Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, alcoholic beverage license No. 26-01841, Series No. 2-APS, was issued to Respondents, Frank D. and Estella S. Ryers, for their establishment known as the Big B Restaurant, located at 5570 Avenue B, Jacksonville, Florida. A 2-APS license permits the package sale only of beer and wine. It does not permit the consumption on the premises of beer, wine, or liquor. On March 27, 1983, Investigator Wendell M. Reeves conducted an undercover operation directed against the Big B Restaurant predicated upon reports received by Petitioner that Respondents were conducting sales of alcoholic beverages not permitted by the license at the licensed premises. In furtherance of that operation, Reeves utilized another beverage agent, Van Young, in an undercover capacity to make a controlled buy of an improperly sold substance from the licensees. Prior to sending Young into the licensed premises, Reeves searched Young to ensure that he, Young, had no alcoholic beverage or money in his possession. Satisfying himself that that was the case, he gave Young $15 in U.S. currency and sent him into the licensed premises to make the buy. Young entered the Big B Restaurant at 1:00 p.m. and came out 17 minutes later. When he came out of the licensed premises, Young came over to where Reeves was waiting and turned over to him a sealed 200 ml bottle of Fleishman's Gin. Young told Reeves that he had purchased the gin in the licensed premises from a black male whose description matched that of Respondent Frank D. Byers which is contained on Respondent's application for license. Respondent Frank Byers denies making the sale. On balance, however, there is little doubt it was Respondent who made the sale, especially in light of the fact that this same licensee was issued a letter of warning by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in October 1981 for possession on the premises of an alcoholic beverage not permitted to be sold under the license. Young also stated that he purchased a second bottle which he consumed on the premises with another black male. However, this evidence was in the form of Reeves' report of what was told him by Young. As such, it is clearly hearsay and can be used only to corroborate or explain other admissible evidence. Therefore, as to the allegation regarding the consumption of the gin on the premises, since it is the only evidence of that offense, it cannot be used to support a finding of fact on that allegation. It may, however, be used to explain how Young got the bottle with which he was seen by Reeves to come out of the licensed premises. Several days later, on March 30, 1983, Reeves again entered the licensed premises, where he told Respondent Estella Byers he was there to inspect the site. She opened the cooler for him and he inspected the beer inside and the cigarettes. While he was doing that, however, he noticed her take a cloth towel and drape it over something behind the bar. He went over to it, removed the towel, and found that it covered a bottle of Schenley's gin. Mrs. Byers immediately said she thought it was her husband's, Respondent Frank Byers, but another individual present at the time, Sharon Thomas, said she had taken it from her brother, who was drunk, and had put it there. Again, as to Ms. Thomas' comments, they, too, are hearsay and can only serve here to explain or corroborate other admissible evidence. In any case, after Ms. Thomas made her comment, she was immediately contradicted by Respondent Estella Byers, who again indicated she thought the bottle was her husband's. In any case, at the hearing, Respondent Estella Byers contended she did not know it was there. On balance, Mr. Reeves' testimony that she covered it with a towel while he was inspecting and the evidence of the prior warning for an identical offense tend to indicate she did know it was there and that it was unlawful for it to be there. There is, however, no evidence to establish sufficiently the reason for its being there.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent is 201 West, Inc., d/b/a Central City, who is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 11-00259, Series 4-COP, a "quota license." Respondent's licensed premises is located at 201 West University Avenue, Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. Craig Cinque is Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Joseph Cinque, Craig Cinque's father, was formerly Respondent's sole director and corporate officer. Prior to becoming the owner of Central City, Craig Cinque managed the licensed premises on behalf of his father. During this period of time, the Division filed ten separate Notices to Show Cause against Respondent, alleging multiple sales to and consumption of alcoholic beverages by underaged persons. On August 29, 1989, the licensed premises was closed by an Emergency Order of Suspension. The administrative charges arising therefrom were resolved by a Stipulation and Consent Agreement, wherein the Respondent in that case admitted substantially to all of the violations. Craig Cinque individually executed the agreement, admitted responsibility for previous violations, and acknowledged that future violations of a similar nature could result in suspension or revocation of the alcoholic beverage license. The agency has issued numerous Notices to Show Cause against Respondent since the entry of the consent order. However, unproven Notices to Show Cause and unproven counts within any Notices to Show Cause are only unproven accusations, and as such are not probative herein even for purposes of showing "aggravation." Beverage Law Institute is an "approved trainer" under the Responsible Vendors Act, having been approved by the Petitioner as such. Petitioner certified Respondent Central City as a certified Responsible Vendor under the Act, on April 13, 1990. See, Subsections 561.701-561.706 