The Issue Whether Petitioner may discipline Respondent’s alcoholic beverage license for Respondent’s violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(D) and Section 561.20(4) “within” 561.29(1)(a),1/ Florida Statutes, on three separate occasions.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to un-refuted testimony, Respondent, MJT Restaurant Group, Inc., doing business as The Copper Pot, holds Beverage License 5202697, Series 4 COP, SRX.3/ Respondent’s establishment is located in Ocala, Florida. It is divided into two separate interior rooms, with two separate exterior entrances. The two rooms are connected through the interior by a single opening between one room, which is the main restaurant area, and a second room, which is the bar/lounge. A complaint was opened against Respondent with a warning letter issued by Investigative Specialist Melodi Brewton on March 15, 2007. The Administrative Complaint that was ultimately filed in this case addresses only the dates of April 7, 2007, June 17, 2007, and July 20, 2007. On April 7, 2007, Special Agents Angel Rosado and Lawrence Perez visited Respondent’s premises in an undercover capacity at approximately 11:00 p.m. On that date, the restaurant’s exterior door was closed and locked, but the lounge’s exterior door was open. The agents entered through the lounge’s exterior door and observed patrons consuming alcohol and listening to a band in the bar area. The agents requested a menu from the bartender. The bartender told them the kitchen was closed. Each agent then ordered a beer, and a sealed alcoholic beer bottle was sold to each of them as alcoholic beer. Each agent was over 21 years of age, familiar with the smell and taste of alcohol, and testified that the liquid inside his container had been alcoholic beer. The agents testified that they had paid for, and received, the liquid as if it were alcoholic beer. A chain of custody was maintained and a sample vial of the beer served by Respondent on Tuesday, April 7, 2007, was brought to the hearing but was not admitted into evidence as unduly repetitious and cumbersome.4/ On June 16, 2007, Special Agent Rosado and Special Agent Lawrence Perez visited The Copper Pot at approximately 11:30 p.m. The outside restaurant door was not locked, but the lights were off inside the restaurant room where chairs were stacked on the tables. The agents observed patrons in the lounge room consuming alcohol. When the agents asked for a menu, the male bartender told them that the kitchen was closed. The bartender offered to heat up some spinach dip for them, but they declined. Each agent then ordered an alcoholic beer, and a liquid was sold to each of them as alcoholic beer. Each agent was over 21 years of age, familiar with the smell and taste of alcohol, and testified that the liquid sold him was alcoholic beer. Each agent testified that he had paid for, and received, the liquid as if it were alcoholic beer. A sample of the alcoholic beer was logged into the Agency evidence room on June 17, 2007. That sample of the beer served by Respondent on June 16, 2007, was brought to the hearing but was not admitted into evidence as unduly repetitious and cumbersome.5/ During the June 16-17, 2007, visit, Agent Perez spoke with a woman who was later determined to be one of the corporate officers of the licensee, Judith Vallejo. When Agent Perez asked her about obtaining a meal, Judith Vallejo replied that the kitchen was closed, but they could get food at the nearby Steak’N’Shake. The male bartender then told the agents that the Respondent’s restaurant closes at 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00 p.m. on weekends. June 16, 2007, was a Saturday. June 17, 2007, was a Sunday. At about 11:00 p.m. on July 20, 2007, Special Agents James DeLoach, Ernest Wilson, and Angela Francis entered Respondent licensee’s premises through the lounge. The restaurant’s outside entrance was locked and the restaurant was dark. In the lounge, they asked for a menu to order a meal. The male bartender told them that the kitchen was closed, but they could have a spinach dip. The agents ordered, and were served, one beer and two mixed drinks, which Special Agents DeLoach and Wilson testified had alcohol in them. Special Agent Francis did not testify. Both of the special agents who testified were over 21 years of age, familiar with the taste and smell of alcohol, identified that the liquids they had been served were, in fact, alcoholic beverages, and that they had bought and paid for what the bartender served them as alcoholic beverages as if they were alcoholic beverages. Each testified that the bartender had represented that what he was serving them were the alcoholic beverages they had ordered. A sample vial of only the beer served by Respondent to Special Agent Wilson on July 20, 2007, was brought to the hearing, but it was not admitted into evidence as unduly repetitious and cumbersome.6/ Thereafter, a notice of intent to file charges was served upon one of Respondent’s corporate officers. There was testimony from a Special Agent that an SRX licensee is required to earn fifty per cent of its gross income from the sale of food and must sell food which is the equivalent of a full course meal during the entire time alcohol is being served, and that the Administrative Complaint herein should have cited Section 561.20(1) instead of 561.20(4), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing all statutory charges; finding Respondent guilty, under each of the three counts of the Administrative Complaint, of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(d); and for the rule violations, fining Respondent $1,000.00, and revoking Respondent's license without prejudice to Respondent's obtaining any type of license, but with prejudice to Respondent's obtaining the same type of special license for five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2008.
