wine and the use of the wording, "This section shall not apply to distilled spirits," in Subsection 561.424(2), Florida Statutes, indicate a legislative intent to treat distilled spirits differently and to prohibit in-store servicing of distilled spirits.3/ The only evidence in the record that tends to explain why distilled spirits were treated differently from beer and wine with regard to in-store servicing is a statement made by Charles Bailes of ABC in a letter to Ms. Alsobrook that, "Historically, in-store servicing of perishable products such as wine and beer have been allowed so as to maximize freshness and minimize the chances of consumers purchasing spoiled merchandise." Mr. Bailes goes on to state that distilled spirits are not perishable. Rule 7A-4.058 In 1984, Subsection 561.42(12), Florida Statutes, was amended to add the following: The Division shall make reasonable rules governing promotional displays and advertising which rules shall not conflict with or be more stringent than the federal regulations pertaining to such promotional displays and advertising furnished vendors by distributors and manufacturers. ABT responded to the 1984 directive in Subsection 561.42(12), Florida Statutes, by promulgating Rule 7A-4.058, entitled "Promotional Displays and Advertising," which became effective in January 1985. The rule adopted certain federal regulations by reference: The Division adopts by reference the provisions of subpart D, Chapter 6, of Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, regulations 6.81 through 6.101 inclusive. It shall be a violation of Section 561.42, F.S., for any vendor to accept or for any manufacturer or distributor to give a retailer promotional displays, advertising or other such items, services or assistance governed by the regulations adopted by subsection (1) when given in a manner not in strict conformity with the adopted regulations. Subpart D was entitled "Exceptions" and established exceptions to the federal Tied House Evil law. It included exceptions that clearly related to promotional displays and advertising, such as "Product Displays," "Inside Signs," "Retailer Advertising Specialties," "Consumer Advertising Specialties," and "Advertising Services." However, Subpart D also included exceptions on subjects that did not appear to involve promotional displays or advertising, such as "Educational Seminars" (for the employees of vendors), "Participation in Retailer Association Activities," "Joint Ventures," "Coil Cleaning Service," and "Stocking, Rotation and Pricing Services." Section 6.99 of the federal regulations, entitled "Stocking, Rotation and Pricing Services," provided: Industry members may, at a retail establishment, stock, rotate and affix the price to distilled spirits, wine, or malt beverages which they sell, provided products of other industry members are not altered or disturbed. The rearranging or resetting of all or part of a store or liquor department is not hereby authorized. Because stocking, rotation, and pricing services are synonymous with in-store servicing, ABT's adoption of Section 6.99 by reference in Rule 7A-4.058, authorized in-store servicing of distilled spirits by distributors and manufacturers in Florida, in apparent conflict with the governing statutes. The adoption by reference of Section 6.99 also conflicted with Section 561.423 and Subsection 561.424(2), Florida Statutes, because these statutes only authorized in-store servicing of beer and wine by distributors, but the federal regulation authorized in-store servicing by "industry members," a term that includes manufacturers. Soon after the adoption of Rule 7A-5.048, ABT's 1986 compliance guidelines included a statement that "27 CFR 6.99 and F.S.S. 561.424" authorize "manufacturers or distributors of distilled spirits or wine to stock, rotate and affix the price to their products at a licensed retailer's premises." ABT's 1988, 1993, and 1995 compliance guidelines contained the same statement.4/ Promotional Displays and Advertising The term "promotional displays and advertising" is not defined in Chapter 561, Florida Statutes, but insight into the Legislature's intended meaning for the term can be gleaned from the 1985 amendment of Subsection 561.42(12), Florida Statutes. Following the sentence that directs ABT to adopt rules regarding promotional displays and advertising, the 1985 amendment added "provided, however," followed by eight new paragraphs dealing with specific situations involving promotional displays and advertising:" If a manufacturer or distributor of malt beverage provides a vendor with expendable retailer advertising specialties such as trays, coasters, mats, menu cards, napkins, cups, glasses, thermometers, and the like, such items shall be sold at a price not less than the actual cost to the industry member who initially purchased them, without limitation in total dollar value of such items sold to a vendor. Without limitation in total dollar value of such items provided to a vendor, a manufacturer or distributor of malt beverage may rent, loan without charge for an indefinite duration, or sell durable retailer advertising specialties such as clocks, pool table lights, and the like, which bear advertising matter. If a manufacturer or distributor of malt