F.S. Of the 483 nondistributor alcoholic beverage licensees in Alachua County, only 94 have been certified by Petitioner as Responsible Vendors. Of those 94, only 13 hold "4-COP" licenses, the category of license held by Respondent, which permits liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on premises or in a sealed container. Prior to the events of the instant Notices to Show Cause, and continuing through the 14-month period of the Notices to Show Cause and beyond, Respondent was engaged in a voluntary program designed to teach employees not to serve alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. Many of the materials therefor were provided by Beverage Law Institute. The training program and procedures involved multiple ID checkers at the front door. Also at the front door, wristbands to signify and quickly identify patrons of legal drinking age were issued. Once snapped on a customer's wrist, the band itself was stamped at a right angle across the customer's wrist to prevent or at least inhibit the wristband's transfer to an underage patron and to prevent a patron bringing in a counterfeit or "ringer" wristband. All patrons, regardless of age, received a stamp directly on the wrist to identify that they had paid their admission fee. Security personnel circulated inside the licensed premises checking drinks and wristbands, and waitresses were also instructed to check on drinks already purchased by customers. The training programs and procedures also involved Respondent's policy manual regarding IDs, extensive training and testing of employees, frequent oral reminders to employees concerning the law and concerning licensee policy, sporadic staff meetings regarding policy, videotaped instruction programs, provision of and instructions to employees to use an "ID Checking Guide" at the front door and at every internal bar within the licensed premises, confiscation of fake or questionable IDs at the door, 1/ and use of warning handbills given out to customers. Upon receipt, the handbills proclaiming the licensee's "of age only" policy were usually immediately discarded by customers. Some employees looked upon their training with more enthusiasm than others. Some employees considered the policy and training all for show. Most employees complied regularly with the requirements for training, review, and instructions. A few were lax in their compliance and had to be urged to attend staff meetings or to retest. In addition to all this, from the time the Responsible Vendor tests were available, all employees except two cashiers were tested according to the requirements of the Responsible Vendor Act and within the time frames provided therein. Every underage operative who testified admitted she or he had been "carded" at the door and that none had been issued wristbands. The parties stipulated that all of the individuals named in the four Notices to Show Cause (except for those alleged to have sold or given alcoholic beverages) were under the legal drinking age on the dates indicated by the respective Notices to Show Cause and that although each of these individuals "was actually in possession of alcoholic beverages as plead (sic), there was no evidence that any of the alcoholic beverages were obtained from Respondent's employees, agents, or servants." The stipulation listed the underage persons of the Notices to Show Cause but did not employ the term "consumption" which was specifically used only in the second Notice to Show Cause (GA11890496). Petitioner put on no witnesses as to "consumption." Likewise, Petitioner did not have admitted in evidence any confiscated alcoholic beverages alleged to have been sold by Respondent's agents/employees, nor did Petitioner present any laboratory reports to establish that any substance sold was alcohol. The only evidence of alcohol content is discussed infra. With regard to Craig Cinque's attitude and Central City's compliance with the Responsible Vendors Act, the testimony of Eileen Tenly and of William Cooter has been weighed and considered. Ms. Tenly is a totally noncredible witness whose testimony demonstrates an "axe to grind," and whose candor and demeanor is unpersuasive of anything except her animosity for Mr. Cinque. Petitioner's Investigator William Cooter, however, testified credibly that after having numerous conversations with Mr. Cinque on the subject of underage sales, Mr. Cinque stated that he was not worried about losing his alcoholic beverage license because he could get another one in his mother's name. On the other hand, Mr. Cooter, by his own testimony, has been invited by Mr. Cinque to instruct and has, in fact, instructed Mr. Cinque's employees on how to prevent underage drinking. The evidence as a whole, but most particularly that of Prince Miles, Respondent's janitor, who is a credible witness, is persuasive that patrons sometimes smuggle alcoholic beverages onto the licensed premises and that each time the establishment closes, commercial alcoholic beverage containers which are not part of the inventory sold by Respondent must be swept out. Since this smuggling activity must substantially reduce Respondent's profits, it is a logical inference that such smuggling is contrary to Respondent's policy and that Respondent does not encourage or condone it, whether done by adults or minors. I. Notice to Show Cause GA11890374; September 16, 1989 through February 9, 1990; sale to Toombs, Kittles, Goldtrap, and Ormsbee by Green, Halladay, Howell, and Grimes and possession by Peters, Conf, Kelly, Garcia, Fernandez, Shiskin, Brejhanan, Benz, Yawn, and Plettner All of the violations charged in Notice to Show Cause GA11890374 arose prior to Respondent's becoming a certified Responsible Vendor on April 13, 1990. On September 16, 1989, Ryan Conf and Alejandra Peters were each under the age of 21 and in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises as pled. On