What happened at the Liquor Board on October 2, 2014.

Mr. Leo Devine testified that he has been in the restaurant business since 1972. His crab restaurant had previously had a liquor license, but they gave it up. Now he has a new business plan, to offer steamed crabs, beer and wine at an affordable price (quoting $16/dozen). Commissioner Moore said, “at $16/dozen, what size are the crabs?” Devine admitted that they would be a “smaller size.”

Commissioner Moore asked the applicants what community associations they had spoken with. Maslan and the applicant responded that there isn’t a community association in the area. They spoke with the Carrollton Ridge Community Association, but that group said that their address was outside of their boundaries. Moore was not satisfied with this answer and asked, “what did you do as counsel to confirm the nonexistence of the community association?” Maslan responded that the applicant had spoken with their state delegate and city councilman about it, as well as a couple of neighbors.

Commissioner Moore asked if the license in question is active and whether it has been in continual use. Mr. Devine replied that it is active and has been in continual use by his brother.

Second, this liquor license is probably not valid, according to Article 2B section 10-504(d). On May 8, 2014, Paul Devine (Leo Devine’s brother) requested a hardship extension on behalf of the licensee, his wife, Angeline Devine. Paul told Commissioners Smith and Jones that his business had been closed since June 2013. To read more about this hearing, see the Booze News post for May 8, 2014.

Commissioner Moore asked whether the license is valid and has been in constant use. Thomas Muir replied that it is and that his family has owned and operated the business for seventy years. He submitted a letter of support from the South Baltimore Neighborhood Association (SBNA). The Commissioners asked for a signed copy of the Memorandum of Understanding to which SBNA’s letter of support referred. The applicants and Board staff did not have an executed copy of the MOU.

Commissioner Moore asked whether the violations that Banditos was found responsible for within the last couple months have been cleared, paid, and resolved. Prevas clarified that it was just one violation and that the fine was paid immediately. The commissioners asked if there is any community opposition; Prevas said that they have a letter of support from the business association, the Federal Hill Hospitality Association (FHHA), signed by its president, Brian McComas. The applicants had met with the South Baltimore Neighborhood Association, who, according to Prevas, were in favor of the transfer. The applicants already have an existing MOU with SBNA, and the conditions in that MOU will continue to apply to the new license.

Commissioner Moore noted that the file did not have any documentation from any community association about their official stance on the transfer. She said, “it would be really helpful to actually have documentation from the community association.” Moore would have felt more comfortable with approving the transfer if the association had submitted a letter or signatures in support; she said that this would have completed the file. Chairman Ward responded that if the Board approves something based on inaccurate information, the Board will “bring it right back” for another hearing.

There was some confusion among the Commissioners about whether the licensee would be entitled to 180 days from the date of the hearing or 360 days from the date of closing.

Detective Gatto said that he was undercover in the bar in the late evening and early morning of July 17-18. He observed patrons of the bar playing the video poker machine. One female player played the machine up to a score of 1,104 points. When she reached that level, she flagged down a bartender and showed her the point total. The bartender said, “I got you, hon,” discreetly made a cash payout to the player and reset the point total on the machine.

None of the licensees for this establishment were present, but Mr. Brian Everett was there on their behalf. He cross-examined Detective Gatto, asking, “did you approach the woman who paid the money?” Gatto replied, “no.” Everett asked, “you didn’t ask her why she paid the money?” Gatto said, “no.” Gatto admitted that he was not close enough to see the value of the cash that the bartender gave the player.

Chairman Ward asked Detective Gatto how long he had been investigating illegal gambling. Gatto responded that this was his first video poker case. Ward asked, “are you familiar with poker machines?” Gatto responded that he has watched players play and he has played the machines in the office to see how they work. He stated, “in this case, Commissioner Ward, this was a direct payout.”

Mr. Everett submitted the Maryland Judiciary Casesearch information on the criminal case arising from this violation, which showed that the State’s Attorney’s office decided not to pursue the charges against the licensee. Gatto explained that he himself had advised the state’s attorney not to pursue charges against the licensee, because none of the licensees were at the establishment that night. Their employees were the ones who committed the violation. (Criminal law requires proof of a much higher degree of participation and knowledge in order to find a person guilty for a crime than the Liquor Board requires for a violation.) Gatto said that the bartender, who was prosecuted by the state, failed to appear for her court date.

The licensees have three prior violations for sales to minors, from the years 2005, 2006, and 2013. Mr. Everett explained that he had sold to an undercover cadet, by mistake; he said, “she had too many teeth to be a customer at my bar.” Everett said that the neighborhood has “degraded, like other areas in Baltimore City.” He said that he was just trying to pay his bills and not get in trouble.

Chairman Ward told Mr. Everett that he cannot use these illegal poker machines to support his livelihood. Ward said, “if you can’t stay open, you ought to get out of business.” In a lengthy response, Mr. Everett said that the money from the illegal machines goes to pay his rent and his other bills, not into “a mayonnaise jar in the backyard.” Commissioner Moore advised him to stop talking and said, “my sympathy is expired.”