beverage provides a vendor with consumer advertising specialties such as ashtrays, T-shirts, bottle openers, shopping bags, and the like, such items shall be sold at a price not less than the actual cost to the industry member who initially purchased them, but may be sold without limitation in total value of such items sold to a vendor. A manufacturer or distributor of malt beverage may provide consumer advertising specialties described in paragraph (c) to consumers on any vendor's licensed premises. Coupons redeemable by vendors shall not be furnished by distributors of beer to consumers. Manufacturers or distributors of beer shall not conduct any sampling activities that include tasting of their product at a vendor's premises licensed for off-premises sales only. Manufacturers and distributors of beer shall not engage in cooperative advertising with vendors. Distributors of beer may sell to vendors draft equipment and tapping accessories at a price not less than the cost to the industry member who initially purchased them, except there is no required charge, and a distributor may exchange any parts which are not compatible with a competitor's system and are necessary to dispense the distributor's brands. A distributor of beer may furnish to a vendor at no charge replacement parts of nominal intrinsic value, including, but not limited to, washers, gaskets, tail pieces, hoses, hose connections, clamps, plungers, and tap markers. None of the examples in the statute suggest that in-store servicing of alcoholic beverages comes within the Legislature's intended meaning of promotional displays and advertising. The common meanings of the words "stocking," "rotation," and "pricing" do not match up with the common meanings of the words "promotional displays" and "advertising." As noted above, there were other federal exceptions adopted by reference in Rule 7A-4.058 that involved neither promotional displays nor advertising. ABT offered no explanation for the agency's indiscriminate adoption by reference of all the federal regulations in Subpart D, including those regulations that were not related to promotional displays and advertising. ABT now acknowledges that the 1985 rule was "non-compliant" with statutory law. TWM presented no evidence to show that stocking, rotation, and pricing are, as a matter of fact, forms of promotional displays or advertising. Instead, TWM argues that ABT's 1985 adoption by reference of Section 6.99 and ABT's subsequent representations that in-store servicing of distilled spirits was authorized in Florida, "determined" and "defined" in-store servicing as a promotional display or advertising. The evidence shows that from 1985 to 1995, ABT's actions were consistent with the agency's interpretation of the term "promotional displays and advertising" as including in- store servicing. However, ABT changed its position sometime after 1995. In 1997, ABT repealed Rule 7A-4.058 (which had been renumbered Rule 61A-4.058). In the same year, ABT adopted Rule 61A-1.010, which did not adopt any federal regulations by reference and abandoned the subject of stocking, rotation, and pricing services, along with some of the other subjects covered by the federal regulations previously adopted by reference. In 1998, ABT issued an industry bulletin to industry representatives on the specific subject of in-store servicing, in which ABT explained that in-store servicing of distilled spirits was not authorized. TWM alleges that ABT admitted there have been no changes in relevant law or policy since 1995, but the evidence cited by TWM shows no such admissions. The repeal of Rule 61A-4.058, the adoption of Rule 61A-1.010, and the 1998 industry bulletin are obvious changes in relevant law and policy. The governing statutes did not change, but their interpretation by ABT changed. The Repeal of Rule 61A-4.058 (formerly Rule 7A-4.058) TWM claims that the repeal of Rule 61A-4.058 was invalid because ABT misrepresented the effect of the repeal in a document it filed with the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) in conjunction with the repeal. TWM has made no claim that the repeal of Rule 61A-4.058 violated any other applicable procedural requirement in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The alleged misrepresentation was the following statement: Rule 61A-4.058, FAC, concerning promotional displays and advertising of alcoholic beverages, has been incorporated into the proposed amendment of Rule 61A-1.010, FAC (to be proposed simultaneously with this recommended repeal). TWM claims this statement by ABT was a misrepresentation because ABT did not incorporate all of Rule 61A-4.058 into Rule 61A-1.010. The new rule did not incorporate Section 6.99 of the federal regulations pertaining to stocking, rotation, and pricing services, which was adopted by reference in the old rule. ABT contends that the statement was not a misrepresentation because it accurately informs JAPC that Rule 61A-1.010 incorporates that part of Rule 61A-4.058 dealing with promotional displays and advertising, and Section 6.99 did not pertain to promotional displays and advertising. Subsection 120.536(2), Florida Statutes (1996), required each state agency to submit a report to the Department of State by October 1, 