The Issue The issue to be decided here concerns the Petitioner, Barbara A. James' entitlement to be allowed to receive in transfer a Series 2-COP beverage license for a premises known as Ringside Bar in Dade County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On July 24, 1979, the Petitioner, Barbara A. James, applied to the Respondent, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, to receive an alcoholic beverage license. The details of that application may be found in the Respondent's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the personal questionnaire executed in the course of the application process. This application was for the transfer of license 23-777 for a licensed premises known as the Ringside Bar located at 136 N.E. 54th Street, Miami, Florida. The Petitioner is the owner of the Ringside Bar in which she has placed an initial downpayment of $7,500.00 and financed an amount of $18,000.00 with an additional $10,000.00 in improvements having been made to the bar. After reviewing the license application, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco denied the transfer of the license on December 31, 1979. In his statement of denial the Director based his decision on the belief that the applicant, Barbara A. James, was not thought to be of good moral character within the meaning of Section 561.15, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner took issue with that determination by the Director and this led to the formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing held herein. At present, in addition to being the owner of the Ringside Bar, the Petitioner is an employee of the Florida Container Company of Sebring, Florida, and works in the sales and promotional aspect of that company. The company manufactures egg containers. In total time of employment, the Petitioner has worked for the Florida Container Company for a period of thirteen (13) months. The Petitioner was not actively employed by that company at the time of the request for license transfer. For approximately ten (10) years prior to her employment with this employer, the Petitioner had worked as a cocktail waitress and barmaid in various establishments in Tampa, Florida. In the past the Petitioner has had a number of arrests for various offenses. Around 1965 or 1966 the Petitioner was arrested for prostitution in Indianapolis, Indiana. Petitioner's explanation of this matter offered during the course of the hearing was to the effect that she was living in a rooming house when the police came to that location and arrested everyone there because of the authorities' suspicion that one or two of the girls who were living there were engaging in prostitution. The Petitioner denied engaging in prostitution. The charges were dismissed, according to the Petitioner, and there is no evidence to contradict this statement by the Petitioner. In 1970 Ms. James was arrested for disturbing the peace and this case was dismissed. In 1975 the Petitioner was arrested for disorderly conduct by the Tampa Police Department and was subsequently fined $25.00. This incident involved a dispute with her roommate, in which James and her roommate had a fight. On April 25, 1978, in Tampa, Florida, the Petitioner was arrested for offering to commit prostitution. The disposition of that case in the courts was that the Petitioner entered a plea of nolle contendere to the offense and was required to pay a fine. There was no adjudication of guilt in that matter. In the course of the hearing sub judice, the Petitioner stated that the reason she entered her nolle contendere plea was for reason that her attorney advised her that it was the easiest and quickest thing to do and it would be like it didn't happen. James further stated that if she had known that it would he held against her she would have contested it, meaning the charge of attempting to commit prostitution. The facts of the incident of April 25, 1978, reveal that officers of the Tampa Police Department on that date went to a bar known as the Huddle Lounge, which is located on North Dale Mabry in Tampa, Florida, to investigate possible acts of prostitution that were occurring in the bar. The two officers, Halstead and Slater, entered the lounge and took a seat at the bar and ordered a drink. At that time Officer Halstead noticed a woman identified as Troy Taylor who was smiling at Officer Halstead. Halstead and Slater then went to the table where Troy Taylor was located and took a seat. Shortly thereafter, the Petitioner came to the table and entered into the conversation that was being conducted. While the Petitioner was present, Taylor discussed with the two officers the arrangement for a "date" between the officers, Taylor and the Petitioner. Use of the word "date" meant the making of arrangements for the women to commit acts of prostitution. Taylor stated that the price for the "date" would be fifty dollars ($50.00) for each officer and told the officers to follow them to the apartment of the woman which would be used for the "date". Taylor and the Petitioner left in their automobile and the officers followed them to the apartment of Taylor and the Petitioner. Once inside the apartment, Taylor asked the officers which officer was going to go with what woman and then stated to Halstead that he should go with her. The Petitioner then went with Officer Slater into her bedroom. When in the bedroom, Slater asked James about the money which had been discussed in the bar as a payment for the act of prostitution. James told the officer to place the money on the bookshelf and she then removed her clothes. The amount of money that was placed there was fifty dollars ($50.00). James instructed the officer to take off his clothes and he complied with her request. She asked him to go into the bathroom and when in the bathroom she stated that she would have to examine his genitalia to determine if he was clean and if he had "V.D." She examined his penis and took him back into the bedroom and told him to lie down. The officer then asked James what he would get for his fifty dollars ($50.00) and in response James told him on several occasions to lie down. She then removed his shorts and moved her head toward the area of his penis, at which he asked what he would get for the fifty dollars ($50.00) by the question, "Half and half?", meaning oral sex and intercourse, to which the Petitioner responded, "Yes." The officer then stated that he had changed his mind and got up from the bed and placed the Petitioner under arrest.
