Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida which has as its responsibility the licensure and regulation of beverage license holders in the State. The Respondent, 27th Avenue Corporation, doing business as Climax Lounge, holds Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco License No. 23-0358, Series 4-COP. At all times pertinent hereto John Ekberg and Daniel A. Wick were the sole corporate officers and shareholders of 27th Avenue Corporation. The Climax Lounge, the premises which are the subject of this proceeding, is located at 12001 N. W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida. In the early morning hours of January 17, 1981, undercover Beverage Officer Aurelius Thompson visited the Climax Lounge in the course of an investigation of suspected "drug violations" allegedly occurring on the premises. Officer Thompson approached a barmaid by the name of O. Z. Porter and engaged her in conversation, ultimately asking if she knew where he could obtain cocaine and she indicated she had none. At this time Officer Thompson observed a group of patrons "snorting a white powder" at the end of the bar where he was sitting. He spoke with an individual named "Larry" who indicated he had one gram of cocaine for sale for $75.00. Officer Thompson left the bar to get the required purchase price, and upon returning, Larry's brother Michael sold him approximately one gram of a white powdery substance which later proved to be cocaine. The parties in this proceeding have stipulated into evidence the lab reports and agreed that the substances obtained or purchased by the two investigating officers, Officer Thompson and Officer Alford, were cocaine and marijuana. The above described exchange of cocaine occurred inside the licensed premises at the bar. The exchange was made with the barmaid O. Z. Porter standing across the bar in close proximity to the transaction. Officer Thompson offered Ms. Porter some cocaine at the time of the exchange, but she refused, although she accepted some in a wadded up dollar bill for later use. In the early morning hours of January 23, 1981 this same officer returned to the Climax lounge. He went into the men's restroom and encountered an individual by the name of "Leech." "Leech" had a cellophane bag of capsules containing a white powder which he offered for sale for $10.00 each. He also had a bag with a larger amount of white powder selling for $25.00 per packet. Officer Thompson, during this encounter, purchased a foil package containing the white powder from Leech for $25.00. The contents of the packet proved to be cocaine. After concluding his transaction with the individual called "Leech" In the restroom, Officer Thompson then returned to the common area of the lounge and took a seat at the bar. He encountered and engaged in a conversation with the same individual named "Larry" whom he had met on his visit to the bar on January 17, 1981 in connection with the first purchase of cocaine on the premises. As a result of the second encounter, Larry ultimately sold Officer Thompson a packet of cocaine for $70.00. This transaction was conducted and concluded in approximately the center portion of the bar in plain view and was observed by "Norma", a barmaid employed by the Respondent. Beverage Officer Alford was also present on the premises the night of January 23, 1981 assisting in this investigation. While on the Respondent's premises he also purchased a quantity of cocaine from the individual known as Leech. The cocaine was contained in a capsule for which he paid $10.00, which transaction also occurred in the men's restroom of the Respondent's facility. Officer Thompson described his training in identification of cocaine and marijuana and established that on both visits of January 17 and January 23, 1981 he observed patrons in various areas of the lounge "snorting" what he believed to be cocaine and smoking or rolling marijuana cigarettes. Officer Thompson returned to the Climax Lounge on January 25, 1981. He approached a barmaid by the name of "Johnnie Mae" and inquired of her whether she knew who could sell him some marijuana. Johnnie Mae directed Officer Thompson to an individual called "Richard". The barmaid introduced Thompson to Richard and informed Richard that Thompson wanted to purchase some marijuana. Richard led Officer Thompson into the men's restroom where Thompson viewed "Leech" at the sink with a small quantity of marijuana in view. Thompson then purchased from Leech a small quantity of marijuana for $10.00. Upon leaving the restroom, Officer Thompson was summoned to the bar area by the previously identified individual, Larry, who informed Thompson that he had a gram of cocaine which he wished to sell him for $70.00. Thompson agreed and purchased the cocaine for that amount with the transaction taking place at the bar in front of the barmaid "Norma." Thompson thereupon asked Norma if she desired any cocaine, which she refused. On this evening, while he was in the restroom purchasing marijuana from Leech, Thompson observed approximately five individuals smoking marijuana. Pursuant to the investigation conducted by these officers, at this point, an Emergency Order of Suspension was entered against the license of the Respondent on January 29, 1981. On February 14, 1981 Officer Thompson accompanied by Officer Alford again entered the lounge on an additional visit. On this occasion Officer Thompson was approached by the same individual "Larry" from whom he had made the previous purchase and ultimately bought from Larry a quantity of cocaine for $65.00 on this occasion. Officer Thompson's observations on each occasion were approximately one to three hours in duration and he observed the use of cocaine and marijuana on each occasion, as did Officer Alford. Both officers indicated that they saw security guards on duty and circulating through the licensed premises, but were apparently unaware of the extent and vigor of enforcement procedures by the security guards. Officer Thompson did describe a plain clothed individual, whom the Respondent established was its security guard Larry McFadden, who forced he and other patrons to leave the men's restroom of the facility on the occasion of the February 14, 1981 visit. Other than this incident, the two officers testifying did not observe security guards attempting to curb the use or sale of drugs on the premises other than the management attempting to keep out of the restrooms people who had been there an inordinate period of time. The Respondent presented testimony from its corporate owners and several employees regarding their policy and efforts designed to curb the use of drugs on the premises. The manager, Ira Maxwell, verbally informed his employees of the licensee's prohibition of the presence or use of drugs on the premises and promulgated a set of written rules against certain activities, including the use of drugs or condonation by employees of the presence of drugs on the premises. The employees were required to sign acknowledgments that they had read and were informed of these rules. Employees Norma Jean Riley and O. Z. Porter signed these acknowledgments. The Manager' testimony established that the licensee's policy regarding controlled drug presence and drug transactions was to ask the possessors of drugs to leave the premises and, if their behavior was repetitive, to permanently bar them from the premises. Both the licensee's manager and its owner, Mr. Ekberg, established that warning signs prohibiting the use of drugs, or transactions involving drugs, were posted at several points in the common areas of the club at all times pertinent herein. Officer Thompson stated that he had simply not noticed the signs while he was on the premises. The club's