| ON SATURDAY,9/1/2012 AFFIANT AND OFC.IZZO #1704 |
| WERE WORKING AN UNDERCOVER OPERATION IN THE |
| DOWNTOWN CLUBS AND BARS.THE OPERATION CONSISTED OF |
| YOUR AFFIANT,OFC. IZZO,AND A TWENTY YEAR OLD |
| CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT(CI)ENTERING A CLUB OR BAR |
| AND ATTEMPTING TO PURCHASE AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE |
| FROM A BARTENDER.PRIOR TO THE OPERATION THE CI |
| FORFEITED THEIR FLORIDA ID AND WAS CHECKED FOR ANY |
| OTHER FORMS OF ID OF WHICH THE CI HAD NONE.THE CI |
| WAS THEN ONLY GIVEN CURRENCY FROM THE WEST PALM |
| BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATION FUND FOR THE |
| OPERATION.AT APPROXIMATELY 0030 HOURS,OFC.IZZO AND |
| THE CI ENTERED CLUB NEW YORK,LOCATED IN CITY PLACE |
| AT 700 S.ROSEMARY AVE.BOTH OFC.IZZO AND THE CI |
| WERE ALLOWED TO ENTER THROUGH THE CLUB`S SECURITY |
| WITHOUT BEING STOPPED OR CHECKED FOR ANY FORM OF |
| ID. AFTER ENTERING THE ESTABLISHMENT THE CI |
| APPROACHED A BARTENDER, LATER IDENTIFIED AS |
| MICHELLE VILMENAY,AND ORDERED A BOTTLED |
| BEER(HEINEKEN).THE BARTENDER THEN GAVE THE |
| ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TO THE CI,AND THE CI GAVE THE |
| BARTENDER A TWENTY DOLLAR BILL FROM THE WEST PALM |
| BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATIVE FUND.THE |
| BARTENDER GAVE THE CI CHANGE,AND THE CI WALKED |
| AWAY FROM THE BARTENDER WITH THE ALCOHOLIC |
| BEVERAGE.THE CI WAS NEVER ASKED FOR |
| IDENTIFICATION.THE BEVERAGE WAS VERIFIED BY |
| OFC.IZZO TO BE AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE AND THE |
| ENTIRE TRANSACTION WAS OBSERVED BY YOUR AFFIANT |
| AND OFC.IZZO.A PHOTO OF THE BARTENDER WAS ALSO |
| TAKEN AFTER THE TRANSACTION.AT APPROXIMATELY 0150 |
| HOURS YOUR AFFIANT CONTACTED OFC.JONES, WHO WAS |
| WORKING AS THE OVERTIME OFFICER FOR THE BUSINESS, |
| AND PROVIDED HIM WITH THE LOCATION,DESCRIPTION AND |
| PHOTO OF THE BARTENDER.OFC.JONES LOCATED VILMENAY |
| AND OBTAINED THE BARTENDER`S |
| IDENTIFICATION.OFC.IZZO ALSO VERIFIED THAT |
| VILMENAY WAS INDEED THE BARTENDER WHO SOLD THE |
| ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TO THE CI.BASED ON THE ABOVE |
| MENTION FACTS YOUR AFFIANT BELIEVES THAT CLUB NEW |
| YORK AS A BUSINESS VIOLATED |
| FSS.562.11(1)(A)(1),WHICH STATES:IT IS UNLAWFUL |
| FOR ANY PERSON TO SELL,GIVE,SERVE,OR PERMIT TO BE |
| SERVED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO A PERSON UNDER 21 |
| YEARS OF AGE OR TO PERMIT A PERSON UNDER 21 YEARS |
| OF AGE TO CONSUME SUCH BEVERAGES ON THE LICENSED |
| PREMISES.THIS IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE WEST |
| PALM BEACH CITY ORDINANCE 6-12 WHICH STATES; EVERY |
| VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE RELATING TO THE |
| POSSESSING,SALE,GIFT,SERVICE OR PERMITTING THE |
| SERVICE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES,WHETHER HERETOFORE |
| OR HEREAFTER ENACTED,IS HEREBY SPECIFICALLY MADE A |
| VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER.ALSO BASED ON THE ABOVE |
| FACTS THE BUSINESS DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR ANY UNDER |
| 21 EXCEPTIONS AND CLEARLY VIOLATED CITY ORDINANCE |
| 6-5(A) WHICH STATES;IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR |
| PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 21 TO ENTER, |
| PATRONIZE,VISIT,BE ADMITTED TO,OR ALLOWED ACCESS |
| IN ANY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT. OFC.TATUM |
| NOTIFIED THE ON DUTY MANAGER,MICHAEL STEIN,OF THE |
| VIOLATIONS AND CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS NOTIFIED.IT |
| SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE BUSINESS DID HAVE |
| SECURITY MEASURES IN PLACE IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE |
| ENTRY OF UNDER 21 PATRONS.DUE TO THIS FACT |
| BARTENDERS WERE NOT TASKED WITH CHECKING |
| ID`S,THOUGH THEY STRONGLY ENCOURAGED DOING SO,AND |
| YOUR AFFIANT BELIEVES THERE WAS NO INTENT BY |
| VILMENAY TO VIOLATE FSS AND SHE WAS NOT CHARGED AT |
| THIS TIME. |