What happened at the Liquor Board on November 20, 2014.

Mr. Shekhar Karki testified that the three of the applicants will be working seven days a week at the operation, from 10am to 2am. He told the Commissioners that he will run the ID scanner for every customer, for both on-sale and off-sale alcoholic purchases.

Dana asked “what hours will the tavern be open?” Karki replied, “10am-2am.” Mr. Karki said that the on-sale and off-sale portions will be open at the same time.

Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth told the Commissioners that on August 15, 2014, a Liquor Board staff member told Mr. Hernandez that his hardship extension request on June 26, 2014 had been denied. The licensee argued with the Liquor Board staff and said that it had been approved. On Monday, September 29, 2014, Ms. Bailey-Hedgepeth met with the licensee after having obtained a copy of the transcript of the June 26 hearing, which did show that the Board had approved a hardship extension through the end of December. The Executive Secretary proposed that the Board should grant Mr. Hernandez an extra 45 days to transfer the license, because Hernandez was unable to transfer his license between August 15 and September 29, as he had planned to do.

“(3) The licensee or other appropriate interested parties may make a written request to the Board for an extension of the life of the license due to undue hardship, for a time period of no more than a cumulative period of 360 days after the date of closing or cessation of alcoholic beverages business operations of the business for which the license is held.

(4) After a hearing conducted on the extension request, on a finding that undue hardship currently exists causing the closing or cessation of business operations, the Board may grant an extension of the life of the license for a time period not to exceed 360 days as defined in paragraphs (3) and (5) of this subsection.

(5) It is the intent of this subsection that the total time period for which a license may be deemed unexpired under paragraph (2) of this subsection is 180 days if no undue hardship extension is granted, and no more than 360 days if an undue hardship extension has been granted.”

The Board, in this case, acted outside of its statutory authority by granting more than 360 days from when the bar closed. The statute did not give the Board the discretion to add additional time to the hardship extension period, even if the staff members did make a mistake in telling Mr. Hernandez that his hardship extension request had been denied.

Turner explained the concept of the business: it will be an upscale grocer/deli, like a Dean and Deluca. They will sell breads, cheeses, wines, and fresh prepared items from a grab-and-go deli. They will also sell fresh flours and milks.

Commissioner Jones said, “tell me why this license isn’t dead.” Kodenski explained that there is a pending transfer for the license, which means that Article 2B section 10-504(d) does not apply. Rather, Article 2B section 10-503(d) applies, which also contains a 180-day rule Moore pointed out that Article 2B section 10-503(d) says that “a transfer of any license shall be completed not more than 180 days after the Board approves the transfer.” This particular transfer has been pending more than two years. Kodenski responded that the Wolford case says that this section of the code is not mandatory; therefore, the Board has the discretion to choose to give additional time to the applicant. Mr. Kodenski did not provide the Board with a copy of the “Wolford case” or elaborate about the facts of that case and how they apply to the case before the Board. Commissioner Moore pointed out that an Attorney General’s opinion says that 10-503(d) is mandatory. Kodenski responded that the document that Moore is referring to is not an Attorney General’s official opinion but is rather a letter from one of the Assistant Attorney Generals. He said that there is an Attorney General specifically assigned to Liquor Board issues, who did not write the letter that Moore was referencing. He also said that the letter contradicts the Wolford case, and that a Court of Appeals case would trump an Attorney General’s letter. Chairman Ward said, “this whole area [of the law] has to be looked at by the legislature, but we’re obligated to carry out the law as it is.”

Mr. Turner closed by telling the Board that he only needs 180 days to open. The owners of the building just wrested back control of the space back from Mr. Yaffe, and they will try to find a new tenant right away. He showed the space to prospective tenants three times in the past week and the space is “halfway built out.”

Baltimore Police Detective Akinwande testified that on October 16, 2014, he was undercover in a “BD-7 investigation. He attempted to enter the bar area, and the clerk told him that the bar was closed. Akinwande asked why the bar was closed, and the clerk replied that the bartender was sick that day. At that point, Akinwande called Detectives Greenhill and Gatto, who entered the establishment and notified the owner of the violation of Rule 5.03. Detective Greenhill corroborated Akinwande’s testimony.

Licensee Brian Knight cross-examined Akinwande, who reaffirmed his testimony. Akinwande added that there wasn’t anybody drinking outside of the bar or loitering on the night in question. Greenhill said that there were no patrons or employees in the bar section of the tavern when they entered.