Recommendation IT IS RECOMMENDED that the request by the Petitioner, Barbara A. James, to transfer the alcoholic beverage license associated with the Ringside Bar at 136 N.E. 54th Street, Miami, Florida, into her name as licensee be DENIED. 3/ DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco seeks to suspend, revoke, and otherwise take disciplinary action against the Respondent and its license on the basis of allegations that the Respondent has violated Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by permitting patrons to engage in illegal activities on the licensed premises and by allowing the licensed premises to be used for the illegal keeping, selling, or delivery of controlled substances. The Respondent contends that no disciplinary action should be taken because the Respondent has qualified as a "responsible vendor," and has taken reasonable steps to attempt to prevent the conduct complained of in the Notice To Show Cause.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, a corporation named 3673 Bird, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent corporation"), has been the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-01224, series 4-COP, for licensed premises knows as Uncle Charlie's, which premises are located at 3673 Bird Road, Miami, Dade County, Florida. The Respondent is owned by Robert Sloate, who is also the sole officer of the Respondent corporation. Mr. Sloate does not take an active part in the day-to-day management of the licensed premises. Mr. Sloate makes only rare or occasional visits to the licensed premises. During November of 1991 and during the first few days of December of 1991, Mr. Sloate was hardly ever on the licensed premises. Mr. Sloate did not have personal knowledge of the events described in Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of these Findings of Fact. The business of the licensed premises is managed by a group of four managers. The Respondent corporation has a total of twenty-six employees, including the four managers. The Respondent corporation has performed the actions necessary to qualify as a "responsible vendor" within the meaning of Section 561.705, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 91-60, Laws of Florida. 1/ Those actions include training and instruction sessions for managers and employees, meetings of employees, and the posting of signs to discourage underage sales and illegal activity involving controlled substances. The licensed premises were also equipped with TV cameras that cover both doors, the front bar, and the back bar. However, the TV cameras do not make a tape recording of what they cover, and there is no evidence that the TV monitors are watched by employees of the Respondent corporation on any regular basis. During the course of an undercover investigation that began on or about November 13, 1991, and continued until the licensed premises were raided on December 6, 1991, the following transactions involving controlled substances took place within the licensed premises: On or about November 14, 1991, a patron known as Mark sold two baggies, each containing approximately one-half gram of cocaine, to a confidential informant who was cooperating with the undercover investigation. 2/ On or about November 14, 1991, a patron known as Gus sold cocaine to a confidential informant who was cooperating with the undercover investigation. On or about November 14, 1991, a patron known as Mark sold cocaine to Detective Bales. (d) On or about to Detective Rivera. November 15, 1991, a patron known as Sergio sold cocaine (e) On or about Agent Lopez. November 15, 1991, a patron known as Clint sold cocaine to (f) On or about to Detective Bales. November 15, 1991, a patron known as Sergio sold cocaine (g) On or about Detective Bales. November 15, 1991, a patron known as Mark sold cocaine to (h) On or about Detective Rivera. November 15, 1991, a patron known as Mike sold cocaine to (i) On or about to Agent Lopez. November 15, 1991, a patron known as Sergio sold cocaine (j) On or about November 15, 1991, a patron known as Mike sold cocaine to Detective Fernandez. On or about November 21, 1991, a patron known as Sergio sold cocaine to Detective Bales. On or about November 21, 1991, a patron known as Sergio sold cocaine to a confidential informant who was cooperating with the undercover investigation. On or about November 22, 1991, a patron known as Sergio sold cocaine to Agent Lopez. Or or about November 22, 1991, a patron known as Wesley sold cocaine to Detective Bales. On or about November 22, 1991, a patron known as David sold cocaine to a confidential informant who was cooperating with the undercover investigation. On or about November 22, 1991, a patron known as Clint sold cocaine to Agent Lopez. On or about December 4, 1991, a patron known as Clint sold cocaine to Agent Lopez. On or about December 4, 1991, a patron known as Charles Garcia sold cocaine to Detectives Villanueva and Feria. The vast majority of the drug transactions described in the preceding paragraph