The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, a licensed distributor of tobacco products, was required to pay an excise tax and surcharge, which the state levies on specified tobacco products, when it regularly brought into Florida shipments of a tobacco-containing product marketed as a cigar wrapper and known as a "blunt wrap."
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Petitioner Brandy's Products, Inc. ("Brandy's"), was a wholesale distributor that supplied more than 2,000 different products to retailers such as gas stations and convenience stores. Among these products were cigarettes, which Brandy's was authorized to sell pursuant to a valid, current permit, and other "tobacco products" besides cigarettes, in accordance with a separate distributor's license, numbered 66-00115. The state of Florida levies an excise tax and a surcharge upon tobacco products. A distributor becomes liable to pay these impositions, e.g., when it brings such goods into the state, or when it ships or transports tobacco products to retailers in the state. Respondent Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("Department" or "DBPR") is the state agency authorized to administer and enforce the laws relating to the taxation of cigarettes and other tobacco products. The following "tobacco products" are taxable under Florida law: loose tobacco suitable for smoking; snuff; snuff flour; cavendish; plug and twist tobacco; fine cuts and other chewing tobaccos; shorts; refuse scraps; clippings, cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco, and other kinds and forms of tobacco prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing; but "tobacco products" does not include cigarettes, as defined by s. 210.01(1), or cigars. § 210.25(11), Fla. Stat. (defining "tobacco products")(emphasis added). At all relevant times, Brandy's sold a product that is marketed as a cigar wrapper (or rolling paper) and known colloquially as a "blunt wrap." A blunt wrap looks like this1/ (except for the color, which in reality is a shade of brown): Tobacco is one of the raw materials used to manufacture the blunt wraps at issue, which consequently contain tobacco as an ingredient. The dispute at the heart of this case is whether blunt wraps fall within the definition of "tobacco products" set forth above, as the Department argues, which would make them taxable, or outside of that definition, as Brandy's maintains, which would place blunt wraps beyond the reach of the taxing statutes. The Department's position hardened in the first half of 2009 after a period of internal discussion triggered by Congress's enactment of legislation which expanded the Internal Revenue Code's definition of "roll-your-own tobacco" to include tobacco-based wrappers for cigarettes or cigars, thereby subjecting blunt wraps purchased after March 31, 2009, to taxation at the federal level.2/ Although the Florida Legislature had not similarly amended the relevant statutory definition of "tobacco products" (and has not done so as of this writing), the Department decided that blunt wraps are a form of "loose tobacco suitable for smoking" and thus taxable. The Department declared that July 1, 2009, would be the effective date of its new policy, and it began assessing the excise tax and surcharge on purchases of blunt wraps occurring from that day forward.3/ The Department did not adopt a rule reflecting its decision to treat blunt wraps as a taxable tobacco product, nor did the agency give any official notice to licensed distributors such as Brandy's that the state would start taxing blunt wraps on July 1, 2009. Brandy's had purchased blunt wraps for sale to customers in Florida for some years before July 1, 2009, but during that time had not, in connection with such transactions, remitted to the state any amounts for the excise tax and surcharge on tobacco products. This was because, until July 1, 2009, the Department had never applied the term "tobacco products" as defined in section 210.25(11), Florida Statutes, pursuant to an understanding that it includes blunt wraps. Brandy's, which was unaware of the Department's expansive reinterpretation of section 210.25(11) in 2009, continued doing business after July 1 of that year just as it had before that date. Consequently, Brandy's did not remit to the Department any amounts for the Florida excise tax and surcharge on tobacco products based on purchases of blunt wraps during the two-year assessment period at issue, from July 7, 2009, until August 2, 2011. DBPR routinely audits licensed distributors of tobacco products such as Brandy's. At regular, six-month intervals, an auditor conducts an on-site review of the licensee's books and records pertaining to taxable purchases, comparing the documents to the licensee's tax returns. During the assessment period, Brandy's never produced records showing purchases of blunt wraps because Brandy's reasonably believed such purchases remained nontaxable. The auditors never asked to see records relating to blunt wraps, which would have provided Brandy's some notice, at least, of the Department's new policy. The evidence does not support a finding that Brandy's knowingly withheld or concealed relevant information from the auditors. Unbeknownst to Brandy's, sometime in 2011 or 2012 the Department obtained records from an out-of-state company called National Honey Almond ("NHA"), a supplier of Brandy's. The NHA records included invoices showing the quantities and purchase prices of blunt wraps that NHA had delivered to Brandy's from July 2009 through September 2011. The state excise tax and surcharge had not been paid on these purchases. Using the NHA invoices, the Department calculated that sums totaling $15,911.60 in excise taxes and $38,187.72 in surcharges were due from Brandy's on its so-called "untaxed purchases" of blunt wraps from NHA. Together with interest ($12,358.98) and a penalty of $5,409.93, the Department figured that the total liability was $71,868.23. By letter dated March 1, 2013, the Department asked Brandy's to remit payment of this amount within 10 days after receiving the letter. This letter gave Brandy's its first notice that the Department considered blunt wraps to be a taxable tobacco product, but it failed to inform Brandy's that the assessment could be contested. Nevertheless, Brandy's promptly requested an "informal hearing" and tendered a token payment of $1,500 to show good faith. Following that, the Department——without first conducting a hearing——sent Brandy's a letter dated April 4, 2014, in which the Department's "final request" for payment of $70,368.23 was made. Once again, the Department neglected to advise Brandy's of its right to challenge the demand. Brandy's then filed a written protest of the assessment, by letter dated April 11, 2014. This led to an audit assessment conference on May 13, 2014, at which the Department stuck to its guns. On May 19, 2014, the Department issued its "Notice of Decision and Final Audit Assessment," which demanded that Brandy's pay $70,368.23 within 10 days. The Notice informed Brandy's of its right to request a judicial proceeding or administrative hearing to contest the assessment. Brandy's timely initiated this administrative proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order setting aside the assessment against Brandy's for the excise taxes and surcharges on tobacco products that the Department alleged were due, together with interest and a penalty, on purchases of blunt wraps that Brandy's had made between July 7, 2009, and August 2, 2011. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Felicia Katz, a resident of the State of New York, and operator of a cigarette business in that State, filed an application with the petitioner for licensure as a cigarette wholesale dealer in Florida. According to the application, she was the sole stockholder and officer of Respondent, Yoth, Inc. Petitioner's Cigarette Wholesale Dealer's License No. 23-230 was subsequently issued to Yoth, Inc., and that corporation began doing business as Merchants Tobacco & Candy Company in January of 1970 in Dade County, Florida. Katz had determined that her friend, David Valancy, would run her Florida business for her; and after it began its operation, the corporation was structured so that Felicia Katz served as the President, Alan Edelstein served as the Vice President, and David Valancy served as the Secretary-Treasurer. Additionally, the corporate stock was issued so that Katz held fifty percent, Edelstein held twenty-five percent, and Valancy held twenty-five percent. Katz visited her Florida business during the months of January and February, 1979. On February 8, Katz signed under oath the Petitioner's Cigarette Wholesale Dealer's Report for the mouth ending January 31, 1979, certifying that the report contained true and correct information. On February 11, David Valancy contacted Gary Levy, an auditor with the Division, to request Levy's assistance regarding information required to be contained within the January report. Levy, who had visited the business premises on January 19, accordingly reappeared at the premises on February 12, 1970. He met with Valancy and reviewed with him certain business records. One of the items discussed was an invoice from American Brands, Inc., reflecting the purchase of 21,000 packs of cigarettes. Levy initialed the invoice and instructed Valancy to report that purchase. That purchase was not so included in the January report filed on February 13. The failure to include that purchase in the January or any other report thereby affected carry-over figures and rendered each subsequent report through the last report filed for the month of November, 1979, inaccurate. The period of time involved in this proceeding is from January, 1979, when the Respondent began operating its business, through December, 1979, when the November report was filed and the Division began its investigation of Respondent's activities. Felicia Katz signed and swore to the accuracy of the reports filed with the Petitioner for the months of January and February. Thereafter, Valancy signed and filed the Respondent's reports for the months of March through and including November. On the August report, Valancy reported purchases of 12,008 packs of cigarettes from R. J. Reynolds on August 29, and 608 packs of cigarettes from Philip Morris on August 22. He failed to report purchases of 600 packs of cigarettes from French Tobacco, Inc., on August 14, and an additional 450 packs from French Tobacco, Inc., on August 31. When Maria D. Sanchez, an auditor for the Petitioner, reviewed the Respondent's August report, she determined that the report was inconsistent with the final reading of the meter utilized for marking packs of cigarettes for resale to Indians. She contacted Valancy to inquire whether there might be an error on the report, and Valancy replied by submitting replacement pages for the August report. The revised August report failed to report the purchases from R. J. Reynolds and from Philip Morris in addition to continuing to fail to report the two purchases from French Tobacco, Inc. On July 17, Harold Wasserman, General Manager of both Seminole Indian Plaza Store No. 1 and Store No. 2, purchased cigarettes for Store No. 2 from the Respondent in the amount of $30,226.00, according to Respondent's Invoice No. PC 2-514, which amount was paid by Seminole's Check No. 180. Respondent's copy of that invoice, which provides no information as to the location of the purchaser and which was attached to the monthly report from July, contains an additional eighty cartons of Vantage cigarettes, reflecting an additional sales price of $252.00. Those additional cartons were neither received, nor paid for, by Seminole Indian Plaza. On July 18, Wasserman purchased, on behalf of Seminole Indian Plaza Store No. 1, cigarettes from Respondent in the amount of $70,702.60, according to Respondent's Invoice No. PO 1-114, which amount was paid for by Seminole's Check No. 225. Respondent's copy of that Invoice, which provides no information as to the location of the purchaser and which was attached to the monthly report for July, contains an additional two hundred cartons of Salem cigarettes and increases the price by $630.00. Those additional cartons were neither received, nor paid for, by Seminole Indian Plaza. On July 25, Seminole Smokes, owned by Theodore Scott Nelson, purchased cigarettes from Respondent in the amount of $35,263.20, according to Seminole Smokes' copy of Respondent's invoice marked only "Nelson's" and paid for in that amount by Check No. 1794. That invoice not only fails to correctly identify the purchaser, but also fails to provide information as to the purchaser's location. The Respondent's copy of that Invoice which it filed with its July report reflects an additional purchase of forty-six cartons of Winston, for an additional charge of $144.90. Those additional cigarettes were neither received, nor paid for, by Seminole Smokes. Respondent's monthly report for September has attached to it Respondent's Invoice No. 3719, dated September 21, 1070, reflecting a sale in the amount of $474.02 to Seminole Indian Plaza without providing information regarding that purchaser's location. This invoice reflects that 137 cartons of "Kings" cigarettes were received by "R. Kaplan." The signature on the invoice is not the signature of Robert Kaplan, a shift manager for Seminole Indian Plaza, and Seminole has no record of this transaction. Likewise, attached to Respondent's October report is its Invoice No. 5331, dated October 20, reflecting a sale of 12,419 cartons of "Kings" cigarettes to Seminole Indian Plaza without any address in formation in the amount of $42,969.74. The signature on that Invoice purporting to be that of Harold Wasserman, the General Manager, is not the signature of Wasserman, and Seminole Indian Plaza has no record of this transaction either. The records of Marcellus Osceola Trading Post contain a copy of an invoice of Respondent, dated July 10, reflecting as the sole information regarding the purchaser "Marcellus Osceola," and showing a sale by Merchants of 1,530 cartons of cigarettes for a purchase price of $4,897.50. This purchase was paid for by Check No. 1093. This sale is not reported on Schedule "L" of the Respondent's July report, nor is a copy of this invoice attached to that report. Additionally, the purchaser's name is spelled Incorrectly, and no address is provided on the invoice. Respondent's August report contains information on Schedule "L" of certain sales made to Marcellus Osceola, without giving any information as to the address or county of residence of that business. Attached to that same report is Respondent's Invoice No. 263 dated August 16, showing only the purchaser as Marcellus Osceola Trading Post with no address information. Although marked "refused," the invoice indicates the sale took place by virtue of its attachment to the monthly report. Yet, this invoice is not reflected in Schedule "L" wits the other sales to "Marcellus Osceola."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: Respondent's Cigarette Wholesale Dealer's License no. 23-230 be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 25 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William A. Hatch, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles L. Curtis, Esquire 1177 S.E. Third Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mr. John Harris Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation Post Office Box 015269 Miami, Florida 33101 Mr. Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's permit as a retail tobacco dealer should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in an Administrative Complaint issued on May 6, 2014, by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division).
