Booze News: Distilled in Room 215

A blog about the Baltimore City Liquor Board

What happened at the Liquor Board on March 3, 2016.

Written by Becky Witt

Chairman Neil and Commissioner Trotter sat for hearings with Alternate Commissioner Harvey Jones.

I. Regular Items:

Applicant Matthew Pierce
Business Name Harlan, Inc.
Trading As Clavel
Address 225-27 W. 23rd Street
Type of License Class “B” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for hearing Application for a new Class “B” Beer, Wine & Liquor restaurant license under the provisions of Rule 2.08 requiring $200,000 in capital investment in restaurant fixtures and facilities and seating capacity for a minimum of 75 people; requests for outdoor table service and off-premise catering
Hearing notes

Mr. Will Bauer, consultant for restaurants and businesses, represented the applicant and testified on his behalf. Bauer said that the restaurant has been operating under a Class D tavern license, but, because they did some work on the building, now qualifies for a new Class B restaurant license. They have a large dinner crowd and would like to expand to serve alcohol on Sundays under the Class B. Bauer submitted a letter from the Greater Remington Improvement Association, signatures of support from nearby residents, a capital expediture breakdown, a menu, a “nicely drawn floor plan,” and a Best Restaurant 2015 award from the City Paper.

Commissioner Trotter asked where the money for the renovations came from. Mr. Pierce said that he had gotten private loans from his family and raised some money through his other business, WC Harlan, nearby. They are applying for another loan from Bank of America, currently.

Zoning M-2-2
Neighborhood Remington
Area demographics 44% White, 35% Black, 3% 2 or more races, 13% Asian, 5% Hispanic ethnicity; 11% households have children under age 18; median household income: $30,130.79; 14% households live below the poverty line
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; yes. (Correct corporate name is “Harlan, Inc.”)
Location of entity’s principal office Baltimore, MD
One applicant reside in Balt for 2 yrs? Yes.
Pecuniary interest of Baltimore City resident 100%
Attorney for licensee None
# in support 2
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors/police officers 0
Result of hearing Approved
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision Art. 2B section 10-202(a)
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed

Administrative record basics: The Liquor Board is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. However, the Board is still required to set forth reasons why it has made its decision, drawing from the facts presented and the section of Article 2B that applies to the situation. In this case, and in the vast majority of cases heard by this set of commissioners, there was no significant discussion of the law or the facts; instead, there was merely a vote, which is not sufficient to stand up on appeal.

Applicants Tonney & Frances Crews
Business Name TFCJ, LLC
Trading As Marchionda’s
Address 7133-35 Harford Road
Type of License Class “B” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for hearing Request for a hardship extension under the provisions of Article 2B Section 10-504(d)
Hearing notes

The two licensees at Marchionda’s both testified. Executive Secretary Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth pointed out the letters that she had received in support of the hardship extension request. Frances Crews explained that the restaurant is up for sale, because it didn’t take off, and they would like to retire. They are requesting 180 more days to find a purchaser for the business. Tonney Crews explained that the couple tried to sell the business four months ago to people who wanted to use the building to sell medical marijuana, but the deal fell through. Bailey-Hedgepeth noted that the agency’s records showed that the last date of operations was October 1, 2015.

Zoning B-2-2
Neighborhood North Harford Road
Area demographics 40% White, 53% Black, 1% Asian, 2% 2 or more races; 3% Hispanic ethnicity; 32% households have children under age 18; median household income: $51,208.29; 9% households live below poverty line.
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; yes.
Location of entity’s principal office Parkville, MD
One applicant reside in Balt for 2 yrs? N/A
Pecuniary interest of Baltimore City resident N/A
Attorney for licensee None
# in support 0
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors/police officers 0
Result of hearing Approved
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision None
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed

Administrative record basics: The Liquor Board is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. However, the Board is still required to set forth reasons why it has made its decision, drawing from the facts presented and the section of Article 2B that applies to the situation. In this case, and in the vast majority of cases heard by this set of commissioners, there was no significant discussion of the law or the facts; instead, there was merely a vote, which is not sufficient to stand up on appeal.

