The Issue Should Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, number 61-00005, 2-COP be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: DABT is the division within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Beverage Law of the State of Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held a series 2- COP alcoholic beverage license, number 61-00005, authorizing the Respondent to sell only beer and wine on the premises of East Side Tavern (Tavern), located on Cummer Road, 1 mile east of Highway 301, Lacoochee, Pasco County, Florida. Around 12:30 a.m. on May 16, 1994, Special Agents Ashley Murray and Keith B. Hamilton went to the Tavern in an undercover capacity. This undercover activity was initiated due to a request of the Pasco County Sheriff's Office (PCSO) concerning allegations of drugs sales on the premises of the Tavern. Agent Murray has been a sworn law enforcement officer for five and one- half years. Agent Murray completed a two-week basic Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) drug school regarding the identification, sale and the manner of use of drugs. Agent Murray also completed a three-day undercover DEA school. During her five and one-half years as a sworn law enforcement officer, Agent Murray has been involved in at least 100 occasions where drugs were being sold or used. Agent Hamilton has been a law enforcement officer since 1981. During Agent Hamilton's tenure as a law enforcement officer he has been involved in numerous training classes regarding the identification, sale and manner of use of drugs, including courses taught by DEA. Agent Hamilton has been trained to recognize the scent of burning marijuana. Agent Hamilton has been in at least 70 different establishments where drugs, including marijuana, were being sold and used. As the agents approached the Tavern, they noticed a large number of people (100-150) standing in front of the Tavern and in a vacant lot across the road from the Tavern. Additionally, cars were parked along Cummer Road in front of the Tavern. The agents also testified that a "lot" of the people standing outside appeared to be "young". Upon entering the Tavern, the agents noticed that no one was checking identification at the door. The Tavern consists of two rooms divided by wall with a door between the two rooms. The bar is located in one room. The second room is a disco/dance area. Based on the description of the inside of the Tavern, a person behind the bar would not have clear view of all of the disco/dance area. On May 16, 1994, the Tavern was crowded with customers. Agent Murray saw what appeared to her to be a "lot of really young kids" in the crowd. Upon entering the Tavern on May 16, 1994, Agent Hamilton detected a scent in the air that resembled, based on his training and experience, the odor of burning marijuana. Agent Hamilton did not actually see anyone smoking marijuana inside the Tavern. Agent Murray also noticed, both on the inside of the Tavern in the dance floor area and outside the Tavern by the entrance, what appeared to her to be a hand-to-hand exchange between customers of what appeared to be money for something that she could not identify. As Agent Murray left the Tavern she noticed what appeared to her, based on experience and training, to be customers passing and maybe smoking marijuana. However, Agent Murray did not actually see the marijuana or the customers actually smoking marijuana. Agent Murray also noticed a customer with a closed fist going to another customer and placing the closed fist over an open palm and then the release of the closed fist. Based on her training and experience, this appeared to Agent Murray to be an exchange of crack cocaine between the customers. Agent Murray did not see or confirm that any crack cocaine was actually being exchanged. Upon reentering the Tavern, the agents were together at the bar and saw a black female customer place a large bottle of liquid on top of the bar close to where they were sitting. The customer ordered something from the bar and left with the bottle. Agent Murray testified that by observing the label on the bottle she was able to identify the liquid as scotch whiskey. Agent Hamilton testified that he observed the same black female with a bottle of "alcohol, distilled spirits" and further identified the liquid as a "bottle of gin". Neither Agent Murray nor Agent Hamilton testified that the bottle bore the manufacturer's insignia, name or trademark. Both agents were apparently close enough to the customer to be able to observe the label. Neither agent smelled or tasted the contents of the bottle. For reasons of their own, the agents did not seize the bottle. Agent Murray thought she saw the Respondent behind the bar on that day. Agent Hamilton referred to the person behind the bar that day as the clerk but did not identify the Respondent as being the clerk on May 16, 1994. On August 8, 1994, ten DABT agents and 20 deputies from the PCSO conducted a walk-through inspection (inspection) of the Tavern. The agents and deputies were dressed in such attire as to be visibly recognized as law enforcement officers. During the inspection on August 8, 1994, DABT Sergeant Allen Ray observed an individual inside the Tavern in possession of a cup of beer, which individual Sergeant Ray suspected of being under 21 years of age. Sergeant Ray testified that this person identified herself as Tamieka Ranell Shaw and that Shaw advised him she was under 21 years of age. Sergeant Ray then took Shaw outside and placed her in the custody of Agent Hamilton for processing. Agent Hamilton testified that Shaw advised him that she was 16 years of age. At this time, Shaw did not have a driver's license or any other type of identification in her possession that would verify her age or date of birth. Furthermore, Shaw was not identified by a family member or anyone else having personal knowledge of Shaw's age or date of birth. Neither Shaw nor anyone else having personal knowledge of Shaw's age testified at the hearing. Furthermore, DABT did not present any documentary evidence of Shaw's age at the hearing. DABT failed to prove that Shaw was under 21 years of age on August 8, 1994. There was no evidence that Respondent or any person working for Respondent had sold, given, served or permitted the beer to be served to Shaw. During the August 8, 1994, inspection, DABT Sergeant John Allen observed three individuals in the Tavern that he suspected of being under 21 years of age that were in possession of what Sergeant Allen considered to be an alcoholic beverage. Sergeant Allen escorted each of these individuals out of the Tavern separately. None of these individuals had a drivers license or any other type of identification to verify their age or date of birth. Sergeant Allen testified that each of the individuals identified themselves and admitted to being under the age of 21 years. However, one of the individuals managed to leave the premises before any other identification could be made. Sergeant Allen testified that Ronald Adair, one of the alleged underage customers referred to in Finding of Fact 15 above, was identified by his mother as being under 21 years of age in a telephone conversation with Sergeant Allen on August 8, 1994. However, neither Adair, his mother nor anyone else having personal knowledge of Adair's age was present at the hearing to testify as to Adair's age. Furthermore, DABT did not present any type of documentary evidence of Adair's age at the hearing. DABT failed to prove that Adair was under 21 years of age on August 8, 1994. The person identifying himself as Marlon Inmon, another of the alleged underage customers referred to Finding of Fact 15 above, was alleged to have been in possession of an alcoholic beverage inside the Tavern on August 8, 1994. Sergeant Allen testified that he talked to a relative of Inmon's over the telephone and that this relative identified Inmon and advised Sgt. Allen that Inmon was under 21 years of age. However, this person did not talk to or see the person claiming to be Inmon. Neither Inmon nor the person identifying Inmon over the telephone or anyone else with personal knowledge of Inmon's age testified at the hearing. Furthermore, DABT did not present any documentary evidence of Inmon's age at the hearing. DABT failed to prove that Inmon was under 21 years of age on August 8, 1994. The third alleged underage person referred to in Finding of Fact 15 above in possession of an alcoholic beverage on August 8, 1994, was never identified by anyone before he left the premises. Neither this person nor anyone else having personal knowledge of this person's age testified at the hearing as to this person's age. Furthermore, DABT did not present any documentary evidence as to this person's age. DABT