What happened at the Liquor Board on January 14, 2016.

Commissioner Hafey pointed out that the applicant did not fill out page four of the application. Mr. Kodenski replied that his client is already a licensee and argued that he shouldn’t have to fill out the character witness section of the application since he is already a licensee. However, the applicant also left blank the section that requires the landlord’s signature. The docket stated that the application was for a transfer of ownership, along with the expansions of this license, which was apparently inaccurate. Executive Secretary Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth noted for the record that the BLLC is making changes and updates to its application, in order to take into consideration the various kinds of applications that licensees and applicants can submit. In the future, once the applications are approved by the Comptroller of the state of Maryland, information that is not required will not be included on the application. In response to the missing information, Kodenski said, “we can make the addition before we come down and pick [the updated license] up.”

Commissioner Trotter asked how large the outdoor seating area is. Kodenski replied, “it’s really a misnomer, ’cause when I think they were granting it, they had an outdoor garden. That’s since not been there. So the outdoor is really a misnomer; it’s right next to the building, so it’s not a big issue here.” Trotter replied, “okay.”

The application did not contain a floor plan, which would have been helpful to understand Mr. Kodenski’s statements about the beer garden that was not there.

A letter from Baltimore City Zoning Administrator Geoffrey Veale was included in the docket information regarding the zoning and the use and occupancy of the property. Mr. Veale states clearly in his letter that, though the addition of live entertainment and dancing is permitted in a B-3-1 zoning district, subject to obtaining an occupancy permit, “[t]o use a portion of the beer garden as live entertainment and dancing would be a change in the conditional use requiring” BMZA approval. The Board did not inquire into whether the licensee intended to expand the live entertainment use into the ephemeral beer garden/outdoor seating area or not.

Commissioner Trotter asked how Kodenski’s client is financing the transfer. Kodenski responded that there will be seller financing involved.

Chairman Neil noted that there was an email in the file regarding an issue of citizenship. Kodenski joked, “I’m a citizen; I was born here.” He elaborated that requiring citizenship of a licensee shouldn’t be considered, under the Yim case, and under the new rules, citizenship is no longer required for a sole proprietorship with no business entity.

Regarding the “new rules” and their lack of a citizenship and registered voter requirement: these requirements are in Article 2B section 10-103; the fact that they are missing from the new rules does not mean that the Board is not still required to enforce state law.

City Resident requirement: Article 2B section 10-103(b)(4) says that the applicant must have been for the two years preceding the filing of the application a resident of the City of Baltimore. Mr. Mavi gives a Dundalk address as his home address on the application; this address is outside of the boundaries of Baltimore City, rendering him ineligible to be a sole applicant for a Baltimore City liquor license.

Commissioner Hafey asked Kodenski whether he has contacted the community; Kodenski responded that he was waiting to do so until after the transfer, adding “it’s a small store, very small.”

Chairman Neil told Hecker and her client that it’s wonderful that they are doing this project, because “this neighborhood needed help.” He commended them for “taking the risk to do what other people won’t do.”

Chairman Neil noted that the BMZA had required a security plan from the applicants; Caroline Hecker replied that her clients had submitted the security plan to the BMZA already.

Commissioner Hafey noted that this applicants were already licensees on a liquor license. Kodenski replied that there was originally a Class D license at this location, but that it had been closed. The commissioner asked, “that license is dead?” After a long pause, Kodenski replied, “yes.”

Violation of Adult Entertainment Rule 9: Codes Compliance – August 8, 2015 – Starting at approximately 9:30PM, members of the Baltimore City Police Department’s Vice Squad conducted an undercover investigation at the establishment At approximately 11:30 PM, Det Gatto, of the Vice Squad, made contact with an individual later identified as Ms. Shadyrra Jacobs who was a dancer at the establishment. Det. Gatto initiated a conversation with Ms. Jacobs who stated that she would have sexual intercourse with Det. Gatto for $600 outside of the establishment or for $300 if he preferred to have sexual intercourse inside of the establishment.

Violation of Rule 4.17(a): Sexual Practices and Obscenity – August 8, 2015 – Starting at approximately 9:30PM, members of the Baltimore City Police Department’s Vice Squad conducted an undercover investigation at the establishment At approximately 11:30 PM, Det. Garrett, of the Vice Squad, entered the establishment and later made contact with an individual later identified as Ms. Cabrina Robinson who was a dancer at the establishment. Det. Garrett initiated a conversation with Ms. Jacobs who stated that she would have sexual intercourse with Det. Garrett in the stage area for $200.