II. Violations:

Licensees Margaret McFadden & Joseph McFadden
Business Name M & J Property, LLC
Trading As Glass Grill
Address 6804 Eastern Avenue
Type of License Class “B” Beer, Wine, & Liquor
Reason for hearing

Violation of Rule 4.08(a): Relations with Wholesalers – January 14, 2016 – At approximately 11:00 am, The Maryland State Comptroller’s office, through Agent Michael Calvert, conducted an investigation at the establishment. Upon conducting his investigation Agent Calvert discovered 59 bottles of various types of alcohol (spirits) that lacked proper distributor purchasing invoices. Agent Calvert then asked the bar manager, Mr. William Kuchta, for the invoices for the 59 bottles of alcohol. Mr. Kuchta informed Agent Calvert that he did not have the invoices for the bottles as he had purchased them from a bar in Essex (Tumbleweeds Saloon) that is no longer in business. Agent Calvert informed Mr. Kuchta of the violation and confiscated the 59 bottles of alcohol.

Violation of Rule 4.16: Illegal Conduct– February 18, 2016 – At approximately 1:43 pm, the BLLC reviewed the State Department of Assessment and Taxation (SDAT) on-line records and determined that the corporate status of the entity that owns the license for the establishment – M & J 6804 Property, LLC – had been forfeited as of 10/1/2015. As of February 18, 2016 the entity’s corporate status is still forfeited.

Hearing notes

Inspector Michael Calvert, from the Comptroller’s office, testified that, in mid-November 2015, he went to the Glass Grill to correct an issue with their sales and use tax license. There were three different sales and use tax numbers associated with the business, and Mr. Calvert’s assignment was to figure out which one was correct and make sure they were using it. When he got to the business, he spoke with the bar manager about the issue. On January 14, 2016, Calvert returned to the location and spoke with the bar manager’s father, who also declared himself to be the manager. The business was still working on correcting the numbers. They were in the midst of purchasing the bar/lounge from Ms. McFadden, who is the holder of the liquor license; they were paying rent to her for the building and the use of the liquor license, under an “executive agreement.” While Calvert was there, he asked for invoices and records for the alcohol in the bar, and he asked them whether they had any other alcohol that they did not have records for. The manager told Calvert that he had purchased the alcohol from a bar that went out of business down the street, called Tumbleweed Saloon, for $500. The inspector seized the alcohol and wrote his report on the incident.

The manager, Mr. Kuchta, testified that the owner of the Tumbleweed had asked him if he was interested in buying the rest of his stock, which was worth $1,000, for $500. Kuchta didn’t realize he was doing anything illegal.

Commissioner Jones asked to see the operating agreement between Margaret McFadden, the licensee, and Mr. Kuchta. He didn’t have a copy of the agreement, but he said that the terms were that they pay the licensee $3,000 per month, over a two-year contract. They are hoping to buy the establishment.

Zoning B-3-1
Neighborhood Eastwood
Area demographics 52% White, 12% Black, 3% Asian; 30% Hispanic ethnicity; 30% households have children under age 18; median household income: $38,987.50; 18% households live below the poverty line
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? No, SDAT does not show any results for M & J Property, LLC.
Location of entity’s principal office None.
One applicant reside in Balt for 2 yrs? N/A
Pecuniary interest of Baltimore City resident N/A
Attorney for licensee None
# in support 1
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors/police officers 1
Result of hearing Responsible. $250 fine.
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision None.
Other reasons given for decision

The commissioners took into account the $500 loss that Mr. Kuchta had suffered when the inspector confiscated his alcohol.

Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed

Absentee Licensee: Rule 3.01 states that “[e]very licensee shall be the actual owner and operator of the business conducted on the licensed premises.” This licensee, however, has contracted with another person to run the business; she seems to not be involved at all in the day to day operations of the establishment, which is against the rule and state law. The commissioners did not raise this concern.