The Issue By Notice to Show Cause dated October 24, 1977, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages, Petitioner, seeks to revoke suspend, or otherwise discipline the alcoholic beverage license of NAS, Inc. t/a The Down Beat, Respondent. As grounds therefor it is alleged that on or about August 25, 1977 Respondent failed to discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages when the service of full course meals had been discontinued; failed to maintain sufficient inventory to serve full course meals; failed to maintain sufficient dining room equipment and employees for the preparation, cooking and service of full course meals; and failed to maintain necessary china and tableware to handle the minimum seating capacity required, all in violation of Rule 3.15 F.A.C. Four witnesses were called by Petitioner, one witness testified in behalf of Respondent, and three exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact About 10:00 A.M. on August 25, 1977, three beverage agents entered The Down Beat and conducted a routine inspection after identifying themselves as beverage agents. Respondent holds special restaurant beverage license No. 16-692-SR Series 4 COP. At the time of the inspection the bar was open and alcoholic beverages were being dispensed. No personnel were available on the premises to prepare meals and the kitchen was reported to be closed at the time of the inspection. A count of the equipment in the kitchen disclosed 19 knives, 19 forks and 9 spoons clean and ready to be used. Upon inquiry one of the corporate officers produced a paper bag from under the sink which contained 51 spoons, 91 forks, and 161 knives. An additional package of ten plastic forks and an open package of 8 plastic spoons were produced. 163 dinner plates, 130 salad plates, 50 plastic cups, and 60 plastic glasses were counted. The two freezers in the kitchen contained frozen meats and fish. Other food items consisted of condiments, flour, one head of lettuce, sugar, bread, butter, cheese, celery, sausages, and potato mix. Respondent's witness testified that the cook was out shopping at the time of the inspection. The persons identified by name as cook and purchasing agent to the inspectors were not listed on the payroll for the previous month (Exhibit 1). Profit and Loss statement (Exhibit 1) for the month of July, 1977 shows only 4 female employees, each paid $60 per week, food sales of $5,022.50, food purchases of $1,235.47 including $429.30 to Coca Cola and Canada Dry bottling companies, alcoholic beverage sales of $3,086.65 and alcoholic beverage purchases of $3,428.06. Following completion of Respondent's testimony the administrative record of Respondent was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. This shows violations of a nature similar to those here under consideration occurred on 10/29/73 and 8/24/74. The latter violations were proven at a hearing held September 27, 1977.
The Issue The ultimate issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for a special (SRX) restaurant alcoholic beverage license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony of the witness at the hearing, and on the exhibits received in evidence at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Stipulated Facts The special restaurant license is sought for the Brass Elephant Restaurant within the corporate limits of the City of Sanibel, Florida. The restaurant is located on a 7.7-acre parcel of property adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. The restaurant is located within a resort complex known as the Sanibel Island Hilton. Seating within the restaurant itself is limited to 100 seats by court order and zoning regulations of the City of Sanibel. No bar is maintained within the restaurant itself. The Brass Elephant Restaurant derives more than 51 percent of its revenue from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. The Brass Elephant Restaurant has in excess of 2,500 square feet of service area. The Sanibel Island Hilton is being operated as a first-class destination resort. Hilton Corporation has stringent constraints on the operation of such a resort and has made special exceptions for this resort in light of the special zoning and building restrictions imposed by the City of Sanibel on the resort area; these special exceptions allow, inter alia, separate buildings and outside walkways. The restaurant in question is an accessory use to the Hilton Hotel, and is not an autonomous restaurant. There is no separate sign advertising the restaurant as an individual entity. Access can only be gained from the hotel grounds. By virtue of the development permit issued by the City of Sanibel, the Hilton is precluded from operating a saloon, lounge or restaurant separate and apart from its food service operation. Additional Facts Proved at Hearing The Petitioner also has a banquet facility on the premises known as the "Commodore Suite." It is located approximately 250 feet from the Brass Elephant. Meals for the Commodore Suite are prepared at the kitchen facility in the Brass Elephant. On many occasions patrons of the Commodore Suite have been served at tables simultaneously with those in the Brass Elephant, thereby making the total patrons served at one time at the two locations more than 150. The Petitioner has available on the resort premises all of the necessary equipment to serve more than 150 persons at one time in the Brass Elephant, though the City of Sanibel prohibits it from having more than 100 seats in the restaurant. In addition to the restaurant and the banquet room, there is also a pool bar on the Petitioner's resort premises. The restaurant, pool bar, and banquet room are physically separate from each other. The distance between the restaurant and the banquet room is approximately 250 feet and the distance between the restaurant and pool bar is about the same. There are no separate walkways from the various buildings to the restaurant. To walk from the restaurant to the banquet room, one has to walk across a street, part of a parking lot, and around or under one of the other buildings at the resort. To walk from the pool bar to the restaurant or the banquet room, one has to walk around or through another building. The foregoing paragraphs numbered 1 through 16 comprise all of the findings of fact in this case. Such findings include the substance of all of the findings proposed by the Petitioner and the substance of the vast majority of the facts proposed by the Respondent. To the extent I have not made certain proposed findings of fact, such proposed findings are irrelevant and immaterial to the issues to be decided in this case.
Recommendation For all of the reasons set forth above, I recommend that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a Final Order denying the application of Shell Harbor Group, Inc., for a special restaurant liquor license. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 May, 1985.
