What happened at the Liquor Board on July 24, 2014.

Ward asked if there was any opposition to the outdoor tables; Fogleman replied, “none that I know of.” Ward continued, “hearing none, my vote would be approval.”

Commissioner Moore asked, “my question is, on the applicant’s interview form, in a couple places, it says ‘see attached list’ or ‘see attached’ and I don’t have [the attachments].” Fogleman asked, “would you allow them to amend [the form] at this time? … My clients are happy to make that application complete today.” He submitted a site plan to the commissioners, and the Board allowed the applicants to complete their documents in the file.

“(III) The Board or the Board’s designee shall examine each application for the issuance or transfer of a license within 45 days of receipt of the application to determine whether the application is complete. (IV) An application for the issuance, transfer, or renwal is not complete unless the applicant has: 1. obtained zoning approval or verification of zoning if the application is for renewal; 2. submitted all documents required in the application; and 3. paid all fines and fees that are due. (V) A license hearing may not be scheduled until the Board determines that the application is complete.”

This section of the code does not specifically include applications for add-on issues like outdoor table service, but it makes sense that the Board should require ALL applications to be complete before scheduling a hearing.

Off the record, later, Liquor Board administrative staff discovered that the file did, in fact, contain all of the required information; the Commissioners had not received a complete copy of the file to review, which is why it looked incomplete. However, the Commissioners still approved an application that they believed was incomplete, which is still troubling.

The case was re-called, and Ms. Hailu was present, with Mr. David Weiner, the property manager for the owner of the property. The other applicant, Mr. Danael Testaye, was not present. The application is for a transfer of ownership only, with no change in the operations of the establishment. There was no opposition from the community to the transfer. Mr. Weiner testified that the previous owner of the store was an older man who has had serious health problems.

Commissioner Jones asked the applicant, “what is the name of the community that you’re operating in?” Ms. Hailu replied, “North Avenue?” Mr. Weiner said, “either Sandtown or Druid Heights?” The Baltimore CityView website places the store right on the boundary between Druid Heights and Sandtown-Winchester.

Commissioner Moore asked, “what evidence do we have that the license is still valid?” Executive Secretary Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth stated that the license had been renewed normally in 2013 and 2014, and the store was only closed because of the previous owner’s ill health for a few months.

Jokingly, when Mr. Pica finished his presentation, Judge Ward asked, “do you mind teaching a class for lawyers in applying for transfers?”

Mr. Pica went on to describe the history of the establishment. Mr. Marion Mugavero opened a confectionery store there in 1947, after World War II, which operated until the end of 2010. Generations of kids had grown up playing in and around the store in Little Italy. He then described the proposed establishment: it will be a casual Italian sandwich restaurant, with great meatballs and a family atmosphere. There will not be any disruption to any licensees in the area. As to “uniqueness of services,” which is one of the factors that the Board must consider under Article 2B section 10-202(a), Mr. Pica said, “it’s one of the only places you can get a sandwich.”

Article 2B section 9-204.3 prohibits new or transferred liquor licenses within 300 feet of a church or school in Baltimore City. The new law allows a waiver of this provision for two very small areas of the City, provided that the license is approved by the “pastor and church board of directors or pastoral council for each church within 300 feet of the proposed location” as well as any community association whose boundaries include the proposed establishment.

In a 1982 Supreme Court case called Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, the Court said that allowing religious institutions to give veto power over the issuance of a liquor license is an unconstitutional delegation of regulatory authority to a religious organization. The Court stated that “the mere appearance of a joint exercise of legislative authority by Church and State provides a significant symbolic benefit to religion in the minds of some by reason of the power conferred.” The Court said that the provision leads to an excessive entanglement between a religious organization and the processes of government, which violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

You can read more about the constitutionality of the provision in the Attorney General’s letter on the subject — click here for more.

The Board did not consider any of the above during its deliberations.

Regarding the request for outdoor table service, Judge Ward asked whether there is room for tables, noting that the establishment is on a rather narrow corner. Prevas explained that Zoning has already approved the outdoor tables. Prevas said, “the only new thing we’re asking for is the off-premises catering.”

Commissioner Moore asked about the validity of the license, since J. Patrick’s closed in January 2013. She asked, “the license that we’re transferring today has been in use consistently since June 2013, is that correct?” Mr. Prevas replied, “there was extensive renovations, so I don’t think that [the current owner, Mr. O’Donnell] picked up his license until April 2014.”