Violation of Article 2B section 201(a)(2) “A person may not sell, or suffer to be sold, or for the purpose of sale, transport, buy, possess, keep or suffer to be transported, bought, possessed or kept in any vehicle, vessel or aircraft or on any premises or under the person’s charge or control any alcoholic beverages except on premises licensed under this article unless otherwise provided for in this article” — May 7, 2014 — Inspector found several patrons throughout the restaurant and at the bar drinking/ordering margaritas and other alcoholic beverages — selling/serving alcohol without a valid license.

The May 7, 2014 charges were dropped for this hearing, because the inspector who wrote up the violation is on extended leave and was not available to testify at the hearing.

There were three Liquor Board inspectors at the hearing to testify, but none of them had personal knowledge of the incident. They had all arrived after all of the patrons had left. Inspector Michael Hyde tetsified that he was out on patrol with Lieutenant Colburn when they received a call from Police Officer Schaeffer that Willow was serving patrons after hours. They arrived at the establishment at 2:15am. Officer Schaeffer wrote the police report but did not show up to the Liquor Board hearing. He had received and signed for a summons from the Board to appear at the hearing to testify.

Chairman Ward told Executive Secretary Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth, “I want you to follow up on this, independent of this bar and this charge, and find out why Officer Schaeffer is not here.

Violation of Rule 4.05(b): Prohibited hours “No alcoholic beverage shall be served, dispensed, furnished or given away in any part of the premises during the hours when such sales are prohibited by law” — July 19, 2014 — Police found patron at the bar with alcoholic beverages.

Police Detective Abraham Gatto testified that he was on patrol and noticed a light on inside the bar after 2:00am. The door was locked, and Gatto beat on the door 15 times until someone opened it. There were twenty patrons “crammed in.” Gatto shut down the bar and had everyone leave for the night. The licensee was cooperative.

Maslan explained that the bartender had invited his friends in. Gatto said that there were a lot of friends, and the bouncer was at the door, keeping people out. When Gatto entered, he saw that the patrons were hurriedly trying to throw away bottles and pour out drinks. Maslan explained that the licensees “run[] a good establishment.” They have a last call for drinks at 1:25am to ensure that all patrons are orderly dispersed. At the time of this incident, the owner was doing some paperwork and was not supervising his employees. The owner was “extremely upset,” according to Maslan and “admonished his bartender.” Commissioner Moore asked, “if he’s so concerned, why isn’t he here?” Maslan replied that his client thought the hearing was at 2:30pm. Moore also pointed out that this establishment has had a recent sale to minors charge (in March 2014).

Police Officer Jeffrey Brown testified that he was called to the location at 2:33am by the police dispatcher to respond to an alarm that was going off. When he arrived, the door was locked and there were three patrons in the bar. There was a highly intoxicated woman behind the bar, who was screaming and yelling incoherently. She staggered as she walked and couldn’t hold herself up, her speech was slurred and her eyes were glassy. One of the customers told the officer that they had tried to pay their bill, giving the woman a $50 bill. However, the bartender was so intoxicated, she didn’t remember taking the $50 and she couldn’t get the cash register open. She thought that the customers had not paid her for the drinks. The officers who responded to the call tried to call the owner of the bar, who had been present earlier in the evening, but he did not answer. They tried to knock on the door to the upstairs apartment where the owner lives, and he did not respond. One of the police officers went to a nearby store, got change for the customers for their $50 bill, and returned. The customers paid their bill and left.

Mr. Prevas then cross-examined the officer about his testimony. Prevas said that the customers “weren’t there to party, they were there to rectify the situation.” Officer Brown replied that the customers “were still drinking at the location” and he had seen drinks in front of them, though he did not remember the customers actually drinking from them while he was at the establishment.

Commissioners Moore and Jones noted that the charges brought do not exactly match the bizarre situation that the police officer described.

The owner of the bar then testified about the evening in question. He said that he got home at 12:50 that evening and went to bed, exhausted. His window air conditioner was on and was very loud. He is also hard of hearing. He woke up in the middle of the night, saw that his alarm panel was lit up with red lights, and went downstairs (after the police had already left). He found his bartender asleep in the bar. He woke her up, “listened to her jibber jabber for about an hour” and then “fired her, and that’s it.” He said, “I don’t have any shenanigans.” He says that he has worked at the bar for 41 years, without a violation.

Violation of Rule 4.18: Illegal Conduct – “No licensee shall commit or allow the commission on his premises of any act which shall be contrary to any federal, state or local statute, law or ordinance or against the public peace, safety, health, welfare, quiet or morals” — March 23, 2014 — Security guard maced a police officer.

Police Officer Steigerwald testified that he was attempting to break up a fight on the public sidewalk outside of Nacho Mama’s. A security guard employed by the restaurant, seemingly in an attempt to help break up the fight, sprayed the police officer directly in the face with pepper spray. Steigerwald said, “I can’t speak to what was going through his mind, but his first action was to spray me in the face.” Police Officers Mario Caracas and Sean Fota confirmed Officer Steigerwald’s testimony.