manager, Ira Maxwell, testified that although he made personal observations of the public areas of the premises, most of his time was spent in the office. The principle stockholder and owner, Mr. Ekberg, is on the premises daily, but generally leaves around 10:00 p.m. each night. The lounge's open hours are from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. Three security officers patrol the club at all times it is open with instructions to eject drug traffickers, users or possessors from the premises. Employees are instructed to advise management when a patron is observed using or possessing controlled drugs. The principle security officer, Larry McFadden, Jr. corroborated the fact that the drug warning signs were posted at the club during all times pertinent hereto. Be is constantly on watch for drug use and orders such people to leave the premises if he suspects their use or involvement with drugs. McFadden established that at certain times, although he maintains a constant vigil, it is difficult to observe everything that transpires. Sometimes he must make rapid judgments in deciding whether situations involving violence or use of weapons are more critical at a given moment than apprehension of patrons who have brought drugs onto the premises. Neither McFadden nor the club's manager, Ira Maxwell, had ever summoned police in an effort to curb the possession or use of controlled drugs on the Premises. Mr. Ekberg, the Respondent's president, inquires daily of McFadden regarding problems occurring the previous evening and primarily relies on his manager, Ira Maxwell, to maintain order. His inquiries are generally directed to instances of property damage and fights. He too emphasized that the Respondent's policy towards drug use is to eject those possessing drugs and permanently bar those suspected of dealing in drugs from entry on the premises. His primary duties when present at the club involve ordering supplies, preparing the payroll and other administrative duties. He has in the past had difficulty obtaining police assistance and controlling drug use at his club. On one occasion Mr. Ekberg suggested to the police that they place undercover officers at the club for curbing drug usage and he has inquired of his employees on occasion regarding individuals suspected of being drug users, but has not made a practice of seeking law enforcement assistance nor have his management and employees ever summoned police in an effort to eliminate illegal drug activity. Mr. Ekberg believes that only hiring an undercover, unknown security staff would permit him to obtain any better results in eliminating the presence of drugs on his licensed premises. He has been in the liquor business for approximately 20 years with no previous violations. No testimony was offered however which could establish that any member of management or any employee of the Respondent attempted to learn the identities of patrons alleged to have been using or trafficking in drugs on the licensed premises or to aid in apprehending them, even after being served with the subject emergency suspension orders. On April 22, 1981 the second Notice to Show Cause (Case No. 81-1218) was served on the Respondent with the identical charges relating to the observations by the Petitioner's officers occurring on February 13 and 14, 1981 at the licensed premises referred to above which observations occurred after the initial suspension order entered in Case No. 81-1090 was served on the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Linda Diane Kinsey, holds Beverage License No. 63-1339, Series 2-CO. Under this license, she operated a business establishment named Fred Said's located at 913 West Robinson Street, Lakeland, Florida. On December 3, 1982, Beverage Officer Randall Robert West, accompanied by Dennis B. Russo of the Polk County Sheriff's Department, initiated an undercover investigation of Fred Said's. They arrived at the licensed premises approximately 2 00 p.m. Fred Tucker was behind the bar and served them two beers. The Respondent, Linda Diane Kinsey, was seated on a stool behind the bar. After a short time, Fred Tucker went out in the back of the bar to work on some construction. While he was out back, Deputy Russo approached Tucker about buying some marijuana. Tucker indicated he had some and they went back into the bar where Tucker retrieved a plastic bag of what he represented to be marijuana. The bag was taken from a drawer behind the bar and when Tucker opened the drawer, Officer West saw other bass of what appeared to be marijuana in the drawer. Tucker handed the bag to Deputy Russo who paid him 825. The bag was later verified by laboratory analysis to contain approximately 9 grams of cannabis, a controlled substance listed in Florida Statute 893.03. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1). When Fred Tucker took the bag of marijuana out of the drawer, the Respondent, Linda Diane Kinsey, was still seated behind the bar a few feet from the drawer and Fred Tucker. The drawer was in a clear line of sight from where she was seated. On December 14, 1982, Officer West, along with Investigator Russo and Deputy Nicolas H. Del Costello, returned to Fred Said's. When they arrived, the Respondent, Linda Diane Kinsey, was seated behind the bar. Officer West asked Ms. Kinsey if Fred Tucker was around. He then asked "Does Tucker have a bag for sale?" "Bag" is a common term for marijuana. In response to the question about the "bag for sale", Linda Diane Kinsey nodded her head yes and then got up and went to the back of the bar and called Tucker. Tucker came in and walked over to the game area where officer West and his companions were. After asking what they wanted, Tucker took a bag of marijuana out of his docket and sold it to Officer West. The bag was later confirmed by laboratory analysis to contain approximately 12 grams of cannabis, a controlled substance listed in Chapter 893.03, Florida Statutes. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 2). When the transfer of marijuana took place on December 14, 1982, on the licensed premises, the Respondent, Linda Diane Kinsey, was seated behind the bar approximately 30 feet away from where the transfer took place. On December 16, 1982, Officer West, accompanied by Investigator Russo, returned to Fred Said's with a search warrant. In the course of the search of the licensed premises, two plastic bags containing seeds were found. These bags were in the drawer behind the bar from which Fred Tucker had taken the bag of marijuana on December 3, 1982. The bags of seeds were later verified by laboratory analysis to contain 25 grams and 4.6 grams of cannabis, a controlled substance listed in Florida Statute 893.03. During December, 1982, Mr. Fred Tucker was employed as manager of Fred Said's. On December 3, 1982, he was tending bar and was observed signing an invoice for a beer delivery that occurred while Officer West and Investigator Russo were present. The Respondent testified that she was not aware of Fred Tucker's drug activity. However, she and Mr. Tucker were living together prior to December 16, 1982, and they scent a lot of time together. She was also present in the bar at the time of the purchases on December 3 and December 14. She admitted on cross examination that she was not sure he was dealing but she never asked. She did not recall telling Officer West on December 14 that Fred Tucker had a bag for sale but did not specifically deny such a conversation. She also testified that even while sitting behind the bar, she was not aware of what was going on in the licensed premises. There was no evidence that she, as licensee, had taken any steps to ensure that the premises were properly supervised and not being used for illegal purposes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's alcoholic beverage license he revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel J. Bosanko, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Linda Diane Kinsey 3333 Baird Street Lakeland, Florida 33805
