What happened at the Liquor Board on August 25, 2016.

Chairman Matricciani asked Inspector Chrissomallis about the basis for the violation: was it the fight or the large crowd outside? The inspector could not reply; he did not write the violation or the police report.

Commissioner Moore noted that the police report said that the security at the location was incompetent or unprepared and asked Inspector Chrissomallis to comment. The inspector couldn’t comment directly on the police officer’s observations, but he did say that a few patrons were allowed to sneak in through a back door, which they should not have been allowed to do.

Commissioner Greenfield asked about the establishment’s capacity. Chrissomallis replied that the club was under capacity at the time of this incident and added that a lot of night clubs in the city like to keep their patrons well under capacity so that they can observe the customers more easily.

Mr. Melvin Kodenski, for his clients, moved to dismiss the charge, based on the inspector’s testimony that the business was under capacity and the licensees were cooperative in response to the police officers’ requests. Chairman Matricciani stated that he was inclined to grant the motion, since the charge seemed to be about the crowd outside, but there wasn’t much testimony about the crowd being out of control. Commissioner Moore noted that it sounded like there was a general lack of control outside, and that the police had to shut down the street near a hospital. The real concern to Moore was the subsequent fight that Inspector Chrissomallis described, with bloodied patrons running out onto the street. She would deny the motion. Commissioner Greenfield agreed with Commissioner Moore that he would deny the motion.

The general manager of Mirage then testified about the events of March 26. He testified that Mirage was having a special event on that evening. He hired extra security, at the request of the police. He did not see a fight, but someone told him about it. He said that no one got hurt or went to the hospital. Commissioner Moore asked, if no one got hurt, where the blood came from. He corrected himself to say that he did see blood but he did not admit that anyone got hurt. He added that these incidents happen at the Casino, at the Stadium, everywhere. Commissioner Moore replied, “we’re talking about you.” He also said that the street is always closed when he has an event, which he does two or three times per month.

Commissioner Moore asked what the policy will be for asking for identification. The bar manager responded that the policy has always been to card people who look under 30.

Under questioning from Commissioner Moore, Wolde testified that he was in DC on the night in question, but he is at the store almost every day. He has taken the alcohol management training course, but his aunt has not taken it.

Chairman Matricciani asked about the good standing of the corporation with the state of Maryland. Mr. Prevas responded that his client’s 2016 personal property return was filed late, which is why the corporation is not currently in good standing.

Commissioner Moore asked the licensee where he was on the night in question. He replied that he was working from home that day, though he is normally there full time. He testified further that he retrained his staff and reminded them of the policy to card people under age 35. The clerk/bartender in question does not work at the establishment.

Chief Inspector Mark Fosler testified about the violation, based on his report. After the 20-year-old cadet was able to purchase alcohol from the establishment, Fosler noted that they checked the identification of the clerk, and the clerk was only sixteen years old. It is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to sell alcohol in Maryland. Commissioner Greenfield asked whether there was a charge on the docket relating to the underage clerk; Fosler replied that there was not.

The original vote tally on this case was not particularly clear, because the commissioners negotiated the fine and the suspension back and forth but seemed to all agree at the end. Chairman Matricciani suggested a $250 fine without a suspension. Commissioner Jones thought that the failure to appear should come with a $500 fine and a 10-day suspension. Commissioner Greenfield suggested a $250 fine and a 5-day suspension, to which the other two seemed to agree.

The licensee did appear, however, some time before the 1:00pm docket ended, and the case was re-called at the end of the session. Chairman Matricciani explained to the licensee what had happened at the earlier hearing. James Ortiz explained that he had a family-oriented difficulty which made them late to the hearing. The licensee admitted the violation, that he made a mistake. James Ortiz explained that the person who made the mistake was a helper who is normally not at the register. The employee in question still works for them but will never be near the register.

After the hearing, Mr. Prevas asked whether his clients’ identifying documents (driver’s licenses, passports) are being published on the Liquor Board’s website. Mr. Akras responded that all identifying information is redacted. Prevas replied that he thinks it’s a bad idea.