Licensee Brian Winfield
Business Name Eagle Entertainment, LLC
Trading As Paparazzi Night Club
Address 407 E. Saratoga Street
Type of License Class “BD7” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for hearing

Violation of Rule 4.01(a): Sales to Minors – January 29, 2016 – At approximately 11:30 pm, the Baltimore City Police Department and BLLC conducted an investigation into the establishment related to a promoted “college night” venue. While at the establishment, Detective Gatto of the Baltimore Police Department and Inspector Chrissomallis of the BLLC observed a patron, later identified as Everett Hardy, vomiting inside the rear of the club on an elevated balcony. Mr. Hardy was then escorted by security out of the club. Detective Gatto, Detective Greenhill, and Inspector Chrissomallis accompanied the security guard and Mr. Hardy outside of the club. At this time, detectives were able to identify Mr. Everett Hardy as being under the age of 21. At this time, police and the BLLC received information that Mr. Hardy was served alcoholic beverages inside of the establishment. Mr. Hardy could not identify the bartender who sold him the alcoholic beverages. During the interview Mr. Hardy has a strong smell of alcohol emanating from his person and was unsteady on his feet – both signs of intoxication.

Violation of Rule 3.12: General Welfare – January 29, 2016 – At approximately 11:30 pm, the Baltimore City Police Department and BLLC conducted an investigation into the establishment related to a promoted “college night” venue. While at the establishment, Detective Gatto of the Baltimore Police Department and Inspector Chrissomallis of the BLLC observed a patron, later identified as Everett Hardy, vomiting inside the rear of the club on an elevated balcony. Mr. Hardy was then escorted by security out of the club. Detective Gatto, Detective Greenhill, and Inspector Chrissomallis accompanied the security guard and Mr. Hardy outside of the club. At this time, detectives were able to identify Mr. Everett Hardy as being under the age of 21. At this time, police and the BLLC received information that Mr. Hardy was served alcoholic beverages inside of the establishment. Mr. Hardy could not identify the bartender who sold him the alcoholic beverages. During the interview Mr. Hardy has a strong smell of alcohol emanating from his person and was unsteady on his feet – both signs of intoxication.

Hearing notes

Liquor Board Inspector Mark Fosler testified that the agency had received information from the Underage Drinking Task Force about college nights at various establishments. They went to Paparazzi Night Club and saw around 400 people inside. They asked security for a head count, which no one was able to provide. There were five hookah pipes in use inside the club. At 12:25am, Inspector Chrissomallis and Detective Abraham Gatto observed a young man vomiting in the rear of the club, whose birthdate was January 1997. He needed to be helped outside by security, because he was unsteady on his feet. He could not identify the bartender who served him alcohol. He smelled strongly of alcohol. No one witnessed him drinking alcohol, however, and he was not arrested.

Inspector Chrissomallis corroborated Fosler’s testimony. He said that the bar started shutting down as soon as they arrived. When the inspectors asked why, the staff replied that sales were down, though the club was still full of people. All of the alcohol from all of the patrons was being taken by security guards.

Detective Gatto then testified that he asked about the club’s capacity when he first arrived, and it could not be provided. Gatto said that the establishment was so full, it was difficult for him to count how many people were there. From the moment they arrived, Gatto said, the security knew that there was an issue and “started snatching bottles.” He added that the young man was “profusely vomiting everywhere.” He was incapable of walking, so they sat him down against a wall. They looked at his ID and determined that he was underage. Another young man came out to help him, whom he said was his brother, who was also underage. Kodenski objected to the testimony that the second young man was his brother, suggesting it “could have been his mother in drag.”

The licensee then testified that they had stopped doing college nights, but decided to do it this one time. They mark the hands of people who are underage, and security monitors the activity. A security guard testified that he had worked at the club for fifteen years and that particular night was actually a “slow” night. Nobody from the community complained.

Mr. Kodenski closed by arguing that the young man could have been ill for some other reason, and that, because no breathalyzer was used, no one can know that he was intoxicated.

