South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
DOR vs. G’s Palace

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioner:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

Respondent:
G’s Palace
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
02-ALJ-17-0471-CC

APPEARANCES:
Carol I. McMahan, Esquire, for the Petitioner

Kenneth E. Allen, Esquire, for the Respondent
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE


This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division (“ALJD” or “Division”) pursuant to the request of G’s Palace (“Respondent”) for a contested case hearing pursuant to the decision by the Department of Revenue (“Department”) to seek revocation of Respondent’s on-premise beer and wine permit (“permit”) and mini-bottle license (“license”) for its premises at 15099 Newberry Road, Blair, South Carolina. The Department seeks revocation of the permit and license under the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-580(5) and 61-6-1830 on the basis that the location is a public nuisance.

After notice to the parties, a contested case hearing was held at the offices of the Division in Columbia, South Carolina, on Monday, May 5, 2003. After a thorough review of the file and the evidence presented at the hearing, I find and conclude that Respondent’s on-premise beer and wine permit and mini-bottle license should be revoked.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon their credibility, taking into consideration the burden of persuasion by the parties, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:

1.The Division has personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

2.Notice of the date, time, place and nature of the hearing was timely given to all parties.

3.The Respondent holds an on-premises beer and wine permit and a private club sales and consumption (mini-bottle) license for the location at 15099 Newberry Road, Blair, South Carolina.

4. G’s Palace is a South Carolina corporation. There are five people serving on its Board and Jeffrey Leon Brown is the principal officer. G’s Palace operates as a private club with 122 members.

5.G’s Palace is located in a residential area off of Highway 34 in Fairfield County. Approximately six to eight residences can be seen from the location.

6.G’s Palace is normally open on Saturday nights from 12:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m.

7. At times when the club is open, there have been 300 to 400 people at the location, with large crowds often congregating in the parking lots. Seventy-five to eighty percent of these people come from outside of Fairfield County.

8. The Fairfield County Sheriff’s Department contacted the South Carolina Department of Revenue due to a large number of complaints at the location.

9. The Fairfield County Sheriff’s Department has reported that sixty-five criminal incidents have occurred at the location since April of 1999. These include the following:

April 25, 1999-Disorderly Conduct

May 2, 1999-Disorderly Conduct; Resisting Arrest

Simple Possession of Marijuana

May 9, 1999-Simple Possession of Marijuana

Simple Possession of Marijuana

May 23, 1999-Assault and Battery; Lynching

Minor Possession of Alcoholic Liquor

Disorderly Conduct

Minor Possession of Alcoholic Liquor; Possession of Marijuana

Illegal Parking

Simple Possession of Marijuana

June 13, 1999-Assault and Battery

Criminal Domestic Violence; Assault and Battery

July 5, 1999-Discharge of a Firearm (pistol); Fight

Simple Possession of Marijuana

Simple Possession of Marijuana

Disorderly Conduct

August 29, 1999-Minor in Possession of Beer

Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine

Simple Possession of Marijuana

September 19, 1999-Shooting incident

September 26, 1999-Disorderly Conduct

November 14, 1999-Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill

November 20, 1999-SLED violations for permitting purchase of beer by a person under the age of 21 and for permitting the consumption of liquor by a non-member

April 9, 2000-Simple Possession of Marijuana

Simple Possession of Marijuana

Possession of Marijuana; Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine

Simple Possession of Marijuana

April 23, 2000-Disorderly Conduct

Possession of Cocaine; Simple Possession of MarijuanaJune 18, 2000-Destruction of Personal Property

Simple Possession of Marijuana

June 25, 2000-Vandalism

Vandalism

July 2, 2000-Disorderly Conduct; Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature

August 6, 2000-Fight; Simple Possession of Marijuana

September 24, 2000-Simple Possession of Marijuana

Disorderly Conduct

October 8, 2000-Unlawful Possession of a Pistol

March 4, 2001-Assault and Battery

April 16, 2001-Assault and Battery

May 6, 2001-Assault and Battery

May 27, 2001-Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle; Destruction of Personal Property

