Findings Of Fact Based upon 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: On October 24, 1985, Petitioner filed an initial application with Respondent to obtain an alcoholic beverage license. The alcoholic beverage license was to be used in the operation of a small restaurant which Petitioner owned, known as El Conquistador Restaurant, in Homestead, Florida. The Petitioner is the sole owner of El Conquistador Restaurant. The application listed the Respondent, Maria Andarcio as the sole proprietor and only person having a financial interest in the business known as El Conquistador Restaurant. During the processing of the application, Mr. Ross, the investigator assigned to Petitioner's case, noticed that the application appeared to have several discrepancies. In particular, Mr. Ross was concerned because the financial information submitted with the initial application listed Julio Andarcio, Respondent's estranged husband, as the sole depositor of the expense account but he was not listed as having any financial interest in the business. Secondly, Petitioner failed to provide sufficient information regarding her employment history. Lastly, a lease which was part of the initial application, identified a potential undisclosed interest, Jose Osario, as a co- leasee. On November 15, 1985, Mr. Ross, routinely mailed a "14 day letter" to Petitioner requesting additional information. In particular, the "14 day letter" directed the Petitioner to provide additional information within 14 days from the date of receipt of the letter. The additional information requested was as follows: List occupation for the past 5 years on personal questionaire. Julio Andarcio must be fingerprinted and submit personal questionaire." The Petitioner failed to provide the information requested in the 14 day letter. Thereafter, Respondent was unable to fully investigate the license application and denied the Petitioner's license on January 8, 1986. For some reason, the Petitioner did not receive the 14 day letter which Respondent sent by regular mail. Therefore, she did not respond within the requested time period. The Petitioner was born in Cuba and speaks very little English. The language barrier contributed to the apparent discrepancies in Petitioner's initial application. Mr. Ross opined that based on all of the information that he had received up to the time of the hearing, the Petitioner would have been granted a beverage license had she only responded to the "14 day letter."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered allowing the Petitioner 20 days from the date thereof in which to provide Respondent with the information requested in the initial "14 day letter," thereby making her application complete. The Respondent shall thereafter review and process the application in the standard and routine manner. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of October, 1986 in Tallahassee, 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 24th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1176 Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner (None Submitted) Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact. Matters not contained therein are rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or argument. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact. Matters no contained therein are rejected as subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Armando Gutierrez, Esquire 2153 Coral Way, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33145 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1077 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Thomas A. Bell, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1927 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1927
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent, Club Manhattan Bar and Grill, LLC, d/b/a Club Manhattan Bar and Grill (Respondent), committed the acts alleged in the administrative complaints dated September 13, 2010, and December 1, 2010, and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons holding alcoholic beverage licenses. § 561.02, Fla. Stat. Respondent is licensed under the Florida beverage law by the Department. Respondent holds a 4COP/SRX special restaurant license issued by the Department with Alcoholic Beverage License No. 68-04347. Ms. Stokes is the licensee of record for Respondent. Consequently, Respondent is subject to the Department's regulatory jurisdiction. Respondent's series 4COP/SRX is a special restaurant license that permits it to sell beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on the licensed premises. Additionally, the licensee must satisfy seating and record-keeping requirements and must comply with 51 percent of its gross sales being food and non- alcoholic beverages. See § 561.20(2)(a)4., Fla. Stat. Respondent's restaurant is located in Sarasota County, Florida, and, pursuant to the 4COP/SRX license, must have seating and capability to serve 150 customers at any one time. On August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn conducted an inspection of Respondent's business premises. He conducted the inspection based on complaints made to the Department that Respondent was operating as an after-hours bar, rather than a restaurant. At this initial inspection, which occurred at 2:30 p.m. on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn found the restaurant did not have any customers or menus. Further, he noticed that the premises had seating for only 92 people and a large dance floor. Further, he observed that the walls had signs advertising drink specials and late-night parties. Special Agent Flynn met Ms. Stokes, Respondent's manager and holder of the license, and informed her that the beverage license required that Respondent be able to serve 150 customers at one time. Also, Special Agent Flynn requested the required business records concerning the purchase of alcoholic beverage invoices from the distributors for a 60-day proceeding period. Ms. Stokes did not have the requested records on the premises. On August 19, 2010, Special Agent Flynn sent Ms. Stokes a written request, requesting alcoholic purchase invoices for a 60-day period before August 19, 2010. The request allowed Ms. Stokes 14 days to compile the records and to provide the records to the Department. The record here showed by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not produce records for the audit period. On September 8, 2010, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Special Agent Flynn returned to Respondent's premises. Again, he found that Respondent did not have the required seating number and ability to serve 150 customers at one time. Special Agent Flynn offered credible testimony that, during the September 8, 2010, inspection, he found Respondent had only 106 available seats. Further, consistent with his inspection on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed facts showing that Respondent was a late-night bar, as opposed to a restaurant. The evidence showed that on September 8, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed that Respondent did not have any customers, menus, and very little food in its small kitchen. Special Agent Flynn, however, did observe that Respondent continued to have its large dance floor, disc jockey booth, advertised drink specials, and posters advertising late-night parties. Clearly, Respondent was being operated as a bar, rather than a restaurant as required by its license. At the September 8, 2010, inspection, Special Agent Flynn again requested Respondent's business records that he had previously requested for the 60-day time period before August 19, 2010. Ms. Stokes provided a few invoices for purchases of food and non-alcoholic beverages. These invoices were dated after the August 19, 2010, date that Special Agent Flynn had requested and did not cover the requested 60 days prior to the August 19, 