Mr. Jiang Ji then testified that he had been working at the tavern for about a week. He acknowledged that Akinwande had entered and asked to use the bar area. Ji said that he told Akinwande that the bartender is sick but that he would call her, and she would come right back. Ji said that Akinwande left the bar and called his other two police officers rather than waiting for the bartender.

Mr. Knight then testified that the officer had misinterpreted what Mr. Ji had told him. Knight argued that the bar was, in fact, open. He said that all of the employees work both sides of the establishment when they’re on duty. Knight submitted contact information for two regular patrons who can testify that the bar is usually open. Under questioning from Commissioner Moore, Mr. Knight said that he is usually at the establishment only about once or twice a month.

Commissioner Moore agreed with the Chairman’s finding of responsibility. She noted that this is the second time that the licensees were fined for failure to operate as a tavern. On July 28, 2011, the licensees were found responsible for a gambling violation, failure to operate as a tavern, and sales to a minor. Because of this history, Moore thought that the suspension in this case should be at least one week and a $4,000 fine. Commissioner Jones suggested a one-week suspension and a $1,000 fine. The other two commissioners agreed with this compromise.

For the previous violation of failure to operate as a tavern, Commissioner Moore pointed out that the licensees were only fined $100 in 2011 under the previous Board.

Mr. Yong Song testified that he was working that night at Uptown Bar, taking care of customers and organizing the stock. Mr. Song said that the bartender had gone out on his lunch break when Akinwande entered the bar. Song said that he asked Akinwande if he could wait thirty minutes for the bartender to come back, but Akinwande walked out. Song testified that he called out after Akinwande, but the police officer did not hear him. Song added that the reason that he himself couldn’t serve the officer was because he was pulling out stock through the trap door that was open in the floor, and it wasn’t safe for customers to be in that part of the store.

Mr. Un Taek Sim, one of the two licensees, testified that he was in the back of the establishment at the time, and he could have served Akinwande. Commissioner Moore asked, “if, in fact, either one of you was available to serve a drink, why didn’t you?” Mr. Song repeated that he had tried to call Akinwande back, but he didn’t hear him. Akinwande just walked out. Moore replied, “because the violation had already been committed.”

In closure, Mr. Kodenski argued that the interaction between the police and the licensees happened too quickly, “badda bing badda boom.” He said that this case was a “de minimis”-type situation and asked for the Board to treat it that way.

Commissioner Jones agreed that the charges had been proven. Jones said that if the licensees had the intent to serve Detective Akinwande, they would have served him. Though the trap door was open, they could have closed the door and attended to the customer. Jones said that there was a clear decision to violate the law. Jones suggested a one-day suspension and a $500 fine. Commissioner Moore agreed with Commissioner Jones.

Baltimore Police Detective Akinwande testified that, on October 16, 2014, he entered the tavern and asked to use the bar area. The clerk did not seem to understand his question. Akinwande said that he asked again and gestured to the bar door. The clerk responded that the bar was closed. Akinwande then left the bar and notified the officers. Akinwande added that he has been to this bar before, and there is only one bar stool in the room. It is not a fully functional bar. Detective Gatto corroborated Akinwande’s testimony.

The licensee testified on her own behalf, through a translator. She said that she didn’t recognize either Akinwande or Gatto and that neither of them were at her establishment. She has been a licensee for six years. She said that there are six bar stools in the bar and she serves alcohol from the bar. She explained that her customers are mostly old ladies, and it was late at night when Akinwande came in, and she was afraid of him. Under more questioning from the commissioners, she explained further that there had been shootings in the area at night lately, so she has been afraid.

Many community members then testified in general that the bar is a problem. Ms. Yvonne Fitzgerald, from the Berea Community Association, testified that loitering customers consume alcohol outside in the front and on the side of the bar. The establishment draws crime and constant police presence. Fitzgerald pointed out that the licensee was afraid because she heard gunshots outside, but that is what the community experiences every day, too. Community members see litter, trash, rats, traffic, and drug activity. The licensee replied that she pays someone to pick up trash outside of her store.

