What happened at the Liquor Board on January 15, 2015.

Commissioner Moore asked for more specific details about the scope of the license and its extension to the marina. Mr. Fine replied that his clients feel that the license extends out into the marina area and that alcohol can be served out on the 186 boat slips. He clarified that the license is a BD-7 tavern license, which allows the sale of package goods. The current licensee testified that, historically, there hasn’t been much of a package goods business at this location.

Commisisoner Jones asked what the capacity of the outdoor area would be? The applicants did not know. Commissioner Moore added a question about how the Liquor Board’s inspectors could enforce liquor laws if people are being served at their boats. The applicants did not know. They reiterated that they have never had a complaint or a Liquor Board citation, and that there is no other licensee in the Port Covington area. They said that the nearest resident is probably one mile away.

Chairman Ward noted that the community association’s letter of support requests that the Board prohibit live entertainment for one year at this location. Woolman indicated that his client had agreed to that condition.

Commissioner Moore said that she did not understand the timeline for this license. Documents in the file showed that the business closed May 31, 2013. The owners received a hardship extension on December 12, 2013, which would have extended to June 12, 2014. There was also a transfer to a secured creditor in 2014. Mr. Woolman responded that the official closing date was June 3, 2013, not May 31, 2013, and that his clients filed a transfer application on December 2, 2013.

Deputy Executive Secretary Thomas Akras told the Commissioners that, because there was a secured creditor in this case, “under the statute there is an 18 month period to wind down that process.”

Commissioner Moore asked whether Mr. Plank was an applicant on the Belvedere Square arena license. Mr. Woolman responded that he is not on the application for Belvedere Square.

Chairman Ward pointed out that the current licensee was not present at the hearing. He said that, effective January 15, both the seller and the buyer of a license must be present at the transfer hearing. Mr. Woolman said that the buyer was dealing with a “family issue.”

Upon further discussion with the Executive Secretary and Deputy Executive Secretary after the hearing and off the record, it became clearer that the former licensee had gone through bankruptcy, which stayed the Liquor Board’s procedures and gave the former licensee extra time to transfer its assets. But it was never made clear in the hearing: (1) that the entity had gone through bankruptcy, or (2) when the filing date for that bankruptcy was. It is possible that the license had already expired if the transferring entity filed for bankruptcy after November 30, 2013. In any case, a clear and well-cited argument from Liquor Board employees and Commissioners alike would be helpful for those in the audience to understand the law and how it applies in various situations.

Violation of Rule 4.18: Illegal Conduct – November 23, 2014 – At approximately 1:48 AM Officer observed a bloodied individual approach her vehicle and state that he was seriously assaulted in the parking lot of “El Antro.” The Officer was able to detain 3 suspected who were later identified as the individuals who committed the assault against the victim. Investigation by the Officer revealed that there was a verbal altercation that occurred inside of “El Antro” and that the suspects followed the victim out to the establishment’s parking lot and assaulted him. Both the verbal and physical altercation happened on the grounds of “El Antro.”

Violation of Rule 4.02: Inebriates and Drug Addicts — November 23 , 2014 – At approximately 1:48 AM Officer conducted an investigation into an assault on the grounds of “El Antro” and arrested 3 suspects. The 2 of the suspects admitted to being in “El Antruso” and consuming alcohol. All 3 suspects were inebriated as all slurred their speech, had bloodshot eyes, and one of them began vomiting uncontrollably in police presence.

Mr. Pica made one clarification, which is that he stated that the physical altercation began outside, not inside, though there was a verbal argument inside. The parking lot is part of the licensed establishment’s property.

The Highlandtown Community Association had sent in a letter to the Board, expressing concern about this bar. Mr. Pica said that he had tried to figure out which community association this bar belonged to, but concluded that there was no community association with “jurisdiction” over this location. Pica said that his client is amenable to discussing the issues with HCA. The licensee “doesn’t take this lightly” and “doesn’t like this activity taking place at his bar.” He said that the licensee would like to hire off-duty police officers and would tell the taco truck which comes to the parking lot at closing time to leave. None of the previous infractions on the license include violence, according to the attorney. Pica closed by saying that his clients are here at the mercy of the Board and they would like to meet with the community association to address the issues. He said that the licensee is a “family man” with a son “on scholarship to Georgetown University.” The licensee cooperated with the officers in providing descriptions of the suspects and assisted with the investigation, which has led the the arrest of the individuals involved. Pica said, “there’s some bad guys who go into this place. If they don’t go there, they’re going to go somewhere else.”