1997, identifying each rule adopted before October 1, 1996, that exceeded the agency's rulemaking authority. ABT did not identify Rule 61A-4.058 in the report it filed pursuant to this statute. TWM asserts that because ABT did not identify Rule 61A-4.058 in the report, ABT must have considered Rule 61A-4.058 in its entirety to be compliant with the governing statutes in 1997. ABT responds by noting that Rule 61A-4.058 was repealed before the report was filed, and there was no need for the report to mention a rule that no longer existed. The evidence on this point is ambiguous and insufficient to show ABT's intent when it repealed Rule 61A-4.058 in 1997. Because the author of the subject statement was not deposed, the parties' arguments about the statement's intended meaning are matters of speculation. ABT's interpretation of the statement is supported by the undisputed fact that the new rule did not incorporate all of the federal regulations formerly adopted by reference. However, the statement did not fully describe the effect of the repeal of Rule 61A-4.058 because the statement did not identify the federal regulations previously adopted by reference that were not being incorporated into the new rule. G. Rule 61A-1.010 Rule 61A-1.010 was adopted in 1997 after two public hearings attended by industry representatives. TWM has made no claim that the required rulemaking procedures were not followed in the adoption of the rule. The rule states in relevant part: 61A-1.010 Approved Advertising and Promotional Gifts The division hereby adopts the "Approved Advertising and Promotional Gifts Chart, "herein incorporated by reference and effective 6/5/97. This chart, produced by the division, provides for the description, special conditions, and restrictions on items which shall not be considered unlawful gifts, loans of money or property, or rebates for purposes of Section 561.42, F.S. This chart is available from the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1020. Any other gifts, loans of money or property, or rebates not included in the "Approved Advertising and Promotional Gifts Chart", or specifically authorized by Florida Statutes, shall not be provided to a vendor. The rule cites Section 561.11, Florida Statutes, as the specific authority for the rule. The rule cites Sections 561.08 and 561.42, Florida Statutes, as the law being implemented. There is no dispute that in-store servicing of distilled spirits is not listed on the chart that Rule 61A-1.010 incorporates by reference. TWM refers to the rule as a "de facto" prohibition of in-store servicing of distilled spirits and claims the rule is invalid because it conflicts with Subsection 561.42(12), Florida Statutes, which TWM contends authorizes in-store servicing of distilled spirits. H. The 1998 Industry Bulletin In 1998, ABT issued Industry Bulletin 98-04 to industry representatives on the specific subject of in-store servicing. The 1998 bulletin points out that there is no statutory exception for in-store servicing of distilled spirits as there is for beer and wine. The bulletin states "Unauthorized services to a vendor would be considered a gift of financial assistance, unless the vendor paid for the services provided to them [sic]." The 1998 bulletin concludes by stating that because of the "confusion about these in-store servicing provisions," no enforcement action would be taken against a vendor, distributor, or manufacturer for unauthorized services provided before the date of the bulletin. However, the 1998 bulletin and any other efforts made by ABT to inform and educate the regulated industry about its change of position were not completely successful. In-store servicing of distilled spirits by distributors continues to some extent today.5/
The Issue Whether Respondents violated the terms of probation of the Consent Agreement, effective January 12, 1990. Whether Respondents committed the violations alleged in the notices to Show Cause.
Findings Of Fact As to Case No. 90-2711: At all times pertinent to this case, Respondents were doing business at 3200 South Orlando Drive, Sanford, Seminole County, Florida as Cesare's Palace, under alcoholic beverage license number 69-00467, series 4-COP-S. On April 19, 1989 a formal hearing was conducted in Sanford, Florida, and presided over by Hearing Officer Mary Clark of the Division of Administrative Hearings, in which the parties were the same. On August 4, 1989, a Final Order was issued in which the Division Director adopted in toto Hearing Officer Clark's findings of fact, all but one of her conclusions of law, and adopted her recommendation for a finding of guilty. The Division Director changed the recommended penalty to a twenty day suspension and a $1,000.00 civil penalty. The twenty day suspension was to commence, and the $1,000 civil penalty was to be paid on August 23, 1989. Respondents timely appealed Petitioner's Final Order on August 14, 1989. On August 22, 1989, Petitioner stayed the imposition of the penalty pending appellate review. Respondents and Petitioner executed a Consent Agreement in settlement of the case. Accordingly, Respondents withdrew their appeal, and timely paid the $1,000.00 civil penalty. Petitioner suspended imposition of the 20 day license suspension for 12 months