September 19, 1989, Central City bartender David Green sold the Division's underaged operative, Bridgette Toombs, a liquid beverage in a long- neck, factory-produced 12-ounce bottle labelled "Michelob Dry." At that time, the licensed premises was not busy and Mr. Green noted that Ms. Toombs had no wristband. He therefore checked Ms. Toombs' underage ID and instructed her that since she was old enough to drink, she should go get a wristband. This transaction was observed by Petitioner's agent, Ms. Pendarakis, but Ms. Pendarakis did not overhear the conversation. After delivering a sample of the liquid beverage to Ms. Pendarakis in the ladies' room, Ms. Toombs crossed in front of Mr. Green's bar on her way to exit the licensed premises. Mr. Green sent word to Ms. Toombs by another Central City employee that he wanted to see her. Ms. Toombs complied with Mr. Green's request and showed him her underage ID once more. At that point, Mr. Green recognized his error in thinking that Ms. Toombs was 21 or over and called over several other Central City employees, all of whom viewed the ID showing Ms. Toombs was actually two months short of 19 years old. Mr. Green was not arrested until after the ID was passed around, so it may be inferred that his recognizing his mistake was not the result of any confrontation with Petitioner's agents or law enforcement officers or due to his perception that he had been "caught." Indeed, Petitioner's witness, Ms. Toombs, attributed Mr. Green's illegal sale to her as a mistake in subtraction. Mr. Green had previously successfully passed all tests required under the licensee's policy in existence before the Responsible Vendor tests were available. On October 20, 1989, Charlotte Kelly and Alezandro Garcia, who were under the age of 21, were each in the actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1989, Cesar Fernandez, who was under the age of 21, was in possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On the same date, underage operative Megan Kittles was inside the licensed premises. She was not wearing a wristband, and her hand was stamped indicating that she was under 21. She first approached a white male bartender who checked her and refused to serve her. She then ordered a rum and coke from Respondent's bartender, Craig Halladay. Mr. Halladay did not check Ms. Kittles' ID and served her a liquid beverage which Mr. Szabo of the Division testified that he had identified by smell as containing alcohol. No one saw the drink mixed, and Mr. Szabo admitted that he did not know what kind of alcohol the drink contained. He stated that he "would not swear it was rum." Mr. Szabo also was not aware until formal hearing that Respondent sold any nonalcoholic mixed drinks. Although the evidence is weak, it is persuasive that Ms. Kittles was served alcohol. Mr. Halladay successfully passed the licensee's policy test before this incident and the Responsible Vendor test afterwards. Also on October 21, 1989, Matthew Goldtrap, another underage operative, ordered a "Budweiser" and obtained a 12-ounce bottle labelled "beer" from a floor waitress named Shannon Howell. Mr. Goldtrap had no wristband but did have a stamp on his wrist. He gave the container to Investigator Smith. Mr. Szabo then took both of Respondent's employees into custody. Mr. Goldtrap does not drink alcohol. Investigator Smith did not testify, but it is inferred from the description of the beer bottle and the circumstances of the transaction as a whole that Mr. Goldtrap was served an alcoholic beverage. Ms. Howell successfully passed the licensee's test prior to this incident. On January 19, 1990, Scott Shiskin, Michael Brejhanan, and Carolyn Benz, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On February 9, 1990, Central City bartender Steve Grimes sold Petitioner's 19-year old operative Octavia Ormsbee a liquid beverage. Ms. Ormsbee, who had no wristband on, was first denied a sale of alcoholic beverage at the downstairs back bar after Respondent's bartender there checked her underage ID. Ms. Ormsbee then went to an upstairs bar and ordered a "Bud Light." She was told by Mr. Grimes, a bartender at that bar, that they were out of "Bud Light," and by agreement, a beer bottle labelled "Budweiser" was substituted. Ms. Ormsbee does not drink alcohol and did not testify that what she received from Mr. Grimes was alcohol. The bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee was turned over to Officer Byrd of the Gainesville Police Department. Officer Byrd, who is familiar with alcoholic beverages through his own education, training, practice, and experience, identified the contents of the bottle purchased by Ms. Ormsbee as being "beer." Officer Byrd turned the bottle over to Petitioner's agent Cooter. Also on this occasion, Preston Yawn and Eric Plettner, who were under the age of 21, were each actually in possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Mr. Grimes had successfully passed the licensee's policy test prior to this incident. All of the underaged operatives who testified concerning this Notice to Show Cause testified that Petitioner's adult operatives forbade them to drink (consume) what they were sold and that they did not consume any. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constituted their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, mere possession does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 2/ Therefore, Petitioner has only established that on September 19, 1989 Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to Petitioner's underage operative Bridgette Toombs; that on October 21, 1989, Respondent's bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Megan Kittles; that also on October 21, 1989, Respondent's floor waitress sold Petitioner's underage operative Matthew Goldtrap an alcoholic beverage; and that on February 9, 1990, Respondent's bartender sold the Division's underage operative Octavia Ormsbee an alcoholic beverage. One of these sales was clearly a mistake and two other operatives had to go to two bartenders each before an illegal sale was made. II. Notice to Show Cause GA11890496; June 8, 1990 through June 16, 1990; sale to Wearner by Edge and to Seligman by Lemberger and Bergine and possession by Tetstone, Lockey, Klug, Skipper, and Bissell On June 8, 1990, Jennifer Tetstone and Amy Lockey, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. On June 16, 1990, Ann Klug, Shana Skipper, and Michael Bissell were in actual possession of alcoholic beverages inside the licensed premises. Also on June 16, 1990, Central City bartenders Michael Edge, Michael Bergine, and Robert Lemberger, respectively, sold each of the Division's underage operatives Kathy Wearner (who did not testify but who was stipulated to be underage) and Charles Seligman an alcoholic beverage. Neither underaged operative wore a wristband or was requested to produce an ID for purposes of the respective sales. As of date of formal hearing, the Respondent continued to employ these same bartenders. All of these bartenders had successfully completed the Responsible Vendor test before these incidents. Mr. Edge also had passed the licensee's earlier policy test. The underaged operative, Kathy Wearner, asked Michael Edge for "a Budweiser" and was sold liquid in a "Budweiser" beer bottle inverted in a drinking glass. Officer Rockey of the Gainesville Police Department convincingly described the liquid that came out of the bottle as beer, an alcoholic beverage. He turned the materials confiscated over to an unnamed agent of Respondent and has not seen them since. On the same date, Central City bartender Robert Lemberger sold a 12-ounce bottle labelled "Budweiser" to 18- year-old operative Charles Seligman. Mr. Seligman was at all times without a wristband and bearing a stamp on his hand. Mr. Seligman delivered the bottle he received from Mr. Lemberger to Officer Posey of the Gainesville Police Department who had watched the entire transaction. Mr. Seligman later purchased a 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to Officer Posey. Mr. Seligman purchased a third 12-ounce bottle of "Budweiser" from Mr. Bergine and delivered that bottle to one of Petitioner's agents, Ernest Wilson. Mr. Seligman does not drink alcohol. Agent Wilson does drink alcohol and testified that the bottle Charles Seligman handed him was, in fact, beer. Although Agent Wilson also testified that Mr. Seligman's first name was "Tom" and that Mr. Seligman had purchased a rum drink, nonetheless, Mr. Wilson was convincing that the bottle handed him by Mr. Seligman did, in fact, contain beer, an alcoholic beverage. Officer Posey convincingly described the first bottle he received from Mr. Seligman as containing beer, an alcoholic beverage, and upon all the circumstances, the undersigned infers that the second bottle given Officer Posey also contained beer. All the underaged operatives who testified on this Notice to Show Cause testified that they were forbidden to drink (consume) what they were sold and did not do so. Also, absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by the other minors actually named in the Notice to Show Cause constitutes their intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, the inferred intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 3/ Therefore, Petitioner has established only that on June 16, 1990 Respondent's personnel sold one alcoholic beverage to the Petitioner's underage operative Wearner and three alcoholic beverages to the Petitioner's underage operative Seligman. III. Notice to Show Cause GA11900209; September 22, 1990 through September 29, 1990; service to, or consumption by Stanton, Coody, Willis, and, Torres On September 22, 1990, Amy Stanton and Janet Coody, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. On September 29, 1990, Betty Willis and Jose Torres, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage in the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 4/ IV. Notice to Show Cause GA11900254 October 19, 1990 through November 16, 1990; 9 counts possession by Harriett, Ortega, McKinney, Nelson, Smith, Winter, Joyner, Cooke, Sammon; "giving" by Blackwell and Strawser On October 19, 1990, Steven Harriett, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 21, 1990, Jamie Ortega, who was under the age of 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On October 20, 1990, Brian McKinney, who was under 21, was in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 15, 1990, Karen Nelson, Hollie Smith, Michael Winter, and Julia Joyner, all underage, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. On November 16, 1990, Denise Cooke and Teresa Sammon, who were under the age of 21, were in actual possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the licensed premises. Absent evidence to the contrary, one may assume that possession of alcoholic beverages in a bar by minors constitutes the minors' intent to consume, but contrary to Petitioner's assertion, that intent to consume does not constitute actual "consumption" by the named minors. In light of Finding of Fact 14 supra, it does not necessarily constitute Respondent's "allowing or permitting to consume." Therefore, consumption by the minors named in this Notice to Show Cause has not been proven. 5/ No evidence was introduced to establish the allegations of Counts 4 and 6 of Notice to Show Cause GA11900254, alleging "giving."