Findings Of Fact Background Since 1998, Respondent has operated a business under the name of Thompson Cigars at 5401 Hangar Court, Tampa, Florida. It holds retail tobacco permit number 39-05470 Series RTPD (Permit), which authorizes the sale, at a retail level, of tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars, and other tobacco products. See § 569.003(1)(a), Fla. Stat. It has no disciplinary history with the Division. Although the Permit authorizes the sale of cigarettes, Respondent sells only cigars and other tobacco products. The Division concedes there is no statutory or rule requirement that Respondent maintain records for the sale of cigars and other tobacco products to customers in Florida or out-of-state. Also, unlike cigarettes, there are no taxes on the sale of cigars. Except for periodic audits of purchase records to ensure that Respondent is purchasing products from a licensed wholesaler and paying taxes on those purchases, the Division conducts no other audits of its records. Cigars make up the bulk of Respondent's sales. Ninety- nine percent of sales are made through the internet, mail order catalogs, and telephone to customers in all 50 states. The remaining portion of its business consists of retail sales at two small retail locations in Tampa. Count I In September 2013, the Division was contacted by the Idaho State Tax Commission requesting that the Division obtain records of all sales by Respondent of tobacco products to Idaho residents from July 2008 through September 2013. Specifically, the Idaho State Tax Commission wanted the names, addresses, and permit numbers of all Idaho entities to whom Respondent sold or distributed tobacco products during that five-year time period, including copies of sales invoices for more than 70 individuals. According to a Division special agent, this was the first time the Tampa office had been asked to obtain records on behalf of another state. Chapter 210, Florida Statutes (2014), consists of two parts. Part I relates to taxes on cigarettes while part II relates to taxes on tobacco products other than cigarettes or cigars. Section 210.161, found in part I, authorizes the Division to examine the "books, records, and accounts of any permittee." Relying on section 210.161, and solely for the purpose of assisting the State of Idaho, on October 23, 2013, an agent presented Respondent's Director of Finance and Accounting, Darren Hurd, with a form entitled "Record of Inspection." The form directed Respondent to take the following action: You are required to provide records of all sales of tobacco products made to persons or business entities in Idaho for the period of July 1, 2008 until the present. The records must be produced to the Division no later than November 1, 2013. Please produce the requested records to C/O Special Agent Robert Jones [at the Tampa District Office]. Besides presenting the written form to Mr. Hurd, the agent explained to him why the request was made and the records that he should produce. The Record of Inspection is normally used by the Division in conjunction with a compliance audit. At hearing, the agent acknowledged this was not a compliance audit to determine if Respondent was operating pursuant to the law. Rather, the request was made to assist the State of Idaho. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-2.019, entitled Approved Forms, lists more than 200 approved forms used by the Division. The Record of Inspection is not on the list. Respondent contends the form is an agency statement of general applicability that requires the production of records for inspection. Because the form is not listed as an approved form in rule 61A-2.019, Respondent argues that the document is an unadopted rule that cannot be used in this case to compel production of the records. See § 120.57(1)(e), Fla. Stat. Assuming that the Division had authority to examine the records, the use of the form was unnecessary. This is because there is no statute or rule that prohibits the Division from orally requesting that records be produced for inspection. Therefore, reliance on the form was unnecessary, as is the resolution of the issue of whether the form is an unadopted rule. Upon advice of counsel, Mr. Hurd declined to produce any records citing privacy concerns for Respondent's out-of- state customers and the Division's lack of statutory authority to examine the records. Mr. Hurd noted that the sales records for customers contain personal information, including their name, address, birth date, telephone number, and credit card number. Besides the privacy issue, Mr. Hurd explained that over the last 17 years, the firm has sold tobacco products to literally "millions" of customers throughout the United States. There is no Division requirement that Respondent maintain records of these sales for state auditing purposes, and records are kept on an antiquated tape system that is periodically purged. Mr. Hurd added that even assuming the relevant tapes exist, it would be an "overwhelming" burden and take countless man hours for the small firm to manually restore backup tapes and attempt to extract records of retail sales (out of millions of customers) for a particular time period for one state. Respondent's bottom line is that the records do not exist, and even if they did, the Division lacks authority to request them. On the other hand, the Division maintains that if Respondent keeps records of sales for any purpose, even non- regulatory, it must make a search, no matter how extensive, to determine if the Idaho records exist. If they do, it must produce them; if they do not exist, the exercise in collegiality with Idaho ends.1/ When the records were not produced, the Division issued an Administrative Complaint charging Respondent with violating section 210.161. A Division witness admitted that the statute "is kind of vague" on whether the Division can legally demand the records, and to that end, one of the purposes of this proceeding is "to try to determine if" it has that authority. Thus, Count I essentially poses the question of exactly how broad the Division's inspection authority is. Count II While pursuing the records, the agent took steps to verify whether there is an issue regarding "an undisclosed interest in the ownership [of Respondent]," that is, to ascertain whether there are owners of the corporation that have not been disclosed to the Division. This is a routine verification made during enforcement investigations. As confirmed by the agent at hearing, the focus of this inquiry is on undisclosed corporate owners rather than corporate officers. To make this determination, the agent compared the officers, but not owners, listed in Respondent's 2013 Annual Report filed with the Division of Corporations with those names shown on its 1998 permit application. The Annual Report lists a corporation's officers, directors, and registered agent, but not its owners or shareholders. It named Carlo Franzblau, Alix Franzblau, R.M. Franzblau, Jo Z. Franzblau, and Colm Conway in the Officer/Director Detail section of the report. On the other hand, the 1998 permit application listed as owners Carlo Franzblau, Jo Franzblau, Robert Franzblau, and Alix [D]orr. R.M. Franzblau (listed in the Annual Report) and Robert Franzblau (listed in the permit application) are the same individuals. Alix Franzblau, a female, was married when the 1998 application was filed and used her married name "Dorr." She is now single and uses her maiden name, Franzblau. Mr. Conway has no direct or indirect financial interest in the corporation and is not involved in the decision-making process. He was listed in the Annual Report only because he currently serves as Respondent's vice president-finance and chief financial officer. In sum, Respondent is and always has been a family-owned corporation that disclosed all persons having a direct or indirect financial interest in the business. Count II alleges Respondent violated section 569.003(1)(b) by "fail[ing] to submit to the [Division] a sworn application" stating that Colm Conway and R.M. Franzblau had a direct or indirect financial interest in the corporation. Because it later learned that Robert Franzblau and R.M. Franzblau are the same individuals, the Division now contends that the omission of Mr. Conway's name is the only statutory violation. Section 569.003(1)(b) requires that a corporation applying for a new permit file a sworn application "set[ting] forth the names and addresses of the principal officers of the corporation." Because a new application is not at issue here, and the statute requires disclosure of the principal officers only, section 569.003 cannot support the charge. Assuming arguendo that it does, there has been no change in corporate owners since the 1998 application was filed. Finally, the Division admits that there is no rule or statute that specifically requires a corporate licensee to file the updated information referred to in Count II.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 2015.
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Action dated June 22, 2004, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is the state agency charged with administering Florida's alcoholic beverage and tobacco law. § 561.02, Fla. Stat. (2004). The Food Mart holds a Series 2-APS license, numbered 16-13705. On June 2, 2004, the Division conducted an inspection of the premises of the Food Mart. The inspector found six bottles filled with a cream-colored liquid. One bottle was on the counter, next to the cash register, and the other five bottles were inside a cabinet behind the cash register, wrapped in newspaper. The bottles contained a homemade Haitian beverage called cremasse. A friend made the beverage for Mr. Cebatien Dierestil, who intended to serve the beverage at a party at his home. The person who made the beverage took the six bottles to the Food Mart to give it to Mr. Dierestil, but Mr. Dierestil was not in the store at the time. A Food Mart employee placed the bottle of cremasse on the counter, even though it was for Mr. Dierestil's personal use. Cremasse contains a small amount of alcohol, but Mr. Dierestil did not know the exact amount. During the inspection of Food Mart on June 2, 2004, the Division found 97 packages of cigarettes offered for sale that did not carry the stamps indicating that the applicable taxes had been paid on the cigarettes. Some of the 79 unstamped packages of Newport cigarettes and of the 18 unstamped packages of Marlboro cigarettes were commingled with other packages of cigarettes displayed over the cash register, and others were in full cartons placed in the area where the extra inventory of cigarettes was kept. The cigarettes were purchased from a person that came by the Food Mart, and the invoice for the cigarettes was not among the invoices Mr. Dierestil provided to the Division's inspectors. Mr. Dierestil was not aware that the cigarette packages were supposed to carry tax stamps. The Division failed to present evidence establishing the alcoholic content of the liquid inside the bottles found at the Food Mart.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order Dismissing Count 1 of the Administrative Action against Cebatien and Marc Dierestil; Finding that Cebatien and Marc Dierestil violated Sections 210.18(1) and 210.15(1)(h), Florida Statutes; Finding that, because of these statutory violations, the Division is authorized to impose administrative penalties on Cebatien and Marc Dierestil pursuant to Section 561.29(1) and (3), Florida Statutes; Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 and ordering payment of the excise tax owing on the unstamped packages of cigarettes for the violation of Section 210.18(1), Florida Statutes; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 for the violation of Section 210.15(1)(h), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2005.