Mr. Fine said that the macing was “an unnecessary act by [the restaurant’s] agent.” There have been no Liquor Board violations at this establishment since 1998. The licensee replaced the security company immediately and they are making sure that their security guards do not even carry mace. Fine pointed out that the second charge refers to illegal conduct on the licensed premises, but this incident took place outside, on a public sidewalk. Fine said, “from a technical point of view, we didn’t violate Rule 4.18” but agreed that his client violated Rule 3.12.

Violation of Rule 3.02: Cooperation – “Licensees shall cooperate with representatives 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” — September 7, 2014 — Licensee refused to sign or accept their copy of the inspector’s report.

Violation of Rule 3.06: Sanitation and Safety – “Licensees shall operate their establishments at all times in accordance with the requirements of the Health department of Baltimore City, the Building Code of Baltimore City, and the rules and regulations of the Fire Department of Baltimore City” — September 7, 2014 — Inspectors found the rear exit gated, chained and blocked.

Violation of Rule 5.03(a): Class “BD7” – “The holder of Class BD7 Beer, Wine and Liquor license must operate an on premise consumption establishment with on‐premises consumption.” — September 7, 2014 — Inspectors found tavern portion of establishment closed.

Police Officer LC Greenhill testified that, on March 5, 2014, between 11:45pm-12:00am, he conducted a BD7 investigation, with Police Detective Akinwande. A BD7 license is a tavern license, which means that patrons should be able to purchase alcohol for on-site consumption whenever the establishment is open. The police had received complaints that the establishment breaks the law every day. Detective Greenhill went inside and asked the clerk for access to the bar area of the building. The clerk asked Greenhill for identification and she told him that the store policy was for the clerk to hold onto the ID itself. The licensee then came in and stated the bar area is closed and that Greenhill could purchase packaged goods. Greenhill asked Mr. Lee when the bar area closes; Lee responded that it closes at 12:15am (but it was before 12:15 when Greenhill asked). Greenhill asked again and was denied again. When Greenhill entered the tavern area, it was empty. Detective Akinwande corroborated Greenhill’s testimony but did not add to it.

Liquor Board Inspector Mark Fosler then testified that, on September 7, 2014, he went to the store with two other inspectors, Mr. Wendell Wright and Mr. Cleveland Brister. Brister and Wright entered the establishment and asked to be let into the bar area. Mrs. Lee told them that the bar area was not open. The other patrons who were in the store told the inspectors that the bar area was never open. The inspectors exited, then re-entered the establishment with Acting Chief Inspector Fosler and observed several packaged good sales. Mr. Lee then entered the store, carrying cases of cigarettes. Mr. Lee admitted the inspectors to the tavern section of the building. Fosler explained to Mr. Lee that the tavern portion must always be open and operating while packaged goods are being sold. Mrs. Lee then became upset and shouted at the inspectors for twenty minutes. She said that what Brister and Wright said was not true and that they had not asked to be admitted to the tavern. The inspectors also found an emergency exit blocked and locked during business hours. Mr. Lee told the inspectors that he was too sick to attend a Liquor Board hearing and refused to sign or accept the inspectors’ report on the violations. Inspectors Brister and Wright were present at the hearing and corroborated Fosler’s testimony but did not add to it.

Mr. Prevas said that Mr. and Mrs. Lee “are struggling in their situation right now.” Mr. Lee has listed his business for sale, because his health prognosis does not look good. Prevas asked the Board for leniency because of Mr. Lee’s health situation.

Commissioner Moore added that her father is experiencing lung cancer. Her family has spent that time taking care of her father’s business, and it is a very difficult process. She doesn’t want people to think that the Board is being harsh. She appreciates the difficult circumstance, but Mr. and Mrs. Lee have not done what they need to do and have avoided taking care of their responsibilities.

Mr. Prevas requested that the suspension begin one week from the hearing date (on October 10), because the Lees need time to get their affairs in order. The commissioners agreed.

Commissioner Moore added that she found disturbing the denial of access to the tavern to three African American men and requiring them to give their driver’s license. She said that it was offensive as a business practice. She noted that she had chastised licensees for bringing up racial issues in the past, and she said, “I gotta drink my own sauce. I cannot say that it is raced based.” But she added that it is an issue of concern for her. Chairman Ward told Inspector Fosler to check up on this business before October 10 to see if they are in compliance.

Liquor Board Inspector John Howard testified that he went to the establishment with two part time inspectors; the part time inspectors attempted to enter the tavern area of the building, and the clerk informed them that the tavern section was closed and the door leading there was locked. Inspector Howard then went in and asked if the tavern was open; the clerk on duty, Mr. Octavius Hill, said no. Inspector Howard informed Mr. Hill that he was in violation of his license. Octavius Hill retrieved Eric Hill, the manager of the establishment, who allowed Howard into the tavern. Inspector Wendell Wright corroborated Howard’s testimony.

Chairman Ward asked the inspectors whether they had been back to the establishment since this violation. Inspector Wright said that he went back with Inspector Howard about a week later and the tavern section was still closed. Chairman Ward asked the inspectors why they didn’t charge the licensee with a second violation of the rules for the second visit, and they replied that they must have made a mistake.

The establishment has two prior violations on its record for sales to minors in 2005 and 2008.