has failed to prove that this person was under 21 years of age on August 8, 1994. During the walk-through inspection on August 8, 1994, DABT Special Agent Michael Freese seized a 1.75 liter of Seagrams gin, alcoholic beverage. The gin was in plain view on a table in the dance floor area. In attempting to seize the gin, Agent Freese had a confrontation with a customer who claimed the gin belonged to him. There was no evidence that the gin had been purchased on the premises. This gin is not the type of alcoholic beverage allowed to be possessed by the licensee or anyone else on the licensed premises of a licensee holding only a 2-COP alcoholic beverage license such as Respondent. The Respondent was present at the Tavern on August 8, 1994, and either directly observed, or was in such a position at the bar to have easily detected the presence of the unauthorized alcoholic beverage on the table. Also during the walk-through inspection on August 8, 1994, Agent Freese observed a small plastic bag containing a substance that resembled marijuana on the floor behind one of the speakers around the "DJ" booth. Agent Freese seized the bag and identified it as marijuana by sight and smell. A field test conducted by Agent Freese indicated that the substance was marijuana. However, Agent Freese testified that the field test may not be 100 percent accurate. No laboratory analysis was made of the substance suspected of being marijuana. DABT failed to prove that the substance was in fact marijuana. Likewise, DABT has failed to prove that Stewart was aware of alleged marijuana being present on the premises. During the walk-through inspection on August 8, 1994, Lieutenant Bruce Schmelter, PCSO, seized a loaded 22-caliber revolver that was protruding from beneath one of the speakers near the "DJ" booth. The revolver was turned over to DABT. However, DABT failed to prove that Stewart was aware of the revolver being present on the premises. After the walk-through inspection on August 8, 1994, Sergeant Allen gave Respondent official notice of the problems encountered during the inspection. On September 18, 1994, a second walk-through inspection (second inspection) was conducted at the Tavern by ten DABT agents and 25 PCSO deputies. The DABT agents and the deputies from the PCSO were dressed in such attire as to be visibly recognized as law enforcement officers. During the second inspection, agents Murray and Aikens advised Respondent that they intended to go behind the bar to secure that area. After advising Stewart of their intended action, there was a confrontation between Stewart and the agents wherein Stewart's daughter became involved. The agents became concerned because of the crowd and notified Sergeant Ray of the problem. Sergeant Ray advised Stewart of why they were there and that DABT agents had the authority to secure the area behind the bar. After this explanation, Respondent allowed Sergeant Ray and another DABT agent behind the bar without further incident. After the incident at the bar during the second inspection, Agents Murray and Aikens seized a bottle of Seagrams Extra Dry Gin, an alcoholic beverage, which they found on the floor against the wall in the area of the bar inside the Tavern. This gin is not the type of alcoholic beverage allowed to be possessed by the licensee or anyone else on or at the licensed premises of a licensee holding a 2-COP alcoholic beverage license such as Respondent. The Respondent was present in the Tavern on September 18, 1994, and either directly observed, or was in such a position as to have easily detected the presence of the unauthorized alcoholic beverage. During the second inspection, Agent Hamilton observed an individual in possession of a bottle of beer which individual he suspected of being under 21 years of age. Agent Hamilton testified that the individual was identified as Corey Anthony Owens, 20 years of age. Neither Owens nor anyone else having personal knowledge of Owens' age were present to testify at the hearing. Furthermore, DABT did not present any documentary evidence as to Owens' age. Agent Hamilton testified that Owens advised him that he had purchased the beer in the Tavern from a black male behind the bar. DABT presented no other evidence that the beer had been purchased in the Tavern. Although DABT has proven that Owens did have beer in his possession while in the Tavern on September 18, 1994, DABT failed to prove that Owens purchased or was served or given the beer in his possession on September 18, 1994, by Stewart or his servant, agent or employee. Furthermore, DABT failed to prove that Owens was under 21 years of age on September 18, 1994. On December 7, 1994, Captain Bruce Ashley met with Stewart at Stewart's request to discuss the Administrative Action that had been served on Stewart. At Stewart's request, Captain Ashley marked an X by the first box on the Request For Hearing which states as follows: "I dispute issues of fact. (Please list which of the charges and counts in the Administrative Action you dispute and why)." Also at Stewart's request, Captain Ashley wrote the following: "There are facts and issues that are not true that need to be discussed. I have documents and facts to bring out about this matter." (Emphasis supplied) Below this statement Captain Ashley wrote "Written On Behalf Of Licensee By" and signed his name. Below the above underlined statement there was an X with Isaiah Stewart's signature. On December 8, 1994, Captain Ashley wrote a memorandum setting forth what Captain Ashley considered to be the conversation between he and Stewart on December 7, 1994. However, because of the circumstances under which this conversation with Respondent occurred and the conflict between the statement signed by Respondent and Captain Ashley's memorandum, the memorandum is somewhat suspect and a cause for concern, and thereby lacks credibility. DABT's exhibit 4 consist of computer records from the PCSO listing the calls that the PCSO responded to around the Tavern from May 12, 1993 through June 29, 1994. Using these computer records DABT summarized the type of calls and the total number of each type of call received between February, 1994 and June 29, 1994. This summary shows a total of 69 calls of various types responded to by the PCSO during the period covered by the summary. Of the 69 calls listed in the summary, 22 were calls to backup units which apparently were backup for some of the other 47 calls. Ten calls were to assist a sick person. The balance of the calls were as follows: 2-affray/incite or encourage riot; 1- special patrol request; 1-juvenile problem; 3-miscellaneous incident; 2-field interrogation report; 4-shooting in area; 1-battery (simple); 4- disturbance(noise); 1-accident traffic; 1-illegal parking; 1-suspicious person; 3-narcotics violation; 1-throwing a deadly missile; 1-obstructing police without violence; 1-warrant arrest; 1-robbery, strong arm; 1-simple assault; 2-traffic warning; 1-aggravated assault; 1-weapons; 1-shooting into occupied dwelling; 1- battery on officer and 2-special detail. It is clear from the PCSO computer printout that the whole area around Cummer Road, not just the area around the Tavern, kept the PCSO busy responding to calls during the period in question. DABT presented no evidence as to the legitimacy of the call or if the call involved the activity of the Tavern's customers on the premises of the Tavern or the activity of someone else in the vicinity of the Tavern or what action was required upon the PCSO responding to the call. DABT failed to prove that Respondent kept or maintained a premises which was resorted to by persons who use or sell illegal drugs. DABT failed to prove that between the dates of February 1994, and September 1994, the Respondent maintained a public nuisance at his licensed premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and having reviewed the penalty guidelines set forth in Rule 61A-2.022, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Counts 5 and 8 of the Administrative Action and for this violation that DABT assess an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 against Respondent. It is further recommended that DABT dismiss Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Administrative Action. RECOMMENDED this day 27th of September, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 27th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1482 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1-3(2); 4-5(3); 6(6); 7(7); 8(8); 9(9); 10(5); 11(10); 12(4,10-11); 13(11); 14(12); 15(13); 17-18(15); 21-22(19); 24-25(21); 26(22); 27(23); 28-29(24); 30(25); 32(27); and 34(28). Proposed finding of fact 16 is adopted in Finding of Fact 14, except that portion regarding the age of Shaw, which is rejected. Proposed finding of fact 19 is adopted in Finding of Fact 16, except that portion regarding the age of Adair, which is rejected. Proposed finding of fact 20 is adopted in Finding of Fact 17, except that portion regarding the age of Inmon, which is rejected. Proposed finding of Fact 23 is adopted in Finding of Fact 19, except that the field test did not absolutely prove that the substance was in fact marijuana. Proposed finding of fact 31 is adopted in Finding of Fact 26, except that portion regarding the age of Owens and that Owens purchased the beer in the Tavern, which is rejected. Proposed finding of fact 33 is rejected as not being supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. The Respondent elected not file any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Harris, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Linda L. Goodgame, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Professional Regulations Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard A. Grumberg, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Isaiah Stewart, Pro se Post Office Box 429 Lacoochie Florida 33537
