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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.