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the notice to show cause dated June 16, 1992; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent owns an alcoholic beverage license, license number 5803205, for a business known as Tiffany & Suzy Q's Fun and Munch located in Apopka, Florida. Mr. Bowers, Respondent's husband, does not own the subject business or license, and may not as he has prior felony convictions within the last past five years that preclude his eligibility to own or hold an alcoholic beverage license. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Mr. Bowers was on the licensed premises acting as the manager or other person in charge of the business activities. Acting on information from a confidential source, the FDLE commenced an investigation of several vendors rumored to be involved in illegal foodstamp activity. FDLE retained several confidential informants (CI) to offer foodstamps for sale at substantially reduced prices. One of the confidential sources, Ella Mae Davis, posed as the seller at Respondent's licensed store. Acting in concert with another CI, Ms. Davis went to the store and offered foodstamps for sale to Respondent's husband. Ms. Davis alleged that the foodstamps had been stolen by her boyfriend, and that she wanted to sell them. Her instructions were to make Mr. Bowers (or other person at the store if there had been another) aware that the stamps were illegal, and to determine if a sale would be possible. On the first occasion, Mr. Bowers was receptive to the offer made by Ms. Davis and the CI. Ms. Davis observed Mr. Bowers go into a backroom at the store with the other CI who had possession of the foodstamps. When the CI came out, and the two women left the premises, the CI had the money received in exchange for the foodstamps. On a second visit to the store, Ms. Davis met Mr. Bowers who introduced her to a second male. Ms. Davis observed a second exchange of foodstamps for cash with the second male. This transaction took place at the licensed premises. During each of the transactions at the licensed premises, Ms. Davis observed Mr. Bowers' physical proximity to the exchange of foodstamps for cash. On each occasion the rate of exchange for the foodstamps was approximately fifty percent of the face value of the stamps. The Respondent was not on the licensed premises on either occasion when foodstamps were exchanged by Ms. Davis or her partner CI.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking Respondent's beverage license. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4808 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein Chief Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Para Bowers, pro se 104 East 18th Street Apopka, Florida 32703 Richard W. Scully, Director Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Donald D. Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent, Londonaire Lounge, Inc., was the holder of License No. 26-664, a Series 4-COP license held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. On January 22, 1975, the Respondent, Londonaire Lounge, Inc., licensed under the Beverage Laws as a corporation, had listed Robert Larson as its vice president/secretary in its statement on file with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. In fact, Robert Larson had served in that capacity from November 27, 1973 to January 28, 1974 and subsequent to that time, Nicholas Balistreri was, in fact, the corporate secretary and had been serving in that capacity for more than ten (10) days subsequent to Robert Larson's removal as vice president/secretary. On January 23, 1976, the Respondent, Londonaire Lounge, Inc., licensed under the Beverage Laws as a corporation, had listed Robert Larson as its vice president/secretary in its statement on file with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. In fact, Robert Larson had served in that capacity from November 27, 1973 to January 28, 1974 and subsequent to that time, Nicholas Balistreri was, in fact, the corporate secretary and had been serving in that capacity for more than ten (10) days subsequent to Robert Larson's removal as vice president/secretary. On or about the evening of January 6, 1976, Nicholas Balistreri, a corporate officer and employee of the Respondent went to the licensed premises at 1553 South Lane Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida about the time of closing. He was in the company of a man names Paul Spencer and both of these individuals were riding in Balistreri's automobile. Spencer and Balistreri entered the licensed premises and Spencer went into the office of the licensed premises and was joined by Balistreri and another individual who was an agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration. Spencer had in his possession approximately 35 grams of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance listed under Title 21, United States Code, Section 812(c). Spencer removed the cocaine and Balistreri, the agent, and Spencer ingested a quantity of the cocaine. The agent was acquainted with Spencer from some other occasion. After the individuals had ingested the cocaine, Balistreri told the agent and Spencer that no sale of that substance could be made in the licensed premises. Balistreri and Spencer then left with the agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration and returned to Balistreri's apartment in Balistreri's car, at which time Balistreri and Spencer were arrested. Balistreri was subsequently charged and convicted of having in his possession with the intent to distribute the substance, the aforementioned cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, listed under Title 21, United States Code, Section 812(c), in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. He was sentenced to three years confinement for that offense. Subsequent to the arrest of Balistreri, charges were placed against the Respondent, i.e., a Notice to Show Cause was filed against the Respondent corporation. Balistreri remained as an employee of the corporation until after the informal conference with the Division of Beverage and the date of Balistreri's dismissal from the corporation occurred in May, 1976. The above facts were as stipulated to by the parties.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts and conclusions of law, and in consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the agreement of the counsel of the Petitioner that the Petitioner does not seek revocation or suspension, it is recommended that the Respondent, Londonaire Lounge, Inc., be fined in the amount of $750.00, against its License No. 26-664, Series 4-COP. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 H. R. Fallin, Esquire 1239 King Street Jacksonville, Florida 32204
