What happened at the Liquor Board on February 5, 2015.

Commissioner Moore asked Mr. Pica whether there was any issue with the validity of the license being transferred. He replied that the license had last been used early in the fall or in the summertime. [At the last hearing on this license, during the hardship extension request in October 2014, the licensee testified that the last use of this license was March 24, 2014.]

The original request to reopen was submitted on June 13, 2013. The Board postponed the hearing on the matter, at the request of the licensees, to give the licensees a chance to meet with the community. Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth noted that the license fees for this license have not been paid since the 2012 annual renewal. 2013 and 2014 applications were filed, but the license fees were not paid.

Chairman Ward said to Kodenski, “the license has no status.” Kodenski disagreed and said that the petition has been pending since June 13, 2013, but the Board never finished the hearing. Commissioner Moore asked, “when was this license last used?” Kodenski replied, “probably 2013.” Moore agreed, then, with Ward and said that the license is not still viable. Councilman Stokes had submitted a strongly worded letter to the Board asking that the business be closed, on behalf of his constituents. Stokes mentioned in his letter that the community organization had presented a Memorandum of Understanding to the licensees at one of their meetings, which the licensees refused to sign. Kodenski said that his clients had never seen an MOU from the community. There was also a letter from the New Broadway East community association saying that they were opposed to the establishment being allowed to reopen.

Kodenski insisted that the last day of operations of the business would have been April 30, 2013, the last day that the license was unexpired. Moore pointed out, however, that the licensees had submitted a request to reopen after being closed for more than 90 days in June 2013; this timeline does not make sense if the business was open on April 30, 2013.

Commissioner Moore said that the Board needs more information on whether the license is valid or not. She wants to know more specific dates. She reiterated that it doesn’t look to her as if there is a valid license. Moore also said that she would like to hear from the community about their experience with the licensee.

Article 2B section 10-504(d) states that a license expires after 180 days unless one of three things has occurred: (1) a transfer application has been filed, (2) the licensee has died and proceedings are beginning under section 10-506, or (3) the licensee has filed an application for an extension of time due to an undue hardship. None of these three events has taken place. From the testimony provided during the hearing, a hardship extension request has never been submitted, but even if it had and was granted, the license would have expired 360 days after the last day of operation. (A request to reopen after being closed for more than 90 days is not the same thing as a hardship extension request.) Under Mr. Kodenski’s set of facts, the license would have expired, at the latest, on April 25, 2014, nine months and 11 days before the date of this February 5, 2015 hearing. The Board does not have to take any action for this license to expire; rather, it expires as a matter of law after the requisite number of days have passed. There is no provision in the Code that would allow the Board to extend the life of a license beyond the 360 days allotted in the statute.

Rule 3.01 of the Liquor Board’s 1998 rules states that “every licensee shall be the actual owner and operator of the business conducted on the licensed premises. The fact that the Willabus family was allowed to conduct business under this license, apparently without any supervision by the licensees, was in itself a violation of their license. This is a very common violation, almost never enforced by this agency, and it can have a serious negative impact on the surrounding community. It is very difficult to hold licensees accountable for their businesses if they are not even running those businesses themselves.

Detective LC Greenhill, from the Vice Unit of the Baltimore City police department, then testified to the details of the violation at Eric 500 on December 17, 2014. Smith made a series of objections to the testimony, because his client could not understand it. Smith then cross-examined the detective, asking how many investigations the police had made of the Horseshoe Casino, the Ravens stadium, and the Orioles stadium. Mr. Akras, Deputy Executive Secretary of the Liquor Board, objected to all of these questions as irrelevant, and Chairman Ward sustained the objections. Smith asked Detective Greenhill what percentage of the bars in which he does underage alcohol investigations are Korean-owned; Akras objected to the question as irrelevant, and Chairman Ward sustained the objection. Smith asked whether Greenhill had opened the bottle of vodka or had the contents analyzed by a laboratory. Greenhill had not opened the bottle; standard procedure for the police officers is to return the bottle to the licensee, with the change, and retrieve the departmental $20 bill. Greenhill testified later in the hearing that when he went inside there were lots of loiterers standing around drinking out of containers in plastic bags.