Violation of Rule 4.10(a): “No licensee shall purchase alcoholic beverages except from a duly licensed manufacturer or wholesaler, not shall any licensee sell to any other licensee any alcoholic beverages; and no licensee shall, at any time, keep or permit to be kept upon the licensed premises, any alcoholic beverages unless purchased in accordance with the Rule.” (October 4, 2013, Agent from Comptroller’s office confiscated two (2) bottles of liquor with retail stickers affixed)

After a few more cases, the case was re-called, and Mr. Hollingsworth was still not there. Ward double-checked that Mr. Hollingsworth had been notified of the hearing scheduled for that day (he had, according to the Executive Secretary). Hurdle made a motion to dismiss, which Ward granted.

When the case was first called, Police Detective Greenhill was not there; the case was set aside for a few minutes to give the officer time to get to City Hall.

When the case was re-called, Detective L.C. Greenhill testified that he, with Detective Shelton Jones and other officers, had done a routine check of the establishment on November 5, at 10:15pm, and had asked to see employee records. The manager on duty did not have access to the employee records and told the police that he wasn’t sure if there were employee records on the premises at the time. Some of the employees at the establishment did not have identification on them, but the police made a list of all the employees present and verified their identies. Three of the dancers had already left, who were only identified by their stage names. The manager told the police that he would try to find the records and provide them within one business day.

Frank Shaulis then testified, as the licensee. Lorraine Cummings was also present at the hearing, but Marc Rosenberg was not. Shaulis testified that he has been a member of the Maryland bar for over forty years. He provided the Board with employment records for all of his employees: servers, security, and dancers. He said that the records he was submitting were the records that are always on the premises. He explained that when the police had done their check on November 5, they had been renovating part of their building, and that “some parts of the building were in disarray,” which was why the manager could not find the records. Since then, he pointed out, the Liquor Board inspectors have been there several times and the records have always been there. Most recently, an inspector had been to the establishment on July 8, 2014 and had found the records in good order.

Commissioner Jones asked if the licensees could provide a copy of any work permits to prove that they had done renovations on their building. Shaulis did not have any permits with him, but assured the Board that all permits were in place. Commissioner Moore followed up, asking “what evidence do you have today that work was being done?” Shaulis replied, “I’m a member of the bar” (implying that his testimony can be believed because he is an attorney). Moore was not satisfied this response, asking for any documents, photographs, or any paper, anything to support his claim. Shaulis replied, “it’s hard to prove a negative.” Moore disagreed, saying “if you have [evidence of renovations], show it.” Shaulis said, “I didn’t think I had to come down here and prove that work is being done.” Moore said, “the only reason I’m asking for it is that you’re saying today that the reason you couldn’t find the documents is that work was being done.” Shaulis’s attorney pointed out that the Board could take judicial notice of the permits. Moore disagreed, saying “we can’t take judicial notice if [the documents are] not presented.” She also said that the inspector’s report for July 2014 is not useful, since the violation occurred in November 2013.

Baltimore City Police Detective Akinwande testified that at 8:50pm on January 31, police cadet Gregory McCoy III, age 20, entered the store and purchased one pint of Black Watch vodka from the store clerk for $4. The clerk did not ask for proof of age.

Executive Secretary Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth pointed out that the corporate entity is not in good standing with the state of Maryland. Mr. Woo said that he was not aware of that but that he would take care of it.

Baltimore Police Detective Akinwande testified that at 8:59pm, police cadet Gregory McCoy, age 20, purchased one pint of New Amsterdam peach vodka from Ms. Min Yong Jung.

Licensee Pyong Song was present, with her daughter to translate for her. She told the Board that it was her mistake.

Mr. Yange was present but did not offer any testimony. He received translation help through his fellow licensee, Mr. Park.

Baltimore Police Detective Akinwande testified that 20-year-old police cadet Gregory McCoy purchased one pint of Bacardi Gold for $8.21 and was not asked for identification.

Detective Akinwande testified that at 9:58pm on January 31, police cadet Gregory McCoy purchased one pint of New Amsterdam peach vodka for $6.27 and was not asked for ID.

Licensee Chang Cho was present at the hearing, unrepresented, and chose not to testify.

Violation of Rule 3.02: “Licensees shall cooperate with representative of the Board, members of the Police Department, Health Department, Building Engineer’s Office, Grand Jury and representatives of other governmental agencies whenever any such persons are on official business.” (Re: January 31, 2014, entry to establishment refused to police officers after they identified themselves several times)

Commissioner Jones asked whether Greenhill and the other officers had identified themselves as police, and Greenhill replied that he had his police vest on and showed the employees his badge and ID.

Licensee Steve Oh was present at the hearing but was not in the country at the time of the incident because his mother passed away in his home country.

