Nuisance board hears city say Jay's Food Store still violates 2024 order; security, windows and unpaid fees cited

The City of Daytona Beach nuisance abatement board heard city police testimony on Wednesday that Jay’s Food Store, also identified in filings as Family Food Inc. at 600 North Ridgewood, remained out of compliance with a February 2024 abatement order.

Sergeant Timothy Blowers of the Daytona Beach Police Department summarized the city’s evidence in a presentation of photographs and police reports, saying the property “has a history of illegal activities, which include drug sales, prostitution, violent crime, stolen vehicles, aggravated batteries, simple batteries, frauds, tobacco sale violation, alcohol sale violations, gambling” and other incidents. He told the board that multiple provisions of the prior order were not satisfied and that the city was bringing numerous police reports documenting arrests and trespass warnings into evidence.

The order the board issued in February 2024 required several remedies “in furtherance” of prohibitions on maintaining a nuisance. Staff said two provisions in particular were not followed: paragraph 3(a), which requires a security guard from a licensed, reputable company on site during all open hours, and paragraph 3(c), which requires store windows remain unobstructed to allow clear views into and out of the store. When counsel asked if staff considered the property in compliance with the security requirement, Sergeant Blowers answered plainly, “They are not in compliance.”

Police witnesses described repeated encounters at the store in 2023–2024. Officer Justin Huckaby testified that on multiple dates he found people on the property who had previously been trespassed, and in several instances officers discovered drug paraphernalia or narcotics during arrests made on the property. Huckaby described a June 2024 contact in which a person known to be trespassed had methamphetamine and a glass pipe in a jacket; in another case a dated field test showed a pipe with a presumptive reaction for fentanyl. The city submitted a packet of case reports and identified police exhibit 11386 as part of the record.

Attorney Kelvin Daniels, representing the property owner Gatlin Brothers at Daytona Beach LLC and tenant/manager Raymond Saeed, disputed the city’s characterization. “Today is not a nuisance,” Daniels told the board, saying his clients would present evidence and testimony to challenge the city’s factual claims and the sufficiency of police evidence for additional sanctions.

City staff also questioned the store’s contracted security. Officers showed records and testified that several guards associated with a contracted company, identified in testimony as SC Protection, either did not hold a valid Florida private-security license or had applications denied because of felony convictions or probation status. Officer Brian Morales said a person working visibly as a guard on Feb. 14, 2024 wore a shirt with a security logo but had a felony probation record and no approved Class D license in the state database; Morales said the guard’s application appeared to have been denied. Sergeant Blowers and other officers reported other checks where no licensed guard was present during open hours, and on one occasion a guard was observed sleeping inside a vehicle in the parking lot.

Staff also told the board the store had not paid an investigative and administrative cost the board previously imposed. Paragraph 5 of the 2024 order required payment of $5,000 to reimburse the city for investigative costs; staff said the payment had not been made.

Defense witnesses and on-site security disputed some details. Julia Pickett, who testified she works security shifts at the property, described monitoring multiple cameras from inside the store and said she tries to step outside when she sees activity. Roy Gerald, who identified himself as a store employee/volunteer, described interactions with officers and said police had asked him questions about on-site activity during prior investigations. Raymond Saeed addressed some incidents through counsel and declined to concede the city’s conclusion.

The board did not issue a new written order at the hearing. Members asked questions of city witnesses, listened to defense testimony and received multiple police reports into the record. The board agreed to continue the hearing so both sides could finish presenting evidence; the matter was recessed and rescheduled for Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025, at 1 p.m.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to excuse a board member from the hearing: passed by voice vote (ayes recorded). The board granted the procedural request to excuse a member earlier in the meeting. - Evidence: the city identified a police report book (police exhibit 1, report ending 11386) for the record and sought to introduce multiple case reports documenting arrests, trespass warnings and related incidents; the board received the exhibit subject to administrative-hearing evidentiary rules. - Hearing schedule: the board continued the evidentiary hearing to Jan. 15, 2025, at 1 p.m. to allow additional testimony and documentary evidence.

Why it matters

If the board finds the property in continued noncompliance, the board may consider enforcement steps available under the city nuisance-abatement process previously employed against the site. The city’s presentation linked the alleged ongoing problems to repeated trespasses, drug possession and sales incidents, and what staff described as insufficient security and obstructed sight lines that staff say limit the store’s ability to deter unlawful conduct.

What’s next

The board will resume the hearing on Jan. 15. City staff said they expect to call additional officers and to introduce more incident reports; the owner’s counsel said the defense will present contrary testimony and challenge the sufficiency of the city’s evidence. The board may at that hearing decide whether to modify, extend, or seek further enforcement of the February 2024 order.