The Issue Whether "[o]n or about January 16, 2009, Respondent [the holder of an SR license] failed to maintain a restaurant . . . contrary to and in violation of [s]ection 561.20(2), Florida Statutes (1953), within [s]ection 561.20(5), Florida Statutes (2008), within [s]ection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2008),"2 as alleged in the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all material times, the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-02630, Series 4COP/SR (Subject License), which is a "Special Restaurant" or "SR" license issued by Petitioner. The location of the licensed premises is 17190 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, where Respondent operates Epicure Gourmet Market and Café (Epicure) in a structure having 34,000 square feet of interior space, 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of which is open to the consuming public. The Rascal House, an eating establishment specializing in comfort food, formerly occupied this location. The Rascal House opened in 1954 and was operated under the Subject License from December 30 of that year until March 30, 2008, when it was shuttered. For the final twelve years of its existence, the Rascal House was owned and operated by Jerry's Famous Deli, Inc., Respondent's parent corporation. Respondent acquired the Rascal House property and the Subject License from Jerry's Famous Deli in 2008. After spending $7.5 million on renovations to the property,3 Respondent reopened the venue as Epicure on October 7, 2008, and has done business under that name at the former Rascal House location since. Petitioner approved the transfer of the Subject License to Respondent on October 27, 2008, following an inspection of the premises of Epicure by one of Petitioner's Special Agents, Bradley Frank, who found that all statutory requirements for "SR" licensure were met. In the summer of 2008, prior to the opening of Epicure, Respondent, through its Chief Financial Officer, Christina Sperling, submitted a Request for Initial Inspection and Food Permit Application with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Food Safety (DACS), in which it described Epicure as a "[f]ood market with indoor/outdoor seating area; but not a service restaurant." At the time of the filing of the Food Permit Application, Respondent had no intention of using waiters or waitresses to serve Epicure's patrons, although it did intend for these patrons to be able to purchase food and beverage items for consumption on the premises. Before Epicure opened, Respondent was granted a DACS Annual Food Permit, "Supermarket"-type, for the establishment, a permit it continues to hold today. On February 11, 2009, and again on July 28, 2009, Respondent applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (H&R) for a "public food service establishment"4 license for Epicure. Both applications were denied by H&R because Epicure was licensed (properly so, in the opinion of H&R) by DACS. The DACS permit is not the only license Respondent has for Epicure. It also has a retail license, a food market license, and a restaurant-outside dining license, all issued by the City of Sunny Isles Beach. Respondent has held these City of Sunny Isles Beach-issued licenses since 2008. On January 16, 2009, the date of the violation alleged in the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint, Epicure had the necessary equipment and supplies (including those in its 4,000 to 5,000 square foot kitchen where food was prepared) to provide, and it did provide, patrons full course meals (including ready to eat appetizer items, ready to eat salad items, ready to eat entree items, ready to eat vegetable items, ready to eat dessert items, ready to eat fruit items, hot and cold beverages (non-alcoholic and alcoholic), and bread) for on- premises consumption at indoor and outdoor tables5 (Eating Tables) having a total seating capacity in excess of 200 and occupying more than 4,000 square feet of space.6 There were no waiters or waitresses, at that time, to take orders from, and to serve food and beverages to, patrons sitting at the Eating Tables.7 The patrons themselves brought to their Eating Tables the food and beverages they consumed there--food and beverages they obtained from manned counters (in the hot food, raw meat/fresh seafood,8 deli, bakery, and bar areas); from the fresh produce area; and from the cases, shelves, and tables where packaged food and drink items were displayed for sale. Epicure employees were stationed in the areas where the Eating Tables were located to assist patrons who wanted tableware, a glass of ice water, a packaged item (such as soup) to be opened or warmed, or their table to be cleaned. Not all of the items sold at Epicure on January 16, 2009, were consumed on the premises. True to its name, Epicure had not only a bona fide "café" operation, it also operated as a "market" where patrons shopped for "gourmet" food and other items for off-premises consumption and use. Among the food and beverage items for sale were raw meat and fresh seafood; dairy products; ready to eat deli meats and cheeses, including those packaged by the manufacturer; packaged grains; packaged stocks, including vegetable, beef, seafood, and chicken stock; condiments, including jams, jellies, and caviar; sauces; spices; eggs; chips, popcorn, and nuts; packaged crackers and cookies; ingredients (other than meat and seafood) for salads, dips, and dressings; cooked and other prepared foods ready to eat; baked bread and other bakery items; candy; fruit and other fresh produce; bottles of wine, liquor, and beer, as well as non- alcoholic beverages, including water; and packaged tea. Among the non-food items for sale were flowers; glassware; candles; napkins, paper and plastic plates and cups, and eating and serving utensils; paper towels; toilet paper; toilet bowel cleaner; wine and liquor opening devices and equipment; publications relating to alcoholic beverage products; cookbooks; and personal care and over-the-counter health care items. Shopping carts were available for patrons to use in the establishment to transport items selected for purchase. These items were paid for at the same cash registers (at the front of the establishment) where food and beverages consumed on the premises were paid for. There was considerable overlap between Epicure's "café" and "market" operations in terms of space used and items sold. Both the "café" and the "market" were fundamental and substantial components of Epicure's business, and they worked together synergistically. The record evidence does not clearly and convincingly reveal that Epicure's "café" operation was merely incidental or subordinate to its "market" operation, or