The Issue Whether proposed Rules 61A-7.003, 61A-7.007, 61A-7.008, and 61A-7.009 constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority, pursuant to Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes,1/ for the reasons described by Petitioner in its Petition.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and Intervenor are companies whose substantial interests will be affected by the proposed rules and they have standing to bring this rule challenge. The State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (the Department), is the state agency responsible for adopting the proposed rules which are the subject matter of this proceeding. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Division) is vested with general regulatory authority over the alcoholic beverage industry within the state. The Division issues both general and special alcoholic beverage licenses. See Chapters 561-565, Fla. Stat. The general licenses which permit consumption on the premises are: 1COP licenses which permit consumption of beer and certain wine and distilled spirit products; 2COP licenses which permit consumption of beer, wine, and certain distilled spirit products; and 4COP licenses which permit the consumption of beer, wine, and all distilled spirits. See §§ 563.02(1)(b)-(f), 564.06(5)(b), and 561.20(1), Fla. Stat. The 4COP licenses are known as quota licenses, are issued based on the population of the county, and are limited in number. § 561.20(1), Fla. Stat. Quota liquor licenses range in value, depending on the county involved, from a low of approximately $20,000, to a high of approximately $300,000. (stipulation of parties) The SBX or special bowling license is issued by the Division pursuant to Section 561.20(2)(c), Florida Statutes. The owner or lessee of a bowling establishment having 12 or more lanes and necessary equipment to operate them may obtain this special license which permits consumption of beer, wine, and distilled spirits. Alcohol can only be sold for consumption on the licensed premises. Another special alcoholic beverage license listed in proposed Rule 61A-7.003 is the 12RT license. The holder of such a license must be a caterer at a dog track, horse track, or jai alai fronton. In this context, Section 565.02(5), Florida Statutes, reads in pertinent part as follows: (5) A caterer at a horse or dog racetrack or jai alai fronton may obtain a license upon the payment of an annual state license tax of $675. Such caterer’s license shall permit sales only within the enclosure in which such races or jai alai games are conducted, and such licensee shall be permitted to sell only during the period beginning 10 days before and ending 10 days after racing or jai alai under the authority of the Division of Pari- mutual Wagering of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation is conducted at such racetrack or jai alai fronton. . . . Petitioner participated, to some degree, in the rule development process. The extent of that participation is unclear from the record. The text of the proposed rules as published in their final form in the Florida Administrative Weekly on October 10, 2003, is as follows: 61A-7.003 Premises Not Eligible For Smoking Designation. Licensed premises shall not be designated as a stand-alone bar if the qualifications for licensure require the premises be devoted predominantly to activities other than the service of alcohol. The following licenses are not eligible for a stand-alone bar designation: S = Special Hotel SH = Special Hotel in counties with population of 50,000 or less SR = Special Restaurant issued on or after January 1, 1958 SRX = Special Restaurant SBX = Special Bowling SAL = Special Airport SCX = Special Civic Center SCC = Special County Commission SPX = Pleasure, Excursion, Sightseeing, or Charter boats X = Airplanes, Buses, and Steamships IX = Railroad Cars XL = Passenger Waiting Lounge operated by an airline PVP = Passenger Vessels engaged in foreign commerce FEX = Special Public Fairs/Expositions HBX = Special Horse Breeders HBX = Special County Commission 11AL = American Legion Post permitted to sell to general public 11C = Social, Tennis, Racquetball, Beach, or Cabana Club 11CE = Licensed vendors exempt from payment of surcharge tax 11CS = Special Act Club License 11CT = John and Mable Ringling Museum 11GC = Golf Club 11PA = Symphony, Live Performance Theatre, Performing Arts Center 12RT = Dog or Horse Track or Jai Alai Fronton 13CT = Catering Specific Authority 386.2125, 561.695(9) FS. Law Implemented 386.203(11), 561.695 FS. History--New 61A-7.007 Formula For Compliance With Required Percentage of Gross Food Sales Revenues. In order to determine compliance, the division shall use the formula of gross food sales revenue, including but not limited to non-alcoholic beverages, divided by gross total sales revenue, in any consecutive six- month period. The results of the formula will represent the percentage of food sales revenues as defined herein and in s. 561.695, Florida Statutes. Specific Authority 386.2125, 561.695(9) FS. Law Implemented 386.203(11), 561.695(6) FS. History--New 61A-7.008 For Percentage of Gross Alcohol Sales Revenue Formula. In order to determine compliance, the division shall use the formula of gross alcohol sales revenue divided by gross total sales revenue, in any consecutive six-month period. Specific Authority 386.2125, 561.695(9) FS. Law Implemented 386.203(11), 561.695(6) FS. History--New 61A-7.009 Method Used to Determine Whether an Establishment is Predominantly Dedicated to the Serving of Alcoholic Beverages. In order to determine whether an establishment, other than one holding a specialty license designated in Rule 61A- 7.003, F.A.C., is predominantly dedicated to the serving of alcoholic beverages, the division shall compare the percentage of gross food sales revenue with the percentage of gross alcohol sales revenue. If the percentage of gross alcohol sales revenue is greater than that of the gross food sales revenue, an establishment is deemed predominantly dedicated to the serving of alcoholic beverages. Specific Authority 386.2125, 561.695(9) FS. Law Implemented 386.203(11), 561.695(1)(9) FS. History--New Article X, Section 20, Florida Constitution, was adopted by the electorate in 2002, and generally prohibits smoking in enclosed indoor workplaces. This constitutional provision includes certain exceptions from this general prohibition including the "stand-alone bar" exception. Section 20(d) instructs the Florida Legislature to adopt legislation to implement its provisions and specifies that the Legislature is not precluded from enacting any law constituting or allowing a more restrictive regulation of tobacco smoking than is provided in Section 20. The legislature implemented the constitutional amendment by amending Part II, Chapter 386, Florida Statutes. Section 386.204 prohibits smoking in enclosed indoor workplaces, except as provided in Section 386.2045. Section 386.2045 enumerates exceptions to the general prohibition, including the exception of a stand-alone bar. Section 386.2045(4), Florida Statutes, reads as follows: (4) STAND-ALONE BAR- A business that meets the definition of a stand-alone bar as defined in s. 386.203(11) and that otherwise complies with all applicable provisions of the Beverage Law and this part. A stand-alone bar is defined in Section 386.203(11) as follows: (11) 'Stand-alone bar' means any licensed premises devoted during any time of operation predominately or totally to serving alcoholic beverages, intoxicating beverages, or intoxicating liquors, or any combination thereof, for consumption on the licensed premises; in which the serving of food, if any, is merely incidental to the consumption of any such beverage; and the licensed premises is not located within, and does not share any common entryway or common indoor area with, any other enclosed indoor workplace, including any business for which the sale of food or any other product or service is more than an incidental source of gross revenue. A place of business constitutes a stand-alone bar in which the service of food is merely incidental in accordance with this subsection if the licensed premises derives no more than 10 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food consumed on the licensed premises. Deborah Pender is the chief of licensing for the Division. According to Ms. Pender, the Division included the SBX or special bowling license in the list of special licenses that cannot qualify for stand alone bar status in proposed Rule 61A- 7.003 because its predominant business is a bowling alley. Similarly, the 12RT license was included because its predominant business is a racetrack: "Because that’s a specialty license that is issued at race tracks, and if it wasn’t a race track business, the caterer . . . couldn’t have a license anywhere else." Marie Carpenter is the chief of the Bureau of Auditing of the Division. According to Ms. Carpenter, the provision regarding the six consecutive months in proposed rules 61A-7.007 and 61A-7.008 was intended to give the Division enough of a period of time to get a good picture of whether the business met the criteria for compliance and to give licensees an opportunity to build up business records that were not previously required to be kept.2/ The licensee would be required to keep daily records. Ms. Carpenter acknowledged that in using the six month auditing period in the proposed rule, a licensee could exceed the 10 percent requirement on one or more occasions during the audit period. Sandy Finkelstein is President of Petitioner and is the operating partner of Shore Lanes Bowling Center in Merritt Island, Florida. According to Mr. Finkelstein, there is at least one bowling facility in Florida that was issued a 4COP license. A bowling facility with a 4COP license is not automatically excluded from the stand-alone bar designation, whereas a bowling facility with an SBX license is automatically excluded from the stand-alone bar designation by virtue of proposed rule 61A-7.003.