City Councilmember Sharon Green Middleton, representing the 6th councilmanic district, testified, with Julius Colon, President and CEO of Park Heights Renaissance. Middleton stated that she has represented the area for eight years and that Park Heights has the largest concentration of liquor stores in a community in the entire state of Maryland. She stated that the community got state legislation passed so that stores in the neighborhood cannot open until 9am (they can open at 6am throughout the rest of the City). Park Heights is going through a revitalization, and new housing was just opened for the first time in close to forty years. According to Middleton, “true revitalization will not take place until we get rid of some of these liquor stores. We mean business.” She had noticed that four of the liquor stores on the docket for July 24th are “right down the line on Park Heights Avenue in [her] district.” None of the store owners do anything to benefit the community.

Commissioner Moore pointed out that the Board can only rule on the charge before it: selling alcohol to minors. Ward pointed out that it is also a first offense for this particular store. The Chairman encouraged the councilmember to call the liquor board and promised that the Board would send out inspectors to confirm the report. He said, “we’re not going to sit back and wait for an offense to occur,” adding, “I know what you’re going through, I used to be a city councilman myself.”

Mr. Julius Colon, president & CEO of Park Heights Renaissance, echoed his councilmember’s concenrs. He said that his community members will be calling the Board more regularly. Colon said, “the last board that was here, we used to come and testify as well. You will be seeing more and more of us.”

Julius Colon and Sharon Green Middleton reiterated their testimony from the previous hearing. Colon suggested, “maybe we should think about increasing the penalty” for selling to minors. Middleton added that there have been three shootings recently in the shopping center where the license is located.

Commissioner Moore agreed with Mr. Colon that the Board may need to revisit the fines imposed for violations. She noted that the standard $500 fine does not seem to be a deterrent to licensees. Judge Ward agreed, saying that the Board members are warning the licensees that in the future, the policy may be reexamined.

Councilwoman Middleton and Julius Colon of Park Heights Renaissance testified as well. They reiterated their previous testimony from the previous cases. Colon added that, just two weeks ago, there was a fatal stabbing on this block. There are three liquor stores within a 50-foot radius of each other, and, according to Colon, it is a problem area. Ward advised Mr. Colon that he should tell his community leaders to use the avenues of complaint that are available to them. Middleton added that the “famous 5100 block” of Park Heights Avenue is one of the biggest problems in the neighborhood. Police spend a lot of time on the block, and there is “crazy activity.” Some people are getting hit by cars who are intoxicated or on drugs.

Judge Ward noted that “it’s amazing that this area is next to a world class race track.” He told a story of a criminal case that he heard when he was a Circuit Court judge; there used to be two phone booths on Park Heights Avenue at this intersection. A man walked up to the intersection and asked both of the people on the phone, “how long are you going to be on your phone call?” Both people responded that they would be on the phone for thirty minutes. The man sat down on the curb to wait, and at the end of thirty minutes, he stood up and shot and killed both of them.

The licensee, Mr. Oh, then testified about his store. He told the Board that he is “trying to be honest.” He works from open to close, with no day off, all year long. He is miserable, but he is working hard to clear what he owes. Four or five years ago, he started trying to sell the business, but in Park Heights, there are a lot of restrictions, and he was not able to sell. His family does not have any assets except the store.

Baltimore City Police Detective Akinwande testified that police cadet Gregory McCoy purchased a 375ml bottle of Bacardi Gold for $7.67 and was not asked for proof of age. Prevas objected to the admission of Akinwande’s police report as well as to any facts that Akinwande stated that he did not personally witness. Cadet McCoy was not present at the hearing, which makes Akinwande’s testimony about McCoy’s actions hearsay. Rather than let Mr. Prevas continually interrupt the police officers, Judge Ward noted that Mr. Prevas had a continuing objection to the detective’s testimony and allowed him to proceed uninterrupted.

Mr. Prevas cross-examined Detective Akinwande. He asked, “you sent the cadet in and you remained outside?” “Yes.” “You didn’t observe the cadet purchasing anything within the store?” Akinwande: “I didn’t observe him making the purchase. He entered the store with the money, and I lost sight of him.” Prevas then asked, “so the cadet went into the store, made the purchase, and came out?” Akinwande replied yes, that he was parked outside in the same block and saw the cadet when he came out of the store with the alcohol in his hand.

Prevas then asked, “where is the cadet today?” Akinwande said that McCoy was recently admitted into the Baltimore City police academy and was going through orientation that day. Prevas then asked whether McCoy had been summonsed to appear before the Board, and Executive Secretary Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth said that he had.

Prevas then said to the Board, “Your Honor, in light of that, I move to strike all testimony of the cadet, including his age. Hearsay is not admissible if there is a subpoena for the witness.” Not pausing for a moment, Ward replied, “that’s very interesting law that you just quoted. I’ve never heard it before. Overruled.”