2010, request. These records included food and beverage purchases by Respondent from retailers, but did not contain any records concerning the points of sale at the restaurant. Ms. Nadeau, an auditor for the Department, offered credible testimony concerning the Department's request for business records from Respondent for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. On August 27, 2010, Ms. Nadeau set up an audit request for the period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, based on information provided by Special Agent Flynn. The Department provided Ms. Stokes with an audit engagement letter that requested business records. Ms. Nadeau testified that on September 10, 2010, she was contacted by Ms. Stokes. Ms. Stokes informed Ms. Nadeau that Ms. Stokes had become the owner of the restaurant in June 2010 and that she did not have the required records. Ms. Nadeau informed Ms. Stokes to provide all the records requested in the audit engagement letter that Ms. Stokes had and to try to obtain the prior records from the previous managing member of Respondent. On September 22, 2010, Ms. Stokes mailed to the Department records she claimed met the audit period. The records consisted of guest checks for July and August 2010, which only showed food purchases and no alcoholic beverage purchases. Further, Ms. Nadeau found that the records were not reliable, because the records contained numerous personal items not related to the restaurant, such as baby wipes, cotton swabs, and boxer shorts. Consequently, the record clearly and convincingly shows that Respondent failed to provide the required business records for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. Next, based on Respondent's failure to provide any reliable records, the Department was unable to conduct an audit of the business. Records provided by Respondent indicated that the only sales that occurred on the premises were for food. However, the testimony showed that Respondent's business included the sale of alcohol and marketed the sale of alcoholic beverages for late-night parties. Mr. Torres, the senior auditor for the Department, credibly testified that he conducted an independent review of Ms. Nadeau's initial audit findings. Mr. Torres, who has been employed with the Department for 27 years, reviewed the records provided by Respondent. He credibly testified that Respondent's guest checks were very questionable because they showed all food sales, but no alcohol, which was not consistent with Special Agent Flynn's observations. The evidence further showed that Ms. Stokes became the managing member of Respondent in June 2010. Ms. Stokes provided the Department with a change of corporate officers and named herself as registered agent, rather than apply for a new license. This distinction would later become important because, as explained by Ms. Nadeau, in the Department's eyes, there is a continuation of ownership. Under a continuation of ownership, Ms. Stokes was required to have business records for the time period before she became the managing member of Respondent. Ms. Stokes credibly testified that she did not have any records before June 20, 2010; thus, Respondent was unable to provide records for the audit period. Ms. Stokes candidly admitted that her restaurant had been struggling financially, which is why she had worked to catering special events to draw foot traffic.
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 revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license and finding that Respondent violated: 1. Section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by failing to provide the required service area, seating, and equipment to serve 150 persons full-course meals at tables at one time as required by its license; 2. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, by not providing the requested business records; and 3. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by not providing the requested business records. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find that the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 23rd day of September, 2011.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner’s request to renew a lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62- 08383 on or about July 8, 2011, should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent is the state agency charged with the licensing, regulation, and enforcement of Florida’s alcoholic beverage laws pursuant to section 20.165(2)(b) and chapters 561- 568, Florida Statutes, including recordation of liens against alcoholic beverage licenses and provision of notice to lienholders pursuant to section 561.65. Petitioner is the holder of a recorded lien against alcoholic beverage license number 62-08383, a 4COP spirituous alcoholic beverage license, commonly referred to as a quota license, which was issued pursuant to sections 561.20(1) and 565.02(1)(a)-(f) for use in Pinellas County. Liens and Security Interests in Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Section 561.65 governs mortgages, liens, and security interests against spirituous alcoholic beverage licenses. DABT has a lien section within its Bureau of Licensing that is responsible for the oversight of lien recordings and lien searches. To perfect a lien or security interest in a spirituous alcoholic beverage license that may be enforceable against the license, the entity holding the security interest or lien must record it with DABT within 90 days of the date of creation of the lien or security interest, using forms authorized by DABT. The forms adopted by DABT require the names of the parties and the terms of the obligation being recorded. § 561.65(4), Fla. Stat. Form DBPR ABT-6022, Application for Mortgagee’s Interest in Spirituous Alcoholic Beverage License, is used to record a new lien, a lien assignment or assumption, or a lien renewal or extension. The form is adopted by rule. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61A-5.0012. Upon receipt of a request to record a lien or the renewal of an existing lien, DABT will review the provided documentation and, if the documentation is in order on approved forms and accompanied by the security agreement and statutorily- required payment, will record the lien or lien renewal. If there is a deficiency noted during review of the lien documentation submitted, DABT will issue a 14-day deficiency notice to the requesting entity to provide any missing information. If timely corrected, DABT will record the lien or lien renewal. Section 561.65(4) provides that any lien or security interest filed with DABT on or after July 1, 1995, expires five years after recordation by DABT unless renewed by the lienholder within six months prior to its expiration date. Statutory Notice Requirements to Lienholders Recording a lien not only makes it enforceable, but provides assurance to the lienholder that it will receive notice of pending actions by DABT against the license that may compromise the lien’s vitality. Section 561.65 also sets forth requirements for DABT to provide notice to lienholders of both pending actions against encumbered licenses and any suspension or revocation of a license subject to a lien. Specifically, section 561.65(3) provides that “such lienholder shall be notified in writing of the filing of an order to show cause as to why the license should not be suspended or revoked; and also the lienholder shall be furnished a copy of any order of suspension or revocation.” (Emphasis added). In other words, two separate notices are required: one when the agency institutes proceedings against the licensee and a second if the agency action against the licensee results in a suspension or revocation of the license. Respondent does not assert and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that Petitioner had knowledge of or participated in the cause for revocation of the license at issue in this