commencing on January 12, 1990. The Agreement and the Addendum thereto were signed by both Respondents and their attorney. Respondents agreed to abide by certain terms of probation, as set forth in the Consent Agreement, and acknowledged that violation of one or more of the terms of probation would result in the imposition of the 20 day license suspension. The terms of probation called for Respondents to affirm in writing not later than 30 days after the effective date of the Consent Agreement, to the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, that certain specified tasks had been accomplished. The Consent Agreement became effective on January 12, 1990 when it was accepted by the Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. On or about February 11 (a Sunday) or February 12, 1990, Law Enforcement Investigator David Ramey went to the licensed premises to ascertain whether Respondents had accomplished the tasks which were to be affirmed in writing to the Division as being accomplished. The task of posting signs indicating that identification was required had been accomplished. The task to provide "written policies and procedures for employees to ensure that they are familiar with Florida drivers licenses, Florida identification cards, and passports; that they are sensitive to the importance of ensuring that alcoholic beverages are not sold to the underaged; that they are capable of, given a birth date, computing age; and that they understand that service of alcoholic beverages must be refused to those whose age and/or identification appear questionable to the employee" was not accomplished. The task of training and instructing all employees on the written policies and procedures relative to identification was not accomplished. The task of carefully monitoring employees to ensure that they are following company policy was not accomplished. No written affirmation reporting accomplishment of the above tasks was forwarded to the Division either within or without the thirty day period. The Consent Agreement included as a term of probation that Respondents become certified responsible vendors by March 1, 1990. Respondents' Application for Certification as a Responsible Vendor is dated March 5, 1990; the application was not forwarded to the Bureau of Vendor Training until April 7, 1990. Respondents had not become certified responsible vendors by March 1, 1990. William Walter Proctor was born on October 1, 1970 and has been serving as an underaged operative with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco since late January or early February 1990. When serving as an underaged operative, Mr. Proctor is to bring his drivers license, and to possess only the money given to him by the investigators. If asked for identification, Mr. Proctor is instructed to provide his drivers license which accurately reflects his date of birth. If asked his age, Mr. Proctor is instructed to answer truthfully. On March 6, 1990, Proctor was serving as an underaged operative with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. He was working with Investigators Dave Ramey and Mark Douglas. During the evening Proctor entered the licensed premises, Cesare's Palace, located at 3200 South Orlando Boulevard, Sanford, Florida. Investigator Douglas also entered the premises. Proctor went to the bar and took a seat. The bartender took Proctor's order for a Michelob light beer, and asked to see Proctor's identification. Proctor gave the bartender his drivers license. The bartender took the license to the end of the bar, held it under a light, and then returned the license to Proctor and handed him the beer he had ordered. Proctor observed the bartender open the Michelob Light beer, and place the beer in front of Proctor. Proctor took possession of the beer, and the bartender took possession of the $1.85 provided by Proctor in payment for the beer. Proctor immediately turned the Michelob Light beer over to Investigator Douglas. Proctor identified Petitioner's Exhibit 3 as the drivers license he provided the bartender at Cesare's Palace on March 6, 1990. Mark Douglas is a law enforcement investigator for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. He, along with Investigator Ramey were working with the underaged operative William Walter Proctor on March 6, 1990. Investigator Douglas entered the licensed premises, Cesare's Palace around 9:15 p.m. on the 6th of March. Some ten minutes later, underaged operative Proctor entered the premises. Investigator Douglas observed Mr. Adams open a bottle of Michelob Light beer and place it in front of Mr. Proctor. Investigator Douglas deals with alcoholic beverages every day of his working life. He is familiar with Michelob beer, and has seen bottles of Michelob Light before. The bottle of Michelob Light he received from Mr. Proctor on the 6th of March looked like the other such bottles he had seen. Additionally, Investigator Douglas took a sample of the beer prior to destroying the remaining contents of the bottle. Investigator Douglas has been trained in identifications; drivers licenses in particular. He knows that the yellow background against which Proctor's picture is depicted on Petitioner's Exhibit 3 means that the individual to whom the license was issued