The Issue The issue presented in this case is whether the Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent sold alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21, in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice To Show Cause issued October 8, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Jin I. Jeon, (licensee), held license number 39-03637, series 2-APS, authorizing him to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of the Diwan Food Store, located at 7504 N. Florida Avenue, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida (premises). On or about September 16, 1992, Special Agent A. Murray, Special Agent K. Hamilton, Investigative Aide D. Snow and Intern M. Dolitsky went to Diwan Food Store to investigate complaints of alcoholic beverage sales to minors. Investigative Aide D. Snow's date of birth is November 11, 1973. She was 18 years of age on September 16, 1992. In accordance with the intructions of the law enforcement officers, Investigative Aide Snow entered the premises and selected a one-quart bottle of Budweiser beer, an alcoholic beverage, from a cooler. The bottle of beer was sealed and clearly marked as an alcoholic beverage. She proceeded to the cash register, where the Respondent was waiting. Snow paid the Respondent, who rang up the sale on the register. The Respondent did not request to see Snow's identification, nor did he ask her whether she was at least 21 years of age. The Respondent's defense was that he was not the person who sold Snow the beer. When he was confronted with the charges, he disclaimed any knowledge of them and blamed an employee, Min Sup Lee, whom he believed must have been the person involved in the sale. He immediately fired Lee because of the charges. Lee testified that he was employed by the Respondent from March 1992 through January, 1993. Lee testified that he worked for Respondent six days a week, primarily at night, and that he was the person in charge of the cash register the majority of the time. He asserted that he probably worked the cash register on the night of the violation. However, he denied ever having seen either Special Agent Murray or Special Agent Hamilton, or Investigative Aide Snow, and he denied any knowledge of the incident. It seems clear that Lee was not the person who sold the beer to the Investigative Aide Snow. Communication problems (the Respondent's English language limitations) may be at the root of the Respondent's inability to understand and to carry out his responsibilities as a vendor under the Beverage Law. Later on the evening of the sale in question, Special Agent Murray returned to the store to talk to the Respondent about the violation but she was not confident that he understood anything she was saying. It is possible that, due to the Respondent's lack of facility with the English language, he did not understand that Murray was charging him with illegal sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor and that, when, some time later, the Respondent came understand the nature of the charge against him, he assumed that his employee must have been responsible. On the other hand, it is possible that the Respondent knows full well his responsibilities under the Beverage Law, and knows full well that he failed to meet those responsibilities on September 16, 1992, but that he knowingly and unfairly tried to use his employee to avoid his own responsibity. In any event, it is found that it was the Respondent, not Lee, who sold the beer to Snow and that, in all likelihood, Lee either was not working on September 16, 1992, or was occupied elsewhere with other responsibilities when Snow and Murray were in the store. The Division's standard penalty for the violation alleged in the Notice to Show Cause is a twenty-day license suspension and a thousand dollar ($1,000.00) civil penalty. This standard penalty has been noticed as proposed Rule 7A-2.022, Penalty Guidelines, pending public workshop and approval.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent guilty as charged in the Notice to Show Cause; (2) suspending the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for twenty days; and (3) ordering the Respondent to pay a $1,000 civil penalty. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Jin I. Jeon 7504 N. Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604 John Harrison, Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Donald D. Conn, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Gainesville ("City") properly issued an Underage Prohibition Order to Petitioner, Clark DP Investments, Inc., d/b/a The Bank Bar and Lounge ("The Bank") pursuant to section 4-53, Gainesville Code of Ordinances.
Findings Of Fact The City is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida. In 2009, the City adopted Chapter 4, Article III of the Gainesville Code of Ordinances, titled "Underage Prohibition in Alcoholic Beverage Establishments," referenced herein as the "Ordinance." The Bank is an alcoholic beverage establishment as defined in section 4-51 of the Ordinance and is located within the city limits of the City. The Bank's address is 22 West University Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. Section 4-51 of the Ordinance defines "underage drinking incident" as follows: Underage drinking incident means any physical arrest or notice to appear (NTA) issued for possession or consumption of an alcoholic beverage by a person under the age of 21 which results in an adjudication of guilt, finding of guilt with adjudication withheld, waiver of right to contest the violation, plea of no contest including, but not limited to, payment of fine or civil penalty, or entering into an agreement for deferred prosecution. Section 4-51 of the Ordinance defines "underage prohibition order" as "an order issued by the city manager or designee which prohibits an alcoholic beverage establishment as herein defined from admitting patrons under the age of 21 into such establishment during specified times." Section 4-53 of the Ordinance provides that an alcoholic beverage establishment will be issued an underage prohibition order if a certain number of underage drinking incidents have occurred at the establishment during a given calendar quarter. For alcoholic beverage establishments with an aggregate occupancy load of fewer than 201 persons, the number of underage drinking incidents triggering a prohibition order is five or more in a quarter. For establishments with an aggregate occupancy load of more than 201, the number is ten or more in a quarter. The Bank has an aggregate occupancy load of 207 persons. On September 27, 2012, the City served The Bank with an Underage Prohibition Order (the "Order"). The Order, dated September 25, 2012, was based on 12 underage drinking incidents that occurred at The Bank during the third quarter of 2012. Subsequent to the issuance of the Order, an additional three underage drinking incidents arose. The Bank was given timely notice of these additional incidents on November 21, 2012, and they became part of this case. At the hearing, the City demonstrated that GPD officers made 15 arrests for underage drinking incidents at The Bank during the third quarter of 2012, and that it secured deferred prosecutions or adjudications in all 15 cases. Five GPD officers and a sergeant testified at the hearing as to the particulars of these arrests and as to GPD's general practices in policing underage drinking in downtown Gainesville. The GPD has a specially assigned unit to patrol a downtown area consisting of the square formed by Northwest 3rd Avenue, Southwest 3rd Avenue, Southeast 3rd Street, and Northeast 