were conducted in an open and casual manner, with no effort by either party to conceal the transaction. Most of the drug transactions described above took place when the licensed premises were quite crowded and noisy, which would have made it difficult for some of the transactions to be noticed by employees of the Respondent corporation. However, many of the transactions took place near employees of the Respondent corporation, and from the open nature of the transactions, it should have been obvious to the employees of the Respondent corporation what was going on. The flagrant nature of the illegal drug transactions taking place in the licensed premises during the period of the undercover investigation is illustrated by the following: The patron Sergio, who made several sales of cocaine to the undercover police officers and to the confidential informant, was so flagrant about his illegal activities that he carried a tambourine with him and would shake the tambourine to advise all who were interested that he had cocaine available for sale. At least one of the managers was aware of Sergio's tambourine shaking, because he testified that it annoyed him. It was obvious to anyone who troubled to look that Sergio was dealing in something, because after he shook his tambourine there would be several people who would approach him, hand him money, and receive from him small plastic baggies containing white powder. Sergio's cocaine sale activity was so casual that on at least one occasion he took a twenty dollar bill and delivered a baggie containing cocaine without even being specifically asked for cocaine. The casual nature of Sergio's activity is also indicated by the fact that he was not concerned about being asked for cocaine in the presence of two other people, and he carried numerous baggies of cocaine in his pockets. The patron Charles Garcia attempted to promote the ingestion of cocaine inside the licensed premises after he delivered cocaine to Detectives Villanueve and Feria. The undercover police officers observed numerous transactions during which a patron would approach another patron, deliver money to the other patron, and then receive a small plastic baggie from the person who took the money. These observations included the observation of numerous such transactions involving Sergio (the tambourine man) and several involving the patron known as Mike. On one occasion during the investigation, Detective Rivera observed a patron exiting the restroom with white powder beneath his nose. When Detectives Villanueva and Fiera were purchasing cocaine from Charles Garcia on December 4, 1991, a patron named Ray asked Detective Fiera to join him in the restroom. In the restroom, Ray ingested a white powder that appeared to be cocaine in front of both Detective Fiera and the restroom attendant. All of the drug transactions described in Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of these Findings of Fact took place within the licensed premises during business hours, when employees and patrons were present on the licensed premises. None of the employees ever called the police or asked any of the parties to the drug transactions to leave the licensed premises. The Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, and the Metro-Dade Police Department executed a raid on December 6, 1991, at the licensed premises. After the raid was completed, thirty-four packets of unclaimed cocaine were found on the floor, as were several pills and several packets of marijuana. An unclaimed pen knife with cocaine on the tip was also found. On the night of the raid, one of the bartenders tossed a baggie of cocaine over the bar. That bartender was arrested for possession of cocaine. On the night of the raid, Sergio was found to be in possession of three baggies of cocaine, as well as other controlled substances. The investigative expenses incurred in the course of the undercover investigation of the Respondent corporation's premises totaled one thousand one hundred forty-eight dollars ($1,148.00). In brief summary, the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of these Findings of Fact, took place in plain view. The open exchanges of drugs and money, the casualness with which those selling drugs on the licensed premises went about their business, and the frequency of the drug transactions, all demonstrate a pattern of flagrant, persistent, repeated, and recurring violations. The nature and frequency of the subject drug transactions were such that they would have been noticed by a reasonably diligent licensee.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages issue a final order in this case revoking the Respondent corporation's alcoholic beverage license number 23-01224, series 4-COP, for the premises located at 3763 Bird Road, Miami, Dade County, Florida, and imposing an administrative fine in the total amount of $18,000.00. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of December 1991. MICHAEL M. 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 December 1991.