Commissioner Moore said that her concern is that what happened was very serious, and a person could have been murdered. She said that the facts seem to suggest that the operator of this bar is not in control, and the fact that the owner was not there at the time suggests that he is an absentee licensee. Pica noted that there are several other bars across the street and nearby. The police officers testified that they have had to break up several altercations outside this bar. There are regularly drunk disorderly people in front of the bar, and sometimes they have open containers of alcohol. It creates a lot of noise. The officers make it a priority to drive by and check that specific bar. The officers testified that there are frequent problems in the parking lot. There have been some arrests directly in front of the bar because of fights, traffic violations and disorderly conduct.

Chairman Ward asked Mr. Akras and Mr. Pica for their suggestions of a reasonable penalty. Mr. Pica did not suggest a penalty but reiterated that his client wants the opportunity to work with the police department and community and address any noise, loitering and other complaints. Mr. Akras said that a suspension and fine would be warranted, though he does not normally give recommendations to the Board. He suggested a 30-45 day suspension and a sizeable fine.

Baltimore Police Officer Steven Downing, patrol officer for four years in the Southeast district, testified that on December 7, 2014, at 1:15 AM, he responded to a call for service at the bar. There were several people inside, one with a small cut on the head. There were broken beer bottles on the floor and chairs and stools knocked over. Officer Downing tried to speak to all of the patrons, but they refused to tell him what had happened. He spoke to an employee in the package goods section in the front of the building, who told him that a fight had broken out in the bar section in the back, and everyone who was involved in the fight had left. Since all the other witnesses refused to talk to him, he left the premises and wrote his report.

Ms. Susan J Brooks, the bar manager at the establishment, testified that there were a couple of patrons playing pool in the back; one of them was shoved and got into a fight. Two bottles were broken on the floor. Ms. Brooks testified that she told everybody to leave the bar; she opened up the back door and everybody left. No one was injured or required medical attention.

Licensee Meenakshi Sharma testified that she has been a licensee for one year and has had no problems. She said that if anyone starts to fight, she tells them to leave and makes sure they don’t come back. After the incident, she hired a security company and paid $300 to cover New Year’s Eve, but she only had five customers. Ms. Sharma’s landowner also testified on her behalf.

Mr. Kodenski concluded by arguing that the incident was not a violation of Rule 3.12, because the neighbors were not disturbed. “Badda bing badda boom,” and the incident was over, said Kodenski.

In mitigation of her punishment, Kodenski told the Board that the employee who served the cadet was present at the hearing, as well as a representative from the Highlandtown Business Association. Ms. Cornejo lives on the premises, and the bartender who served the cadet had only worked there fr two days. Cornejo has all of her employees take the alcohol awareness course.

Ms. Cornejo has two past offenses: one for a violation of Rule 3.12 and one for illegal gambling.

Mr. David Blair, a neighbor, said that he is a regular customer of the bar (at least five days a week) and has never really seen any problems. Blair said that if there were any violations in the past, it was because of the neighbor next door starting trouble.

Mr. Andre Holmes, from the Highlandtown Business Association, testified that Ms. Cornejo is a fair, reputable person as far as business owners on Eastern Avenue corridor. The violation of Rule 4.01(a) was an oversight by the bartender; Mr. Holmes said that, in his experience, sometimes in haste, you can make an assessment that you probably shouldn’t. He pointed out that the cadet was “very well-dressed and dolled up.”

Ms. Tess Callan, the bartender who served alcohol to the cadet, testified that she is a graduate of UMBC, owns a house, and studies political science and law. She said that the Mustang Inn serves a diverse group of people, like young professionals, engineers, hipsters, and everyone drinks together. Callan said that it is a real shame that the bar is getting so much negative attention from the neighbor next door. Callan argued, “it’s a nice neighborhood dive bar” and she explained her mistake by saying that you wouldn’t think that an underage person would walk into a bar and order a drink.