Zoning B-5-2
Neighborhood Downtown
Area demographics 39% White, 37% Black, 16% Asian, 3% 2 or more races; 5% Hispanic ethnicity; 9% of households have children under age 18; Median Household Income: $38,146; 18% households live below poverty line
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; yes.
Location of entity’s principal office Dundalk, MD
One applicant reside in Balt for 2 yrs? N/A
Pecuniary interest of Baltimore City resident N/A
Attorney for licensee Mr. Melvin Kodenski
# in support 2
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors/police officers 4
Result of hearing Responsible for violation of Rule 3.12. $250 fine. The Rule 4.01(a) charge was dismissed, on Mr. Kodenski’s motion, because there was no testimony presented that the young man was drinking alcohol that he bought at the club.
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision None
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed

Administrative agencies apply a “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof when deciding whether a particular licensee is responsible for committing a violation. In other words, the commissioners have to decide whether it was more likely than not that the licensee sold alcohol to the underage individual found vomiting and reeking of alcohol inside the bar. That the commissioners dismissed the violation, therefore, is strange: they would have to find that it was actually more likely that the young man was vomiting for another reason or got intoxicated elsewhere and then came to the club and began vomiting. These alternate scenarios seem to be fairly far-fetched, under the facts presented.

Licensee Marianella Palomino
Business Name Feria, Inc.
Trading As Los Amigos Restaurant
Address 5505 Harford Road
Type of License Class “B” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for hearing

Violation of Rule 4.01(a): Sales to Minors – December 10, 2015 – At approximately 8:45 PM Baltimore Police Department, the Baltimore Sheriff’s Office, and the BLLC conducted random, joint investigations of establishments to determine if licensees would sell alcoholic beverages to minors. The joint task force responded to the establishment and sent Baltimore City Sheriff volunteers Tyler White and Teshawn Dunn, who are both under the age of 21, into the establishment to attempt to purchase an alcoholic beverage(s). At that time the volunteers entered the establishment and asked for a “Budweiser and Heineken” to consume. The bartender/store clerk furnished the volunteers with bottles of “Budweiser and Heineken.” The volunteers then communicated to the task force of the sale. Members of the task force entered the establishment and attempted to notify the bartender/store clerk that an alcoholic beverage had just been sold to a minor and it would be reported to the BLLC. Before they could notify the bartender she ran out of the rear door of the establishment and could not be found. The task force was able to notify the licensee of the infraction.

Violation of Rule 3.03(c): Records – December 10, 2015 – At approximately 8:45 PM Baltimore Police Department, the Baltimore Sheriff’s Office, and the BLLC conducted random, joint investigations of establishments to determine if licensees would sell alcoholic beverages to minors. After the BLLC responded to the location, Agent Fosler asked for a copy of the employee records to identify the bartender/store clerk who sold the volunteers alcoholic beverages. No employee records could be provided to the BLLC at the time of the request.

Hearing notes

Continuation from February 25, 2016: a hearing for which the licensee did not show up.

Mr. Paul Schuman, attorney for the licensee, on behalf of his client, admitted the two charges. He thanked the Board for rescheduling the hearing from the previous week. Schuman explained that his client is running the bar under an operating agreement under a pending transfer of ownership. The person who served the underage person is a friend of Ms. Sanchez (the applicant for the transfer). Sanchez had to leave the bar briefly, to pick up her children. No one else in the bar spoke English, so she left her friend in charge until she got back. This person does not normally work there, and she has not worked there since.

Commissioner Trotter asked, “why would someone let an underage person control the bar?” Chairman Neil responded that that was not the testimony from Mr. Schuman: the temporary person served an underage volunteer; she was not herself underage.

Ms. Sanchez testified briefly that she does have employee records. She did not bring them with her, though. Commissioner Jones opined that it was disrespectful to the board to not bring in those records to prove that she has fixed the problem. “We’re not that soft,” he said.

Inspector Fosler jumped in at this point to say that this supposed “friend” who was in charge of the bar fled the scene as soon as she saw the police. The rest of the employees in the bar refused to give the police the last name of this person. Chairman Neil responded that the licensee was not charged with a lack of cooperation.

Zoning B-2-2
Neighborhood Glenham-Belhar
Area demographics 37% White, 56% Black, 1% Asian; 2% Hispanic ethnicity; 33% households have children under age 18; median household income: $57,951.01; 5% households live below the poverty line
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; yes.
Location of entity’s principal office Baltimore, MD
One applicant reside in Balt for 2 yrs? N/A
Pecuniary interest of Baltimore City resident N/A
Attorney for licensee Mr. Paul Schuman
# in support 2
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors/police officers 3
Result of hearing Responsible for both charges. $500 fine.
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision None
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed None.
Licensee Juan Portillo
Business Name Juan Portillo, LLC
Trading As Santa Clara
Address 529 South Bond Street
Type of License Class “BD7” Beer, Wine and Liquor
Reason for hearing