3rd Street. Officer Justin Torres estimated that there are between 20 and 30 alcoholic beverage establishments in the roughly one-square-mile downtown area. The downtown unit performs patrols for underage drinking in bars on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays from 4 p.m. until 4 a.m., and every other Wednesday from 7 p.m. until 3 a.m. Between three and four officers from the unit perform these patrols on a given night. The officers are in uniform as they make the rounds of the bars in the downtown area. They are given no particular assignment as to which bars they enter or what time they should go to a particular establishment. They try to cover all of the downtown bars without emphasizing any particular one. Officer Marquitta Brown testified that she would enter The Bank twice a night at most. None of the testifying officers was given any special training by GPD as to spotting underage drinkers or fake identification. They learned to scrutinize IDs through their general experience on the police force and especially by working with officers who were experienced members of the downtown unit.1/ Officers volunteer to serve in the downtown unit, and rotate off the unit after serving about one year. The testifying officers all stated that, when looking for underage drinking, they look for suspicious behavior rather than youthful appearance. They do not simply walk into a bar and start checking patrons' IDs. The typical scenario involves the officer walking through the bar. The suspect sees the uniformed officer, and then puts down his drink and walks away from it, or hands the drink to someone standing near him, or simply drops the drink into a trash can. At this point, the officer requires the suspect to produce identification and makes an arrest if the ID proves insufficient. Of the 15 arrests made in The Bank during the third quarter of 2012, nine were instances in which the underage patron gained entry to the bar by presenting false identification. Upon successfully presenting the false ID to the doorman, the patron would be given an "over 21" wristband that allowed the purchase of alcoholic beverages in The Bank. Persons under 21 were allowed into the bar but were not given a wristband or served alcoholic beverages. Eight of the nine instances of false ID involved the presentation of valid driver's licenses that belonged to other persons who were over the age of 21. In two of the cases, the arresting GPD officer testified that the photo on the driver's license did not look like the suspect. In one case, the officer testified that the false ID did look like the suspect. The record contains no indication as to the resemblance between the suspect and the false identification in the other five instances of the suspect's using another person's valid driver's license.2/ The ninth instance of false ID involved the use of a forged Ohio driver's license bearing the actual photo and identifying information of the underage suspect, but with a false date of birth. The arresting officer, Aaron Steman, testified that he identified the license as a forgery because it was very thick, which indicated to Officer Steman that the card stock used to create the license was thicker than that used by the state of Ohio. Officer Steman testified that he had received no special training in identifying driver's licenses from Ohio, but that his experience had made him familiar with the licenses from approximately 25 states.3/ Three of the 15 arrests involved an underage patron who was wearing an "over 21" wristband. The remaining three involved an underage patron who was not wearing a wristband but was in possession of an alcoholic beverage. The hearsay statements of the underage persons to the officers indicated that in each instance they procured either the wristbands or the drinks from persons over 21 who had obtained them lawfully.4/ None of the arresting officers observed an underage person obtaining an alcoholic beverage from an employee of The Bank. The testifying officers were unable to state how long any of the underage persons had been in possession of the alcoholic beverages. There was no evidence that any employee of The Bank knew that underage patrons were drinking alcohol and failed to act on that knowledge. The arresting officers testified that they had made arrests for underage drinking at other bars in downtown Gainesville. Officer Brown testified that on the great majority of nights she makes at least one arrest in a downtown bar. The officers also testified that there were numerous occasions when they walked on patrol through The Bank without making an arrest. At the time of the hearing, there were no administrative actions filed against The Bank's alcoholic beverage license by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco ("DABT"). Lieutenant Dean Plescia of DABT testified that in his experience, Mr. Clark of The Bank "was doing a pretty decent job" in checking IDs and keeping underage persons from obtaining alcoholic beverages in his establishment. Mr. Clark testified as to The Bank's efforts to deter underage drinking on its premises. Mr. Clark testified that he became the owner of The Bank three years ago but has worked there since it opened in 2001. He had extensive history in the bar and restaurant business prior to joining The Bank. Mr. Clark has done "everything that you can do within the industry." He has been a doorman, a bartender, and a bar manager. He is present at The Bank whenever it is open for business. Mr. Clark handpicks and trains every doorman who works at The Bank. Mr. Clark requires his doormen to be at least 21 years of age. He has hired professionals as doormen, including a former state attorney. Mr. Clark requires prospective doormen to provide job histories and references, and he personally checks the references. New doormen are first put to work roaming the bar looking for underage drinkers, and are only put on the door to check IDs after they are thoroughly oriented. Mr. Clark makes it clear to his doormen and serving staff that they will be fired if they are found to have admitted an underage patron without properly checking for ID or to have served alcoholic beverages to a patron who is underage. Mr. Clark testified that he has fired employees for violating this policy. Mr. Clark trains and instructs his doormen to require photo ID for all patrons. He further instructs the doormen regarding measures to ensure that the ID is valid and belongs to the person who presented it. Mr. Clark's methods are similar to those employed by the GPD officers who testified at the hearing, and are similarly based on years of experience in checking IDs. For example, Mr. Clark has instructed his doormen to check whether the driver's license number matches the patron's birth date. The doorman will match the patron's height and eye color against the information on the driver's license, and examine the photo for features matching those of the patron presenting the card.5/ The Bank has cameras that monitor the door staff and patrons seeking admission. Mr. Clark periodically employs "mystery shoppers" to test the doormen. The mystery shopper will ask the doorman for an "over 21" wristband without checking for ID in exchange for a bribe or as a favor. Mr. Clark testified that to his knowledge the mystery shoppers have never succeeded in gaining entry without proper ID. Mr. Clark testified that even where a patron provides what appears to be a valid ID, his doormen are instructed to inquire further if they have doubts about the patron's age. The doorman will ask the patron to give his birth date and address. If the patron's answer does not match the information on the driver's license, "that's a huge red flag immediately." In these doubtful situations, the doormen will also ask for a second form of ID, preferably one with a photograph. Mr. Clark testified that The Bank has recently stopped admitting international students based on international visas or international passports because of their lack of reliability. GPD officers have informed him that he should require a United States driver's license, military ID, or passport, and he has instituted this practice at The Bank. When a doorman is presented with false ID, he hands it back to the patron and denies him admittance.6/ Mr. Clark testified that on rare occasions he has allowed an underage patron to enter without a wristband if he shows legitimate identification after trying to pass with a false ID. However, the standard instruction to the doormen is to deny admittance on the principle that an underage person who tries to obtain a wristband with a fake ID is likely to try to get alcoholic drinks once he is inside the bar. Mr. Clark assigns as many as seven doormen to roam through the bar and