proceeding, or that Petitioner would not otherwise be entitled to notice of the revocation proceeding. The holder of a recorded lien is entitled to notice because the lienholder has the right to enforce the lien against the licensee within 180 days after the entry of any order of revocation or suspension of the license. Section 561.65(3) specifies that “the 180 days within which to file for enforcement of the lien by the lienholder shall commence running from the date of the mailing of the copy of the order of revocation or suspension.” Thus, the 180-day period runs from when notice is sent to the lienholder, not from the entry of the final order of suspension or revocation. Once notice is provided to the lienholder, any enforcement of the lien is through foreclosure proceedings in circuit court. The process for foreclosure proceedings is outlined in section 561.65(5). Most importantly, both section 561.19(2) and section 561.65(1) provide that no revoked quota beverage license encumbered by a lien or security interest perfected in accordance with section 561.65 shall be issued until the 180-day period (from mailing of the suspension or revocation order) has elapsed or until such enforcement proceeding is final. Re-issuance Through Double Random Drawings Quota licenses may become available three ways: 1) when a dry county goes wet (i.e., a county that previously prohibited the sale of alcohol decides to allow it), three initial quota licenses are issued for the county; 2) when there are population increases in a county, an additional quota license is issued for every population increase of 7,500; and 3) when a quota license in a county has been revoked. When any of those instances occur, pursuant to the directive in section 561.19(2), quota licenses are issued through the use of a double random public drawing. While a revoked quota license may be reissued in a double random quota drawing, if a revoked quota license is encumbered by a perfected and recorded lien or security interest, as discussed previously, it may not be reissued until the 180-day period has elapsed or until enforcement/foreclosure proceedings are final. Damon Larry is currently the assistant bureau chief of licensing, and oversees the annual quota drawing. Each year, he runs a report of all revoked quota licenses and, if the revocation is final, determines whether the 180-day period has elapsed. Before a revoked quota license is placed in the double random drawing, there is communication between staff in different sections within the Department to determine if a license is eligible for inclusion in the quota drawing. The communications involve the quota drawing section, the licensing section, the administrative case unit, the Office of the General Counsel, and the lien section. During this process, DABT staff will determine whether there is a lien attached to the license and, if so, whether there was notice to the lienholder, and whether the 180 days has elapsed or foreclosure proceedings no longer remain pending. If all of these conditions have been met, the revoked license is placed in the quota drawing for reissuance under a new license number. The revoked license number is then deleted from the Department’s database. Petitioner’s Lien Against Alcoholic Beverage License No. 62-08383 Turning to the facts of this case, Daniel A. King, as debtor, executed and delivered a Demand Promissory Note in favor of Rebco on or about April 18, 1997, in the principal amount of $61,000, and simultaneously executed a security agreement in favor of Rebco, as the secured party, pledging license number 62-08383 (the License) as collateral for repayment of the sums due and owing under the Promissory Note. Rebco submitted the promissory note and security agreement to DABT for initial recordation as a lien against the License on or about May 1, 1997, within 90 days of the date of the creation of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien against the License effective May 8, 1997. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on May 8, 2002. Rebco submitted a request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about November 7, 2001, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement, and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective November 7, 2001. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on November 7, 2006. Rebco submitted a second request to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation on or about July 26, 2006, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division. The request for renewal was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement and the forms clearly identified the parties and the obligation. DABT recorded the lien renewal against the License effective August 1, 2006. If not timely renewed, the lien would expire on August 1, 2011. The License Revocation Proceedings On or about November 16, 2006, at a time when the lien was recorded in the records of DABT, DABT filed administrative charges against Daniel J. King, holder of the License, in Case number 2006-049240, alleging that the licensee failed to operate the License in accordance with section 561.29(1)(f). DABT was unable to achieve personal service on Mr. King, so it published notice of the administrative action in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. The published notice did not identify Petitioner, and no evidence was presented to indicate that DABT sent a copy of the notice to Rebco. Rebco clearly had a recorded lien against the License when the disciplinary action was filed against the License. DABT did not notify Petitioner of the pending action. On or about June 22, 2007, after receiving no written defense in the disciplinary proceeding, DABT issued a Final Order revoking the License effective July 31, 2007. The Final Order of Revocation was not served on Rebco, the owner of the security interest in the License. Petitioner had a recorded lien against the License on file with DABT both when proceedings were instituted against the License and on the date of the entry of the Final Order of Revocation. Stephanie Coxwell works in the administrative case unit of DABT and has done so for at least the last 14 years. The administrative case unit is responsible for determining whether an alcoholic beverage license that is pending revocation or suspension is encumbered by a lien and for notifying any lienholder of the revocation or suspension of an encumbered license. DABT’s practice was to mail any lienholder notice of the license suspension or revocation, along with a copy of the final order, soon after entry of the final order. It is this mailing of the notice and final order that commences the 180 days referenced in section 561.65. For at least the last 14 years, DABT has used a form “notice to lienholder” to notify lienholders of the revocation or suspension of an alcoholic beverage license, accompanied by a copy of the final order revoking or suspending the license. The notification form is a public record maintained by DABT. It is this notification, and not the publication of the pending action, that provides notice to the lienholder. Internal correspondence from Ms. Coxwell within the licensure file for the License indicates that in December 2006, she requested a lien search with respect to the License. Ms. Coxwell was advised by return e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the license. On or about March 21, 2007, Ms. Coxwell requested research for any bankruptcy proceedings affecting the License. She was again informed by intra-agency e-mail that Rebco had a recorded lien against the License. Ms. Coxwell replied by e-mail that she was aware that there was a lien, but that they would notify the lienholder of the administrative action “in the usual way.” However, Ms. Coxwell’s March 27 e-mail was sent three months before the final order revoking the license, not simultaneous to the Order. There is