Cadet Ken Jones testified that he purchased the bottle of New Amsterdam peach vodka from the store. He is 19 years old and was born in June 1995. No one asked for identification or how old he was. The clerk knew enough English to understand what Cadet Jones was asking for.

Mr. Smith then reiterated that his client cannot speak English, and, therefore, cannot testify. Smith told the Commissioners that they should not have heard this case under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution, as well as the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct. Though his client was given one week to find an interpreter, Smith told the Board that his client never intended to find one, because of the constitutional issues involved. Chairman Ward, on the constitutional questions, reiterated that the ability to sell alcohol is a privilege, and not a right. A license is also not property, according to the Code. Therefore, according to Chairman Ward, there is no infringement on the licensee’s rights.

On the merits of the case, Smith argued that the person behind the bulletproof glass who sold the alcohol was not proven by the police to be an employee of the licensee; the police officers did not seem to have spoken to the clerk in any detail. The licensee was not proven by the police to have been at the establishment when the violation took place. Smith said that to hold the licensee responsible would require a “quantum leap in proof.” He also argued that there is “no indication that what was purchased here is alcohol.” Smith said that the police officers should have taken the bottle to a state laboratory to see if there actually was vodka in the bottle that the cadet purchased.

The Board then looked at the prior violations for this bar, which included findings of responsibility for two prior sales to minors on October 4, 2012 and August 7, 2014 as well as a violation of Rule 5.03 (BD-7 violation) on September 18, 2014.

Four community witnesses testified regarding their experience with the bar. Mr. Ben Lewis, who lives one block away, testified that he can see the establishment from his window, and he often “watch[es] the circus” at that corner. It’s a disruption to the community. People are loitering constantly. The bar section of the business is never open. Recently there was a fight in the middle of Greenmount Avenue. People drink in public and throw the bottles from their miniatures in his yard. Ms. Lena Leone, President of the New Greenmount West Community Association, testified that she has been a resident in the neighborhood for ten years and is the chair of her organization’s Safety Committee. She corroborated Mr. Lewis’s testimony, that there is a great deal of loitering and drug activity at the corner. The bar contributes to the loitering, because they allow people to hang out inside and outside. Mr. Lowell Larsson, treasurer of Greater Greenmount Community Association, told the Commissioners that in the fall of 2014, when the liquor store was closed for two weeks, a high school student who walks by on her way to school each day noticed a significant improvement in the loitering and criminal activity at that intersection. But, when the store reopened, the situation was back to the way it was before. Both representatives from the community associations testified that they would like to work with the licensee to improve his business. Mr. Charles Duff, President of Jubilee Baltimore, which owns an apartment house in the area, was present in support of his neighbors but had no personal knowledge to offer to the Board.

Commissioner Moore agreed with the Chairman and added that the impact on the community is huge. She uses the intersection almost daily, and she has seen for herself the traffic and loitering. There is a substantial amount of loitering. She appreciated the community members’ testimony and their efforts to communicate. She also was concerned that the licensee has not tried to resolve the problems. She told Smith that any request to stay any of the penalties would be denied by the Board, because his client’s business is such a detriment to the community at large.

Jones concurred with his colleagues.

Regarding the stay of the suspension and fine, Mr. Smith replied that he wouldn’t have even thought to ask for a stay from the Board, but he will be happy to ask for one “from my friends at the Circuit Court.”

Violation of Rule 4.18: Illegal Conduct – December 19, 2014 – At approximately 8:00 PM the Baltimore Police Department, The Comptroller’s Office, and Inspectors from the BLLC, responded to the establishment to conduct an investigation into the business practices of the Isis Lounge. Isis Lounge advertises itself as a bar and hookah lounge. On this date, Agent Wayne Tanis from the Comptroller’s office conducted an investigation and found 6 containers of hookah tobacco. Upon finding these containers the Agent asked operator if there were any receipts or records indicating that the Maryland tobacco tax was paid. The operator could not produce the records.