Commissioner Moore asked about all of the “allusions to the bad neighbor.” She asked whether Cornejo had tried to talk with the neighbor? The licensee responded that she has installed a security system and hired security, but the neighbor complains about anything that happens in front of the building. Cornejo made recommendations to the neighbor, but she hasn’t agreed on them. The licensee said that she tried to talk to the neighbor, but she doesn’t want to talk to Cornejo. Moore asked, “what is your policy about who gets carded?” Cornejo responded that anyone who looks under the age of 35 should get carded. Moore pointed out that the licensees should err on the side of carding, because “you’re not going to upset anybody if you card them.”

Ms. Cornejo told the Board that she knows that her license is a privilege, that she respects her license and is a hard worker. Commissioner Moore told Cornejo that Chairman Ward often says that liquor licenses are a privilege but that they’ve never had a licensee say it. Moore told the licensee, “if we had a prize, we’d give it to you.”

The licensees admitted the facts, so Mr. Akras read them into the record.

Mr. Boston told the Board that these licensees have owned this bar since 1995, for 19 years, and they have never had a violation. They send all their bartenders to alcohol awareness classes. The employee was suspended for two weeks, and they have instituted a new policy that anyone who sells to a minor will be immediately terminated. The owners allow the community to use their bar and restaurant for meetings, and they sponsor baseball, stickball, and kickball teams. The employee who sold to the underage cadet is an excellent employee, and this was a one-time mistake.

In mitigation of his punishment, Mr. Miliman told the Board that his client has owned his bar for twenty years. The employee who served the underage cadet has not been terminated, but she agreed to complete alcohol awareness certification. The employee also offered to pay the licensee back any fine that he would be charged by the Board; she is a single mother and will lose her home if she loses her job. He installed a sign on the register that tells customers if they do not look 40, they should have their ID ready.

Mr. Clarke, in his defense, stated that he has owned the business for thirteen years, and this is his first violation, or at least his first in quite some time. He runs an upscale restaurant lounge, and he is a resident of the neighborhood. He lives above the establishment with his wife and six-year-old son. His doorman used poor judgment in letting Ms. Neisser in the door. Clarke said that he doesn’t have a reputation for allowing underage drinking. Clarke said that his employee is going to be fired because of this mistake. The local community association has held their holiday party in the establishment, and he has helped to raise money for charities through various events. The record showed a “conference” from 2008 and a $100 fine. Ms. Bailey-Hedgepeth said that the $100 was a “conference fee” and that there is no prior conviction or violation on the record.

In mitigation, Hurdle explained that this violation is the first that the licensees have received since they began operating under their BD-7 license in July. There are two licenses at this address: a Class A license and a Class BD-7 license. Prior to the transfer of the BD-7, the licensee operated under a Class A. There are two previous violations on the Class A. Hurdle told the Board that there was an unusual incident on the day in question. The licensee’s “water heater blew up,” so he stepped away, and the person who took over was the person who made the mistake. That person only worked one day, as a friend helping out, and he made a mistake. Commissioner Moore said that she was confused about how there are two licenses at the same location. Mr. Hurdle explained that they transferred in a BD-7 tavern license into an establishment previously operated as a liquor store. They have not yet had a chance to move their Class A license elsewhere. Hurdle said that they have never closed, both licenses have been renewed and both are in compliance.

Chairman Ward noted that this establishment has had at least three recent violations of law. The licensee said that he had instituted a new policy where if any minors get served, the person responsible is automatically fired. The employee in this case was fired. He told the licensee that Ms. Neisser walking into the bar was “the best thing that happened to him all night” and that he had no other explanation other than “it was late and she was cute.” The licensee said that he had a very unlucky period where his employees served cadets three years in a row.

Ms. Collins testified that, on November 20, she did have an employee checking IDs at the door, who somehow missed the cadet coming in. This is her seventeenth year in business, and the door employee has worked for her for three years. Collins said that if she hadn’t had an employee at the door, she would have known immediately to card Ms. Neisser, who “stood out like a sore thumb” among the 50 year old patrons. The licensee told the Commissioners that she does not condone underage drinking. She lives in her community, above her business, and she is involved in charity and community work. She has never had a blemish on her record, so this mistake is upsetting to her.

Commissioner Moore noted, on their behalf, that they run a neighborhood store that also sells household supplies, food products, beverages, soda, and, most important to her, dog food. Moore said that the store is a real neighborhood staple and the customers are mostly students and young professionals.