that its "café" was in any way operated as a subterfuge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, issue a final order dismissing the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Respondent failed to have the seating capacity required of a licensee in its category as alleged by the Notice to Show Cause and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent, EDM of Key West, Inc., d/b/a/ Portside, was the holder of a special restaurant license issued by Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation. This license, Series 6-COP, Number 54-00999SRX, authorizes Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages, subject to regulation by Petitioner and other authorities, in conjunction with its restaurant business. On November 16, 1988, Petitioner's law enforcement investigator, David Myers, inspected Respondent's premises to determine whether Respondent was in compliance with the regulations applicable to licensees such as Respondent. Two violations were discovered. The first was that the establishment failed to have sufficient seating for patrons under the covered portion of the premises. The second was that the establishment failed to keep adequate records of its sales of food and of its sales of alcohol as required by regulation. Official Notices were issued by Petitioner to Respondent for both violations. Investigator Myers told Respondent's dining room manager on November 16, 1988, that the establishment was required to have seating sufficient for at least 150 dining patrons under a permanent roof and that the seats located outside the roofed area could not be counted toward that requirement. This advice is consistent with Petitioner's interpretation of Rule 7A-3.014, Florida Administrative Code. Prior to December 12, 1988, Investigator Myers advised the management of Respondent that he intended to make a follow-up inspection on December 12, 1988. On December 12, 1988, there were 132 seats for dining patrons within the roofed area. Other seats for dining patrons were located in an uncovered area. Petitioner filed a Notice to Show Cause subsequent to its inspection of December 12, 1988, against Respondent alleging, in pertinent part, the following: On December 12, 1988, you, EDM OF KEY WEST INC., failed to have accommodations for service of 150 patrons at tables on your licensed premises . . . . The Notice to Show Cause did not cite Respondent for failure to keep adequate records of sales. On May 22, 1989, an inspection revealed that there was seating for only 118 dining patrons under the roofed area. On June 5, 1989, Respondent was found to be in compliance with the seating requirement. Respondent filed a timely request for hearing and therein denied the factual allegations of the charge brought against it.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of having failed to have accommodations for the seating of 150 dining patrons as required by Section 561.20(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes, and by Rule 7A-3.014 and Rule 7A-3.015, Florida Administrative Code, and which imposes an administrative fine of $500.00 against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 July, 1989. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. 5-6. Addressed in paragraphs 4-5. Rejected in part as being unnecessary or subordinate to the findings made. 7-8. Addressed in paragraph 7. Rejected as being unnecessary to the result reached. Addressed in paragraph 3. 11-16. Rejected as being recitation of testimony or subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. 5-6. Addressed in paragraphs 4-5. Rejected in part as being unnecessary or subordinate to the findings made. 7-8. Addressed in paragraph 7. Rejected as being unnecessary to the result reached. Addressed in paragraph 3. 11-16. Rejected as being recitation of testimony or subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Deputy General Counsel 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 James T. Hendrick, Esquire MORGAN & HENDRICK, P.A. Post Office Box 1117 Key West, Florida 33041 Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether Respondent's beverage license should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for permitting prostitution activity on his licensed premises. At the formal hearing the Petitioner called as witnesses John Harris, Kelvin Davis, Carlos Bauxalli, Lewis Terminello, Hugo Gomez, Louis Viglione, Keith Bernard Hamilton, and Alfonso Scott Julious. Respondent called as witnesses Isaac Dweck, Gary Arthur, Irene Madden, Collins Jones, Mary Scott, Debbie Heenan, Judy Pearson, Joe E. Clements, Cecil Rolle, and the Respondent himself, Eddie Lee Pittman. Petitioner offered and had admitted a videotape which was viewed during the hearing. Respondent offered and had admitted one exhibit. Petitioner also offered a composite exhibit containing police reports relating to the licensed premises for the years 1981 and 1982. That composite exhibit was admitted as hearsay to corroborate the testimony of the police officers relating to the reputation of the licensed premises. These police records were of very limited probative value and no finding of fact was based upon these records. Neither party submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding the Respondent, Eddie Lee Pittman, was the holder of beverage license No. 23-371, Series 2-COP. The license is issued to the licensed premises at 1772 N.W. 79th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida, and was originally issued to Respondent on October 6, 1965. On the evening of March 22, 1983, Beverage Officer Kelvin Davis visited the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn, in an undercover capacity to investigate possible prostitution activity in the licensed premises. Officer Davis was accompanied by Beverage Officer Eddie Bauxalli. After entering the licensed premises Officer Davis was approached by a white female named Elnora Moore who engaged him in conversation. The conversation led to a discussion of voter registration cards and Ms. Moore stated that a voter registration card could get you out of jail on a misdemeanor charge. Officer Davis asked why she needed a card for that purpose and Ms. Moore said because of solicitation. She then asked Officer Davis if he would like to be solicited and asked how much money he had. He responded that he had twenty dollars and she said that would get him a "straight." "Straight" is slang or street language for sexual intercourse. He agreed to the price but told her he also