| 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 2300 HOURS, OFC. IZZO |
| AND THE CI ENTERED ER BRADLEY`S, LOCATED AT 104 S. |
| CLEMATIS ST. BOTH OFC.IZZO AND THE CI ENTERED THE |
| ESTABLISHMENT WITHOUT BEING STOPPED OR CHECKED FOR |
| ANY FORM OF ID. WHILE IN THE ESTABLISHMENT THE CI |
| APPROACHED A BARTENDER, LATER IDENTIFIED AS |
| KRISTIN WELKER, 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 AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE AND THE ENTIRE |
| TRANSACTION WAS OBSERVED BY OFC . IZZO AND YOUR |
| AFFIANT. A PHOTO OF THE BARTENDER WAS ALSO TAKEN |
| AFTER THE TRANSACTION. AT APPROXIMATELY 0123 HOURS |
| A DESCRIPTION OF THE BARTENDER AND A PHOTO WAS |
| PROVIDED TO OFC. MOONEY, WHO WAS WORKING THE |
| OVERTIME DETAIL AT THE BUSINESS, AND WAS HE WAS |
| TOLD TO OBTAIN THE BARTENDER`S IDENTIFICATION. |
| OFC.MOONEY LOCATED THE BARTENDER AND PROVIDED ME |
| HER INFORMATION AND YOUR AFFIANT VERIFIED THAT |
| WELKER WAS INDEED THE BARTENDER WHO SOLD THE |
| ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TO THE CI. THE BARTENDER ALSO |
| WAS POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED BY OFC. IZZO. BASED ON |
| THE ABOVE MENTION FACTS YOUR AFFIANT BELIEVES THAT |
| ER BRADLEY`S 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. OFC. MOONEY NOTIFIED |
| THE ON DUTY MANAGER, MICHAEL STEINBERG, OF THE |
| VIOLATION AND CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS NOTIFIED.IT |
| SHOULD BE NOTED THAT EVEN THOUGH ER BRADLEY`S |
| HOLDS A RESTAURANT LICENSE AND UNDER 21 PATRONS |
| ARE ALLOWED ENTRY UNDER CITY ORDINANCE 6-5 (2) 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 WELKER TO VIOLATE FSS AND SHE WAS NOT |
| CHARGED AT THIS TIME. |