Violation of Rule 3.12: Public Welfare– February 6, 2016 – At approximately 1:35 am, the Baltimore City Police Department responded to an aggravated assault by shooting at the establishment. Upon arrival, Officer Pittam of the Baltimore Police Department observed three individuals that had sustained gunshot wounds. Victim #1 sustained a gunshot wound to the head. Victim #2 sustained a gunshot wound to the right side of the face. Victim #3 sustained a gunshot wound to the left foot. Further investigation revealed that the suspects who allegedly committed the acts were seated at bar area within the establishment and without provocation approached the victims and proceeded to shoot them.

Violation of Rule 4.16: Illegal Conduct– February 18, 2016 – At approximately 9:58 am, the BLLC reviewed the State Department of Assessment and Taxation (SDAT) on-line records and determined that the corporate status of the entity that owns the license for the establishment – Juan Portillo, LLC – had been forfeited as of 10/1/2015. As of February 18, 2016 the entity’s corporate status is still forfeited.

Hearing notes

Beginning with the Rule 4.16 violation, Chairman Neil stated that the business was forfeited as of February 18, 2016. Mr. Kodenski, for his clients, the licensees, replied that it’s not “illegal” to operate without a valid corporate entity. Mr. Kodenski’s motion to dismiss that charge was granted.

Baltimore Police Officer Brad Pittam testified that he received a call for aggravated assault by shooting. When he arrived, he observed three victims with gunshot wounds to their head, face, and foot, respectively. He reviewed the security camera video footage, which showed both the suspects and the victims sitting in the bar for 45 minutes before the incident. There seemed to be no argument or even conversation between them. The officer did not know whether the victims or the suspects were intoxicated. He does not normally get a lot of calls to this estalbishment.

Commissioner Trotter asked whether the incident was related to gang violence. The officer responded that he did not know, but that the shooting seemed to have been planned out ahead of time and could have been a “hit” or assassination.

Mr. Kodenski argued that the “public welfare” rule did not apply to this situation, because there’s nothing the licensee could have done differently to prevent the shooting. Kodenski said that the suspects just shot the three people, “bada bing bada boom, everyone scatters, the guys walk out and that’s it.” In response, Chairman Neil said that he doesn’t agree with the way that the law is written, but that he believed that enough evidence had been presented to deny Kodenski’s motion.

Mr. Abraham Hurdle brought forward the security camera footage of the incident, but the commissioners did not want to see it.

Coming back to the charges and the evidence, Chairman Neil emphasized again that Rule 3.12 places an intolerable burden on the licensee but that the licensee has violated the “public welfare” rule in this instance. Mr. Kodenski argued back (during the deliberation phase of the hearing) that “people get beat up at the Horseshoe [Casino] and at the stadium,” and “you gotta know that it’s going to happen.” He said that there was nothing the licensee could have done. Trotter agreed, saying that the licensee couldn’t have operated his business in any other way to avoid this situation. Commissioner Jones disagreed: he said that the shooting took place inside the business, and that the licensee is responsible for the charge, because it’s “the nature of this type of business.” Trotter responded that the only way to have stopped it would have been a metal detector and a guard.

Zoning B-1-2
Neighborhood Fells Point
Area demographics 53% White, 32% Black, 8% Asian, 3% 2 or more races; 4% Hispanic ethnicity; 6% households have children under age 18; Median Household Income: $38,331; 5.5 % households live below poverty line.
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; yes.
Location of entity’s principal office Baltimore, MD
One applicant reside in Balt for 2 yrs? N/A
Pecuniary interest of Baltimore City resident N/A
Attorney for licensee Mr. Melvin Kodenski
# in support 3
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors/police officers 1
Result of hearing Responsible. $250 fine.
Vote tally 2-1 (Trotter dissenting)
Portions of state law cited in decision None
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed None.
Licensees William Matricciani, Donna Matricciani & George Divel, III
Business Name Weidog, LLC
Trading As Playbook
Address 6700 German Hill Road
Type of License Class “BD7” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for hearing