had a friend (Officer Bauxalli). Ms. Moore offered to service both men for $100. Officer Davis and Officer Bauxalli agreed to this offer and the three of them prepared to leave. The conversation between Ms. Moore and Officer Davis took place next to the bar where the officers were seated. This was approximately three to five feet from the cash register where the bartender on duty was working. The conversation took place in a normal tone of voice. As Officers Davis and Bauxalli and Ms. Moore began to leave, a white female named Peggy Schultz yelled across the bar to Officer Bauxalli and asked where he was going. Officer Bauxalli yelled back that he was going to have a good time. In response, Ms. Schultz yelled back "How can you have a good time without a date?" Officer Bauxalli responded that he would figure something out. At this point Ms. Schultz walked over to Officer Bauxalli. Ms. Schultz asked Officer Bauxalli if he wanted a "date" and he asked what is a "date." She responded that a "date" is a "straight" for $20 or a "straight" and a "blow job" for $25. He agreed to a "date" and Ms. Schultz then told him to drive around to the back and she and Ms. Moore would meet them at the back door. She also stated that the owner did not like the girls to go out the front door. Officers Bauxalli and Davis then left the bar, drove around to the back door of the licensed premises and picked up Ms. Moore and Ms. Schultz, who were waiting just inside the back door of the lounge. While Officers Bauxalli and Davis were in the licensed premises, the bar was pretty crowded and there was a lot of noise from people talking. At the time Ms. Schultz solicited Officer Bauxalli, she spoke in a normal tone of voice while they stood approximately four or five feet from the cash register on the bar. Ms. Schultz was dressed in a low-cut blue silky dress that was made of a material which you could easily see through. She was wearing only panties underneath the dress. The owner, Mr. Pittman, was observed in the licensed premises on the evening of March 22, but there was no evidence that he observed or overheard any of the discussions between the two beverage officers and Ms. Schultz and Ms. Moore. On the evening of September 17, 1983, at approximate1y. 10:A5 p.m., Beverage Officer Louis J. Terminello went to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Immediately upon entering the licensed premises he was approached by a white female named Michelle Orfino. The bar was pretty crowded and there were a number of females in the bar and poolroom area who by their dress appeared to be prostitutes. These women were mingling with the men at the bar and in the poolroom area. A number of couples were exiting through the back entrance. When Ms. Orfino approached Officer Terminello, she walked up to him and asked if he was looking for a "date." He asked her what a "date" was and she said "a blow job." She then asked if he wanted one and Officer Terminello responded "yes." She told him the price would be $20 plus $5 for the room. As they had been talking Officer Terminello, accompanied by Ms. Orfino, walked into the poolroom area. After agreeing to the price, Officer Terminello took Ms. Orfino by the arm and started to walk out the front door of the lounge. She stopped him and said that they had to use the back door because Eddie does not allow them to leave through the front door. She then told him to drive around back and Officer Terminello responded that his car was just outside the back door. She then walked with him out the back entrance and into the parking lot. As they walked to his car Officer Terminello observed the Respondent, Eddie Pittman, in the parking lot. After driving away, Officer Terminello placed Ms. Orfino under arrest. Ms. Orfino was dressed in a very low-cut latex body suit. For at least three nights prior to September 17, Officer Terminello, while on surveillance, had observed a continuous pattern of a patron entering the bar, coming back out and driving his car to the rear entrance. A woman would then come out the back door, get in the car and they would drive away. Twenty minutes or so later the car would come back and the girl would get out and go back in. After the arrest of September 17, Officer Terminello returned to the bar in the early morning hours of September 18 to arrest two other women for prostitution. The Respondent had not been advised of the arrests on September 17. On the evening of September 15, 1983, Beverage Officer Louis Viglione went to the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn. After entering the licensed premises he took a seat at the bar near the rear entrance. Shortly after entering, he was joined by two black females named Veronica and Angie. He purchased a beer for each of the two women and the three of them engaged in conversation about good times, good loving, and Pink House. The Pink House is a boarding house in the area where the licensed premises is located and is used by prostitutes for "dates." A "date" is a slang or street term used commonly by prostitutes to refer to sexual intercourse or other sexual acts for pay. During this conversation, Veronica stated that one hour with her would cost $40 or $50 and Angie stated that she charged $100 an hour. As an excuse, Officer Viglione then stated that he did not have enough money because he wanted two women at once. He remained in the lounge approximately one more hour and left. On this particular evening Veronica was wearing a short white dress and Angie was wearing a blue print dress with white stockings. Both were dressed in what Officer Viglione described as normal dress. Several other women in the lounge were dressed in a very provocative manner and appeared by their dress to be prostitutes. The lounge was approximately 3/4 full of patrons, but it was not particularly noisy or boisterous. There were also several women outside the front and rear entrances of the licensed premises who appeared to be prostitutes. The area where the licensed premises is located is an area which has a visible concentration of prostitutes and has a reputation as an area where prostitution is prevalent. At approximately 9:30 p.m. on September 16, 1983, Beverage Officer Keith Bernard Hamilton entered Eddie's Dive Inn. Upon entering the lounge, Officer Hamilton took a seat at the west end of the bar. There were approximately 40 or 50 male patrons in the lounge and at least 30 women. The women were scantily dressed in very revealing clothes and were observed by Officer Hamilton to be moving