no record that notification was sent to Rebco, either at the time of the administrative action, or after issuance of the final order. Beverly Peebles works in Rebco’s corporate office located at 701 Tennessee River Drive, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35661, and has done so since 1990. She is responsible for receiving, retaining, and disbursing any mail received by Rebco. Ms. Peebles testified regarding the process used to copy, scan into the company’s electronic database, and distribute any mail received by Rebco. Rebco did not receive any notice concerning the administrative action or the revocation of the License until Rebco received the letter denying the recordation of its lien renewal against the license in 2011. Rebco’s address was at all times on file with the DABT since the inception of the lien against the license in 1997. It is found that the DABT did not notify Rebco that there was an administrative action filed against the License, and did not notify Rebco of the Final Order of Revocation against the License. The licensure file contains all other expected documents from the first recordation of the lien in 1997 to the present. It does not include a copy of notice to Rebco of either the pending action or the Final Order of revocation. Moreover, both a letter dated August 19, 2011, to counsel for Rebco, as well as an e-mail dated March 21, 2007, from Ms. Coxwell, contain handwritten notes regarding the failure to send proper notification. The notes, which are clearly hearsay, are part of public records maintained in the normal course of business, and corroborate Ms. Peebles’ testimony that no notification was received. They also corroborate evidence of the absence of any record of notification to Rebco in DABT’s records of regularly-conducted activity. The August 19, 2011, letter contains a handwritten note at the top stating, “$61K lien no lien ltr sent,” and the e-mail dated March 21, 2007, referenced in paragraph 32, contains the following note: “are we the only group/people who check for current liens recorded before deleting the license? It was deleted on 5/4/2011. Lien was still recorded at that time.”2/ Respondent has presented no credible evidence to indicate that the notice was somehow sent despite the lack of any documentation to that effect contained in the DABT’s records. While the handwritten notes standing alone do not establish that no notice was sent, they do indicate that a question was raised internally regarding whether adequate notice was provided. Despite the failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the License was placed in the 2010 double random drawing held on March 10, 2011, at a time when a valid lien against the License was duly recorded. Only one license for Pinellas County was included in the drawing for that year, and no licenses for Pinellas County have been issued in a double random quota drawing since then. Shortly after the random drawing, the license number assigned to the License was removed from the Department’s system and a new number assigned to the license issued as a result of the drawing. While there is no direct testimony on the issue, it can be inferred that the purchaser of the new license received the license with no notice that there was any outstanding lien on the right to engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages in Pinellas County under the new license. While it is DABT’s practice to delete a revoked license number from its database, no evidence or statutory reference was presented to support the premise that there is a legal impediment to renewing an existing lien for a revoked license when no notice of the revocation was provided. Given the Department’s failure to notify Rebco of the revocation of the License, the 180-day period identified in section 560.65 never began to run. On or about July 6, 2011, Rebco timely submitted a third request to DABT to renew its existing lien against the License for recordation, within six months of expiration of the lien, on forms approved by the Division, which request was accompanied by the promissory note and security agreement. DABT notified Rebco by letter dated July 19, 2011, that it was unable to record the lien renewal because it was not submitted for recordation within 90 days of its creation. The July 19, 2011, notice of denial was issued based upon a review of the lien renewal request submitted to DABT, because the executed ABT6022 lien-recording form submitted with Rebco’s third renewal request mistakenly identified the effective date of the lien renewal as April 18, 1997, the date of the creation of the original lien. On or about July 25, 2011, Rebco submitted an amended form ABT6022 correcting the effective date for renewal of the lien as August 1, 2011. On August 3, 2011, DABT notified Rebco that it was unable to record the renewal of the lien against the License because “the alcoholic beverage license being pledged as collateral was revoked by the Division on July 31, 2007,” following service of a Notice of Action through publication in the St. Petersburg Times on May 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2007. No action taken by Rebco compromised the vitality of its recorded lien against the License. To the contrary, Rebco faithfully adhered to the recording requirements outlined by statute to record and renew its lien. DABT, however, failed to take the action required by section 561.65 to provide notice to Rebco of the pending action and subsequent revocation of the License. As a result, the 180- day period required by section 561.65 did not run before the License was placed in the quota drawing.
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 approving the renewal of Rebco’s lien in the License at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 17th day of July, 2015.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Cornelia T Brown, doing business as the Oasis Restaurant Bar and Lounge, is the holder of beverage license No. 45-356, Series 2-COP. This license allows the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises, located on Douglas Road, Groveland, Florida. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is an agency of the State of Florida which has its responsibility the licensure and regulation of beverage license holders in the State of Florida. On June 12, 1980, pursuant to a search warrant, Lake County Sheriff and Groveland Police officials accompanied by Petitioner's Beverage Officer, conducted a search of the licensed premises. Respondent was present throughout the investigation. Among the items seized as suspected controlled substances were seven plastic baggies and eight small manila envelopes containing a total of 52.1 grams of cannabis. Currency in the amount of $2,273,67 was also seized. The cannabis and currency were contained in a purse belonging to Respondent. The purse was discovered in the kitchen of the licensed premises, an area not open to bar/restaurant patrons or other members of the public.