Violation of Rule 4.16: Illegal Conduct– January 17, 2016 – At approximately 1:10 am, the Baltimore City Fire Department and BLLC conducted an investigation into the establishment. Upon entering the establishment, Inspector Hineline of the Baltimore City Fire Department observed the following: (1) Three (3) marked fire exits had been concealed by curtains; and (2) The fire alarm panel was off-line and silenced; and (3) The pull station for the fire-alarm was not operable nor was it resent to be made operable. A “Cease and Desist” order was then issued by Inspector Hineline until the alarm was in working order. Inspector Chrissomallis was present during Inspector Hineline’s investigation. Pursuant to the Fire Department’s investigation and the three citations that the Fire Department issued as a result of the investigation the establishment was closed out of concern for public safety. Inspector Chrissomallis informed the manager of the violations and left the scene accordingly.

Violation of Rule 4.01(a): Sales to Minors – February 6, 2016 – At approximately 1:00 am, the Baltimore City Police Department and the BLLC were conducting joint investigations of licensed liquor establishments in the Southeast Police District. Upon entry into the location the Baltimore Police Department conducted a routine inspection of the establishment. During the inspection, the Baltimore City Police Department were able to help locate and identify two patrons – Edenilson Perola (7/9/1995) (20 Years of Age) and Blanca Paraton 4/26/1996 (19 years of age) – with alcoholic beverages – Perola held a Corona bottle of beer and Paraton held a Pina Cola drink – in their hands. Upon making this observation, the Baltimore Police and BLLC notified the night manager on duty.

Hearing notes

Mr. Peter Prevas represented the licensees, none of which were present. He said that Mr. Matricciani went home sick with the flu and he was accompanied by a manager. Prevas, for his client, denied the sale to minors and admitted the illegal conduct violation.

Prevas noted that the Board had just granted Kodenski’s motion on a similar situation: Prevas stipulated to the facts presented by the inspectors but pointed out that there was no testimony that the underage individuals who were holding drinks had purchased them from the licensee’s establishment. There is a separate section of Article 2B that refers to underage people’s possession of alcoholic beverages, but the licensees were charged under the “sale to minors” section. Prevas’s motion was granted without further question.

Zoning B-2-2
Neighborhood Graceland Park
Area demographics 44% White, 25% Black, 2% 2 or more races; 20% Hispanic ethnicity; 32% households have children under age 18; median household income: $30,864.31; 22% households live below the poverty line.
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; yes.
Location of entity’s principal office Baltimore, MD
One applicant reside in Balt for 2 yrs? N/A
Pecuniary interest of Baltimore City resident N/A
Attorney for licensee Mr. Peter Prevas
# in support 1
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors/police officers 3
Result of hearing Responsible for Rule 4.16 violation. $2,000 fine. Rule 4.01(a) violation dismissed.
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision None
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed

Administrative agencies apply a “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof when deciding whether a particular licensee is responsible for committing a violation. In other words, the commissioners have to decide whether it was more likely than not that the licensee sold alcohol to two underage individuals found holding and consuming alcohol inside the bar. That the commissioners dismissed the violation, therefore, is strange: they would have to find that it was actually more likely that someone else bought the drinks for these young people, but there was no evidence presented that would suggest that this occurred. The commissioners did not even ask the police officers or inspectors whether they spoke with the underage people to find out where they purchased their alcohol; these witnesses could have provided further information but were not asked any questions.

Comments are closed.

Disclaimer: While the author makes every effort to provide the most accurate and up-to-date information on this blog, the accuracy of some information is subject to change and cannot be guaranteed. Neither the author nor the publisher is responsible for any errors or omissions. All information in this blog is provided “as-is,” with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness, or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied. This blog is not intended to do harm to, defame, libel, or malign any religious or ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or government entity. In no event will the author, her employer, or the publisher be liable to you or anyone else for any action taken in reliance on the information in this blog or for any consequential, special or similar damages incurred, even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

The materials contained on this website have been prepared by Community Law Center, Inc. for informational purposes only and are not intended to be legal advice. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Copyright: Text, photos and other materials found on this website are the property of CLC, except where otherwise noted. Such materials may not be reproduced without CLC’s written prior consent.