The Issue The issue is whether the facts alleged in the Notice to Show Cause in this case are true and whether those facts, to the extent that they are true, warrant revocation, suspension or other discipline of the license of Respondent. The Notice to Show Cause explicitly alleges several drug-related and one disorderly conduct violations on the licensed premises and implicitly alleges the Respondent's culpable responsibility for the violations under Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statues. The Notice To Show Cause also alleges that Respondent maintained the licensed premises as a place where controlled substances were illegally kept, sold, or used in violation of Sections 823.01 and 561.29(1)(e), Florida Statutes and Sections 893.13(2)(c) and 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Rene Tamer, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-07334, series 2-COP, for the licensed premises known as El Emperador, located at 36-38 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. On January 27, 1986, Beverage Investigator Carlos Baixauli went to the licensed premises of El Emperador. While there, he saw a black latin female walk over to a dog that was lying on the floor. Baixauli heard the woman ask the dog in spanish if he (the dog) wanted to have sex. The woman then fondled the dog's penis for approximately 20 minutes. Night manager Luis Tamer was present when this incident occurred. On February 5, 1986, Investigator Baixauli, while inside of the licensed premises of El Emperador, arranged to purchase one gram of cocaine from a white latin male, known as El Indio (the Indian). El Indio told Baixauli that he needed the $60.00 "up front." When Baixauli expressed concern as to whether El Indio would return with the cocaine or his money, El Indio stated that he worked at El Emperador, was always around and could be trusted. Baixauli gave El Indio $60.00. El Indio left the premises, returned and handed Baixauli a small plastic package of cocaine wrapped in a white napkin. Baixauli opened the napkin and conspicuously inspected the package of cocaine by holding it up to approximately eye-level and tapping it with his fingers. Luis Tamer was present and behind the bar at the time. On February 10, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of El Emperador. While Baixauli was at the bar talking to on-duty manager Luis Tamer, El Indio went over and asked Baixauli if he wanted to buy some "yeyo," a Spanish term for cocaine. Baixauli agreed to purchase one gram of cocaine and gave El Indio $60.00. El Indio subsequently returned and again interrupted a conversation between Baixauli and Luis Tamer. El Indio handed Baixauli a matchbook, from which Baixauli removed a plastic package containing cocaine. Baixauli held up the package and showed to his partner Garcia. El Indio told Baixauli that he could be found at El Emperador between 2:00 and 4:00 A.M. performing clean-up duties and at 11:00 A.M. stocking the beer coolers or running errands for Rene Tamer. On February 12, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of El Emperador. While there, Rene Tamer asked Baixauli: "Are you still working for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages?", to which Baixauli feigned ignorance and replied that he did not know what Rene Tamer was talking about. Rene Tamer, Luis Tamer and other employees then briefly retired to the kitchen where Baixauli observed them "looking out" at him as if to get a better view. El Indio arrived at El Emperador at approximately 2:00 P.M. and began stacking beers and cleaning the premises. El Indio asked Baixauli if he wanted any cocaine and Baixauli handed him $60.00 in front of Luis Tamer. El Indio later returned and handed Baixauli a matchbook. Baixauli removed a plastic package containing cocaine from the matchbook, held it up while inspecting it and showed it to his partner, Garcia. Luis Tamer was at the front counter during the transaction. On February 13, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of El Emperador. El Indio asked Baixauli if he could bring him anything. Baixauli gave El Indio $60.00 for one gram of cocaine. At approximately 4:00 P.M. El Indio returned and handed Baixauli a plastic package containing cocaine, which Baixauli held up and tapped with his finger. Luis Tamer, the manager, was standing behind the bar and observed Baixauli's inspection of the cocaine. Luis Tamer smiled and said nothing. On February 17, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited the licensed premises of Emperador. Baixauli went to the bar and struck up a conversation with Luis Tamer. El Indio went over and asked Baixauli if he needed anything, to which Baixauli replied "yes" and gave El Indio $60.00. El Indio returned with some cocaine while Baixauli was still speaking with Luis Tamer. Baixauli removed the plastic package of cocaine from the matchbook and held it up to inspect it. Once again, Luis Tamer just smiled. On February 24, 1986, Investigator Baixauli returned to El Emperador. Baixauli went over to off-duty employee Camaquay and struck up a conversation. El Indio approached them and asked Baixauli if he wanted any cocaine. Baixauli responded that he did and gave El Indio $60.00, at which time Camaquay started laughing and said that he had been told that Baixauli was a "Narc" and must be setting up El Indio. El Indio later returned to where Baixauli was seated at the bar talking to Camaquay and manager, Luis Tamer, and handed Baixauli a matchbook. Baixauli removed a plastic package of cocaine from the matchbook and held it up for inspection, tapping it with his finger. Neither Camaquay nor Luis Tamer said anything to Baixauli. Later on in the evening of February 24, 1986, Baixauli asked Camaquay if El Indio was coming back to El Emperador. Camaquay told Baixauli not to worry, because he, Camaquay, could get cocaine from the same source as El Indio. Baixauli, after obtaining change from Luis Tamer, gave Camaquay $30.00 for a half-gram of cocaine. Camaquay later returned and tossed a plastic package of cocaine onto the bar in front of Baixauli. Baixauli held up the bag at eye level and tapped it with his fingers in view of manager Luis Tamer and other patrons. On February 26, 1986, Investigator Baixauli went to El Emperador and asked Luis Tamer if Camaquay was in. Camaquay went over to Baixauli, showed him a plastic bag containing marijuana and asked if he wanted to smoke. Baixauli said no. Camaquay then went into the restroom from which Baixauli then smelled a strong odor of marijuana. Manager Luis Tamer asked Baixauli where Camaquay was and Baixauli told him that Camaquay was in the bathroom smoking marijuana. Later at El Emperador on February 26, 1986, El Indio approached Baixauli and asked if he needed anything. Baixauli gave El Indio $60.00 for some cocaine. El Indio later returned and gave Baixauli a matchbook. Baixauli removed a plastic package of cocaine from the matchbook, held it up and tapped it with his fingers. Luis Tamer was standing behind the bar looking at Baixauli and Camaquay was standing by the pool table looking at Baixauli. After Baixauli received his cocaine from El Indio on February 26, 1986, Camaquay approached several patrons playing pool and asked if they wanted to buy drugs. Camaquay showed them a plastic package of marijuana which he took from his pocket, in full view of Baixauli, and Luis Tamer the manager, who were all looking in his direction. After Camaquay's attempt to sell marijuana to the pool playing patrons, he approached Baixauli and asked if he could bring him anything. When Baixauli agreed, Camaquay left the premises and shortly returned, tossing a plastic package of cocaine onto the bar in front of Baixauli and Luis Tamer, who was standing behind the bar in front of Baixauli. Baixauli held up the plastic bag and tapped it with his fingers. On March 4, 1986, Investigator Baixauli returned to El Emperador. Luis Tamer yelled to El Indio that his "friends" were there. El Indio approached Baixauli and Baixauli gave him $60.00. While El Indio was out obtaining Baixauli's order, on-duty employee Camaquay went over to Baixauli and asked if he wanted to buy some cocaine. Baixauli said "yes" and handed Camaquay $30.00 over the bar. El Indio returned shortly with a plastic package containing cocaine. Baixauli held up the package and showed it to his partner, Garcia. Camaquay later returned and handed Baixauli a plastic package of cocaine. Baixauli raised the bag and tapped it with his fingers. On March 11, 1986, Investigator Baixauli visited El Emperador. Luis Tamer was present and tending the bar. El Indio approached Baixauli and asked him if he needed any cocaine. Baixauli said "yes" and gave El Indio $30.00 for a half gram of cocaine. El Indio later returned and handed Baixauli a matchbook containing a plastic package of cocaine. Baixauli performed his usual post-sale inspection of the cocaine by holding the package up to approximately eye-level and tapping it with his fingers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking the alcoholic beverage license number 23-07334, series 2-COP, held by Respondent, Rene Tamer. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Mr. Rene Tamer El Emperador 36-38 Ocean Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33149 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Kearney Secretary The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire General Counsel 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds alcoholic beverage license no. 39-651, Series 4-COP, which applies to its business known as Library Lounge, located at 10924 Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Respondent was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. Tampa Police Department Detective Robert Ulriksen was in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity during November and December, 1980. On November 30, he purchased three grams of cocaine from the dancer-employee Lila Colvert. The purchase was made openly and involved at least one other person who gave Colvert the packet which was later identified as cocaine. Ulriksen paid Colvert $25 for the packet. Tests performed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Crime Laboratory (FDLE) estab1ished that the substance purchased by Ulriksen was, in fact, cocaine. Ulriksen purchased three purported Quaalude tablets from the dancer- employee Barbara Ann Smith for ten dollars during a visit to the licensed premises on December 2, 1980. Tests performed by FDLE established that the tablets were Quaaludes (methaqualone) Ulriksen again visited the licensed premises on December 5, 1980. On this occasion he purchased three tablets from the dancer-employee Lila Colvert, which she represented as Quaaludes. FDLE tests established that these tablets were Quaaludes. On December 7, 1980, Ulriksen was again in the licensed premises. On that occasion he purchased four tablets, that were later determined to be quaaludes by FDLE. He purchased these tablets for $12 from the dancer-employee Barbara Ann Smith. Ulriksen visited the licensed premises on December 9, 1980, and purchased four tablets which were later determined by FDLE to be Quaaludes. Ulriksen purchased these tablets from the dancer-employee Brenda Sue Parr for $15. On December 12, 1980, Ulriksen was in the licensed premises and discussed a purchase of quaaludes with the dancer-employee Tammy Yates. She took Ulriksen to the dancers' dressing room where she removed five Quaaludes from her purse. Ulriksen paid her $15 for these tablets, which were determined to be Quaaludes by FDLE. The dressing room transaction was observed by the manager, Gaskins, who told Ulriksen to leave. The testimony of FDLE personnel and Tampa Police Department employees who secured the substances purchased by Ulriksen established that this evidence was properly controlled throughout the investigation. There was no indication whatsoever of tampering or other improper handling of the substances. In mitigation of these charges, Respondent established that it has cooperated with the Tampa Police Department in the investigation of its employees and third persons who were involved in the drug trafficking. Subsequent to the arrest of these employees, Respondent adopted preemployment screening procedures and currently has no female entertainers employed in the licensed premises.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of all charges contained in the Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint and suspend Respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 39-651 for a period of thirty days. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1982 at Tallahassee, 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 19th day of July, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Introduction Respondent, Maximilliano N. Gonzales (respondent or Max) is the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-04935, Series 2-COP, issued by petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division). The license is used in conjunction with the operation of a lounge known as the Los Amigos Bar (bar or lounge) located at 5 Southwest 55th Avenue, Miami, Florida. Respondent and his companion, Olga, purchased the lounge in January, 1983 and have operated it since that time. Generally, either Max or Olga is on the premises supervising operations although Max was seriously injured by a customer about a year ago while breaking up an altercation and was forced to curtail his activities. Consequently, he has hired several other persons to assist him in managing the lounge during 1987. In the summer of 1987, the Division received a list of fifty Miami area establishments where the City of Miami police department suspected illicit drug transactions were taking place. RespondeV bar was one of these establishments. As a part of its investigation, the Division sent two undercover investigators (Garcia and Santana) to the lounge on August 21, 1987 to ascertain whether the police department's suspicions were well- founded. The two visited the bar on a recurring basis until October 8, 1987 when the Division issued an Emergency Order of Suspension which shut down the lounge and suspended respondent's license. That prompted the case sub judice. During their seven week investigation, Santana and Garcia observed a number of open and flagrant drug transactions and other illicit acts taking place on the licensed premises. In accordance with the parties' stipulation, these acts are summarized in chronological order in the findings below. For purposes of this order, Roberto was a patron of the bar, Carlos was its manager, and Loreno, Rosa, Lourdes, Eliza and Genny were barmaids. Further, all employees were on duty when the events herein occurred. The investigation While visiting the lounge on or about September 2, 1987, Santana and Garcia were approached by Lorena and Roberto and asked if they wished to purchase some cocaine. The investigators told Roberto that they would each be interested in purchasing a half gram of cocaine. Roberto then left the licensed premises and returned shortly thereafter and handed each investigator a half gram packet containing what appeared to be cocaine, a controlled substance. Garcia paid Roberto sixty dollars for both packets. The transaction took place "in front of the bar" and in the presence of Lorena and Rosa. The substance purchased was sent to a laboratory where an analysis confirmed it to be cocaine. On another visit to the lounge on or about September 4, 1987, Santana and Garcia were approached by Roberto concerning a purchase of cocaine. Garcia told Roberto he and Santana wished to order a half gram each. Roberto left the licensed premises and returned a few minutes later. He handed Garcia two small packets containing what appeared to be cocaine. Garcia then paid Roberto sixty dollars for both packets. The transaction took place in plain view while the investigators were seated at the bar and in the presence of Rosa. The substance purchased was subsequently sent to a laboratory where an analysis confirmed it to be cocaine. While at the premises on September 4, Santana and Garcia heard Roberto ask Rosa in a