make sure that no patrons without wristbands are in possession of alcoholic beverages. If an underage patron is found with an alcoholic drink, the patron is immediately ejected from the premises. The Bank uses tamper resistant plastic wristbands and changes the color and style of the bands frequently to avoid counterfeits. Mr. Clark purchases the wristbands from a non- local source to decrease the likelihood of duplicating the wristbands of another bar. The wristbands are rotated such that the same one is not used twice in a two-week period. The Bank's staff checks wristbands to make sure that they are not frayed or tampered with, which might indicate that an underage patron obtained the band from a person of lawful age. Mr. Clark reasonably believes that confusion is avoided by The Bank's practice of giving no wristband at all to patrons who are under 21, rather than relying on a system of color-coded wristbands for patrons who are over and under 21. Once a person leaves The Bank, he is not allowed re-entry. Mr. Clark believes that this practice lessens the chances of wristband sharing. The Bank has participated in the responsible hospitality vendor program when it has been offered by GPD. Mr. Clark testified that he and his staff have attended these training sessions on multiple occasions. Mr. Clark testified that he does not believe there are any policies or devices7/ which could improve The Bank’s efforts to identify and deter underage drinkers. He is aware of the methods employed by The Bank's competitors, and opined that none of them is doing more than The Bank to combat underage drinking and that "there are multiple places that are doing a lot less." Mr. Clark testified that he personally examined each of the false identification cards that had been used to obtain entry into The Bank. Mr. Clark believed that in each case the patron closely resembled the photo on the card. This testimony contradicts the GPD officers' testimony that two of the photo IDs did not bear a strong resemblance to the underage drinker. There is no central filing or tracking system for IDs that are confiscated by the GPD. None of the testifying officers had any idea how to recover the IDs or even who might be their custodian. The actual fake IDs were not introduced into evidence, making it impossible to enter a finding as to the diligence of The Bank's doormen regarding the two IDs in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Underage Prohibition Order issued to The Bank be vacated. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2013.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent's beverage licensure should be subjected to sanctions for allegedly selling alcoholic beverages to a minor and what if any penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating licensure, and practice under that licensure, of alcoholic beverage-selling entities in the State of Florida, including administration of the laws and rules related to the selling of alcoholic beverages by restaurant businesses. The Respondent is an entity licensed and domiciled in the State of Florida and authorized to sell alcoholic beverages under license number 55-00306, Series 2-COP. The Respondent is subject to the Division's regulatory jurisdiction. The subject license allows the Respondent to make sales "by the drink" for consumption on the premises at the restaurant business located at 1766 S. Eighth Street, Fernandina Beach, Florida. On October 22, 2002, Ms. Deidre Kaye Miller, then 18 years of age, was employed as an I.A. by the Petitioner Agency for the purpose of attempting to purchase beer at the Respondent's restaurant. She was paid a total of $35.00 for her services as an undercover operative that day by the Division. She was given instructions by Agent Edwards and Agent Maxwell to attempt to purchase an alcoholic beverage from the Respondent. Ms. Miller was told that if asked for identification she was to show her valid Florida Driver's License, if asked her age to tell her correct age and not to engage in any extensive conversation with anyone. On October 22, 2002, Ms. Miller entered the restaurant and walked to the left of the entrance where the bar was located. A waitress asked what she wanted and she told her she wanted a Corona (Beer). After Ms. Miller ordered the beer from the waitress the owner and Respondent Mr. Wong came over and asked for her identification. She provided her driver's license as an I.D. to Mr. Wong. As he was checking her driver's license the waitress, Tabitha Cornett, opened the Corona and set it on the counter so that it would be ready when Mr. Wong approved giving Ms. Miller the beer. The point on the bar where the beer was placed was approximately 16 feet away from where Mr. Wong and Ms. Miller were having the conversation about her I.D. Mr. Wong viewed Ms. Miller's Driver License I.D. for 30 or 45 seconds. The driver's license had her correct name and date of birth, which was in 1984, and a statement printed on the license which said "Under 21 until 09-02-05." Mr. Wong allowed the beer to be served to Ms. Miller. Ms. Miller took the beer and placed it on a table near the bar. She then indicated to the waitress that she was going to call friends to meet her and walked outside the restaurant, leaving the beer on the table. In restaurant sales situations, IAs are instructed to depart the premises once they have been served alcohol. Generally payment will not be tendered because, in restaurant situations, the law and licensure calls for consumption on the premises and it is customary to consume the alcohol and pay for at the end of one's stay at the restaurant. In the instant situation neither Ms. Miller nor anyone else ever paid for the beer in question. Mr. Wong acknowledged in a due diligence statement taken at 5:30 p.m., on the day in question October 22, 2002 (in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit four) that he checked the I.D. but he wasn't wearing his glasses and he thought it said that Ms. Miller was born in 1964. He asked her, "You were born in 64?" He said in his statement that Ms. Miller did not reply to him and then he states (in his due diligence statement) that he told her that she was too young for that I.D. and again she said nothing. He again asked her if this was her I.D. and she said nothing. He handed it back to her. He then said in the statement: "I did not want to insult someone so I allowed it served." In other words he questioned whether she was old enough based upon the I.D. he saw; believing it to say 1964 because he did not have his glasses on, but also believing that she appeared too young for that I.D. Ms. Miller left the premises and Agent Edwards and Agent Maxwell entered the premises and informed Mr. Wong that he had just allowed service of alcohol to a minor. Thereafter Mr. Wong was placed under arrest handcuffed, and taken to the Nassau County Jail. Mr. Wong had never had any beverage-related offense on his record prior to that time. No investigation or prosecution concerning his business had ever occurred up to that point. A criminal prosecution was instituted against him concerning this same incident and facts, which resulted in a jury verdict of acquittal. The totality of the evidence shows that although Mr. Wong did not actually serve Ms. Miller, he did allow a beer to be served to her. She was under 21 years of age. Mr. Wong testified that even though one person checks identification, any employee can open a beer and place it on the counter or service bar. Ms. Cornett did so in this case, placing the beer at the far end of the service bar from where Mr. Wong and Ms. Miller were conversing concerning her I.D. This allows the beer to be ready once the person checking the I.D. authorizes the sale. In the situation at hand, Ms. Cornett opened the beer, placed in on the bar and Mr. Wong then went through the door away from the bar into the main part of the restaurant. Ms. Miller, the I.A., then took the beer from the bar and placed it on the table and told Ms. Cornett that she was going outside to meet her friends or to call her friends. After that occurrence the other agents named above came in, explained the situation to Mr. Wong, and arrested him during the course of which discussion he made the above-referenced statement. Mr. Wong never touched the beer in question and Ms. Cornett never actually physically handed it to Ms. Miller, but both Mr. Wong and Ms. Cornett allowed Ms. Miller to take the beer from the bar and place it on her table, thus taking the beer into her own custody and control at least temporarily, even though no money was exchanged in return for the beer.