Violation of Rule 3.03(a): Records – December 19, 2014 – At approximately 8:00 PM the Baltimore Police Department, The Comptroller’s Office, and Inspectors from the BLLC, responded to the establishment to conduct an investigation into the business practices of the Isis Lounge. Isis Lounge advertises itself as a bar and hookah lounge. On this date Agent Wayne Tanis from the Comptroller’s office conducted an investigation and asked the operator for receipts of alcoholic beverages purchased. The only receipts that the operator could provide were from September 2014 through October 2014. At that time the Agent found 27 bottles of distilled spirits that were not on any of the invoices nor were they on any of the prior listed stock.

Violation of Rule 4.10(a): Relations with Wholesalers – December 19, 2014 – At approximately 8:00 PM the Baltimore Police Department, The Comptroller’s Office, and Inspectors from the BLLC, responded to the establishment to conduct an investigation into the business practices of the Isis Lounge. Isis Lounge advertises itself as a bar and hookah lounge. On this date Agent Wayne Tanis from the Comptroller’s office conducted an investigation and asked the operator for receipts of alcoholic beverages purchased. The only receipts that the operator could provide were from September 2014 through October 2014. At that time the Agent found 27 bottles of distilled spirits that were not on any of the invoices nor were they on any of the prior listed stock. Agent determined that operator purchased alcohol from a not licensed wholesaler.

Violation of Rule 3.03(c): Records – December 19, 2014 – At approximately 8:00 PM the Baltimore Police Department, The Comptroller’s Office, and Inspectors from the BLLC, responded to the establishment to conduct an investigation into the business practices of the Isis Lounge. Isis Lounge advertises itself as a bar and hookah lounge. On this date Agent Wayne Tanis from the Comptroller’s office requested to see the records of employees for Isis Lounge. The operator produced a stack of eight (8) black file folders with eight (8) separate names. The operator stated that the folders did not contain any additional information other than the names of the employees on the file folders. The operator then told the Agent that the licensee takes case of all withholding tax information for all employees. A record check indicated that Isis LLC T/A Isis Lounge never obtained a withholding account with the Comptroller to submit income tax withholdings.

Violation of Rule 3.07: Restroom – December 19, 2014 – At approximately 8:00 PM the Baltimore Police Department, The Comptroller’s Office, and Inspectors from the BLLC, responded to the establishment to conduct an investigation into the business practices of the Isis Lounge. Isis Lounge advertises itself as a bar and hookah lounge. On this Inspector Jones inspected the woman’s bathroom and found that the toilet seat and toilet were inoperable. There was a sign on the door that indicated it was out of order.

In mitigation, Mr. Maslan told the Commissioners that this is his client’s first time before the Board. He normally is very responsible, but, on this occasion, he went to the bathroom, and his sister, who normally runs the lottery, filled in for him. She, according to Maslan, has a learning disability. Maslan also mentioned that the cadet was wearing a hat on this occasion, because it was cold outside. The licensee understands his responsibility and has been a licensee for five years without a previous violation.

Violation of Rule 3.12: Public Welfare – December 14, 2014 – At approximately 1:36 am the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) responded to the establishment called “Las Tejitas Restaurant” for an assault call. Upon arrival the BPD observed a crowd of people outside of the establishment and in the public right of way (corner of Macon and Eastern Avenue), several of whom were engaged in a fistfight. After exiting their vehicles were able to identify the victim of the altercation who stated he had been drinking and become very intoxicated inside of the establishment. He stated that he was attacked by others in the bar. The altercation was eventually moved out of the establishment and into the street where the fight continued until the BPD arrived. Once on location the BPD were able to identify – via identification by the victim – the two assailants. Investigation revealed that these individuals were also at the establishment and were extremely intoxicated.