The Issue Should the Petitioner impose discipline against Respondent, holder of an alcoholic beverage license, for violations of laws pertaining to that license?
Findings Of Fact At times relevant to the inquiry Respondent held alcoholic beverage license no. 47-00190, series 4COP, issued by Petitioner. This license allowed Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages at the licensed premises known as Kent's Northside Lounge and Restaurant, located at 1133 Thomasville Road, Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent was the sole holder of that license. Respondent continues to hold the license. Beginning January 1997, and ending April 25, 1997, Petitioner, together with other law enforcement agencies, conducted an investigation of the licensed premises to determine if violations of law involving illegal narcotics were occurring. While involved in this investigation, Petitioner also investigated alleged violations involving tobacco. On January 7, 1997, Gordon Chesney entered the licensed premises. He was acting in the capacity of a paid law enforcement undercover operative. He was not a sworn law enforcement officer. Once in the bar he made the acquaintance of a person identified as "Wild Bill." Wild Bill refers to Bill Ferris, Respondent's bartender. Chip Kirby, another bartender, was also in the licensed premises. When Chesney introduced himself to Ferris, Chesney wanted to know "where the action is" in town. In conversation Chesney asked Ferris "Does it ever snow down here?" This reference was a slang term for cocaine. Ferris responded that "it would snow in a few days." This comment referred to the availability of cocaine. Chesney told Ferris he would like to get some "snow." After their initial meeting, Chesney telephoned Ferris at the bar. Ferris told Chesney to come to the bar. Chesney returned to the bar at around 6:30 p.m. on January 9, 1997. Once in the bar Chesney made contact with Ferris. Ferris took Chesney over to a booth in the premises. At this time there were customers in the bar, approximately ten to fifteen people. The other bartender, Kirby, was also in the premises. Respondent was not in the premises. Ferris referred to "she is not here yet," meaning the person who was supposed to deliver cocaine to Ferris. Ferris then invited Chesney to the bathroom in the premises. Chesney showed Ferris money he had brought to purchase cocaine. Ferris indicated that there wasn't enough money. Chesney promised to bring more money later. Chesney went away from the premises to obtain more money and returned to the bar at around 8:30 p.m. When Chesney first arrived at the bar on January 9, 1997, Ferris had not been on duty as a bartender. When Chesney returned to the bar, Ferris was on duty. When Chesney returned, he told Ferris that he was ready. Ferris replied that "she" would be here any minute. A girl then came into the bar. Ferris talked to her. Ferris then came to a booth and invited Chesney to go outside with Ferris. While at the booth, Ferris asked Chesney if he had the rest of the money. They went outside. Chesney gave money to Ferris. The money given to Ferris was in addition to the money which Chesney had given Ferris in the bathroom. Ferris gave Chesney a small baggie containing what was taken to be cocaine. The exchange of additional money and the baggie was made right outside the door of the premises. Chesney turned over the item that he had purchased from Ferris to Officer Kevin Taylor of the Tallahassee Police Department. In turn Detective Louis Donaldson of that department took custody of the item. On January 15, 1997, Chesney returned to the bar. His purpose was to obtain additional cocaine. Once in the bar Chesney contacted Ferris. Ferris was working behind the bar at the time. Chesney told Ferris he wanted to "get a quarter." This refers to a quantity of cocaine. Ferris told Chesney that "she will be here any minute." Chesney waited about half an hour. Then a girl came in the back door and talked to Ferris. Then Ferris went back to an area of the bar which is a restaurant. In about five minutes Ferris came out with a Styrofoam soup cup. He said "here is your soup." Chesney said "okay." Chesney gave Ferris $300 and walked out of the bar. On this occasion Respondent was in the premises seated at a table behind Chesney. That location was about eight feet from Chesney's location. Other people were seated with the Respondent. On this occasion music was playing. Sometimes the music was loud. Sometimes the music was not loud. Chesney cannot recall whether the music was loud during conversations held with Ferris concerning the purchase of the cocaine. But the conversation between Chesney and Ferris was in a normal tone. Once outside of the premises, Chesney turned his purchase over to an officer. Again Detective Donaldson took custody of the item. Detective Donaldson prepared a property receipt for those items seized on January 9 and 15, 1997, that were purchased by Chesney. The items were temporarily held in custody by the Tallahassee Police Department. Those items were then forwarded to and tested by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, who having analyzed the items, discovered the presence of cocaine. On January 22, 1997, Chesney reentered the licensed premises with Officer Alan Wayne Davis, Jr., who worked for the Petitioner in an undercover capacity. Chesney introduced Davis to Ferris. Ferris was working as a bartender at that time. Specifically Ferris was serving beer and mixed drinks, and taking money. Because Davis was acting in an undercover capacity, he did not tell Ferris that he, Davis, was a law enforcement officer. Davis never revealed his position as a law enforcement officer to any persons who were the subject of the investigation. In pursuit of his undercover role, Davis told Ferris that he was a member of a motorcycle club. On this date a conversation held in a normal tone involved the subject of cocaine. This refers to a conversation between Davis and Ferris. Davis returned to the bar alone on January 23, 1997. He contacted Ferris who was working as a bartender. They discussed a prior cocaine deal between Ferris and Chesney in a normal tone. On January 23, 1997, Davis met Samuel H. Lewis at the bar. Davis was introduced by Ferris. Lewis was taking bets on the upcoming Superbowl football game. The bets were premised upon placing projected scores on a paper square for a cost of one dollar. The winner was to be determined by the individual who placed the bet and guessed the total score. The game was a game of chance, not skill. Davis gave Lewis five dollars to participate in the betting pool. An envelope of bets containing fifty-seven dollars was available when Lewis began to collect bets. Lewis received about twenty additional signatures (twenty dollars) in the bar representing individual bets. The overall pool had one hundred squares. Respondent was not at the bar on January 23, 1997, when the football pool was held. On January 23, 1997, Davis met Robert Strauss, Respondent's son. Robert Strauss was an employee at the bar. In conversation Davis was asked what kind of business he was in. Davis responded that he was in the business of making money. Before Davis met Robert Strauss, Ferris had asked Davis if Davis sold cigarettes, in that, as Ferris described the matter, Robert Strauss was always looking for a good price on cigarettes. Davis had answered Ferris in the affirmative. This led to the introduction to Robert Strauss. Conversations about cigarettes were open, in normal tones. In discussion Robert Strauss asked Davis if the cigarettes that Davis had for sale had stamps on them. Davis replied in the affirmative. On the other hand, Davis commented to Robert Strauss that the cigarettes were "so hot that you could feel it." Davis intended by his remarks to indicate that the cigarettes that he had were stolen. That intent would create the most likely inference to be gained from Davis' remarks. Davis did not indicate that he was a licensed wholesale cigarette distributor on that