loud voice if she wanted to purchase some cocaine. A short (but loud) conversation between Roberto and Rosa then ensued while in the presence of approximately ten patrons and three other barmaids. Throughout the same evening, several patrons were observed purchasing what appeared to be cocaine from Roberto inside the licensed premises. On or about September 8, 1987, Santana and Garcia observed Roberto selling what appeared to be cocaine to numerous patrons inside the licensed premises. The investigators were later approached by Roberto who asked if they wished to purchase the drug. After Santana responded that he wished to buy some, Roberto handed him two packets containing what appeared to be cocaine in exchange for sixty dollars. The transaction took place in plain view at the bar and in the presence of Lorena, Lourdes and Eliza. In addition, Carlos was on the licensed premises when these activities occurred. The substance purchased by the investigators from Roberto was thereafter sent to the laboratory for analysis and was found to be cocaine. On or about September 10, 1987, while on the licensed premises, Santana and Garcia were approached on two occasions by Lourdes and Genny who solicited drinks from the officers. The investigators then went to the parking lot of the licensed premises, and were approached by Roberto concerning a purchase of cocaine. After Santana responded that he wished to buy some, Roberto handed Santana two small packets containing what appeared to be cocaine in exchange for fifty dollars. The substance was later laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. After entering the premises on or about September 14, 1987, the investigators were immediately approached by Lourdes who solicited the officers for an alcoholic beverage. They were later solicited in the same fashion by Genny. Later on, Santana met with Roberto and Rosa and asked if he could buy some cocaine. Santana handed Roberto sixty dollars and returned to his seat at the bar. Shortly thereafter, Roberto approached the investigators at the bar and handed Santana two small packages containing what appeared to be cocaine. The transaction took place in plain view at the bar and in the presence of Rosa and Genny. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. On or about September 17, 1987, the investigators returned to the lounge and met with Eliza concerning a purchase of cocaine. Eliza approached a patron who was seated at the other end of the bar and briefly conversed with him. Eliza returned to the investigators and told them that she could obtain cocaine for sixty dollars per gram, and that the cocaine would be delivered to the bar in approximately thirty minutes. Some thirty minutes later, Roberto entered the lounge and approached the investigators and asked if they desired to buy the drug. Santana told him he was interested in such a purchase and handed Roberto sixty dollars in exchange for two small packets containing what appeared to be cocaine. The packets were delivered on top of the bar counter in plain view and in the presence of Eliza and Lourdes. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. While at the lounge on September 17, Genny solicited two drinks from Santana. The two investigators also had extensive conversations with Eliza regarding the purchase of cocaine. On or about September 21, 1987, Santana and Garcia met with the manager, Carlos, concerning the purchase of cocaine from Roberto. During the conversation, Carlos was told several times that the investigators had purchased cocaine from Roberto inside the licensed premises. Carlos merely responded that "Roberto is a good guy, but he is not here." At no time did Carlos express disapproval of the cocaine transactions occurring within the licensed premises. On the same visit, barmaid Genny solicited two drinks from the investigators. The investigators also had conversations with Genny regarding the availability of cocaine on the licensed premises. However, they were informed by her that Roberto had not yet arrived. On or about September 22, 1987, Santana and Garcia visited the lounge and were approached by Eliza who asked whether they wished to purchase some cocaine. Eliza also informed them that Roberto had instructed her to call him on his beeper if any of his "regular customers" needed to purchase cocaine. She added that if Roberto could not come to the bar, she could sell them drugs obtained from her source who was present at the bar. After Santana and Garcia told her that they were interested in purchasing cocaine,, Eliza took a quarter from the business cash register and placed a telephone call on the lounge telephone. Eliza then returned and informed them that Roberto was on his way to the bar. A few minutes later, Roberto entered the lounge, approached the investigators, and handed Garcia two small packages containing what appeared to be cocaine. For this, Garcia gave Roberto fifty dollars. The transaction took place in plain view at the bar and in the presence of Eliza and Carlos. The substance purchased was sent to the laboratory where an analysis confirmed the substance to be cocaine. It is also noted that on this same visit, Genny solicited a drink from the investigators. On or about September 24, 1987, Santana and Garcia returned to the bar and were approached by Eliza who asked if they wished to purchase cocaine. She again informed them that Roberto had instructed her to call him on his beeper should the investigators wish to make a purchase. After Santana and Garcia placed an order for cocaine, Eliza went to the public telephone inside the licensed premises, and made a telephone call. After she returned she advised them that Roberto would be arriving soon. Approximately twenty minutes later, Roberto arrived at the licensed premises and told them that he had the cocaine that they had ordered. Roberto then gave Santana one gram of a substance that appeared to be cocaine in exchange for sixty dollars. He also handed Garcia one-half gram of a substance appearing to be cocaine in exchange for thirty dollars. The two transactions took place in plain view in the bar and in the presence of Eliza and Carlos. The substances purchased were laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. During this same visit, Genny solicited a drink from the investigators. On or about September 28, 1987, the two investigators returned to the lounge and were approached by Eliza and Genny who asked if they were interested in purchasing some cocaine. Eliza told them that Roberto was not in the bar but that she could call him on his beeper. Garcia requested that Eliza telephone Roberto and order a gram of cocaine. Eliza left for a few moments and was observed making a telephone call inside the licensed premises. A few minutes later, Roberto entered the lounge and handed Garcia two small packets containing what appeared to be cocaine. For this, Garcia gave Roberto fifty dollars. The transaction took place in plain view at the bar and in the presence of Eliza and Genny. The purchased substance was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. On the same visit, Santana asked Roberto if he could purchase a gram of cocaine. Roberto said yes and told him the cocaine was stored in his car in the parking lot. The two then went to the car, where Roberto removed a package containing what appeared to be a half gram of cocaine, and gave it to Santana in exchange for twenty-five dollars. The substance was sent to the laboratory for analysis and was found to be cocaine. On October 1, 1987, Santana and Garcia again visited the lounge and were approached by Eliza who asked them if they wished to purchase cocaine. She also advised them that Roberto had not been in the lounge that day. Even