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violations as alleged in Counts 1, 2 and 4. It is further RECOMMENDED that County 3, which duplicates County 2, and Count 5, be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's License No. 45-356 be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 30th day of September 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Cornelia T. Brown Route 1, Box 350-7 Groveland, Florida 32736 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent's plea of nolo contendere to the crime of possession of a controlled substance (for which adjudication was withheld) is sufficient to support the imposition of discipline with regard to his alcoholic beverage license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to issue beverage licenses pursuant to Chapter 561, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules. Prior to September 11, 2000, Respondent, doing business as Smiley's, was the owner and holder of a beverage license, DBPR License No. 74-05336, Series 2-COP, which permits him to sell beer and wine for consumption on premises. On October 9, 1998, Respondent was charged by information with sale and delivery of cocaine. He was acquitted of that charge on May 12, 2000. Subsequently in a separate incident, Respondent was charged with possession of cocaine and on September 11, 2000, pleaded no contest to that charge. Pursuant to Respondent's timely request for formal proceedings, Petitioner's counsel initiated discovery in the course of this administrative proceeding through a Request for Admissions to which Respondent failed to respond. Respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this circumstance and, upon motion of Petitioner, the Request for Admissions was deemed admitted. Those admissions establish that Respondent entered a no contest plea on September 11, 2000, to the charge of possession of cocaine and that the plea bargain negotiated at that time also included two days' incarceration. Additionally, the admissions establish that Respondent is aware that possession of cocaine is a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of five years. Respondent's own testimony is uncorroborated by other direct evidence and fails to establish that he possesses good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license, DBPR License No. 74-05336, Series 2-COP. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Kwilecki, Jr., Esquire 629 North Peninsula Drive Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Michael Martinez, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lt. John P. Szabo Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Room 709 Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issues presented are those set forth in a notice to show cause filed by Petitioner against Respondents in Case No. AY-74-87-0201. In particular, it is alleged that on March 16, 1988, October 21, 1988 and February 24, 1989, that the Respondents or their agents, servants or employees sold alcoholic beverages to minors in violation of Sections 561.29, Florida Statutes and 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times which pertain to this Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint, Respondents were doing business at 238-240 Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida under the business name Speidi Shack and pursuant to a beverage license issued by Petitioner. That license number was and continues to be number 74-01802, Series 2-COP. On March 16, 1988, and again on October 21, 1988, Michael Vanorder, whose birthday is March 27, 1969, purchased a Light beer from employees of the Respondents in the licensed premises. On February 24, 1989, Tina May purchased a Light beer from an employee of the Respondents in the licensed premises. Her date of birth is August 4, 1968. The Light beers that were purchased by those two individuals are alcoholic beverages. In the incident of March 16, 1988, Vanorder entered the licensed premises as an underage operative of the Petitioner. The purpose of underage operatives is to assist the Petitioner in investigations to ascertain whether suspected alcoholic beverage license holders will sell alcoholic beverages to minors. Vanorder was provided money from the Petitioner to purchase the alcoholic beverage if the licensees, their agents or employees would sell. Betty Warner and Tanya Pandarakis, who are Alcoholic Beverage Agents for Petitioner were in the bar and watched as Vanorder was asked by the bartender what Vanorder wanted. Vanorder indicated that he wanted a Light beer. Mark Barker, the bartender, brought a Light beer to Vanorder and accepted payment for that beer. In this purchase, Vanorder was not asked to produce any identification nor was he asked how old he was. Vanorder was under instructions from Petitioner's agents to validly respond to any questions about his age and to provide accurate identification in support of his remarks. The beer that he was given had been opened by the bartender. These events occurred around 8:35 p.m. The beer that was purchased was then given from Vanorder to Warner. Barker was then arrested by Warner and another Alcoholic Beverage Agent, Fred Dunbar, for selling alcoholic beverages to a minor. The arrest occurred when Dunbar entered the licensed premises following the sale and identified himself as an Alcoholic Beverage Agent. Prior to leaving the premises on that occasion, Respondent John M. Macker was told of the arrest and why an investigation had been made in the first place about suspected sales to minors in the licensed premises. Macker came the next day to meet with Dunbar at the invitation of Dunbar. Macker was told that a complaint file would remain open and that underage operatives would continue to be sent into the licensed premises to see if Macker had corrected the problem of selling to underage patrons. Respondent Macker promised that he would have closer supervision and would give training to his employees about proper identification techniques for sales of alcoholic beverages in the licensed premises. An official notice was given to the Respondents, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 which was admitted into evidence. That notice is dated March 17, 1988 and is issued from Dunbar and is acknowledged as having been received by Respondent Macker. It identifies the facts of the sale to a minor and the arrest of Mark Barker and warns Respondents that if the violation occurs again, that Respondents could be charged with the violation of March 16, 1988 and any future violations. Throughout this warning phase associated with the sale of March 16, 1988 Respondent Macker was cooperative in his attitude. As forecast, Petitioner sent Vanorder back into the licensed premises on October 21, 1988 to see if Respondents, their agents, servants or employees would sell him alcoholic beverages. Beverage Agent John Szabo, Agent Dunbar, Lt. Powell and Vanorder went to the licensed premises on that evening. Their activities at the licensed premises commenced around 8:55 p.m. At this time, there were around 10-20 patrons in the bar. Szabo went in first and sat down at the bar and ordered a beer. Vanorder came in some 2-3 minutes later and sat down at the bar. A white female bartender who was identified later as Beth Ann Marsden approached Vanorder and asked him what she could get for him. He asked for a Bud Light. The bartender went to the cooler and came back with an open can of Bud Light and said that the cost of that beer would be $1.25. Vanorder paid her and she gave him back change. Vanorder then went outside the licensed premises and gave the beer to Dunbar. During the course of this purchase, Vanorder was not asked his age or asked for any form of identification which would demonstrate his age. As before, Vanorder was prepared to show a valid identification and give his correct age. After Dunbar was given the beer, he came into the licensed premises and he and Szabo confronted the bartender with the fact that she had sold beer to an underaged patron. They asked if the owner was on the premises and she said that he was not. The bartender was then charged with selling to a minor. She was given a Notice of Appearance for October 25, 1988 which constituted of a letter of final warning to the licensee. A third phase of the investigation occurred on February 24, 1989 when Tina May, an underaged operative for the Petitioner assisted in the investigation of sales to minors. Around 10:50 p.m., Officer Szabo, Beverage Officer Sullivan and Tina May went to the licensed premises. Szabo went in the bar first. One customer was in the bar. Szabo asked for a beer and was asked for his identification and showed his license and was served a beer. Before Tina May entered the license premises, she had been instructed to dress in normal attire and to