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that the Respondent is guilty of misconduct involving the possession of cocaine. There is very little dispute regarding the facts in this case. The primary dispute concerns the determination of the appropriate penalty to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Alton J. Roberts, holds teaching certificate number 584629 issued by the Florida Department of Education. His certificate is in the area of Physical Education and is valid for the period 1991-1996. At all times relevant and material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been, and continues to be, employed as a school teacher with the Dade County School System. He has been teaching in this capacity as a Physical Education teacher for approximately four years. On or about July 21, 1990, the Respondent and another adult male were in the process of driving from Miami to New York to return a van that belonged to the Respondent's brother. While the Respondent was sleeping and the other man was driving, law enforcement officers stopped the van for a traffic violation in the vicinity of Fort Pierce, Florida. As the van was coming to a stop, the driver woke the Respondent and told him that they were being stopped by law enforcement officers. When the van came to a stop, the driver got out first and went to speak to the officers. After the driver had gotten out of the car, the Respondent saw a small plastic container that he knew was the type of container customarily used for storing and sifting powdered cocaine. In an effort to conceal the container from the law enforcement officers, the Respondent picked up the container and put it in one of his back pockets. A few minutes later when the Respondent was asked to step out of the van, the law enforcement officers discovered the container in the Respondent's back pocket. Further examination of the container removed from the Respondent's back pocket revealed that it contained a small amount of white powder. The white powder was not weighed, but was perhaps as much as a gram in total weight. Described otherwise, the volume of the powder in the container removed from the Respondent's pocket was less than the volume of powder that would result from a crushed aspirin. The white powder was field tested and it tested positive for cocaine. As a result of the events described above, the Respondent was arrested and charged with felony possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. On February 25, 1991, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of cocaine and the other charge was dismissed. Adjudication was withheld and the Respondent was placed on probation for a period of two years. The Respondent was also required to perform 150 hours of community service, to pay $725.00 in court costs and fines, to pay $50.00 per month toward the cost of his probation supervision, and to receive a substance abuse evaluation. The Respondent has complied with all of the court-ordered requirements. The Respondent does not use cocaine. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been involved in any way with cocaine or any other illegal drugs at any time before or after the incident on July 21, 1990. The Respondent's arrest and subsequent court proceedings did not receive any notoriety in the Dade County area. The Respondent reported the matter to the principal of the school where he is employed. The principal reported the matter to administrators of the Dade County School System. After review of the matter, the administrators of the Dade County School System allowed the Respondent to continue to be employed as a teacher. Between the date of his arrest and the date of the hearing, the Respondent has taught all of one school year and most of a second school year. No evidence was offered of any problems or irregularities in his teaching during that period, nor was any evidence offered of any lack of effectiveness as a teacher during that period.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of a violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing a penalty consisting of the following: Issuance of a written reprimand from the Education Practices Commission to be placed both in the Respondent's certification file and in the Respondent's personnel file with the Dade County School System, and Placement of the Respondent on probation for a period of five years, the probation period to begin upon issuance of the Final Order and to include such terms as may appear necessary and appropriate to the Education Practices Commission to monitor the Respondent's performance as a teacher during the period of probation, including a provision for random drug testing of the Respondent at the request of the Education Practices Commission and at the expense of the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of April, 1992. MICHAEL M. 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 20th day of April, 1992.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner may be granted an alcoholic beverage license. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE Petitioner and Respondent agreed to the admission of their Prehearing Stipulation as Hearing Officer Exhibit A. Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Bob Young, James E. Willis, Mark Orr, Gary Ellwood, Bruce Hunter, and Andy Hoy and had admitted three exhibits. Petitioner also made an oral proffer that six additional witnesses would, if called, testify to the good moral character of James E. Willis. Respondent presented only the oral testimony of Barry Schoenfe1d. No transcript was provided, but the parties timely submitted their respective proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. All proposed findings of fact have been ruled upon in the appendix to this Recommended Order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Rialto Food Service, Inc. d/b/a Hoy's Rialto Restaurant, whose president is James E. Willis. Respondent is the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. On August 14, 1986, Petitioner filed an application for an alcoholic beverages license in connection with the purchase of Hoy's Rialto Restaurant. On September 29, 1980, James E. Willis was convicted of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance (methaqualone). On January 10, 1986, James E. Willis received a certificate of restoration of civil rights. James E. Willis currently enjoys a good reputation within the Ft. Pierce, Florida business community. Particularly persuasive of Willis' present good moral character is the entirely favorable factual and opinion evidence offered on his behalf by the prosecutor who presented the original case resulting in Willis' 1980 conviction. Several witnesses with opportunity to observe and good reason to know, also testified that Willis has taken an active and apparently effective stand against drug possession and/or drug use in Hoy's Rialto Restaurant. Subsequent to Petitioner's application for licensure, Sgt. Bob Young of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco investigated James E. Willis. Willis had made full disclosure