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, finding that the Respondent violated Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and that he be required to pay a $250.00 fine to the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S COPIES FURNISHED: Christina Pardieck, Assistant General Counsel P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2003. Division of Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Gary Barker, Esquire Post Office Box 1177 Callahan, Florida 32011 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Division of Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Peter Williams, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Did Respondent sell an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of 21, in violation of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Action issued June 1, 1998?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, Respondent held license number 47-02960, series 2-APS, authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages on the premises of Timesaver #9, located at 2415 Jackson Bluff Road, Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Kamel Beshara Goor is the sole corporate officer and owner of Timesaver #9. On the evening of May 29, 1998, Eric Von Strosnider entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity on behalf of Petitioner Agency. Mr. Strosnider was born February 18, 1981, and carried a valid driver's license showing his correct birth date. Mr. Strosnider removed a single can of "Bud Lite" beer from the beer section of the store and presented it to Mr. Goor for purchase. Mr. Strosnider remembered clearly he picked up a "Bud Lite" because that was the type of beer he always selected during an attempted undercover buy. He paid for the "Bud Lite" and left the store. He immediately met with his Agency contact. Mr. Strosnider's appearance in court and as evidenced by his photograph taken on May 29, 1998, was such that an ordinarily prudent person would wish to determine that his age was, in fact, over 21, before selling him an alcoholic beverage. Mr. Strosnider testified that Mr. Goor might have asked him if he had an "ID," but he was certain that Mr. Goor did not ask to see his "ID." Mr. Strosnider had his driver's license with his correct birth date with him, but since he was not asked to present it, he did not provide any identification to Mr. Goor. Leon County Sheriff's Deputy Vernon Willis, who was dressed in plain clothes and present in the store, witnessed Mr. Strosnider's purchase of a can labeled "beer" but did not hear any request for identification. Mr. Goor did not remember asking for identification. He did not recognize Mr. Strosnider in court and denied any sale to Mr. Strosnider. He clearly testified that he would not sell alcohol to someone who appeared under thirty years of age if he or she said they had identification without checking that identification. However, with some vacillation, he also stated that his standard operating procedure is to ask for identification, and if the customer reaches for identification, he does not need to read it, but if a customer makes any excuse about not having identification with him or her, Mr. Goor refuses to sell. He finally said that if he sees the identification and the customer is under 21 years of age, he does not sell alcoholic beverages to him. Upon the totality of the evidence and the respective candor and demeanor of the witnesses, I find that the sale of beer to a minor under the age of 21 occurred without any misleading by the minor.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 47- 02960, series 2-APS, for seven days, and imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 8th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Kling, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 J. Joseph Hughes, Esquire 1017-A Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether or not on or about April 3, 1979, Terwell, Inc., d/b/a Nite Gallery II, licensed under the Beverage Law, its servant, agent, or employee, one Rina Norman, did solicit Robert Hutter for the purpose of committing a lewd act, to-wit; fellatio, contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about April 3, 1979, Terwell, Inc., d/b/a Nite Gallery II, licensed under the Beverage Law, its servant, agent, or employee, one Heather Lovell did commit a lewd act, to-wit; oral copulation on one Steven Lee Hobson, contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about April 12, 1979, Terwell, Inc., d/b/a Nite Gallery II, licensed under the Beverage Law, its servant, agent, or employee, one Susan Edith Laursen, did commit a lewd act, to-wit; fellatio, on one Norman Eric Williams, contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about July 20, 1979, Terwell, Inc., d/b/a Mite Gallery II, licensed under the Beverage Law, its servant, agent, or employee, one Connie Nadine Reeves did solicit Beverage Officers F. J. Dunbar and P. M. Roberts for the purposes of prostitution, contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent in this cause is Terwell, Inc. This corporation is the holder of beverage license No. 58-1134, Series 2-COP, to trade as Nite Gallery II at a business premises located at 1720 Lee Road, Orlando, Florida. This license is held with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, which organization has the responsibility of the licensure and regulation of those several business entities within the State that sell alcoholic beverages. On April 3, 1979, Officer Robert T. Hutter of the Orlando, Florida, Police Department went to the licensed premises at 1720 Lee Road. Officer Hutter was in the company of Police Officer Barrett of the same department. The two officers entered the bar in an undercover capacity and sat down and ordered a beer. After a moment, the officers were approached by a female who was a dancer in the licensed premises. The dancer's name was Rina Norman and in conversation Norman asked the officers if they wanted a "blow job" for $25.00. (This expression pertains to an offer to commit fellatio.) Rina Norman was subsequently arrested by Officer Hutter and was allowed to go to the back of the licensed premises to a dressing room area and to change from her "go go" outfit into street clothes. The suspect, Rina Norman, had also been seen dancing as a performer on the licensed premises prior to her apprehension. On the same evening, April 3, 1979, Officer Barrett had been contacted by two females in the licensed premises and from his encounter with those individuals determined to arrest them for assignation to commit prostitution or lewdness. The officer went outside briefly and then reentered the licensed premises to look for the two suspect females. One of the areas which he examined in his search for the suspects was an area in which there are two booths with curtains across the front opening of the cubicles. These booths are located down a hall leading to the female dancers' dressing room area which is on the west side of the bar. In looking in one of the booths, Officer Barrett pulled hack the curtain and found a woman identified as Heather Lovell committing an act of fellatio on a man who was in the booth with her. Lovell was-wearing a "go go" costume at the time she was seen involved in this activity. She was placed under arrest and went to the dressing room area to put on street clothes after the arrest was effected. The dressing room area which Lovell used was the same area used by Rina Norman. Lovell had also been seen by Officer Barrett in the licensed premises at an earlier time on the evening of April 3, 1979. Officers Hutter and Barrett went back to the licensed premises in the company of Beverage Officers Wallace and Boyd on April 12, 1979. At that time, Officer Hutter went to the booth area spoken of before to investigate for lewd acts. When Officer Butter pulled back the curtain to one of the booths, he observed Susan Laursen performing fellatio on a man located in the booth with her. Laursen and the man were arrested and Laursen went back to the dressing room area mentioned before to change into her street clothes. Beverage Officers Dunbar and Boyd returned to the licensed premises on July 20, 1979, at around 11:35 p.m. for the purpose of investigating alleged prostitution which was occurring in the licensed premises. The two officers seated themselves inside the bar area and they were approached by Connie Nadine Reeves, who sat by them and asked them if they would like to have a private party in the back, which would include nude dancing and a "blow job", meaning fellatio. Officer Dunbar asked if this entertainment was free and Reeves replied that, "No, the 'blow job' (fellatio) is $25.00 and dancing is $10.00." Beverage Officer Roberts had not heard this overture from Reeves and Dunbar asked Reeves to repeat her statements, which she did. Roberts then went with Reeves to