around the bar stopping and talking with the men. Several of the women left the bar after talking to one of the men who also left the bar. While seated at the bar, Officer Hamilton was approached by a young black female named Anna. Anna had been talking to a white male seated next to Officer Hamilton. She asked Officer Hamilton what he was interested in tonight. He asked what she had and she asked if he wanted to fuck. She also stated that for $35 plus $5 for the room she would give him a "suck and fuck." He said he would wait for a while and Anna left but returned several times during the evening. After Anna left, another woman walked up to Officer Hamilton and asked if he dated. He was short with her and she moved over and began talking to the white male seated next to him. A few minutes later, Officer Hamilton went to the bathroom and was stopped by a black female named Carol Lawrence. Ms. Lawrence stated that she needed money and asked if he could help her out. Officer Hamilton asked what did she have and Ms. Lawrence responded "a suck and fuck for $35." Officer Hamilton agreed to this but said he wanted to wait a while. She then left, but approached him at least three more times that evening. On the evening of September 16, 1983, there were three security guards at the licensed premises. They primarily remained outside where they regulated the crowd outside the lounge. One of the guards told one of the females that she shouldn't leave with a guy but should wait inside the rear door. The guard did not object to the woman and man leaving in the man's car. On this particular evening, the Respondent was present at the licensed premises until approximately 11:00 p.m. He was in and out of his office during the course of the evening. On September 17, 1983, at approximately 9:30 p.m. Officer Hamilton returned to the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn. When Officer Hamilton entered the lounge, the Respondent was seated at the bar. The activity in the bar was about the same as the night of September 16, and there was a smaller crowd. There were about 20 women in the bar. These women were walking around the bar talking to the men. There was a man seated next to Mr. Pittman who was being kissed by one of the women. After kissing the man she moved on and began talking to another male patron. Shortly after entering the lounge one of the women in the lounge looked at Officer Hamilton and winked. Later, when Officer Hamilton was in the rear of the lounge near the bathrooms, be observed this same woman standing near the rear entrance. He asked her where she was going and she responded that she would be back. She then offered him a "suck and fuck" for $20 plus the cost of the room. As she walked out the rear entrance Officer Hamilton agreed to the offer. That same evening Officer Hamilton was again approached by Anna whom he had met the previous evening. She asked if he was ready and again told him the price of a "suck and fuck." He agreed and she told him to leave out the front door and she would wait around back. Officer Hamilton left the lounge and drove his car to the rear entrance where Anna was waiting just inside the screened door of the back entrance. On the evening of September 15, 1983, at approximately 9:15 p.m., Beverage Officer Alfonso Scott Julious entered the licensed premises. There were several men seated inside the bar and several women were walking around the bar. The women were dressed casually and some were wearing short dresses which were low cut in the front. After entering the licensed premises Officer Julious observed women from time to time leave the bar with a man and then come back. Each of the women exited through the rear door. At approximately 9:45 p.m. Officer Julious was approached by a white female named Gail Sylvia James. She asked if he wanted a "date" and he said what is a "date." She then said that she would "fuck him and suck him" for $30. He responded that he would be around for a while and would get back to her. Officer Julious left the lounge at approximately 10:30 p.m. During the evening Officer Julious had overheard other men being solicited and observed at least five men leave with women. On this evening Officer Julious considered the women's dress to be casual, nice dresses. Officer Julious returned to the licensed premises at approximately 9:00 p.m. on September 16, 1983. After entering the lounge he was approached by a white female named Patricia. She asked him if he wanted a "date" and he asked "what is a "date?" She then said she would fuck him for $30. Officer Julious responded that he would be around and would get back to her. Some time later in the evening Gail James, whom he had met the previous night, approached Officer Julious and asked if he was ready for a "date." She said she would go half and half, "suck and fuck" for $30. He told her he would be around for a while. Officer Julious was also approached by a woman named Mindy Jo Gelfin, who asked if he wanted a "date." He asked "What is a date?" and she responded "half and half, fuck and suck" for $40. He also did not accept this offer. Officer Julious left the licensed premises at approximately 10:45 p.m. On Saturday, September 17, 1983, Officer Julious returned to the licensed premises at approximately 9:05 p.m. The Respondent, Eddie Lee Pittman, was in the lounge. Immediately after entering the licensed premises, Officer Julious was approached by Mindy Gelfin, who asked if he was ready for a "date." Officer Julious stated that he would be around all night and Mindy said she would come back. Later, Mindy returned and asked if he was ready and he responded "yes." He asked if they could go to the Holiday Inn and she asked if he was a cop. Officer Julious said "Do I look like a cop?" She then asked if she could pat him down. He said "yes" and she patted him down. She then said that she wanted to go in a friend's car. She borrowed the car and drove to the Holiday Inn where she was arrested. At the time of her arrest Mindy Jo Gelfin was residing with Collins Winston Jones and his girlfriend. At the time of the final hearing, Mindy Gelfin was continuing to live at Mr. Jones' residence. Mr. Jones' girlfriend had allowed her to move in. Mr. Jones is the manager of Eddie's Dive Inn. On September 29, 1983, Detective Hugo Gomez of the Metropolitan Dade County Police Department went to the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn. Detective Gomez was accompanied by Detectives Manny Gonzalez and Ray Gonzalez. Detective Gomez stood at the west