so, she told them she could obtain the drug from another source. Garcia and Santana then placed orders for one and one-half grams of cocaine, respectively. After leaving for a few moments, Eliza returned and handed Santana and Garcia a brown paper napkin containing what appeared to be a gram and a half of cocaine. She was then paid seventy-five dollars by the investigators. The substance purchased was laboratory analyzed and found to be cocaine. On October 6, 1987, Santana and Garcia returned to the lounge and were asked by Eliza if they were interested in purchasing cocaine. Although she noted that Roberto had not been in the lounge that day, she told them she could obtain the drug from another source. Thereafter, Garcia and Santana each ordered one-half gram of cocaine from Eliza. After leaving the premises for a few minutes, Eliza returned and gave each investigator what appeared to be one- half gram of cocaine in exchange for fifty dollars. A laboratory analysis of the substance confirmed it was cocaine. When the above events occurred, there were no signs posted in the lounge warning patrons not to use drugs or to bring them on the premises. Further, the two investigators were never told by the manager or other employees to not use drugs, nor did they ever see a patron asked to leave because of having drugs in his possession. Max was seen in the lounge almost every day when the investigators were conducting their operation. However, there is no evidence that he personally saw a drug transaction take place, or that he was aware of any illicit activity. This is also the first occasion on which the licensed premises has been investigated. Mitigation At hearing Max and Olga appeared remorseful about this episode. They denied having knowledge of any drug transactions, and stated that around six months ago they had requested two Miami police officers to lend assistance in ridding their lounge of undesirable elements. They also told the police that "rocks" were being smoked in an adjacent parking lot. After the suspension of their license, the barmaids were fired. It is not clear whether Carlos was fired, but he only worked at the lounge for one or two months. A former manager who worked the first five months of 1987 testified he saw no drugs during his tenure, and that he was advised by Max to call the police if there were any problems. Because of his gunshot wounds, Max concedes it was necessary to hire other persons, perhaps too young, to oversee the lounge. He blames the incidents on those employees. If the license is reinstated, Max intends to shorten business hours and to have either himself or Olga on the premises at all times to ensure that no illicit activities occur. They also desire to sell the establishment, since they have invested their life savings in the business, and it represents their sole support.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of all charges in the Notice to Show Cause and that his License No. 230495, Series 2-COP, be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 2nd day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4483 Petitioner: 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. 2. Covered in finding of fact 5. 3. Covered in finding of fact 6. 4. Covered in finding of fact 7. 5. Covered in finding of fact 8. 6. Covered in finding of fact 9. 7. Covered in finding of fact 10. 8. Covered in finding of fact 11. 9. Covered in finding of fact 11. 10. Covered in finding of fact 12. 11. Covered in finding of fact 13. 12. Covered in finding of fact 14. 13. Covered in finding of fact 15. 14. Covered in finding of fact 16. 15. Covered in finding of fact 17. 16. Covered in finding of fact 18. 17. Covered in finding of fact 19. 18. Covered in finding of fact 20. 19. Covered in finding of fact 3. 20. Covered in findings of fact 4 and 21. Respondent: Covered in findings of fact 1 and 3. Covered in findings of fact 1 and 3. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 21. 5.(a) Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3 to the extent the investigation was prompted by the City of Miami. The remainder is not supported by the evidence. Covered in finding of fact 22. Covered in finding of fact 21. Covered in finding of fact 22. Rejected since the evidence shows Lourdes and Rosa worked "many months" and "3-4 months," respectively. Covered in finding of fact 22. Covered in finding of fact 23. 6. Covered in finding of fact 23. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020 Jose M. Herrera, Esquire Post Office Box 345118 Coral Gables, Florida 33114 Daniel Bosanko, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue Whether or not on or about July 13, 1975, Arthur Hayes, Jr., licensed under the beverage laws, and or his agent, servant or employee did sell or permit to be sold, served or consumed alcoholic beverages, to wit: a quart bottle of Schlitz beer, any time otherwise not provided for by county or municipal ordinance, contrary to Florida Statutes 561.29 Whether or not on or about July 20, 1975, Arthur Hayes, Jr. licensed under the beverage laws and or his agent, servant or employee did sell or permit to be sold, served or consumed, alcoholic beverages, to wit: a quart bottle of Schlitz beer at a time otherwise not provided for by county or municipal ordinance, contrary to Florida Statutes 561.29.
Findings Of Fact In the presentation of its case, the petitioner called beverage agent Eugene Fogel to the stand. On or about July 13, 1975, agent Fogel was working for the Sanford, Florida, Police Department and in addition was acting in an undercover capacity for the Division of Beverage. At around 2:00 p.m. July 13, 1975, then police officer Fogel met with agent Herb Baker of the Division of Beverage in Sanford, Florida, for purposes of investigating alleged illegal alcoholic beverage sales which were being made on Sunday. The witness, Fogel, went to the address of Dinah's West Side Grocery, entered the store and purchased a quart bottle of Schlitz beer from the respondent, Arthur Hayes, Jr., This particular item of evidence became petitioner's exhibit 1 and is currently in the custody vault of the Division of Beverage District Office in Orlando, Florida. Testimony by agent Herb Baker indicated that the meeting as spoken of by agent Fogel had transpired, and he had seen agent Fogel enter the subject premises on July 13, 1975, and come out with a paper bag which contained petitioner's exhibit number 1. This exhibit was turned over to agent Baker. Officer Fogel testified that on Sunday, July 20, 1975, the same sequence of events occurred that had occurred on Sunday, July 13, 1975. He met agent Baker and then went to Dinah's West Side Grocery around 3:30 p.m. and purchased a quart bottle of Schlitz beer, which is petitioner's exhibit number 2. The petitioner's exhibit number 2 is now located in the custody of the District Office, Division of Beverage, Orlando, Florida. Again, agent Baker stated that he observed officer Fogel go into the premises on July 20, 1975, return with a bag and that the bag contained a quart bottle of Schlitz beer. The testimony was given by officer Fogel that July 13, 1975 and July 20, 1975, were Sundays. Other Petitioner's exhibits admitted into evidence were exhibit number 3 which is a notice to show cause with accompanying administrative complaint, exhibit 4 which is a notice of hearing, and exhibit 5 which is a copy of an ordinance in Seminole County, Florida. This ordinance was in effect on July 13, 1975 and July 20, 1975, and prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages on any Sunday. The respondent took the stand in his own behalf and indicated that he knew Eugene Fogel in July of 1975, and knew that Eugene Fogel was a policemen with the Sanford Police Department. He stated that he therefore would not have sold beer to Officer Fogel on Sunday, because he knew such a sale would be illegal. The witness also stated that the only employees in his store were he and his wife and consequently the only explanation he could think of for the two quarts of beer, was that the policemen had stolen the beer from his freezer. He said this would have been easy since there was no lock on the beer freezer and it was close to the door. After assessing the testimony of the witnesses, together with the examination of the evidence it is determined that the violations as alleged in counts 1 and 2 in the administrative complaint have been proven. This determination is arrived at because it would not appear that there is any motive on the part of the two police officers to promote absolute falsehoods. On the other hand considering the interest of the respondent and the quality of his comments, he has not effectively explained or defended against the charges.