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic and Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order dismissing Notices to Show Cause GA11900209 and GA11900254; finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890374, imposing a total of $1750 in civil fines therefor; and finding Respondent guilty as specified above for four violations under Notice to Show Cause GA11890496, imposing a total of $2000 in civil fines therefor. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverage license should be approved or whether it should be disapproved for the reason set forth in the letter of disapproval dated April 13, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witness and the evidence admitted into evidence, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency authorized to process applications for alcoholic beverage licenses. On January 10, 1990, the Petitioner, Mary L. Hooks, submitted an application to the Department for a series 1-APS alcoholic beverage license. Petitioner sought the license for a business known as Mary's Bait & Tackle which is located at 110 Conners Highway, Canal Point, Palm Beach County, Florida. According to records submitted to the Department, Petitioner's mailing address was P.O. Box 604, Canal Point, Florida, 33438. In response to questions posed on the alcoholic beverage application form, Petitioner disclosed that she was convicted of a felony, the delivery of marijuana, on January 22, 1986. That charge and conviction stemmed from activities which had purportedly occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida. Petitioner's civil rights were restored by executive order entered December 2, 1988. On April 13, 1990, the Department notified the Petitioner that her application for license no. 60-5357, 1-APS had been disapproved. That notice provided the following reason and authority for the disapproval: Authority 561.15(1)(2) and 112.011, Florida Statutes Reason(s) Applicant, Mary L. Hooks, has been convicted of a felony within the last past fifteen years and is not believed to be of good moral character. While Mrs. Hooks has a Restoration of Civil Rights, the crime for which she was convicted directly relates to the alcoholic beverage laws and, for this reason, the application is being denied. Petitioner timely filed a challenge to the notice of disapproval, but did not appear for the formal hearing. No evidence was presented on her behalf.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco entered a final order denying Petitioner's application for a series 1-APS license. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-2916 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as not supported by the record or hearsay. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: D. Lance Langston Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Mary L. Hooks P.O. Box 605 Canal Point, FL 33438 Cpt. Debbie L. Gray Elisha Newton Dimick Building 111 Georgia Ave., Room 207 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Leonard Ivey, Director Dept. of Business Regulation Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the notice to show cause dated June 16, 1992; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent owns an alcoholic beverage license, license number 5803205, for a business known as Tiffany & Suzy Q's Fun and Munch located in Apopka, Florida. Mr. Bowers, Respondent's husband, does not own the subject business or license, and may not as he has prior felony convictions within the last past five years that preclude his eligibility to own or hold an alcoholic beverage license. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Mr. Bowers was on the licensed premises acting as the manager or other person in charge of the business activities. Acting on information from a confidential source, the FDLE commenced an investigation of several vendors rumored to be involved in illegal foodstamp activity. FDLE retained several confidential informants (CI) to offer foodstamps for sale at substantially reduced prices. One of the confidential sources, Ella Mae Davis, posed as the seller at Respondent's licensed store. Acting in concert with another CI, Ms. Davis went to the store and offered foodstamps for sale to Respondent's husband. Ms. Davis alleged that the foodstamps had been stolen by her boyfriend, and that she wanted to sell them. Her instructions were to make Mr. Bowers (or other person at the store if there had been another) aware that the stamps were illegal, and to determine if a sale would be possible. On the first occasion, Mr. Bowers was receptive to the offer made by Ms. Davis and the CI. Ms. Davis observed Mr. Bowers go into a backroom at the store with the other CI who had possession of the foodstamps. When the CI came out, and the two women left the premises, the CI had the money received in exchange for the foodstamps. On a second visit to the store, Ms. Davis met Mr. Bowers who introduced her to a second male. Ms. Davis observed a second exchange of foodstamps for cash with the second male. This transaction took place at the licensed premises. During each of the transactions at the licensed premises, Ms. Davis observed Mr. Bowers' physical proximity to the exchange of foodstamps for cash. On each occasion the rate of exchange for the foodstamps was approximately fifty percent of the face value of the stamps. The Respondent was not on the licensed premises on either occasion when foodstamps were exchanged by Ms. Davis or her partner CI.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking Respondent's beverage license. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4808 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein Chief Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Para Bowers, pro se 104 East 18th Street Apopka, Florida 32703 Richard W. Scully, Director Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Donald D. Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue The issue is whether the facts alleged in the Notice to Show Cause in this case are true and whether those facts, to the extent that they are true, warrant revocation, suspension or other discipline of the license of Respondent. The Notice to Show Cause explicitly alleges several drug-related and one disorderly conduct violations on the licensed premises and implicitly alleges the Respondent's culpable responsibility for the violations under Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statues. The Notice To Show Cause also alleges that Respondent maintained the licensed premises as a place where controlled substances were illegally kept, sold, or used in violation of Sections 823.01 and 561.29(1)(e), Florida Statutes and Sections 893.13(2)(c) and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Rene Tamer, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-07334, series 2-COP, for the licensed premises known as El Emperador, located at 36-38 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. On January 27, 1986, Beverage Investigator Carlos Baixauli went to the licensed premises of El Emperador. While there, he saw a black latin female walk over to a dog that was lying on the floor. Baixauli heard the woman ask the dog in spanish if he (the dog) wanted to have sex. The woman then fondled the dog's penis for approximately 20 minutes. Night manager Luis Tamer was present when this incident occurred. On February 5, 1986, Investigator Baixauli, while inside of the licensed premises of El Emperador, arranged to purchase one gram of cocaine from a white latin male, known as El Indio (the Indian). El Indio told Baixauli that he needed the $60.00 "up front." When Baixauli expressed concern as to whether El Indio would return with the cocaine or his money, El Indio stated that he worked at El Emperador, was always around and could be trusted. Baixauli gave El Indio $60.00. El Indio left the premises, returned and handed Baixauli a small plastic package of cocaine wrapped in a white napkin. Baixauli opened the napkin and conspicuously inspected the package of cocaine by holding it up to approximately eye-level and tapping it with his fingers. Luis Tamer was present and behind the bar at the time. On February 10, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of El Emperador. While Baixauli was at the bar talking to on-duty manager Luis Tamer, El Indio went over and asked Baixauli if he wanted to buy some "yeyo," a Spanish term for cocaine. Baixauli agreed to purchase one gram of cocaine and gave El Indio $60.00. El Indio subsequently returned and again interrupted a conversation between Baixauli and Luis Tamer. El Indio handed Baixauli a matchbook, from which Baixauli removed a plastic package containing cocaine. Baixauli held up the package and showed to his partner Garcia. El Indio told Baixauli that he could be found at El Emperador between 2:00 and 4:00 A.M. performing clean-up duties and at 11:00 A.M. stocking the beer coolers or running errands for Rene Tamer. On February 12, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of El Emperador. While there, Rene Tamer asked Baixauli: "Are you still working for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages?", to which Baixauli feigned ignorance and replied that he did not know what Rene Tamer was talking about. Rene Tamer, Luis Tamer and other employees then briefly retired to the kitchen where Baixauli observed them "looking out" at him as if to get a better view. El Indio arrived at El Emperador at approximately 2:00 P.M. and began stacking beers and cleaning the premises. El Indio asked Baixauli if he wanted any cocaine and Baixauli handed him $60.00 in front of Luis Tamer. El Indio later returned and handed Baixauli a matchbook. Baixauli removed a plastic package containing cocaine from the matchbook, held it up while inspecting it and showed it to his partner, Garcia. Luis Tamer was at the front counter during the transaction. On February 13, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of El Emperador. El Indio asked Baixauli if he could bring him anything. Baixauli gave El Indio $60.00 for one gram of cocaine. At approximately 4:00 P.M. El Indio returned and handed Baixauli a plastic package containing cocaine, which Baixauli held up and tapped with his finger. Luis Tamer, the manager, was standing behind the bar and observed Baixauli's inspection of the cocaine. Luis Tamer smiled and said nothing. On February 17, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of Emperador. Baixauli went to the bar and struck up a conversation with Luis Tamer. El Indio went over and asked Baixauli if he needed anything, to which Baixauli replied "yes" and gave El Indio $60.00. El Indio returned with some cocaine while Baixauli was still speaking with Luis Tamer. Baixauli removed the plastic package of cocaine from the matchbook and held it up to inspect it. Once again, Luis Tamer just smiled. On February 24, 1986, Investigator Baixauli returned to El Emperador. Baixauli went over to off-duty employee Camaquay and struck up a conversation. El Indio approached them and asked Baixauli if he wanted any cocaine. Baixauli responded that he did and gave El Indio $60.00, at which time Camaquay started laughing and said that he had been told that Baixauli was a "Narc" and must be setting up El Indio. El Indio later returned to where Baixauli was seated at the bar talking to Camaquay and manager, Luis Tamer, and handed Baixauli a matchbook. Baixauli removed a plastic package of cocaine from the matchbook and held it up for inspection, tapping it with his finger. Neither Camaquay nor Luis Tamer said anything to Baixauli. Later on in the evening of February 24, 1986, Baixauli asked Camaquay if El Indio was coming back to El Emperador. Camaquay told Baixauli not to worry, because he, Camaquay, could get cocaine from the same source as El Indio. Baixauli, after obtaining change from Luis Tamer, gave Camaquay $30.00 for a half-gram of cocaine. Camaquay later returned and tossed a plastic package of cocaine onto the bar in front of Baixauli. Baixauli held up the bag at eye level and tapped it with his fingers in view of manager Luis Tamer and other patrons. On February 26, 