end of the bar and his two partners sat at the bar next to him. After they ordered a beer, they were approached by a white female named Catrina Gibides. She sat down between the two officers who were seated. She asked what they were doing and told Detective Gomez he looked like a cop. He then pulled up his pants legs to show he was wearing no socks and she said "you can't be a cop" and grabbed his groin. She then began playing with Manny Gonzalez's leg and asked if they wanted a "date." She was wearing a very loose chiffon type outfit and her breasts were barely covered. The officers who were seated had been pretending not to speak English and Ms. Gibides asked Detective Gomez to ask Manny Gonzales if he wanted to go across the street to a motel with her. She said that she would perform intercourse and fellatio for $25 plus $5. She then called over another white female named Lisa Brown, who also began talking about going across the street to a motel. Lisa Brown said her price was $25 plus $5 for the room. They then discussed going in different cars. During these conversations the bar was crowded and Eddie Pittman was in the lounge approximately 8 to 10 feet from where the officers were located. It was pretty loud in the bar. There were also barmaids working behind the bar. Isaac Dweck is a regular patron of Eddie's Dive Inn. He goes there primarily on Sunday afternoons to watch football and shoot pool. He is almost never in the licensed premises after 9:00 p.m. and averages going to the lounge four or five times a month. He has never been solicited for prostitution in the lounge and has never overheard someone else being solicited. Gary Arthur goes to Eddie's Dive Inn two or three times a week and generally leaves some time between 7:30 and 9:00 p.m. Once or twice he has stayed until 11:00 or 12:00 p.m. He has never been solicited for prostitution and has never overheard anyone else being solicited. He has been going to Eddie's Dive Inn for five or six years. The Respondent has a policy against drugs, fighting, solicitation, and profanity and also has a dress code. He employs 11 full-time employees at the lounge and three or four of these employees are security guards who work at front and back doors. The Respondent has a closed circuit television system with cameras on the cash register and pool room area. The screen is in Respondent's office. Over the past 12 years the manager, Collins Jones, has barred 12 or 13 women from the bar after he heard them soliciting in the bar. In the twenty years he has operated Eddie's Dive Inn, the Respondent has barred approximately 20 women from coming into the licensed premises because of prostitution. Once the women are arrested for prostitution, they are barred from the premises. There are signs posted in the bar prohibiting soliciting. Irene Madden works as a barmaid at Eddie's Dive Inn. She has been instructed to not serve known prostitutes and that if she heard someone soliciting she should diplomatically ask them to not do that and inform Mr. Pittman or the manager. Mary Scott works as a barmaid at Eddie's Dive Inn. She has heard women solicit in the lounge for prostitution. She does not have the authority to ask someone who solicits for prostitution to leave the premises. She does have authority to ask people to leave who are in violation of the dress code. In September, 1972, the Respondent was charged in an administrative proceeding against his license with permitting prostitution on the licensed premises. He was also charged criminally with permitting prostitution. Respondent paid a $350 administrative fine and his license was placed on probation for the remainder of the license year. He pleaded guilty to the criminal charge.
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 ninety (90) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1983, at 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 9th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Department of Business Regulation Regulation 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Arthur M. Garel, Esquire 40 Southwest 13th Street Miami, Florida 33130 Howard Milan Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This case involves the issue of whether the Respondent's special restaurant license for the sale of alcoholic beverages should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for multiple violations of the beverage laws and rules relating to the operation of a licensed premises under a special restaurant license. At the formal hearing, the Respondent was represented by Mr. George Cooper, the president and 50 percent owner of the Respondent corporation. After proper inquiry, it was determined that Mr. Cooper was in fact a proper representative of the corporation. At the formal hearing, the Respondent requested an opportunity subsequent to that date to present evidence on its own behalf. The Respondent, as grounds for that motion, indicated that it had been attempting to retain counsel and had been unable to do so. It was stipulated and agreed by and between the Petitioner and the Respondent that the Petitioner would present its evidence at the formal hearing as scheduled and that following the hearing the Respondent would be given an opportunity if it desired at a subsequent hearing time and date to present its evidence. Pursuant to this stipulation, it was ordered by the Hearing Officer that the Respondent submit in writing within 10 days of July 22, 1983, a request to schedule another hearing date if the Respondent desired to present further evidence. Respondent failed to file any written pleading and failed to notify the Hearing Officer as to whether further proceedings were necessary and whether Respondent In fact intended to present further evidence. On August 25, 1983, the undersigned Hearing Officer served upon the Petitioner and Respondent an Order to Show Cause as to why a Recommended Order should not be entered upon the evidence presented by the Petitioner at the previous hearing on July 22, 1983. That Order reflected that upon failure of the parties to file a pleading showing cause as to why such a Recommended Order should not be entered that the undersigned Hearing Officer would proceed to enter a Recommended Order based on the evidence presented at the July 22, 1983, hearing. Respondent was served by mail with a copy of that order to Show Cause and failed to file any response to that Order. Therefore, this Recommended Order is being entered upon the evidence presented by the Petitioner and the cross examination of that evidence by the Respondent at the formal hearing.