July 1, 2001-Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine

July 15, 2001-Larceny; Vandalism

Larceny from a Vehicle

Vehicle Vandalism

July 29, 2001-Vandalism

August 5, 2001-Larceny of a Motor Vehicle

November 4, 2001-Destruction of Private Property

January 1, 2002-Assault and Battery

Simple Possession of Marijuana

Simple Possession of Marijuana

July 14, 2002-Assault and Battery

August 11, 2002-Disturbance/Disorderly Conduct

September 14, 2002-Vandalism; Larceny of a Vehicle

November 10, 2002-Assault and Battery

November 17, 2002-Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature;

Disturbance/Disorderly Conduct

December 15, 2002-Simple Possession of Marijuana

Simple Possession of Marijuana

December 29, 2002-Assault and Battery

10. The Fairfield County Sheriff’s Office has five deputies on duty per shift to cover the entire Fairfield County, which encompasses 692 square miles. At times, the entire shift of deputies on duty has been at the location responding to criminal incidents.

11. In an effort to improve problems inside the location, in about February 2002, unarmed security guards were hired. In addition, more lighting has been installed in the parking lots and two security officers walk the parking lot and direct traffic. Despite these efforts to improve security, however, problems have continued to occur at this location.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:

1.S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2002) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative Law Judge Division to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act.

2.S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2002) provides that contested case hearings arising under the provisions of Title 61 must be heard by an Administrative Law Judge with the Division.

3.S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-580 (5) (Supp. 2002) provides that “No holder of a permit authorizing the sale of beer or wine or a servant, agent, or employee of the permittee may knowingly commit any of the following acts upon the licensed premises covered by the holder’s permit: ...(5) permit any act, the commission of which tends to create a public nuisance or which constitutes a crime under the laws of this State...A violation of any provision of this section is a ground for the revocation or suspension of the holder’s permit.”

4. “‘Knowingly’ includes not only actual knowledge of a fact, but also situations where a person has such information, or the circumstances are such, as would lead a prudent person to form a belief as to the fact, and if followed by inquiry would have disclosed its character.” South Carolina Dep’t of Revenue v. Odom, Docket No. 97-ALJ-17-0368-CC (November 25, 1997) (citing State v. Tompkins, 263 S.C. 472, 211 S.E.2d 549 (1975); Feldman v. South Carolina Tax Comm’n, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943); Daley v. Ward, 303 S.C. 81, 399 S.E.2d 13 (Ct App. 1990)). Due to the number and nature of the criminal incidents occurring at the location since April of 1999, the Respondent clearly had knowledge that numerous criminal incidents were taking place at the location and that the occurrence of such criminal incidents created a public nuisance to the surrounding community.

5. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-1830 (Supp. 2002) provides that “[t]he department may suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a license issued pursuant to subarticle 1 of this article upon finding that: (1) the applicant no longer meets the requirements of Section 61-6-1820...” (emphasis added).

6. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-1820(2) (Supp. 2002) lists as one of its requirements that “[t]he applicant, if an individual, is of good moral character or, if a corporation or association, has a reputation for peace and good order in its community, and its principals are of good moral character.”

Due to the high number and the severity of the criminal activities at this location, I find that the operation of G’s Palace constitutes a public nuisance. I further find that the continued operation of G’s Palace would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding community. There is ample evidence in the record establishing that Respondent’s property is the site of frequent criminal activity ranging from disorderly conduct and assault and battery to a shooting and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The number of criminal incidents at this location has also put a strain on law enforcement in Fairfield County by often requiring a large number of the deputies on duty to respond to incidents at this location during its hours of operation. The continued sale of beer and wine and mini- bottles at this location will only exacerbate the occurrence of criminal incidents in this residential area. Although the Respondent has taken some measures to decrease the number of criminal incidents at this location, criminal activity continues at this location. Permits and licenses issued by the State of South Carolina for the sale of liquor, beer, and wine are not rights or property, but are privileges granted in the exercise of the police power of this state to be used and enjoyed only so long as the restrictions and conditions governing them are complied with. The Administrative Law Judge Division, as the tribunal authorized to grant the issuance of a permit, is likewise authorized to revoke or suspend the permit for cause. See Feldman v. S.C. Tax Comm’n, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943).

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the on-premises beer and wine permit and mini-bottle license issued to Respondent G’s Palace for its premises located at 15099 Newberry Road, Blair, South Carolina, is hereby REVOKED;

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________________________________

Marvin F. Kittrell

Chief Administrative Law Judge


Columbia, South Carolina

July 9, 2003


 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2025 South Carolina Administrative Law Court