Prevas then objected to the testimony of Colon and Middleton, because they were not involved in the incident that led to the violation of the rule. Ward replied, “I am listening as a courtesy to community representatives coming in to tell us about problems. We’re not applying it to the case at this time.” Prevas argued that in another forum, it’s extremely appropriate for community members to voice concerns, but a violation hearing is a two-party matter, not a three-party matter. He said that the community members’ testimony “could prejudice the decision of the Board.” He said, “I object because it’s not appropriate and it takes away from the propriety of the Board’s function.” Ward responded that he and his fellow commissioners will not apply any of the community members’ evidence to the facts of this violation case, adding “I think you’ve won your motion, but I’m still going to hear from them.”

Julius Colon then testified about constant crime, drug trafficking, hanging out, and loitering in front of the Park Heights liquor stores. Councilmember Middleton spoke about the particular store, that it has been closed several times for different violations and has had a lot of negative history.

In mitigation for the offense, Prevas then told the Board that the licensee had not been present at the time of the violation; “he was at the gym.” The clerk responsible was fired the same day. The licensee has a card reader and he uses it. If anyone looks under 35, they check ID. He submitted a letter from the Board that the licensee had received congratulating him for not selling to a minor during a different police investigation. Ward said that it is not considered “mitigation” to follow the law later, after breaking it.

Julis Colon, from Park Heights Renaissance, testified that he was disappointed in this restaurant because the licensees are normally responsible. He was surprised to hear that they had a violation.

Mr. Julius Colon, of Park Heights Renaissance, testified that the location is directly across the street from Langston Hughes Elementary School. This particular licensee has been supportive of community activities, and Mr. Colon has asked him to move his store away from the vulnerable elementary school students. Councilwoman Middleton added that she was disappointed in this licensee. The store is not just next to school but it is also next to a church on the other side. She noted that the licensee does participate in community activities, but she hopes this violation serves as a lesson.

Mr. Fred Lauer, attorney for the licensee, on behalf of his clients, admitted the violation. The licensee and her manager have put up signs about not selling to people under age 21, both for the customers and also to remind the employees. She is taking the violation very seriously. Ms. Finifter testified that she was extremely sorry and that she does understand that a liquor license is a privilege.

The bartender, Ms. Durant, testified that she was very busy at the time, and did not get a good look at Cadet McCoy. She admitted that it was her fault and that she needs to check IDs more consistently. The licensee was also present but did not testify.

Judge Ward noted that there was a letter from Councilmember Mary Pat Clarke in the file. He showed it to the licensee and asked him, “do you speak English?” Mr. Gomez responded, “a little bit.” Ward told him to read the document, saying, “it’s a critical letter.”

Mr. Mark Washington, Executive Director of the Coldstream Homestead Montebello Community Corporation, testified that he was there before the Board as a favor to Mary Pat Clarke. Washington said, “I will be honest, I did not want to attend this hearing. The business does operate in a vacuum in the least populated block in our community.” He said that there is significant violence, “countless shootings, a number of murders, two of which have occurred inside the premises. We found absolutely no support or cooperation from the previous board. I felt that this would be another fruitless endeavor.” There are broken bottles around the building. The northeast police district has tired of community members calling about the issue, and they have thrown their hands up in frustration. He said that this particular business has had a history of negligence; they have violated the public trust and their privilege to operate a liquor license. He said that the community had had the licensee’s other store shut down, and since the other store closed, the drug activity on corner, trash, and debris have subsided. He asked, “how is an establishment allowed to operate in a vacuum, with no regard for the community?” He said that the licensee has capitalized and profited and has shown “not only neglect but disrespect.”

Judge Ward looked through previous inspection reports. One, from 2010, said that the trash behind the corner by the side door must be cleaned up. Another, from February 2011, instructed the licensee to clean trash behind the counter. Ward asked the licensee, “so what about all this trash?” The licensee responded, “everything’s clean.”

Commissioner Moore followed up with Mr. Washington about his testimony, asking “was it your testimony that loose cigarettes are being sold from this location?” Washington replied that individuals purchase packs of cigarettes inside and then stand outside and sell them individually. He reiterated, “we have not had much success with the Liquor Board.”

After the Board gave its decision, Ward addressed the licensee, saying: “let me say this to you, sir. I haven’t penalized you for all of the various things [that Mr. Washington alleged]. But I’m telling you, I’ve instructed my Executive Secretary to go out and check everything. The law is that you’re responsible for the conduct of your customers. So you know what’s coming.”