the back part of the area of the hallway and the two booths which have been mentioned before. Beverage Officer Dunbar went outside to pain the assistance of the other Beverage Officer and the local police officers for purposes of effecting an arrest of Connie Nadine Reeves. Roberts followed Reeves down the hallway and into one of the booths. Reeves had motioned Roberts to follow her to this location. Reeves repeated the statement that it would cost $25.00 for a "blow job" (fellatio) and Roberts gave her $30.00 and she replied that she would keep $5.00 for a tip. Roberts seated himself on a chair in the room and Reeves told him to "Go ahead and pull it out" and he replied that he was not turned on and that she should dance. Reeves took her clothes off and danced for a few moments and then there was some problem with the music and she yelled out of the room for someone to get the jukebox working. This problem with the jukebox occurred a couple of times. At this point, Roberts arrested Reeves for violation of Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, pertaining to lewd acts. In the interim, Beverage Officer Dunbar and the other law enforcement officers had entered or reentered the licensed premises and attempted to go up the hallway to the booth area and were confronted by a number of females in "go go" attire who tried to keep them from going into that area and in doing so stated that the area was private and was to be used by employees only, referring to the area of the booths. Officer Dunbar went back to the booth where Roberts had made his arrest and at this point Reeves was protesting her arrest and acting belligerent. Dunbar left that location and met Beverage Officer Wallace, who was talking to Ron Wells, a corporate officer of the Respondent. Wells was asked to go with Dunbar to try to convince Reeves to accompany the officers without further incident. The officers asked Wells if Reeves were his employee and Wells responded that she was. Wells was then told by Dunbar to straighten her out, meaning that if she did not get dressed they would take her into custody without clothing. Wells then talked to Reeves and she left and went to the dressing room mentioned before in this case and dressed herself. Reeves also stated that she was an employee at the licensed premises.
Recommendation It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the beverage license of the Respondent, Terwell, Inc., No. 58-1134, Series 2-COP, which allows the Respondent to trade as Nite Gallery II in a business premises located at 1720 Lee Road, Orlando, Florida, be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Inside Entertainment, Inc., which trades under the name of Fox Hunter, is the holder of beverage license No. 58-770, Series 2-COP. This license allows the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises, located at 1718 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida. The petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is an agency of the State of Florida which has as its responsibility the licensure and regulation of beverage license holders in the State of Florida. On November 15, 1979 , Beverage Officer W. R. Wiggs entered the licensed premises of Fox Hunter to investigate alleged Beverage Law violations. He was approached by Linda Kay Fardette who offered to give him a "lap dance," which he accepted. To perform the "lap dance," Ms. Fardette straddled Officer Wiggs' lap, rubbing her pubic area against his genitals in a series of gyrations performed during the playing of a musical recording. She wore a bikini bottom, however, her breasts were bare and made contact with Wiggs during the "lap dance." Ms. Fardette offered a second "lap dance" to Officer Wiggs which he also accepted. She asked and received three dollars for each of the two "lap dances." During these "lap dances," Officer Wiggs became sexually aroused, obtaining penile erection. (Count 3). Officer Wiggs observed Ms. Fardette move to the stage to perform a dance routine announced over the public address system. During this dance, Ms. Fardette removed all her clothes and exposed her vagina to patrons in the audience. She ran her finger through the lips of her vagina while so exposing herself. (Count 1). Officer Wiggs was approached by Brenda Macy Janciak, who offered him a "lap dance." He accepted and paid three dollars for each of two "lap dances." The motions, upper body nudity and contact were similar to that of Linda Kay Fardette, detailed above. Officer Wiggs was sexually aroused during the "lap dances," obtaining penile erection. (Count 4). Officer Wiggs observed Ms. Janciak move to the stage upon introduction over the public address system. During the dance routine, Ms. Janciak removed all her clothes and exposed her vagina to patrons in the audience. She ran her finger through the lips of her vagina while so exposing herself. (Count 2). On November 15, 1979, Beverage Officer J. E. Kiker, Jr. entered the licensed premises of Fox Hunter to investigate alleged Beverage Law violations. He observed Bonnie Joy Sawyer onstage, where she was introduced by a mistress of ceremonies. Her dance involved complete nudity. At one point, Ms. Sawyer spread her legs, exposing her anal-vaginal area, which she illuminated with a cigarette lighter. The dance also involved rubbing her pubic area with her hand and moving her hips in an undulating fashion. (Count 5). Office Kiker observed Leah Damaris Wilson perform a similar dance onstage. Again, this dance involved total nudity, exposure of her anal-vaginal area and illumination of this area with a cigarette lighter. (Count 6). Officer Kiker observed Wendy Kay Knight perform a nude dance. She was introduced by the mistress of ceremonies, disrobed during the dance sequence, exposed her vagina and rubbed her pubic area during the dance. (Count 9). Wendy Kay Knight also performed a "lap dance" with Officer Kiker for a five-dollar charge. The "lap dance" was performed as described above and involved the rubbing of Ms. Knight's pubic area against Officer Kiker's genitals. Her breasts were bare and made contact with his person. Officer Kiker became sexually aroused during the "lap dance," obtaining penile erection. (Count 14). Officer Kiker observed a woman known as "Marlene," who was dancing onstage. She approached him and offered to perform a "lap dance" for a charge of five dollars. The "lap dance" was performed as described above, with "Marlene" rubbing her pubic area against Officer Kiker's genitals. Her nude breasts made contact with him during this dance. Officer Kiker became sexually aroused during the dance, obtaining penile erection. (Count 15). On November 19, 1979, Beverage Officer M. L. Imperial entered the licensed premises of Fox Hunter to investigate alleged Beverage Law violations. He observed a woman known as "Nina" on the stage. She disrobed onstage and was totally nude during a portion of the dance. During this routine, she bent over, exposing her vaginal and anal openings to the audience and running her finger through the lips of her vagina. (Count 7). Officer Imperial observed a woman known as "April" dance onstage while completely nude. She performed essentially the same gestures as "Nina," bending over so as to expose her anal and vaginal openings and running her finger through the lips of her vagina. (Count 8) Officer Imperial observed Darlene Helen Poulliot dance onstage partially nude. She performed a dance routine similar to that of "April" and "Nina," hut did not remove the bottom of her bikini costume. (Count 10). Officer Imperial observed a woman known as "Sunny" dancing while completely nude. She spread the lips of her vagina and used a cigarette lighter to illuminate this orifice. She also ran her finger through her vaginal lips. (Count 12). Officer Imperial was approached on separate occasions by Bonny Joy Sawyer and Leah Damaris Wilson, who each offered him "lap dances." He accepted one "lap dance" from Ms. Sawyer and two from Ms. Wilson, paying five dollars for each "lap dance." The women straddled Officer Imperial, rubbing their pubic areas against his genitals and performing a series of gyrations. The women wore only bikini bottoms and had breasts exposed during the "lap dance." Officer Imperial did not become sexually aroused. (Counts 16 and 17). The Respondent stipulated to the fact that the stage dancers received tips from patrons and did not contest that the above named dancers were employees or agents of the licensee. Neither did Respondent deny that the stage dancing and "lap dancing" were within the scope of their employment. Respondent takes the position that nude dancing is generally tolerated in the Orlando area and that "lap dances" do not constitute sexual behavior as Petitioner asserts. Respondent presented, as an expert witness, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Central Florida. The witness holds a doctorate in psychology and teaches courses in human sexuality. This testimony established that nude dancing and "lap dancing" are typical in the so-called adult entertainment field. While he did not deny the sexual connotations of these dances, he established that fantasies play a part in the arousal of male patrons. In this regard, Respondent also presented a lay witness who frequents topless bars and who has not been aroused by "lap dances."