1986, Investigator Baixauli went to El Emperador and asked Luis Tamer if Camaquay was in. Camaquay went over to Baixauli, showed him a plastic bag containing marijuana and asked if he wanted to smoke. Baixauli said no. Camaquay then went into the restroom from which Baixauli then smelled a strong odor of marijuana. Manager Luis Tamer asked Baixauli where Camaquay was and Baixauli told him that Camaquay was in the bathroom smoking marijuana. Later at El Emperador on February 26, 1986, El Indio approached Baixauli and asked if he needed anything. Baixauli gave El Indio $60.00 for some cocaine. El Indio later returned and gave Baixauli a matchbook. Baixauli removed a plastic package of cocaine from the matchbook, held it up and tapped it with his fingers. Luis Tamer was standing behind the bar looking at Baixauli and Camaquay was standing by the pool table looking at Baixauli. After Baixauli received his cocaine from El Indio on February 26, 1986, Camaquay approached several patrons playing pool and asked if they wanted to buy drugs. Camaquay showed them a plastic package of marijuana which he took from his pocket, in full view of Baixauli, and Luis Tamer the manager, who were all looking in his direction. After Camaquay's attempt to sell marijuana to the pool playing patrons, he approached Baixauli and asked if he could bring him anything. When Baixauli agreed, Camaquay left the premises and shortly returned, tossing a plastic package of cocaine onto the bar in front of Baixauli and Luis Tamer, who was standing behind the bar in front of Baixauli. Baixauli held up the plastic bag and tapped it with his fingers. On March 4, 1986, Investigator Baixauli returned to El Emperador. Luis Tamer yelled to El Indio that his "friends" were there. El Indio approached Baixauli and Baixauli gave him $60.00. While El Indio was out obtaining Baixauli's order, on-duty employee Camaquay went over to Baixauli and asked if he wanted to buy some cocaine. Baixauli said "yes" and handed Camaquay $30.00 over the bar. El Indio returned shortly with a plastic package containing cocaine. Baixauli held up the package and showed it to his partner, Garcia. Camaquay later returned and handed Baixauli a plastic package of cocaine. Baixauli raised the bag and tapped it with his fingers. On March 11, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited El Emperador. Luis Tamer was present and tending the bar. El Indio approached Baixauli and asked him if he needed any cocaine. Baixauli said "yes" and gave El Indio $30.00 for a half gram of cocaine. El Indio later returned and handed Baixauli a matchbook containing a plastic package of cocaine. Baixauli performed his usual post-sale inspection of the cocaine by holding the package up to approximately eye-level and tapping it with his fingers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking the alcoholic beverage license number 23-07334, series 2-COP, held by Respondent, Rene Tamer. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Mr. Rene Tamer El Emperador 36-38 Ocean Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33149 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Kearney Secretary The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire General Counsel 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Aki-San held an alcoholic beverage license which expired October 1, 1977. Only on January 10, 1978, did Aki-San make application for "delinquent renewal" of its license. In the unlicensed interim, one of respondent's truckdrivers continued to deliver Kirin beer to Aki-San. At all pertinent times, respondent was licensed as a distributor of alcoholic beverages. Respondent employs numerous truckdrivers to distribute alcoholic beverages to some 2,000 licensees under the beverage law. Each driver has a route book containing the license number of each of the customers for which he is responsible. The truck drivers have standing instructions to insure, before delivering alcoholic beverages, that the licensees they serve have renewed their licenses for the year. Posted on a bulletin board on respondent's premises, in October of 1977, was a notice reminding the drivers to ascertain whether their customers' licenses had been renewed.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the notice to show cause issued in this case. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford Distributing Company 990 S.W. 21st Terrace Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Mary Jo M. Gallay Staff Attorney 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, J. F. Walthier III and Andrew Erickson, are the holders of a current valid beverage license, No. 46-00210, Series 2-APS, held in the name of Walthier, J. F. III and Ericks. This license is for a premises located at 4721 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The Respondents conduct their business at this licensed premises under the name Foam and Fizz. This beverage license series entitled the Respondents to sell a class of alcoholic beverage for consumption off the licensed premises. One of the categories of alcoholic beverages allowed for sale under the terms and conditions of the license is beer. The subject beverage license was issued by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The Petitioner is charged with the licensure and regulation of the several alcoholic beverage license holders within the State of Florida. In pursuit of its function, the Petitioner has brought an Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause against the named Respondents and the terms and conditions of that complaint may be found in the issue statement of this Recommended Order. The facts in this case reveal that between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on January 25, 1980, three young men under the age of eighteen drove to the licensed premises for purposes of purchasing beer. Once the car was