occasion or any other occasion. Through conversation Davis and Robert Strauss arrived at a price of eight dollars a carton for cigarettes, a price below the expected value of that merchandise. Robert Strauss asked Davis to bring him a case of cigarettes next Wednesday. Davis agreed to that request. When Robert Strauss made the overture to Davis concerning the purchase of cigarettes, Davis was not in control of cigarettes. To further the investigation, Petitioner purchased cigarettes from a wholesaler, SuperValue Warehouse. Petitioner caused stamps to be attached to those cigarettes. Those stamps were out of circulation and not involved in normal commerce. By this attachment, the impression that was created was that the cigarettes were properly stamped. The cigarettes were then turned over to Davis to be used in furtherance of the investigation. In a later conversation between Ferris and Davis on January 23, 1997, the subject of cocaine was discussed. This conversation took place in the bar. Davis told Ferris that he might want cocaine at a later time. Ferris invited Kirby into the conversation. Kirby tried to tell Davis what a good deal Kirby and Ferris could get Davis on some "coke." This refers to cocaine. At that point in time, Kirby was working at the bar. The price discussed was $750 for a half ounce of cocaine. Kirby indicated that the cocaine would be available Friday and that Davis could come back and purchase the cocaine from Kirby and Ferris. The conversation about cocaine was openly stated. Davis returned to the bar on January 29, 1997. Davis made contact with Ferris who was tending bar, and had a conversation about Davis' failure to purchase cocaine, causing Ferris and Kirby to be "stuck with the coke," trying to sell it to someone else. This conversation was held in a normal tone of voice. Robert Strauss was not at the bar on that occasion. Nonetheless, Ferris told Davis that, Robert, referring to Robert Strauss, wanted to purchase cigarettes. Ferris indicated he would contact Robert Strauss and return to purchase cigarettes from Davis. Ferris then made a telephone call. Ferris then purchased cigarettes from Davis for $100 in return for twelve cartons of Winstons. Those cigarettes sold by Davis on this occasion, and on other occasions, were the cigarettes that Petitioner had placed the out-of-date stamps on, after obtaining the cigarettes from the wholesaler SuperValue Warehouse. Davis returned to the licensed premises on February 5, 1997. While at the bar, Robert Strauss walked out of another part of the bar and yelled to Davis, "Hey, cigarette man, I will be right out." Robert Strauss was approximately twenty feet away from Davis when he made those remarks. Respondent was sitting in one of the booths of the bar at the time. On this visit to the bar, Davis engaged in a conversation with Ferris. Ferris was not on duty at that time. Then Davis spoke with Robert Strauss. Robert Strauss asked Davis what type of cigarettes Davis had brought. Davis replied that he had brought thirty cartons of Marlboro Lights and a Phillieblunt box full of cigars. Robert Strauss asked if the price of the cigarettes was still eight dollars a carton. Davis said yes. The cigarettes were delivered from Davis to Robert Strauss across the counter after Davis obtained the cigarettes from his vehicle. At that time patrons were at the bar. Robert Strauss paid Davis $240 for the cigarettes from the cash register at the bar, by openly handing Davis the money. Robert Strauss then took the cigarettes to a back portion of the premises. Davis purchased one pack of Marlboro Lights back from Robert Strauss for a price of three dollars out of the cigarettes that had just been sold from Davis to Robert Strauss. On this date, Davis also told Robert Strauss that the cigarettes "were so hot that they wouldn't even have to be lit," in conversation concerning the purchase of additional cigarettes beyond that point in time. At the bar, Davis then engaged in a conversation with Ferris about cocaine in a normal tone. Davis returned to the bar on February 12, 1997. At that time Ferris was working behind the bar, Robert Strauss was also on the premises in the kitchen area. Davis told Robert Strauss that he had thirty cartons of Winstons. Robert Strauss told Davis he would give Davis five dollars per carton for all thirty. They agreed. Davis sold Robert Strauss thirty cartons for five dollars each. Davis brought the cigarettes in from his car in a large box and placed them on the edge of the bar in making the exchange. Twelve to fifteen patrons were in the licensed premises. Robert Strauss took the money to pay for the cigarettes from a bank bag near the cash register. The transaction was openly conducted. On that same date Davis discussed with Ferris the purchase of cocaine while Ferris was working behind the bar. The amount discussed was an ounce. To facilitate the purchase, Ferris gave Davis his work and home telephone numbers; these included the number for the bar. Davis returned to the bar on February 19, 1997. Davis contacted Ferris who was working as a bartender. Patrons were in the bar at that time. Ferris asked Davis if Davis had brought the cigarettes for Robert Strauss. Kirby came over to Davis and asked if Davis was still looking to get an ounce, referring to the purchase of cocaine. Davis said yes. Davis gave Kirby $1,400 in cash in furtherance of a purchase. Kirby counted the money while at the bar without attempting to disguise his activities. Kirby put the money in his pocket and went to the business phone in the premises and made a call. Kirby then returned and told Davis he couldn't contact his main supplier, but that he had another source he could get it from who was in the bar. This discussion was held in a regular tone of voice. Kirby left the bar and then returned. Davis was instructed to follow Kirby and Ferris to a back room. Davis followed them to a storage room. Kirby then pulled a bag out of his shirt represented to be cocaine. Davis weighed the substance on scales. While this transaction took place, the parties were concealed by a door. The substance weighed approximately an ounce. When Davis left the licensed premises, he turned the substance over to a case agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). On the same day, Davis sold Robert Strauss thirty cartons of cigarettes delivered to Ferris after Robert Strauss handed Ferris $100 to give to Davis. Davis delivered the cigarettes in a box from the trunk of his vehicle and placed them on the top of the bar during the exchange. Robert Strauss had obtained the money from a bank bag. On February 25, 1997, Ferris paged Davis. Davis called Ferris and Ferris told Davis he would give Davis an ounce of cocaine for $1,320. Davis said he wanted three ounces. An arrangement was made to meet on February 27, 1997, at the bar to carry out the transaction. On February 27, 1997, Davis returned to the bar in the company of a law enforcement officer, Agent Scirpan of the DEA. Davis met with Ferris after walking in the bar. Ferris told Davis to follow him outside. Ferris questioned Davis concerning the possibility that Davis was a cop or affiliated with law enforcement. Davis did not acknowledge his status as a law enforcement officer. They then went to Ferris' truck to count the money that would be used in purchasing cocaine. Respondent was seated at a table in the premises when Davis and Ferris left the premises to go to Ferris' truck. The truck was located by the side of the bar. Davis gave Ferris $4,000. They then went inside the bar. Ferris made a telephone call from the business phone in the premises. Ferris then exited the bar. While in the bar, Davis observed a girl sitting at the bar rolling what appeared to be a cannabis cigarette, known by its appearance to Davis to be cannabis, based upon his experience as a law enforcement officer. Robert Strauss was there at that time two to three feet away. Robert Strauss made no attempt to confront the patron concerning this practice. Davis ordered a pack of Marlboro