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was the holder of beverage license number 58-01528, SRX, Series 4COP. This license was issued to the licensed premises at 100 West Washington, Orlando, Florida. This license is a special restaurant license. On November 5, 1982, Beverage Officer James Jones, accompanied by another beverage officer, inspected the licensed premises of the Respondent. This was an SRX (special restaurant) inspection and the officers counted chairs, silverware, and dishes, and inventoried the food on the licensed premises. The count revealed 140 chairs, 46 coffee cups, 121 plates, 45 glasses, 116 knives, 53 forks, and 111 spoons. An inventory of the food on the premises revealed 55 chicken wings, 10 pounds of hamburger patties, 1 1/2 pounds of hamburger, 5 tomatoes, 1/4 pound of margarine, 1 potato, 5 loaves of bread, 1/4 slab of ribs, 30 pounds of french fries, 2 heads of lettuce, 1 1/2 pounds of potato chips, 10 carrots, 1 pound of sliced cheese, 2 1/2 spanish onions, 13 hamburger buns and 1/2 pound of diced cheese. There was no other food on the licensed premises. This inspection occurred at approximately 11:00 or 11:30 p.m. There was one bartender, one waitress, and a cook on duty. At this time, they were serving only chicken wings, hamburgers and french fries. There were no full course meals prepared or sold while the officers were at the licensed premises. There was not sufficient food at the licensed premises to serve 200 full course meals. Respondent renewed its license on September 30, 1982, and delivered a check to the District Office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in the amount of $1,750.00 as payment for the renewal fee. This check was deposited for payment and was returned not honored due to insufficient funds. The Respondent was notified by the Division of the returned check and failed to pay the necessary fee. The license was retrieved by the Division on November 8, 1982, and remains in the possession of the Division. At the time of renewal on September 30, 1982, the Respondent had been notified in writing of pending charges against its license which could lead to revocation or suspension of that license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED That the Respondent's beverage license be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 28th 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 28th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George Cooper 4627 Parma Court Orlando, Florida 32811 Mr. Jack Wallace Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Post Office Box 17735 Orlando, Florida 32860
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensee holding a 4COP SRX beverage license as a special restaurant licensee. The Respondent originally applied for a 4COP SRX license on January 26, 1977; however, at that time, he received licensure only as a 2COP. On the 2COP application, the Respondent stated that he did not have any partners. The Respondent reapplied for a 4COP SRX license two months later, at which time he was inspected and approved. This application, which was typed by the local beverage office from the original application filed by the Respondent, did not reflect that the Respondent had any partners in this business. The Respondent signed this application, which was brought to the Manhattan Restaurant by the officers conducting the inspection. Between the approval of his original license and application for the 4COP SRX license, the Respondent had entered into a limited partnership agreement with Tommie Battie. Subsequent to obtaining their license as a 4COP SRX, Battie and the Respondent had a disagreement over the financial arrangements in their limited partnership agreement. Battie reported to the local beverage office that he was a limited partner in this business. On the same afternoon that Battie advised the Beverage Department that he was a limited partner, agents of the local office inspected the Respondent's licensed premises at approximately 2:00 p.m. At the time the Respondent was inspected certain alleged deficiencies were reported. The Respondent allegedly did not have sufficient food on hand to serve 150 patrons a full-course meal and allegedly did not have business records on the premises regarding his sales of alcoholic beverages, and food and non- alcoholic beverages. Testimony was received regarding an inventory made of the premises at the time of the inspection. The Division was directed to copy the original inventory report and file this report as a late-filed exhibit. As of this date, this inventory has not been filed with the Hearing Officer, and it is hereby excluded from this record. The testimony revealed that the Respondent had on hand many pounds of chicken and pork chops, two loaves of bread, several large cans of green beans and potato salad, and two heads of lettuce. The Manhattan Restaurant's normal business day was from 5:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. The Respondent's sister assisted the Respondent in planning the meals. She made a list of needed grocery items when she arrived at approximately 4:00 to 4:30 p.m., and the Respondent picked up these items at a local grocery. The Respondent was bringing in chicken from a grocery shortly after the inspectors arrived at 2:00 p.m. The Respondent admitted that his business records were not on the premises and that the records which he had kept were deficient; but he stated that in the intervening year since he was inspected, he had improved his record- keeping system and now maintained adequate records on the premises. The Respondent admitted that he had not disclosed his limited partnership with Battie on his second application but had signed the application at the time of the inspection of the premises, not fully realizing that he was required to reveal Battie's interest in the business. Since the filing of this complaint, the Respondent has purchased Battie's interest in the business.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and facts and mitigation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division assess a civil penalty in the amount of $350.00 against the Respondent for violation of Rules 7A-3.14 and 7A-2.14, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 561.17, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary J.M. Gallay, Esq. Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32304 Jack William Windt, Esq. 1939 Golf Street Sarasota, FL 33577
