| 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 2320 HOURS, OFC. IZZO |
| AND THE CI ENTERED CLUB AURA, LOCATED AT 114 S. |
| NARCISSUS 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 |
| SHEENA-LEE HENRY, AND ORDERED A BOTTLED BEER |
| (CORONA). 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 OFC . IZZO. A PHOTO OF |
| THE BARTENDER WAS ALSO TAKEN AFTER THE |
| TRANSACTION. AT APPROXIMATELY 0230 HOURS YOUR |
| AFFIANT ENTERED THE BUSINESS WITH A DESCRIPTION OF |
| THE BARTENDER AND THE PHOTO. YOUR AFFIANT LOCATED |
| AND OBTAINED THE BARTENDER`S IDENTIFICATION. OFC. |
| IZZO ALSO VERIFIED THAT HENRY WAS INDEED THE |
| BARTENDER WHO SOLD THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TO THE |
| CI. BASED ON THE ABOVE MENTION FACTS YOUR AFFIANT |
| BELIEVES THAT CLUB AURA 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. |
| YOUR AFFIANT NOTIFIED THE ON DUTY MANAGER,DARREN |
| CUMMINGS, 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 HENRY |
| TO VIOLATE FSS AND SHE WAS NOT CHARGED AT THIS |
| TIME. |