carry her drivers license and to tell the truth about her age and to give the correct identification. Once inside the licensed premises, May sat where she could be seen by Officer Szabo. The other patron left the bar. Around 11:00 p.m., May was approached by Beth Ann Marsden who asked May what she wanted. May replied that she wanted a Bud Light. The bartender asked for identification and a driver's license was produced which showed May to be underage. Marsden was seen to count on her fingers when shown the identification. She opened up a Bud Light beer for May and gave it to her and said that the price of the beer was $1.25. May gave her $5.00 and received change. She then gave the beer to Szabo. Szabo then told the bartender that he was a Beverage Officer. Marsden recognized Szabo from the prior incident with Vanorder on October 21, 1988. Marsden told Szabo that May was 21 years old. Szabo got the driver's license from May and showed it to the bartender who admitted that she had made a mistake and that she didn't look at the month of the birth. She had only looked at the year, 1968. Out of this incident, an Official Notice was prepared, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. It sets out the violations of March 16, 1988, October 21, 1988 and February 24, 1989 and the intention of the Petitioner to file administrative charges against the Respondents for sales to minors. Since the Respondents were not there, the list was left with a Rosemarie Savini. That notice was served on November 2, 1989. Before the time of the final hearing in this case, the sole ownership of the licensed premises had been left with John M. Macker. Linda F. Williams no longer is involved with the license in question. Respondent Macker's principle business is that of a commercial fisherman. During the pendency of this investigation, he was gone a lot from his licensed premises because of his other work and relied on his employees to act appropriately concerning sales to minors. In the period 1985 until January, 1989, he had not experienced problems with this. He had posted notices around the bar about sales to minors and had instructed his employees about being careful not to sell to minors. He has calendars from beer distributors which assist in ascertaining the age of minors. March 16, 1988 was Barker's first day on the job, as was October 21, 1988 the first day on the job for Beth Ann Marsden. His instructions to his employees was to check identification if people did not look at least in their fifties or older than Respondent. Since these events, Respondent has taken more detailed steps and placed other signs to avoid sales to minors. He doesn't wish these problems to occur again and regrets that they happened on this occasion. On the other hand, he did not ask for help from the Petitioner after the October 21, 1988 incident as was offered. Following the third sale, he has moved into the licensed premises to maintain better control of the circumstance. No other incidents were reported to have occurred beyond that adjustment concerning sales to minors.
Recommendation Having considered the facts, and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which fines the Respondents in the amount of $500 for these violations. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 19th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2457 Those facts as suggested by the Petitioner are subordinate to facts found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John B. Fretwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John M. Macker 238-240 North Atlantic Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
Findings Of Fact 10. The Division hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Finding of Fact in foto, as set forth in the Recommended Order.
Conclusions The Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter’Division’), after consideration of the complete record of this case on file with the Division, hereby enters this Final Order.
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 14th day of May, 1976, Mary Lener Arnold, a licensed vendor, did have in her possession, permit or allow someone else to have unlawfully in their possession on Mary Lener Arnold's licensed premises, alcoholic beverages, to wit: 9 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka, not authorized by law to be sold under her license, contrary to 562.02, F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mary Lener Arnold, t/a Buggs' Drive Inn, held on May 14, 1976 and now holds beverage license no. 50-2 series 1-COP with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. This licensed premises is located on Main Street, Greenville, Florida. On May 14, 1976, a confidential informant with the Division of Beverage went to the licensed premise of the Respondent in Greenville, Florida and purchased a bottle of alcoholic beverage not permitted under a 1-COP license. This confidential informant was working for officer B.C. Maxwell of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. Officer Maxwell along with other officers with the Division of Beverage and officers of the Madison County, Sheriff's office returned to the licensed premises on May 14, 1976 and in looking through the licensed premises found a black bag containing 9 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka on the licensed premises. This Smirnoff Vodka was not permissible on the licensed premises under a 1-COP license. On the licensed premises at the time of the inspection was one Patsy Jackson Williams who indicated that she was in charge of the premises. The confidential informant who had purchased the bottle of alcoholic beverage indicated that his purchase had been made from the same Patsy Jackson Williams. The black bag with its contents of 9 half-pints of Smirnoff Vodka is Petitioner's Exhibit #2 admitted into evidence. The alcoholic beverage purchased by the confidential informant is Petitioner's Exhibit #4 admitted into evidence.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, Mary Lener Arnold have her beverage license suspended for a period of 30 days based upon the charge proven in the hearing. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 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: Larry D. Winson, Esquire Staff Attorney Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mary Lener Arnold t/a Buggs' Drive Inn Main Street Greenville, Florida
Findings Of Fact The Tanga Lounge, operated by Respondent Rodde Inc., is located at 6333 West Columbus Avenue, Tampa, Florida. This facility has been licensed by Petitioner at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent's records show Mr. Joe Redner as the sole stockholder and corporate officer of Rodde, Inc., which is the holder of alcoholic beverage license No. 39-738. Case No. 81-2566 contains three counts of begging or soliciting for alcoholic beverages by employees of Respondent on August 6, 1980. Testimony by former Beverage Officer White established that the solicitations of three drinks by two employees were made as charged in the Notice to Show Cause. White purchased the drinks as requested by these employees, who received a "ticket" for each of the drinks purchased for them by White. Case No. 81-2567 contains 44 counts of begging or soliciting drinks by various employees of Respondent and 44 counts charging that Respondent conspired with these employees for the purpose of soliciting drinks. These charges are primarily based on the investigations of Beverage Officers Gary Hodge and Michael Freese. The period of their investigation was October 17, 1980 through May 15, 1981. Count 52 was based on a solicitation of Detective Phil Mickel of the Tampa Police Department, who was in the licensed premises in an undercover capacity on November 6, 1980. At the request of dancer-employee Cathy Andrews, Mickel purchased a "double" for her and observed that she received two tickets from the waitress. 