Lights from the bartender and paid for them. To get the cigarettes, Respondent had to produce the keys to the storage room to obtain the cigarettes purchased. The cigarettes that Davis purchased bore the out-of-date stamp involved with the cigarettes that Davis had sold to Robert Strauss. On that same date an unidentified white male came in offering to sell cartons of cigarettes. The unidentified male was trying to sell cigarettes for ten dollars a carton. At that time Respondent had left the bar. Later Ferris returned to the bar and asked Davis to go outside with him. They got in Davis' car and rode around the block. Ferris gave Davis approximately three ounces of a substance as part of the arrangement to purchase cocaine. This item was turned over to a DEA agent. On March 6, 1997, Davis called Kirby at the bar and ordered an ounce of cocaine. The tone of the conversation was normal. On March 7, 1997, Davis went to the bar and contacted Kirby. Kirby was working. Kirby said the deal was off because of a death in the family. Kirby told Davis that they could talk later about doing one or two "keys" of coke. A "key" refers to a kilo of cocaine. This conversation was held in a normal tone of voice across the bar. On March 17, 1997, Davis called Ferris at the business phone number Ferris had given Davis. The call was about purchasing more cocaine. The phone number used was the number for the licensed premises. An arrangement was made to purchase cocaine of an undisclosed amount on the following Wednesday. On the following Wednesday, which was March 19, 1997, Davis returned to the bar and met with Ferris. Ferris was concerned about the rumor that there was an undercover officer working inside the bar. Davis did not acknowledge his undercover capacity in this conversation. It was decided to wait awhile before the parties did any more business. However, there was a conversation between Davis and Kirby in which Kirby said they could go to Miami and pick up cocaine. This conversation was in a normal tone of voice. As Davis was starting to leave, Robert Strauss approached Davis and asked Davis to bring back some cigarettes when Davis returned. On April 7, 1997, Davis called Ferris and discussed the purchase of one ounce of cocaine on the following Wednesday. This call was made to the telephone within the licensed premises. An agreement was made to purchase an ounce of cocaine, the cost of which was not determined. On April 16, 1997, Davis called the licensed premises and spoke with Kirby about the purchase of an ounce of cocaine. Then Davis went to the licensed premises and contacted Kirby who was working behind the bar. Kirby told Davis that the purchase of cocaine would cost $1,400 an ounce. This conversation was conducted in an open manner. Then Robert Strauss walked out from the back of the bar and asked Davis if Davis "had any hot cigarettes to sell." Davis said "they were all in the trunk." Robert Strauss followed Davis out to Davis' vehicle. In the trunk there were ten cartons of Camels and ten cartons of Marlboro Lights. Robert Strauss carried the cigarettes back into the bar in a box. Robert Strauss put the cigarettes up, went over to the cash register and obtained $100 which was given to Davis. The reference to putting the cigarettes up means that Robert Strauss took them to the storage room. Robert Strauss told Davis that he would buy more cigarettes if Davis would bring them to Robert Strauss. The transaction concerning the purchase of the cigarettes was made with no attempt to conceal the activity. Then Ferris came in and took over Kirby's assignment at the bar. Kirby then sat down next to Davis at the bar. They discussed the purchase of a key of coke, meaning a kilo of cocaine. They discussed that if that amount was broken down, the cost for an ounce would be $700. The purchase was to be made in Miami. This conversation was conducted openly. Davis and Kirby went outside and Davis gave Kirby $1,400 to purchase a smaller amount of cocaine. Kirby returned to the bar. Davis and Kirby then went to Davis' vehicle. Davis took the substance that had been offered as cocaine. This transaction took place after they drove away from the bar. Again, that substance was turned over to an agent with the DEA. On April 22, 1997, Davis called the bar and spoke to Kirby. They discussed the purchase of another ounce of cocaine for the next day. On April 23, 1997, Davis returned to the bar after arranging with Kirby, through a telephone call, to come to the bar. Kirby was tending the bar. Kirby and Davis discussed a cocaine deal. Kirby told Davis that basically all suppliers were sold out of cocaine. Kirby told Davis that some people were offering to sell for as much as $1,600 an ounce. This conversation took place at a little table next to the bar. Patrons were in the premises at that time. The conversation was held in a normal tone. Eventually Kirby told Davis that he had found someone that lives at the Gulf who could get an ounce of cocaine for $1,450. That price was agreed upon. After a person drove up, Kirby commented, "There's my man." At that moment Davis gave Kirby the money. Kirby counted the money. Kirby left the bar and returned. Kirby told Davis to go with Kirby to Kirby's van. They got in the van and drove around the block. Kirby gave Davis an ounce of a substance which was tendered as cocaine. That substance was turned over to an agent of the DEA. Davis returned to the bar on April 24, 1997. He met with Kirby who was tending bar. They discussed the purchase of cocaine. Kirby said he had an ounce of cocaine to sell and asked Davis if he wanted to purchase the cocaine. Davis agreed to purchase the cocaine for $1,400. Davis gave $1,400 to Kirby across the counter. Kirby told Davis to follow him to a bathroom. In the bathroom Kirby handed a substance in aluminum foil to Davis, represented to be cocaine. The substance was turned over to an agent of the DEA. On the same date, Kirby and Davis discussed making a trip to Miami to purchase cocaine, and what it would cost Davis if Kirby delivered the cocaine from Miami, as opposed to Davis and Kirby going to Miami to obtain the cocaine. A price of $32,000 for a kilo of cocaine was discussed. This conversation was held in an open manner. On April 25, 1997, the Tallahassee Police Department served a search warrant on the licensed premises looking for illegal drugs. Petitioner's agency was also involved in the search. During the search, underneath the bar on the right-hand side, an item was discovered, which through a field test revealed the presence of cocaine. The item was wrapped in tin foil. The tin foil was readily visible when standing behind the bar. In addition cigarettes were seized. The item that tested as cocaine in the field test was turned over to the resident agent in charge for the DEA. At the time the search was made on April 25, 1997, Petitioner was investigating the purchase of cigarettes from a non-wholesaler, as well as its interest in the sale of illegal narcotics. On that date, the Petitioner seized the cigarettes that Davis had sold to Respondent's employees. The cigarettes Davis sold had never had taxes remitted to the state of Florida based upon a wholesale transaction. Respondent identified that Kirby and Ferris were part- time bartenders who worked at night. Ferris also worked a Saturday day shift. Ordinarily a shift change to the night shift occurred at 6:00 p.m. Ferris had been a customer of the bar before being hired. Before being hired, Kirby was referred to Respondent by Respondent's friends. Respondent identified that Robert Strauss was more or less the supervisor in charge at the premises when the Respondent was not there. Robert Strauss cooked at the bar a couple of days a week. Robert Strauss was involved with purchasing supplies for the bar. Respondent indicated that Robert Strauss' duties in purchasing during the time in question involved the purchase of cigarettes. Beyond the time of the investigation described, within the last six months prior to the hearing, two employees had