on his application and thereafter concealed none of the facts found in findings of fact paragraphs 4-6, supra. After completing his investigation and despite Mr. Willis' conviction, Sgt. Young recommended approval of the Petitioner's application for licensure. Nonetheless, on February 6, 1987, Respondent denied Petitioner's license application on the grounds that Petitioner's corporate officer, James E. Willis, had been convicted of a felony within the past 15 years for a crime which directly related to the Alcoholic Beverages Law. Barry Schoenfeld, Chief of Licensing for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, testified that it is Respondent's unwritten, uncodified "policy" to deny licensure when an applicant has a corporate officer with a felony conviction within 15 years from the date of application, which conviction involves one of the five crimes enumerated in Section 561.15, Florida Statutes. This agency "policy" has been in effect at least 5 years immediately prior to the formal hearing. Likewise, it is Respondent's position that a narcotics conviction, as in the instant case, is "directly related" to the license sought by Petitioner. Sgt. Young did not advise Mr. Willis of said policy, nor did he indicate that Petitioner's application would not be approved. Had this policy been in writing or otherwise available or made known to Petitioner prior to submitting its application, Petitioner would not have purchased Hoy's Rialto Restaurant. There are no other unwritten policies concerning automatic rejections for applications by persons convicted of any crime other than drug related crimes. There is no written agency policy or unwritten agency policy as to what crimes directly relate to Chapter 561, Florida Statutes, the Alcoholic Beverages Law. No other facts exist that would disqualify Petitioner's application for licensure.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverages license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1677 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (FOF): Petitioner's PFOF: Covered in FOF 1 and 3. Covered in FOF 2. 3, 4, 5. Covered in FOF 7. Covered in FOF 8. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 9. To the extent it is not accepted, it is rejected as not supported by the evidence as a whole. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. See FOF 9-11. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 12. 13-14. Covered in FOF 6 except for those matters which are subordinate and unnecessary to a disposition of the issues in this cause. 15-16. Covered in FOF 11. Respondent' s PFOF: 1. Covered in FOF 1. 2. Covered in FOF 2. 3. Covered in FOF 3. 4. Covered in FOF 4. 5. Covered in FOF 5. 6. Covered in FOF 8. 7. Covered in FOF 6. 8. Covered in FOF 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Bosanko, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph J. DeRoss, Jr., Esquire 133 South Second Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
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. _/
Findings Of Fact In May of 1977, petitioner filled out respondent's form DBR 710-L, with the help of Lee Brewer from whom petitioner proposed to buy a bar. Ms. Brewer typed answers to the questions on the form, which petitioner dictated. One of the questions on the form inquired "Have you ever been arrested?" Although petitioner told Ms. Brewer that he had been arrested for traffic offenses, they decided after some discussion to answer the question no. Petitioner signed the form in the place provided, right under the words, "I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury . . . that the foregoing information is true to the best of my knowledge Joint exhibit No. 3. On October 26, 1977, petitioner amended his answer to the question as to arrests by listing six arrests, two of which were for traffic offenses. Joint exhibit No. 2. No other evidence as to petitioner's moral character was adduced.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for transfer of a beverage license. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of March, 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: Mr. Manuel W. James, Esquire 419 Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 Mr. Frances Bayley, Esquire The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a Florida Educator's Certificate should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On July 5, 1990, Petitioner, Judith Madeline Feldman (Feldman), purchased a $10 rock of cocaine from an undercover police detective during a police operation to combat street level cocaine dealing. The police found a pipe used to smoke cocaine in the console of Feldman's car. The pipe field tested positive for cocaine. As a result of the purchase of the cocaine and the possession of the cocaine pipe, Feldman was arrested and charged with purchasing cocaine, possessing cocaine, and possessing drug paraphernalia. In December 1990, Feldman pled nolo contendere to one count of purchasing cocaine and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. Adjudication was withheld, and Feldman was placed on probation for two years. By court order dated February 24, 1992, the records concerning the arrest on July 5, 1990, were sealed. In March 1996, Feldman filed an application with the Florida Department of Education for a Florida Educator's Certificate. The application form contains the following inquiry concerning the applicant's arrest record: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation); or are there any criminal charges now pending against you? Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES OR NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. Please attach a separate sheet if you need more space. Any record that has NOT been SEALED or EXPUNGED must be reported in this section. Feldman checked the No box on the arrest record section of the application. The application contained a section inquiring about sealed or expunged records. The application contained the following: Have you been convicted or found guilty of a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation) and such record(s) was sealed or expunged? Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. A YES or NO answer is required by Florida Law. If you check the YES box, you must give the information requested for each charge. Please attach a separate sheet if you need more space. SEALED or EXPUNGED records MUST BE REPORTED pursuant ss. 943.0585 and 943.059, FS. However, the existence of such records WILL NOT BE DISCLOSED nor made part of your certification file which is public record. Feldman checked the No box on the sealed/expunged record section of the application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application should be granted with a one-year probation and appropriate conditions relating to drug screening and counseling during the probation period. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 Judith M. Feldman 5030 26th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32966 Judith M. Feldman 1126 West Oglethorpe Highway Hinesville, Georgia 31313-5415