was under 21 at the time of the issuance. Investigator Douglas identified Respondent Polidoro as having been seated at the end of the bar when the sale to Proctor occurred. When Mr. Adams was looking at Mr. Proctor's drivers license, Respondent Polidoro leaned forward and looked down the bar. Respondent Polidoro has very bad vision; he is both nearsighted and farsighted. His glasses were not on at the time of the events involving Adams and Proctor. Respondent Polidoro has known Adams for two years and has complete confidence in him. On March 6, 1990, Respondent Polidoro was not aware that his bartender, Adams wore reading glasses. Adams made the mistake of forgetting his glasses. He left them in his room. Thus he was without his reading glasses while tending bar at the licensed premises on March 6, 1990. Respondent Polidoro is of the opinion that he has twice been entrapped by Petitioner into selling an alcoholic beverage to a minor, and that Petitioner, on 15 other occasions has failed to entrap Respondents. As to Case No. 90-5983: Marino Benevides went to work for Respondents as the housekeeping manager of the Cavalier Motor Inn, located at 3200 South Orlando Drive, in April, 1988. On or about May 1, 1989, Benevides leased from Respondents the lounge that is part of the Cavalier Motor Inn complex. The rent was $7500 a month, and was paid to Respondent Polidoro. Although the lease agreement was reduced to writing, it was never signed. Benevides hired and paid the employees of the lounge. Benevides hired and paid for the entertainment in the lounge. Benevides paid the utility bill for the lounge. Had there been net profits generated by the lounge, the net profits would have been received by Benevides. Benevides' obligation to Respondents was to pay them a fixed sum of $7500 a month. Payment of distributors for alcoholic beverages was made by the Respondents who were then reimbursed by Benevides. Benevides could not pay the distributors directly because the liquor license was not under his name. Respondent Milazzo was aware that leasing the lounge was a violation. The Respondents had the authority to "kick out" Benevides and that is what they did on January 27, 1990. "No violations of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes during the probationary period" is a term of probation in the Consent Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondents be found guilty of the following offenses: Respondents violated the terms of probation contained in the Consent Agreement, dated January 12, 1990, as follows: Respondents did not affirm to the Division, prior to February 12, 1990, that written policies and procedures for employees to ensure compliance with the Florida Beverage Laws had been established; that all employees had been properly trained in the identification of underaged persons; and did not carefully monitor all employees to ensure that they were following company policy. 1990. Respondents did not become certified responsible vendors by March 1, On March 6, 1990, during the probationary period, a bartender employed by Respondents, on the licensed premises, sold an alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age. On March 6, 1990, a bartender employed by Respondents sold an alcoholic beverage on the licensed premises to a person under 21 years of age, in violation of Sections 562.11 and 561.29, Florida Statutes, and Respondents were negligent in failing to exercise due diligence in supervising its employees and maintaining surveillance over the premises. Respondents failed to maintain control of the licensed premises by leasing the premises to an independent contractor contrary to Rule 7A-3.017, Florida Administrative Code. It is further RECOMMENDED that: Respondents' probation be revoked and that the alcoholic beverage license held by Anthony J. Milazzo and Cesare A. Polidoro, License No. 69-00467, Series 4-COP-S be suspended for 20 days. Based on the sale of an alcoholic beverage to a person under age 21 and for failure to maintain control of the licensed premises, Respondents' alcoholic beverage license, No. 69-00467, Series 4-COP-S, be suspended for 90 days, to run concurrently with the suspension for violation of probation, pay a fine of $1,000 and submit proof of compliance with the terms of the Consent Agreement prior to reinstatement of the license. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 30th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in substance: paragraph 1 through (blank on original document-ac) Respondent did not file proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: John B. Fretwell Deputy General Counsel Dept. of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Richard A. Colegrove, Jr., Esquire 101 W. First St., Suite C Sanford, FL 32771 Leonard Ivey, Director Dept. of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Joseph Sole Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s alcoholic beverage license for the premises located at 11441 Osceola Drive in New Port Richey, Florida, should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Action filed in this matter.