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 800.03, Florida Statutes (1979), as charged in Counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 of the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges alleging violation of Section 800.03, Florida Statutes (1979), be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that all charges alleging violation of Section 877.03, Florida Statutes (1979), be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Inside Entertainment, Inc., d/b/a Fox Hunter, be fined $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard L. Wilson, Esquire Metcalf Building, Suite 909 100 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Respondent, M.S.B. Lounges, Inc., d/b/a Bird's Nest Lounge, is a liquor licensee and holder of License 23-2365 (4-COP) issued by Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. It is located at 19017 Southwest 40th Street, Miami, Florida. At approximately 11:00 p.m., on or about January 13, 1981, Beverage Officers Patrick M. Roberts and Robert R. Jones entered the licensed premises of Respondent in an undercover capacity. Their purpose was to ascertain whether controlled substances could be obtained from employees of the licensee. The visit was prompted by complaints received by the Petitioner's Miami District Office that narcotics were being sold and used on the licensed premises. There were approximately 15 to 20 patrons present in the lounge that evening during the visit of Roberts and Jones. The patrons were seated either at the bar or tables around the dance floor, where from 3 to 5 girls performed dances for the customers. A white female, Betty Lou Stamm, was the on-duty bartender. Upon being seated, and after ordering drinks, Roberts initiated a conversation with Stamm and asked her if it was possible to obtain a "lude" (methaqualone). She advised him that the person whom she generally obtained ludes from had just left the premises, but that he might return later on that evening. The officers also engaged in a conversation with a white female dancer identified as B.J. They attempted to purchase quaaludes from her, but were unsuccessful. At approximately 11:58 p.m. that evening, while preparing to depart the premises, Stamm reached across the bar with a closed hand and dropped two tablets into Roberts' hand. At that time, the manager of the lounge, Paul Moore, was behind the bar assisting Stamm in serving customers and a number of patrons were seated close by. The tablets given to Roberts were later established to be a controlled substance, methaqualone (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) At approximately 12:30 a.m., on or about January 17, 1981, Beverage Officers Roberts and Jones again visited the licensed premises of the Bird's Nest Lounge. Upon entering the premises, they seated themselves at the bar and remained there for about an hour and a half. During this time they asked Betty Lou Stamm, the on-duty bartender, if she could obtain some quaaludes. She stated that because her "source" was not on the premises, she could not. B. J., a dancer who was working that night, approached them at 2:00 a.m. and asked if they had any marijuana. Roberts responded he did not and asked if she had any. B. J. told them if "they would just sit tight she would take care of (them)." The officers then observed B. J. approach 5 or 6 other patrons seated at the bar and begin casual conversations with then. One of these patrons, a white male, produced a plastic bag which appeared to contain marijuana and placed a handful of the substance onto a napkin which B. J. was holding. B. J. then went into the ladies restroom for approximately 5 minutes, returned to the bar, handed Roberts a napkin, and stated "here is enough for a couple of joints." Roberts opened the napkin on the bar and observed what appeared to be marijuana. A subsequent laboratory analysis established that the substance was indeed .9 gram of marijuana (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). When the delivery occurred, Stamm and Moore were working the bar, and a number of patrons were seated close by. At approximately 10:00 p.m. on or about January 21, 1981, Officers Roberts and Jones entered the licensed premises of the Respondent and seated themselves at the bar. After ordering a drink, they observed Betty Lou Stamm playing a game machine in the corner of the bar. Betty was not on duty that evening, having completed her shift at 8:00 p.m. Roberts approached her, and during the course of the conversation asked if she had cocaine or marijuana. She replied she did not. He then asked if she had any "ludes" (methaqualone) . Betty told him to wait, and Roberts returned to the bar. There he observed Betty approach and engage in a conversation with an unidentified white female who had been dancing earlier in the evening. Betty returned to Roberts and stated she had two ludes for $6. After Roberts paid her $6, Betty carried the money to the white female who handed Betty an unknown substance. Betty then motioned Roberts to come to a phone booth located at the rear of the bar. There she handed Roberts two tablets which were subsequently established by laboratory analysis to be methaqualone (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Mr. William J. Miller is the owner of the Bird's Nest Lounge. He does not actively work in the lounge but does assist in cleaning up the premises each morning. His wife works the day shift on occasion when he runs short of help. Miller occasionally visits the premises in the evenings, but was not present when the transactions occurred, nor was he personally cognizant of the illegal drug transactions occurring on the licensed premises. Although he has outside interests, Miller considers the lounge to be his "primary business". He employs a full-time manager, Paul Moore, who comes on duty each evening at 8:00 p.m. A "House Policy for Dancers at Bird's Nest Lounge" has been posted on the dancers' dressing room door since 1976. This "Policy" enumerates prohibited practices by dancers and provides, inter alia, that "no excessive drinking or taking of drugs will be permitted while at work. (This violation will cause for (sic) immediate dismissal)." (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Brenda Johnson (known as B.J.) was advised of this regulation when she was hired and signed a written agreement whereby she agreed to read and conform to the House Policy (Respondent's Exhibit 1). Other dancers are also required to do the same. In addition, the regular employees, including the manager, are orally advised about the rules relating to narcotics. If an employee or dancer is caught "participating in drugs", Miller's policy is to impose a monetary fine on the first occasion and to dismiss the employee or dancer for any subsequent transgression. It is also the policy of the lounge to request any patron found using narcotics to leave the premises. Betty Lou Stamm worked at the Bird's Nest Lounge as a bartender for about 3 months. She was fired shortly after the events in question occurred. B. J., a dancer, was also fired immediately after her participation in the transactions was discovered. The Respondent has operated his lounge since 1975 or 1976. Other than a soliciting violation in 1976, there have been no other beverage violations by the licensee. At no time while on the licensed premises did the beverage agents see anyone, patron or employee, using any suspected narcotic nor did they ever smell the aroma of marijuana in the air.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violations as alleged in Counts 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Notice to Show Cause. It is further RECOMMENDED that the charge contained in Count 4 be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's License No. 23-2365 (4-COP) be suspended for a period of 30 days from the date of the final agency order. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Seymour Chadroff, Esquire and Lane S. Abraham, Esquire 200 Southeast 1st Street Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33131 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-1004 LOUNGE, INC., d/b/a BIRD'S NEST LOUNGE, Respondent. _/