Violation of Adult Entertainment Rule 9: Codes Compliance – August 8, 2015 – Starting at approximately 9:30PM, members of the Baltimore City Police Department’s Vice Squad conducted an undercover investigation at the establishment. At approximately 11:30 PM, Det. Garrett, of the Vice Squad, entered the establishment and later made contact with an individual later identified as Ms. Cabrina Robinson who was a dancer at the establishment. Det. Garrett initiated a conversation with Ms. Jacobs who stated that she would have sexual intercourse with Det. Garrett in the stage area for $200.

Baltimore City Police Detective Garrett testified that, on August 8, he entered the bar in plainclothes with Detective Gatto. A young woman approached him and began to dance on him; afterward, she sat next to him and they talked. During the conversation, she told him that they could have sex at the bar for $200. When Garrett said that he didn’t want to have sex at the bar, she suggested that they go to a private room for $50 more. Under cross-examination from Fogleman, there was some discussion of the time of evening that the two entered the bar. Garrett’s report said they entered at 9:30, but Gatto’s said 11:30. Garrett and Gatto both testified that they entered the club together. Under further questioning, Garrett said that there wasn’t anyone else in the bar and that he had ordered a Corona.

After Garrett and Gatto left the club, Detective LC Greenhill testified that he went in and identified the two dancers, based on what Gatto and Garrett told him about their stage names and the clothes they were wearing. Greenhill did not arrest the women in order to protect the ongoing investigations that the police were doing on the Block.

Detective Abraham Gatto then testified about his experience on the same night. Gatto said that a dancer approached him and brought him back to the seating area, where he paid her for a dance. Gatto suggested to the dancer that they have sex, but the dancer said that they would have to wait until after work, and it would cost $300. She suggested to Gatto that if they had sex right in the back room area, it would be $600. Gatto left the bar at some point after this conversation and notified Greenhill.

Fogleman then cross-examined Gatto, who testified further that the “private room” area was not really private; it was more like a lounge in the back, which was not lit in the same way that the stage was. A person could see into the room from the front if they wanted to. Fogleman asked Greenhill whether he had ever heard of an incident of prostitution with a price as high as $600. Greenhill replied that he had, for “more than $600, yes, oh yes.”

The licensees’ attorney then called Mr. William Shepherd, the manager of the club, to testify. Shepherd told the commissioners that he works at the club 50-60 hours per week, but he was not present on August 8. Though the women who were allegedly involved were not present at the hearing, Shepherd said that both of them denied the allegations to him. He said that he told both of the dancers not to come back until the issues were resolved. The manager said that the club has no back rooms where anything illegal can take place in private. He also has a “very strict hiring process” for the dancers, who are all independent contractors. He checks Maryland Judiciary Casesearch to see if the dancers have criminal records. Former Chairman Fogleman showed the commissioners photographs of the club so that they could see the floor plan. Shepherd testified that there is plenty of light inside the club. Called back to testify again, Detective Garrett said that the club was dark enough that you couldn’t see the back of it from the front. Detective Greenhill testified that he needed to use his flashlight to check IDs and employee records while he was there.

The two women’s criminal charges were both placed on the “stet docket,” which is a postponement during which the case can be reopened if the defendant does not follow certain conditions.

In closing, Former Chairman Fogleman argued that the old Adult Entertainment rules were “terrible creatures” and he applauded the new commissioners for revisiting them. He argued that the old wording of the rule talks about the licensee permitting or suffering his licensed establishment to be used for any sexual act or activity. Fogleman argued that the licensee in this case hadn’t allowed the prostitution solicitation to occur, because he hadn’t known about it. Fogleman said that he didn’t believe that Shepherd could do more to discourage illegal activity and argued that he exercised enough due diligence to not be charged with a violation.

Commissioner Trotter responded that a licensee should expect illegal activity when they operate an adult entertainment business. The entire premise of the business is on a very fine edge of legality. Commissioner Hafey asked if the licensee had terminated the employment of the dancers. The manager responded that he had asked them to take a break until the violation issue was resolved.

Mr. Fogleman jumped back in to again congratulate the Board on the new Adult Entertainment rules, which are much more comprehensive that the previous set of rules. Under Rule 4.01(c), the Board can deny, suspend, or revoke an adult entertainment license if employees or agents are enter into illegal acts on the premises and the manager reasonably should have known of the offense or failed to supervise. Fogleman said that these rules were much clearer and more comprehensive.

Former Chairman Fogleman asked whether the commissioners would consider merging the charges. Chairman Neil replied, forcefully, that Fogleman’s client had already gotten a good deal with a $2,000 fine, because Neil had been considering a suspension.