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, was the state agency charged with the responsibility to license and regulate the sales of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products in Florida. Respondent, D & S Cleaning Services, Inc., operated the Golden Acres Market #2 at 11441 Osceola Drive in New Port Richey, Florida, under 2-APS license number 61-00306. Pursuant to a request from the Food and Drug Administration, Special Agent Freese set up a random compliance check of the Respondent’s facility for sales of tobacco products to minors. This is routinely done as the result of an ongoing practice whereby FDA requests the Division to check specific business establishments. On the day in question, of the list of places to be checked, the majority were in Pasco County. On Saturday, October 11, 1997, working with an investigative aide, Mr. Teller, who was fifteen years old at the time, Special Agent Freese conducted a controlled buy at the Respondent’s facility. Freese briefed Teller before sending him into Respondent’s store, and also searched him to ensure he had no cigarettes, false identification, or other contraband on him. Freese then instructed Teller to go into the store and attempt to buy a package of cigarettes from whomever was on duty inside. Teller was to make no gratuitous representations about his age, and if asked for identification, was to be truthful. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on the day in question, Teller entered Respondent’s store, with Freese following shortly thereafter. According to Freese, the store is a typical convenience store. No customers were inside at the time. From fifteen to twenty feet away, Freese observed Teller approach Ms. Sargeant, who was manning the register, and ask for a package of Marlboro Light cigarettes. Freese neither saw nor heard Ms. Sargent ask Teller for proof of age, or for identification. She sold him the cigarettes for $1.71, including sales tax. Teller, who is not a regular patron of the Respondent’s facility, contends that Ms. Sargeant neither asked him his age nor sought any identification. He was dressed in clothing consistent with that of a teenager, without a hat, at the time of the purchase. When Teller left the licensed premises, he gave the cigarettes he had purchased to Freese who marked them for evidence on the spot. Thereafter, Freese went back to the Respondent’s facility the following Monday and advised Ms. Sargeant of the unauthorized purchase. She had no recollection of it. Freese waited until the following Monday to notify the licensee of the alleged violation because of a Division policy which required investigators to ensure that investigative aides are removed from the scene of a violation prior to any arrest or in-person notice of a violation is made. By the time the agency participants got home on Saturday, it was late. The following day was Sunday, in the absence of an emergency situation a non-work day, so the actual notice of violation was not given until the following Monday. Both Ms. Sargeant and Mr. Szymczak contend that by the time they were questioned on Monday, neither could remember a particular patron who purchased a pack of cigarettes. Some time later, on November 10, 1997, an Administrative Action was issued, indicating the Division’s intention to take disciplinary action against the licensee because of the unlawful sale of tobacco products to a minor. According to both Sargeant and Szymscak, there is no way Teller or anyone else could have purchased a pack of Marlboro Lights at their store for $1.71, including tax. At the time in issue, Marlboro was having a large promotion and had supplied them with several signs, for both outside and inside the store, which listed Marlboro Lights for sale at $1.88 per pack, plus tax, for a total of $2.00 per pack. The pricing structure for other cigarettes at the time, they claim, priced generic cigarettes at $1.69 per pack, plus tax, for a total of $1.80 per pack, and, at times, other less known brands on sale for $1.49 per pack plus tax. None, they claim, sell or were sold for $1.71 per pack, either with or without tax. Mr. Szymscak, who claims he is always in the store, also denies having seen either Freese or Teller in the licensed premises until Freese came in on the evening of Monday, October 13, 1997. When the Administrative Action was initially served on the Respondent, it did not contest that the sale had been made. Mr. Szymscak and Ms. Sargent avowed no knowledge of it, however. They were initially contesting the amount of the proposed fine as excessive. However, having heard both Freese and Teller testify at hearing as to the $1.71 price of the cigarettes, they now state they are convinced the purchase was not made at their establishment. The more credible weight of the evidence establishes that the alleged sale was made at Respondent's store.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order in this case imposing the minimum appropriate penalty for the offense of unlawfully selling one pack of cigarettes to a minor under the age of 18. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: George G. Lewis, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Deborah Sargeant, President Stanley Szymczak, Secretary-Treasurer D & S Cleaning Services, Inc. Post Office Box 1723 New Port Richey, Florida 34656 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