Violation of Rule 4.02: Inebriates and Drug Addicts – December 14, 2014 – At approximately 1:36 am the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) responded to the establishment called “Las Tejitas Restaurant” for an assault call. Upon arrival the BPD observed a crowd of people outside of the establishment and in the public right of way (corner of Macon and Eastern Avenue), several of whom were engaged in a fistfight. After exiting their vehicles were able to identify the victim of the altercation who stated he had been drinking and become very intoxicated inside of the establishment. He stated that he was attacked by others in the bar. The altercation was eventually moved out of the establishment and into the street where the fight continued until the BPD arrived. Once on location the BPD were able to identify – via identification by the victim – the two assailants. Investigation revealed that these individuals were also at the establishment and were extremely intoxicated.

Mr. Kodenski pointed out that the Liquor Board had made a mistake in the docket; the license had been transferred from Mangafoula Minadakis to Juan Moreno in November 2014. The Board corrected their record.

Baltimore Police Officer Steven Downing, of the Southeast District, testified that he received a call for service to the bar on December 14, 2014 from an individual saying that people were fighting in the streets. As he approached, he observed approximately ten people running through the streets and throwing punches and fighting with each other along the way. Outside the bar, there was a large crowd outside, which quickly dispersed when they saw the patrol car pull up. There was a man sitting on the curb who was bleeding profusely from the nose and head. Downing called a Spanish-speaking officer to interpret what had happened. The victim said that he was inside the bar when he got into a fistfight with another patron. The security for the bar threw the men out on the street, at which point the victim became involved in another fight with two other men. He didn’t know the two men outside or where they had come from. The men happened to be peeking around the corner from behind a building at the scene, and the victim pointed them out. The police officers chased down the two men and arrested them. The victim positively identified them as the two who assaulted him outside. The victim was transported to the hospital for medical attention. At that point, Officer Downing went inside the bar, where the employees had already begun cleaning up. Downing wrote a report for two assaults: a common assault which happened inside and an aggravated assault which happened outside. The two men who were arrested outside were not prosecuted for the aggravated assault. The victim, according to Downing, was highly intoxicated. His eyes were glassy, his speech was slurred, and his movements were wobbly. He told Downing that he had been drinking at Las Tejitas. His shirt was torn and he was covered with blood from the assaults.

Liquor Board Chief Inspector Shelton Jones next testified that, on January 17, 2015, at 12:30am, he and Inspector Karanikolis did an inspection at Las Tejitas. There were people dancing inside on a dance floor. There were five to ten women behind the bar, working as bartenders, and the owner was working alongside them. Jones noticed that an interior wall had been removed since the last time he was inside. Also, a DJ booth had been constructed. A patron was smoking hookah at the bar. Jones and Karanikolis told the owner that he would have to close early due to the several violations (dancing without live entertainment permission, hookah). Though the establishment has a Class B restaurant license, the kitchen was not operational when Jones visited, and no food was being prepared. The owner could not produce records for his employees, and he told Jones that he never kept employee records at the business.

Kodenski made a motion to dismiss the charges. He said that the victim could have been assaulted by anyone, and it didn’t necessarily have to do with the bar. He also said that there was a “special event” going on the night of January 17, and people were “lively.” He argued that there was no violation of Rule 4.02, because there was no testimony about drug addicts. The Chairman denied his motion, saying that there was plenty of evidence for all of the charges.

In mitigation, Kodenski noted that the licensee is brand new and therefore does not have a record of violations. He has advised his client about how to comply with the Rules and Regulations of the Board in the future. Mr. Moreno lives on the premises, so he is a member of the community and he now understands his obligations.

Dr. Marvin Cheatham, President of the Matthew A Hensen Community Association, testified that this bar presents a serious problem with loitering and drug activity for the neighborhood, 20 hours a day. There is drinking inside and outside of the establishment, trash, and violence. An incident which ended in a homicide began inside that establishment. Major drug dealers frequent the store. The licensees did send two employees to one community meeting after their last three-day suspension, but the employees came charging Dr. Cheatham with being responsible for getting their store shut down. Cheatham asked that the licensees be in constant communication with the community and that they support the community association. Cheatham said that they need another serious punishment, like a suspension.