been dismissed for suspected drug use. This did not include Messrs. Ferris and Kirby. The dismissal of the other employees was made by Respondent. Respondent's day at the bar runs usually from 7:30 or 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Prior to the events described in the facts, Respondent did not have a policy for his establishment concerning activity involving narcotics. Subsequent to the investigation, there is a written policy prohibiting employee activities involving narcotics. Respondent has no written policies advising his employees what the employees should do if they observe persons engaging in illegal narcotic activities. Respondent says that he explains to his employees verbally that if anyone discusses narcotics at the bar "they are out." Respondent has video cameras to monitor activities in the bar. The manner in which Robert Strauss solicited Davis for the purchase of cigarettes, Davis sold the cigarettes, and Respondent's employees sold the cigarettes obtained from the SuperValue Warehouse, creates the inference of impropriety by Robert Strauss and other employees affiliated with Respondent's licensed premises. The inference of impropriety is to the exclusion of any other inference to be gained from the conduct. The inference is that the cigarettes were not part of ordinary commerce and had questionable origins. Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate for an ordinary law-abiding person to suspect that the cigarettes which Davis presented to Robert Strauss and others in the premises, as solicited by Robert Strauss, were stolen. Davis billed the cigarettes as outside the bounds of ordinary commerce when describing the cigarettes as "hot." Davis also identified that the cigarettes were being purchased at a price that was more than a good bargain. The price helped in creating the appearance that the cigarettes were not part of legitimate commerce. As stated, the substances purchased by Chesney on January 9 and 15, 1997, were cocaine. The substance found during the search of the premises on April 25, 1997, was cocaine.1
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of counts 1, 2, and 9 through 28, and finding that Respondent did not violate counts 2 through 8, and that imposes a penalty of revocation of license number 47-00190, series 4COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 17th day of June, 1998.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s alcoholic beverage license for the premises located at 11441 Osceola Drive in New Port Richey, Florida, should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Action filed in this matter.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, was the state agency charged with the responsibility to license and regulate the sales of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products in Florida. Respondent, D & S Cleaning Services, Inc., operated the Golden Acres Market #2 at 11441 Osceola Drive in New Port Richey, Florida, under 2-APS license number 61-00306. Pursuant to a request from the Food and Drug Administration, Special Agent Freese set up a random compliance check of the Respondent’s facility for sales of tobacco products to minors. This is routinely done as the result of an ongoing practice whereby FDA requests the Division to check specific business establishments. On the day in question, of the list of places to be checked, the majority were in Pasco County. On Saturday, October 11, 1997, working with an investigative aide, Mr. Teller, who was fifteen years old at the time, Special Agent Freese conducted a controlled buy at the Respondent’s facility. Freese briefed Teller before sending him into Respondent’s store, and also searched him to ensure he had no cigarettes, false identification, or other contraband on him. Freese then instructed Teller to go into the store and attempt to buy a package of cigarettes from whomever was on duty inside. Teller was to make no gratuitous representations about his age, and if asked for identification, was to be truthful. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on the day in question, Teller entered Respondent’s store, with Freese following shortly thereafter. According to Freese, the store is a typical convenience store. No customers were inside at the time. From fifteen to twenty feet away, Freese observed Teller approach Ms. Sargeant, who was manning the register, and ask for a package of Marlboro Light cigarettes. Freese neither saw nor heard Ms. Sargent ask Teller for proof of age, or for identification. She sold him the cigarettes for $1.71, including sales tax. Teller, who is not a regular patron of the Respondent’s facility, contends that Ms. Sargeant neither asked him his age nor sought any identification. He was dressed in clothing consistent with that of a teenager, without a hat, at the time of the purchase. When Teller left the licensed premises, he gave the cigarettes he had purchased to Freese who marked them for evidence on the spot. Thereafter, Freese went back to the Respondent’s facility the following Monday and advised Ms. Sargeant of the unauthorized purchase. She had no recollection of it. Freese waited until the following Monday to notify the licensee of the alleged violation because of a Division policy which required investigators to ensure that investigative aides are removed from the scene of a violation prior to any arrest or in-person notice of a violation is made. By the time the agency participants got home on Saturday, it was late. The following day was Sunday, in the absence of an emergency situation a non-work day, so the actual notice of violation was not given until the following Monday. Both Ms. Sargeant and Mr. Szymczak contend that by the time they were questioned on Monday, neither could remember a particular patron who purchased a pack of cigarettes. Some time later, on November 10, 1997, an Administrative Action was issued, indicating the Division’s intention to take disciplinary action against the licensee because of the unlawful sale of tobacco products to a minor. According to both Sargeant and Szymscak, there is no way Teller or anyone else could have purchased a pack of Marlboro Lights at their store for $1.71, including tax. At the time in issue, Marlboro was having a large promotion and had supplied them with several signs, for both outside and inside the store, which listed Marlboro Lights for sale at $1.88 per pack, plus tax, for a total of $2.00 per pack. The pricing structure for other cigarettes at the time, they claim, priced generic cigarettes at $1.69 per pack, plus tax, for a total of $1.80 per pack, and, at times, other less known brands on sale for $1.49 per pack plus tax. None, they claim, sell or were sold for $1.71 per pack, either with or without tax. Mr. Szymscak, who claims he is always in the store, also denies having seen either Freese or Teller in the licensed premises until Freese came in on the evening of Monday, October 13, 1997. When the Administrative Action was initially served on the Respondent, it did not contest that the sale had been made. Mr. Szymscak and Ms. Sargent avowed no knowledge of it, however. They were initially contesting the amount of the proposed fine as excessive. However, having heard both Freese and Teller testify at hearing as to the $1.71 price of the cigarettes, they now state they are convinced the purchase was not made at their establishment. The more credible weight of the evidence establishes that the alleged sale was made at Respondent's store.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order in this case imposing the minimum appropriate penalty for the offense of unlawfully selling one pack of cigarettes to a minor under the age of 18. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: George G. Lewis, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Deborah Sargeant, President Stanley Szymczak, Secretary-Treasurer D & S Cleaning Services, Inc. Post Office Box 1723 New Port Richey, Florida 34656 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