5 Former Tampa Police Department Detective Nick Haynes was in the licensed premises on November 6, 1980, and was approached by the dancer-employee, Cheryl Jonas, who requested that Haynes purchase a drink for her. He did so. This transaction occurred as charged in Count No. 51. Beverage Officer Freese individually and in conjunction with Beverage Officer Hodge, accounted for 38 solicitation charges (Counts 53-57, 59-63, 66, 68-88, and 163-167) . The solicitations charged in Counts 53, 55, 71-80, 83, - 84, 88, 163, 166 and 167 occurred as alleged and involved direct requests for the purchase of drinks ("Will you buy me a drink," or words of similar import) . Freese observed employees receive tickets for these drinks from the bartender or waitress in most instances. The solicitations charged in Counts 54, 56, 57, 59-63,66, 68-70, 81, 82, 164 and 165 were not supported by evidence of direct requests for the beverage purchases by employees of Respondent. At a meeting held about December 17, 1980, Beverage Officers Freese and Hodge were instructed by their supervisor to require that dancers request drinks before ordering. This procedure was adopted to avoid situations where the beverage officer was not asked to buy a drink, but eventually received the bill for the dancer's drink. In implementing the instructions, Freese used these or similar words: "If you want a drink, ask for it.", This statement possibly misled the dancers to believe that Freese was inviting them to order whenever they wanted drinks. The date when Freese first used this statement was not established, but it was subsequent to the mid-December meeting. It was noted that Freese was not solicited during the first two months of the investigation. Therefore, all or substantially all of the solicitation charges involving Freese took Place after he first issued the "invitation." Beverage Officer Hodge individually testified as to solicitation Counts 58, 64, 65 and 67. Counts 58, 65 and 67 did not involve a direct request for beverage purchase. Count 64 occurred as alleged and was based on a direct request for beverage Purchase ("Why don't you buy me one now?"). This request was made during the early morning of January 13, 1981. Although this was after the December meeting which Hodge attended, it was not shown that he made any statement which could have been interpreted as an "invitation" by any employee of Respondent. The fact that customers regularly Purchased drinks for the dancers was well known to the management as evidenced by the tickets issued to employees for drinks purchased in their behalf. These tickets were redeemable by the dancers for one dollar each. Thus, employees were rewarded and implicitly permitted to solicit drinks. Respondent's announced policy was, however, to reprimand or discharge any employee who was caught begging or soliciting drinks. This policy was attested to by bartenders; former employees and dancers. Although it cannot be found that Respondent actively encouraged its employees to solicit drinks, it did encourage socializing with customers to a degree which would elicit offers to purchase drinks for them. Respondent has since discontinued the practice of issuing tickets or other employee incentives to obtain customer purchased drinks. Counts 127 through 161 involve drug charges. Purchases were made by Beverage Officer Freese and Hedge, individually and together. Their testimony and that of Florida Department of Law Enforcement Crime Lab personnel established that controlled substances were purchased from dancer-employees of Respondent on the licensed premises as charged in Counts 127 through 137, 156 and 158. The transactions which-were established to have been carried out involved cocaine, methaqualone and cannabis deliveries by dancer-employees Margie Wade, Janie Marsie, Lori Basch and Lisa Scibilia on February 21, 24, 27; March 2, 9, 13, 17, 23; May 13, 15, 1981. It should be noted that Counts 136 and 137 actually involved one transaction where Hodge and Freese split the delivery. Count 161 concerned a transaction outside the licensed premises and this count, as well as Count 158, involved an employee of another establishment. Petitioner's Exhibit 43 and the supporting testimony concerned a transaction for which there was no charge. Counts 138 through 151, 154 and 159-161 alleged conspiracies to deliver controlled substances corresponding to other counts which alleged actual deliveries. There was testimony on the involvement of third person (not shown to be associated with the Respondent) only as to Counts 134, 146, and 147, which essentially covered a single transaction. No other evidence of conspiracy was presented. On one occasion, Redner was in the Tanga Lounge and within about 15 feet of the beverage officer and the dancer when the delivery took place. However, there was no evidence that Redner was involved or that he had any knowledge of the transaction. Testimony by a former employee that Redner participated in drug use was lacking in credibility and was not corroborated. Counts 3 through 30 and 33 through 50 are charges of lewd dancing by employees of Respondent on the licensed premises. The charges cover 46 dances on 12 separate dates between October, 1980, and February, 1981, performed by 11 different dancer-employees. The acts complained of in these counts were witnessed and attested to by Beverage Officers Hodge and Freese and Tampa Police Department Detective Mickel. The alleged lewd conduct included exposing of the breasts, vagina and anus by dancers during their on-stage performances. Typically, the dancers received dollar tips which customers placed in their bikini bottoms. Some dancers allowed customers to reach inside the bikinis in order to touch their pubic areas. On several occasions the dancers squatted and picked up the dollar bills with their exposed genital areas. On December 11, dancer Cathy Andrews rubbed her vagina, then rubbed the genital area of Beverage Officer Freese, who was observing the dance. Mr. Redner was present during much of the alleged lewd conduct. Although Redner testified that "flashing" was acceptable, the exposure of sexual organs as attested to was not limited to brief "flashes," but was prolonged. Further, Respondent's contention that dancers receiving tips tried to avoid contact by customers is not credible. Rather, the testimony of the officers established that dancers frequently encouraged customers to place their hands against the dancers pubic areas when offering tips. Respondent's, lounge is advertised as an adult entertainment facility and is generally known to include nude dancing. There was no competent evidence as to community standards for this type of conduct in the Tampa area, nor was there any evidence that these acts shocked or offended anyone present other than the investigating officers. Detective Mickel conceded that about five other bars he has visited offer this type of entertainment. Counts 31 and 32 concern an offer of prostitution by one of the dancer-employees to the beverage officers. Their testimony established that the offer was made as charged. This was, however, a single incident and there was no evidence that such offers were recurring or that Respondent had knowledge of this transaction. Counts 1 and 2 of Case No. 81-2567 allege that Robert Rodriguez holds an undisclosed interest in the licensed premises. Such interest, if any, was not reflected in the license transfer application submitted on April 23, 1976. Rather, Joseph Redner and Joe DeFriese were identified as the sole stockholders with no direct or indirect interest held by any other person. Rodriguez previously owned an interest in Deep South Plantation Foods, Inc., whose alcoholic beverage license was revoked by Petitioner. Redner was at one time employed by Rodriguez as manager of Deep South Petitioner asserts that Rodriguez became ineligible to hold an interest in an alcoholic