parked, Ira J. Frasure and dames Craig McDowell exited the car. On that date, Ira J. Frasure was seventeen years of age and James Craig McDowell was sixteen years of age. They left Frank Edward Gordon in the automobile, where he would remain during the pendency of the other juveniles' activities in the licensed premises. Once in the store, Frasure retrieved a six-pack of Budweizer beer and McDowell picked up several single cans of Budweizer beer. The beer which had been picked up by the juveniles was presented at the checkout counter to Barbara Joyce Walthier, the wife of one of the licensees and an employee in the licensed premises. At that point, Frasure paid Walthier for the beer from money which he had and money which had been given to him by McDowell. The juveniles then left the store. Neither of the juveniles had been asked for any form of identification prior to the sale of the alcoholic beverages, nor had they been asked about their ages, and they did not make any comment concerning their ages. Frasure's date of birth is September 30, 1962, and at the time of the purchase he was approximately six feet one inch tall and had a mustache. Frasure gave testimony in the course of the hearing and appeared to be eighteen years of age or older at that time. Investigative officers who saw Frasure on January 25, 1980, said they felt he appeared to be less than eighteen years of age. McDowell's date of birth is February 9, 1963, and at the time of the hearing he appeared to be less than eighteen years of age, and this comported with the impression of the investigating officers when they saw him on January 25, 1980. At the time Frasure purchased the beer from the clerk, Barbara Joyce Walthier, she was not busy with other customers to the extent that it would hinder her ability to check the appearance of Frasure and McDowell; however, business on the evening in question had been moderate to heavy at times and she does not remember seeing Frasure and McDowell. Barbara Joyce Walthier was working in accordance with a set of instructions from the licensees, in the person of her husband, to the effect that she should always require written identification prior to purchase from those persons who looked like they should be "carded". Moreover, she had been instructed that those persons who have beards are not normally "carded". Other factors to be considered, per instruction she had been given, were to require written identification from those persons who acted suspiciously while in the store, or who parked a great distance away from the store after driving slowly by. In keeping with these instructions, she routinely requires written identification from patrons. Finally, there was a sign in the licensed premises which stated, "Under age don't ask".
Recommendation In view of the fact that this is a single count violation and in view of the physical appearance of Ira J. Frasure at the time of the alcoholic beverage purchase in question, that appearance leading one to believe that he was eighteen years of age or more, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondents be required to pay a fine in the amount of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) in lieu of suspension or revocation and it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that if this civil penalty is not paid within thirty (30) days of the rendition of the final order, that the Respondents' beverage license be suspended for a period of fifteen (15) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allan Parvey, Esquire 2201 Main Street Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
The Issue Whether Respondent's plea of nolo contendere to the crime of possession of a controlled substance (for which adjudication was withheld) is sufficient to support the imposition of discipline with regard to his alcoholic beverage license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to issue beverage licenses pursuant to Chapter 561, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules. Prior to September 11, 2000, Respondent, doing business as Smiley's, was the owner and holder of a beverage license, DBPR License No. 74-05336, Series 2-COP, which permits him to sell beer and wine for consumption on premises. On October 9, 1998, Respondent was charged by information with sale and delivery of cocaine. He was acquitted of that charge on May 12, 2000. Subsequently in a separate incident, Respondent was charged with possession of cocaine and on September 11, 2000, pleaded no contest to that charge. Pursuant to Respondent's timely request for formal proceedings, Petitioner's counsel initiated discovery in the course of this administrative proceeding through a Request for Admissions to which Respondent failed to respond. Respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this circumstance and, upon motion of Petitioner, the Request for Admissions was deemed admitted. Those admissions establish that Respondent entered a no contest plea on September 11, 2000, to the charge of possession of cocaine and that the plea bargain negotiated at that time also included two days' incarceration. Additionally, the admissions establish that Respondent is aware that possession of cocaine is a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of five years. Respondent's own testimony is uncorroborated by other direct evidence and fails to establish that he possesses good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, DBPR License No. 74-05336, Series 2-COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 30th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Kwilecki, Jr., Esquire 629 North Peninsula Drive Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Michael Martinez, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lt. John P. Szabo Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Room 709 Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