Mr. James Brown, member of the Berea East Side Community Association, echoed Ms. Fitzgerald’s testimony. He said that the tavern’s bar section is never open. Next door to the bar, a building has collapsed, and is filling up with waist-high garbage. There are rats and an awful smell. The establishment is open 7 days a week, for 20 hours a day. He said that there is constant hanging out, drinking, and drug activity around and inside the establishment. Mr. James Bull agreed with Brown and Fitzgerald in his testimony. Community member Richard McCoy agreed and told the Board that the corner, because of the establishment, has been a “hot spot” for the Eastern District Police. Police Detective LC Greenhill testified that he agrees with Mr. McCoy; over the past seven years, the bar has been problematic for the community, and the police have received many complaints. A representative from Councilman Warren Branch’s office said that he had tried to go to the store and talk to the licensee, and she had not been cooperative. He said that he had been in the bar area before, and it was very dusty, with only one or two availalbe seats. It seemed like a storage area at the time.

The licensee testified that the trash is not hers, it’s her neighbor’s, and that she keeps the bar area open. She says that the trash in the rear is not her responsibility.

Commissioner Moore agreed with the finding of responsibility. She told the licensee that she is operating her bar in a way that is harmful to the community. She has made it difficult for her neighbors to live peacefully. The licensee has also consistently blamed other people for the problems and said it’s not her responsibility to clean her establishment. Moore agreed with the punishment suggested by the Chairman.

Commissioner Jones agreed that the evidence against the licensee was overwhelming, and he agreed with the other two commissioners in their punishment.

Violation of Rule 3.07: Restroom Facilities – Licensees shall provide on the licensed premises separate toilet facilities for each sex. All the rest rooms shall be entirely enclosed and separate and apart from rooms where food or drink is stored or served. In all rest rooms containing more than one toilet, each toilet shall be installed in a separate enclosure. All rest rooms shall be adequately lighted. All rest rooms shall contain ventilation ducts where an outside window is not present. All restrooms shall be regularly clean. Walls, floors and equipment must be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. Rest rooms must be cleaned at least once daily with intermittent cleaning as necessary during the time premises are open to the public—October 31, 2014—Inspector found facilities dirty and not ready for public use.

Violation of Rule 4.18: Illegal Conduct – “licensee shall … not allow any act contrary to federal, state and local statute” — October 31, 2014 — Trader’s License not renewed for the year of 2014.

Mr. Terry told the Board that he and his wife are shutting down the business, permanently. “We are done,” he said. He said that he needs to find out exactly what he needs to do to shut down the business. Commissioner Moore asked whether he means that he is going to sell or transfer the license, and Mr. Terry said that he did not plan to do so. Chairman Ward said that he would send out an inspector that afternoon to pick up the license for the establishment.

Violation of Rule 3.02: Cooperation — “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.” — September 21, 2014 — Manager contradicted statement from bouncer and tried to conceal the fight started in the establishment.

Under cross-examination by Mr. Prevas, Minaya testified that the man on the bicycle had alerted him to a commotion in front of the Big Easy, not inside the building. Minaya did not see any active fighting, but people seemed to be pulling their friends away from a fight that had just broken up. The person with the baseball bat had never entered the premises.

Ms. Chrissy Anderson, President-Elect of the Fells Prospect Community Association, testified next, on behalf of Mr. Victor Corbin, outgoing President of FPCA. Mr. Prevas objected to the community testimony, because it was not directly related to the incident that caused the violation of the law. The Chairman overruled Prevas’s objection. Ms. Anderson testified that the community organization has received many complaints about the Big Easy, including noise complaints, violation of the Memorandum of Understanding, illegal signs in front of the building, etc. Prevas objected again, suggesting that it would be more appropriate to hear from community members after the Board’s finding of responsibility. Ward replied, “well, Mr. Prevas, I got the job [of Liquor Board Chairman], not you.”

Mr. Robert Burch, owner of the property next door to the Big Easy, at 2002 Eastern Avenue testified that his tenants in the building did not complain the evening of the fight but often do complain of loud music. Ms. Marianne Ferguson, who lives a half block from the Big Easy, testified that on the night of the fight, she arrived home at midnight from work and had to walk by the club. She observed several people standing outside, smoking marijuana. She told the Board that she often hears noise from people congregating outside the Big Easy, and this isn’t the first time a fight has broken out inside the club. She has lived in the neighborhood for twenty years, and she felt that the club has definitely disturbed her peace and safety and has caused her to fear for the safety of herself and her family.