beverage license as a result of the revocation, pursuant to Section 561.15, Florida Statutes, and that he and Redner therefore concealed Rodriguez's subsequent interest in the Tanga Lounge. Respondent contends that Rodriguez is the manager of the Tanga Lounge, but holds no direct or indirect interest therein. Rodde, Inc., was organized on April 19, 1976, and a $2,000 down payment deposit on the contract for purchase of the Tanga Lounge and liquor license was made on April 20, 1976, pursuant to contract signed by DeFriese and the prior owners on that date. This $2,000 check was issued by Robert Rodriguez against his own account. Petitioner produced this cancelled check (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) and numerous other documents which establish that Rodriguez participated in all aspects of Rodde, Inc., management and financial operations since its inception. Rodriguez has unrestricted authority to withdraw funds from corporate accounts and has signed or cosigned for loans and credit purchases. Rodriguez also utilized a Rodde, Inc., credit card to pay personal expenses on a vacation to Las Vegas in 1979. There was no evidence of reimbursement or other accounting to the corporation for these expenditures. The testimony of the Rodde, Inc., employees did not corroborate Redner's testimony that Rodriguez is manager of the Tanga Lounge. Rather, these employees believed Rodriguez was somehow associated with the business, but regarded Redner as the manager and their only supervisor. Rodriguez issued two checks for $1,408.05 on December 1, 1979, one payable to himself and the other to Redner (Petitioner's Exhibit 32) . These checks each carried the notation "bonus $1500", with a further notation apparently accounting for $91.95 in withholding tax. In view of Rodriguez's duties and functions within the corporation, this "bonus" can only be considered a participation in profits. Redner's credit rating and financial management skills are poor. Therefore, Respondent contends that a manager with strength in these areas was needed to ensure business success. However, Rodriguez's unlimited authority in dealing with corporate funds, the investment or loan of his personal funds, his participation in business profits and the absence of any apparent supervisory duties are inconsistent with the employee theory held out by Respondent.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts 1, 2 and 3 of the Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause in Case No. 81-2566. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts 1, 2, 31, 32, 51, 52, 64, 127-137, 156, and 158 of the Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause in Case No. 81-2567. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Alcoholic Beverage License No. 39-738 be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 9th 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 9th day of July, 1982.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, J. F. Walthier III and Andrew Erickson, are the holders of a current valid beverage license, No. 46-00210, Series 2-APS, held in the name of Walthier, J. F. III and Ericks. This license is for a premises located at 4721 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The Respondents conduct their business at this licensed premises under the name Foam and Fizz. This beverage license series entitled the Respondents to sell a class of alcoholic beverage for consumption off the licensed premises. One of the categories of alcoholic beverages allowed for sale under the terms and conditions of the license is beer. The subject beverage license was issued by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The Petitioner is charged with the licensure and regulation of the several alcoholic beverage license holders within the State of Florida. In pursuit of its function, the Petitioner has brought an Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause against the named Respondents and the terms and conditions of that complaint may be found in the issue statement of this Recommended Order. The facts in this case reveal that between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on January 25, 1980, three young men under the age of eighteen drove to the licensed premises for purposes of purchasing beer. Once the car was parked, Ira J. Frasure and dames Craig McDowell exited the car. On that date, Ira J. Frasure was seventeen years of age and James Craig McDowell was sixteen years of age. They left Frank Edward Gordon in the automobile, where he would remain during the pendency of the other juveniles' activities in the licensed premises. Once in the store, Frasure retrieved a six-pack of Budweizer beer and McDowell picked up several single cans of Budweizer beer. The beer which had been picked up by the juveniles was presented at the checkout counter to Barbara Joyce Walthier, the wife of one of the licensees and an employee in the licensed premises. At that point, Frasure paid Walthier for the beer from money which he had and money which had been given to him by McDowell. The juveniles then left the store. Neither of the juveniles had been asked for any form of identification prior to the sale of the alcoholic beverages, nor had they been asked about their ages, and they did not make any comment concerning their ages. Frasure's date of birth is September 30, 1962, and at the time of the purchase he was approximately six feet one inch tall and had a mustache. Frasure gave testimony in the course of the hearing and appeared to be eighteen years of age or older at that time. Investigative officers who saw Frasure on January 25, 1980, said they felt he appeared to be less than eighteen years of age. McDowell's date of birth is February 9, 1963, and at the time of the hearing he appeared to be less than eighteen years of age, and this comported with the impression of the investigating officers when they saw him on January 25, 1980. At the time Frasure purchased the beer from the clerk, Barbara Joyce Walthier, she was not busy with other customers to the extent that it would hinder her ability to check the appearance of Frasure and McDowell; however, business on the evening in question had been moderate to heavy at times and she does not remember seeing Frasure and McDowell. Barbara Joyce Walthier was working in accordance with a set of instructions from the licensees, in the person of her husband, to the effect that she should always require written identification prior to purchase from those persons who looked like they should be "carded". Moreover, she had been instructed that those persons who have beards are not normally "carded". Other factors to be considered, per instruction she had been given, were to require written identification from those persons who acted suspiciously while in the store, or who parked a great distance away from the store after driving slowly by. In keeping with these instructions, she routinely requires written identification from patrons. Finally, there was a sign in the licensed premises which stated, "Under age don't ask".
Recommendation In view of the fact that this is a single count violation and in view of the physical appearance of Ira J. Frasure at the time of the alcoholic beverage purchase in question, that appearance leading one to believe that he was eighteen years of age or more, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondents be required to pay a fine in the amount of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) in lieu of suspension or revocation and it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that if this civil penalty is not paid within thirty (30) days of the rendition of the final order, that the Respondents' beverage license be suspended for a period of fifteen (15) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allan Parvey, Esquire 2201 Main Street Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