Recommendation For committing the offense as alleged in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the respondent, Arthur Hayes Jr., have his license suspended for a period of 30 days. For committing the offense as alleged in Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the respondent, Arthur Hayes, Jr., pay a civil penalty in the amount of $150.00. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Arthur Hayes, Jr. 1717 West 18th Street Sanford, Florida ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF BEVERAGE IN RE: DINAH'S WEST SIDE GROCERY 1717 West 18th Street CASE NO. 75-2011 Sanford, Florida DABT CASE NO. 5-75-94-A License No. 69-139 /
The Issue Whether Respondent obtained her real estate license by means of misrepresentation or concealment, by failing to disclose that she had pled guilty to a felony, in violation of Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints, pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, particularly Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 61J2, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent is and was a duly licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida at all times material to the Administrative Complaint in this action. Respondent was arrested on September 12, 1980, on a felony charge. On August 24, 1981, Respondent pled guilty to "possession of quaaludes less than 200 grams," in Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida. Adjudication of guilt was withheld by the court and Respondent was placed on probation for a period of five years. Respondent successfully completed probation, which was terminated after three years. Respondent has not been arrested or convicted on any other criminal charge since 1980. By licensure application, signed by Respondent on January 13, 1996, Respondent applied to become licensed as a real estate salesperson in the State of Florida. At the time Respondent made application for her real estate license, Respondent was asked to indicate whether or not she had "ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld. This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state, or nation, including traffic offenses . . . without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled or pardoned." In response to this question, Respondent checked the "No" box. In the "Instructions" section of the Application, applicants are plainly advised to "Fill out carefully." Respondent swore that all answers and information contained in her application were true and correct and complete. Respondent's signature was duly notarized. The Respondent's defense to the charge is that she thought the matter had been expunged. The Respondent stated that she personally took no action to expunge the matter. Instead, the Respondent's belief that the matter had been expunged is based upon events surrounding the Respondent's application for a liquor license in 1987. On the application, Respondent acknowledged her arrest in 1980. Upon investigation of Respondent's criminal record by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, the investigator indicated that one charge was dismissed and adjudication of guilt was withheld on a September 12, 1980, arrest. Respondent's application for a liquor license was approved. Based on this belief, the Respondent believed that the matter had been expunged, sealed, or nolle prossed. Although Respondent made a careless misrepresentation in her answer to Question 9, Respondent's explanation of the basis for her answer is credible.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of having violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's real estate license be suspended for one year and Respondent pay an administrative fine of $500.00, plus the costs of prosecution of this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 6th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven D. Fieldman, Chief Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801 Judith Milsaps, pro se 4408 Thistle Berry Drive Melbourne, Florida 32935 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
Findings Of Fact Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6, which were admitted into evidence without objection, show that on September 28, 1971, September 29, 1972, December 14, 1972, and 4-26-72 Eddie Davis was arrested by the City of Tallahassee Police Department for selling alcoholic beverages without a license in violation of s. 562.05 and s. 562.12(1) F.S. Exhibit 1, a certified copy of the Criminal Record Book of Leon County, in case no. 73-1967C, shows that on 6-27-73 Eddie Davis pleaded guilty of violation of s. 562.12 F.S. and was sentenced to pay a fine of $250. Exhibit 2, a certified copy of an order of probation dated January 10, 1974, signed by the county judge, shows that in Case No. 73-3793C Eddie Davis pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of tax paid whiskey for resale; was adjudicated guilty; sentenced "to serve 60 days mandatory, sentence suspended"; and was placed on probation for 6 months. Petitioner, with the assistance of the Bureau of Blind Services has opened a store in which he sells soft drinks, candy, cookies and some canned goods. He has installed a juke box, pool table, and several tables and chairs where patrons can sit; and he feels that he cannot make a success of this business without a beer license. After Petitioner testified that he had no other convictions than those shown on Exhibits 1 and 2 he admitted on cross examination that he had been convicted in 1952 for illegal transportation of liquor, served one year in federal prison, and thereafter was placed on probation. He further admitted an arrest approximately 2 weeks prior to the hearing. Petitioner receives compensation from the Bureau of Blind Services and in addition to helping Petitioner present his license application the bureau also paid for some of the equipment in his store, such as air conditioners, cold box for drinks, and water heater; and the bureau helped in the purchase of the merchandise offered for sale. The pool table, table and chairs were purchased by Davis. The Bureau witness testified that he feels the license is necessary in order for Davis to succeed in his business, but acknowledged that no inquiry had been made by the Bureau to determine whether or not Petitioner could qualify for a beer license before public funds were expended. Petitioner further contended that his application had been denied because he is blind, but no evidence to support this allegation was submitted. The District Supervisor, Division of Beverages, Tallahassee, testified that the policy of the Division is to reject applications where applicant has been convicted of a beverage violation within the past five years.