Mr. Prevas was frustrated by the community testimony, and he told the Board, “if we were in a trial, I’d ask for a mistrial.” He said that he acknowledged that he was participating in an administrative hearing, not a trial in court, but he said that his client is still entitled to a fair hearing. Ward disagreed strongly with Prevas’s remarks and told him that he was being insulting. Ward said, “you know better than to make remarks like that. You should restrain yourself from making those kind of remarks. It’s improper. I like all the lawyers here. I think they all do a pretty good job. I respect you for your thoroughness. It’s not proper conduct. You’re a member of the bar, and you know better.”

Mr. Akras submitted an email from a neighbor who saw the fight from inside her home. The neighbor said that fifteen to twenty people were involved, and one person was knocked unconscious and carried away by a friend. She saw the police come to the establishment and sit people along the curb. The neighbor wrote in her letter that she feels unsafe because of what she saw.

Mr. Prevas began his case by making a motion to dismiss all of the charges, which was denied.

Mr. Richard Marino, manager at the Big Easy since August 15, 2014, testified first. He was present at the bar on September 21, the night in question. There was a private birthday party on the second floor and general patrons on first floor. Three bartenders worked that night: two on the first floor and one on the second. There were two security guards, one at the door and the other patrolling the bar. There were also seven dancers working that night. The bar was busy, but not overcrowded. Marino did not know how many people were in the bar, and he also did not know the capacity of the building. Marino testified that there was no fight inside the bar. Normally, his staff uses the side door of the business to let patrons out at closing time. They close the second floor first, then the first floor. Marino said that all of the patrons had left before there was any commotion outside. A police officer knocked on the door after 1:00am. There were employees inside the bar, but no patrons. Marino said that the building does have security cameras, but the tapes are reused every ten days. Marino said that the bouncer at the time was not at the hearing, because he only works occasionally, as needed. Commissioner Moore asked whether Mr. Ramos was fired because he had told the police officer that the fight began inside the bar. Marino replied that Ramos has not been fired. He also testified that there was no damage inside the bar. The manager said that he is in constant contact with the neighbors who live next door.

Ms. Christina Hamilton testified that she was working as a bartender, part time, on the night of September 21. She did not observe a fight that night, or any altercation, scuffling, or raising of voices. Ms. Megan Fisher, another bartender working that night, said the same thing as Ms. Hamilton.

Mr. Brian Grace, the owner of the bar, told the Board that he purchased the business in early 2013 and used to be the operator. He has never had any incidents before this one. Mr. Grace works full-time for the Washington DC fire department, and he lives on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, so he no longer runs the bar. On questioning from Commissioner Moore, Mr. Grace said that he goes to the Big Easy “as little as possible” but usually one or two times per week. His home is one hour from the bar, and the bar is one hour to DC, where he works. Grace said that turnover is high at the bar, and he doesn’t know who Mr. Jose Ramos, the security guard, is.

Commissioner Moore agreed with Ward that it is remarkable that such a significant event to the neighbors would not be experienced at all by the manager or bartenders. She pointed out that it was suspicious that Mr. Ramos is not present at the hearing. She pointed out that the owner of the bar doesn’t live in Baltimore, which is a “cocktail for disaster.”

Commissioner Jones agreed with Ward and Moore. He found it strange that fifteen to twenty people engaged in an “invisible fight” which “only one side could see.” He told Mr. Marino that neighbors shouldn’t have to call him to tell him that they can’t sleep because of the noise.

After hearing from the commissioners, Mr. Prevas submitted an objection that he was not given the opportunity to make a closing statement to the Board. Ward retorted, “I don’t recall you asking [for time to make a closing statement]. Maybe [your clients will] sue you for negligence.”

Loyola University Campus Police Officer Robert Maglia testified that Loyola tries very hard to keep its underage students out of the bars on York Road. He told the commissioners that he had received information from students that Bosphorus regularly serves underage students, and Loyola passed that information along to the Liquor Board and to the police.

Mr. Cuneyt Ozturk testified that he had checked the IDs of the students when they came in and ordered drinks. He was confused about how they showed him ID and then told the officers that they didn’t have ID. Ozturk said that he wished that he had scanned the IDs so that he wouldn’t have gotten in trouble. Since then, he has increased security at the door to check IDs.

Commissioner Moore added that a university stands in loco parentis for their students, and if something bad happens to a student, the university is responsible. She told the licensee that everyone knows that the liquor establishments on York Road sell alcohol to underage students, but she was very concerned that in this case there were many underage students inside. She said that the idea of so many underage students drinking at Bosphorus was “frightening.” She told Mr. Ozturk that the corrective measures that he had taken with security were “a day late and a dollar short.”