ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310, et seq. (1986 & Supp. 1998) upon Respondent's
request for a contested case hearing regarding Violation Reports issued on December 4, 1998 by the South Carolina Law
Enforcement Division ("SLED") and subsequent Final Agency Determination dated June 18, 1999, by the Petitioner, South
Carolina Department of Revenue ("Department") against the Respondent for a violation of South Carolina Code Ann. § 61-4-580(3) (gambling on licensed premises) and a violation of § 61-6-2600 (possession of liquor in containers other than
minibottles on licensed premises).
The two citations issued to Respondent on December 4, 1998 were for: (1) a violation of that provision of § 61-4-580(3),
relating to the sale of beer and wine, which 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 permit gambling or games of chance upon the licensed premises
covered by the holder's permit; and (2) a violation of § 61-6-2600 which prohibits a person licensed to sell alcoholic liquors
to have in his possession on his licensed premises, liquor in any containers other than minibottles. Specifically, SLED and the
Department found that the Respondent had allowed or permitted gambling to take place on his licensed premises and,
further, that the Respondent had allowed or permitted the possession or storage of large bottles of alcoholic liquors on the
licensed premises.
A hearing on this matter was held before the Administrative Law Judge Division on November 15, 1999. Based on the facts,
testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the above-described violations did occur.
FINDINGS OF FACT
By a preponderance of the evidence, I find that:
1. The Respondent, Leroy N. Chaplin, doing business as The Peppermint Lounge, was issued a minibottle sale and
consumption license by the South Carolina Department of Revenue on July 8, 1997, License Number SB166621.
2. The Respondent, Leroy N. Chaplin, doing business as the Peppermint Lounge, was issued a beer and wine sale and
consumption permit by the South Carolina Department of Revenue on July 8, 1997, License Number BW966620.
3. On December 4, 1998, SLED Special Agent Ryan Neill, assisted by Beaufort County Sheriff's Deputy, Jeff Light,
conducted an inspection of the Respondent's licensed premises at 2698 Trask Parkway in Burton, South Carolina.
4. Upon arriving at the location, the Officers observed two individuals, later identified as Jonathan Capers and Willie Smalls,
gambling on a game of dice in the parking lot of the licensed premises. Both Mr. Capers and Mr. Smalls were criminally
charged by S/A Neill with violating S.C. Code Ann. § 16-19-40 (gambling). Both individuals were later convicted in
magistrate's court of these charges. Agent Neill seized the dice being used by Mr. Capers and Mr. Smalls, as well as the
money being wagered. The dice and the criminal citations, containing the guilty verdicts issued by the Magistrate, were
entered into evidence by the Department.
5. While no testimony or evidence suggests that the Respondent was participating or condoning the gambling being
committed on his licensed premises, it does establish that he had knowledge of, and was thus permitting, such activity to take
place.
6. Based on his observances, and the issuance of criminal citations for gambling on the premises of the licensed location,
Agent Neill cited the Respondent with a violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-580(3) (permitting gambling).
7. After issuing the gambling citations, Agent Neill and Deputy Light then entered the Peppermint Lounge. Shortly after
entering the building, Deputy Light observed two large (approximately 1 liter) containers of alcoholic liquor under a table in
the building. While none of the patrons in the bar admitted to owning the liquor, Ms. Lucille Washington testified at the
hearing in this case that the bottles had been taken into the bar by acquaintances of hers for a private party that she was
planning to have at the Peppermint Lounge that evening.
8. The two bottles of liquor were seized by Agent Neill and offered into evidence by the Department in this case.
9. The Respondent had knowledge of the presence of the liquor on his licensed premises.
10. Based on the presence of the two bottles of liquor on the licensed premises, Agent Neill issued a citation to the
Respondent for violating S. C. Code Ann. § 61-6-2600.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
1. Jurisdiction is properly before the ALJD under the authority of S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-600, 12-60-1310 and 12-60-1320 (Supp. 1998).
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-1610 (Supp. 1998) requires a business establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic liquors sold
in minibottles to obtain and display a license issued by the Petitioner, South Carolina Department of Revenue, authorizing the
sale and consumption of alcoholic liquors.
3. The Department is charged with the responsibility for administering the statutes and regulations governing the sale of
alcoholic beverages in South Carolina. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-20 (Supp. 1998)
4. The Respondent in this matter, as the licensee of a sale and consumption license issued by the Department under § 61-6-1610, was required to be familiar with and comply with the statutes and regulations of this State pertaining to the sale and
consumption of alcoholic liquors.
5. South Carolina Code Ann. § 61-6-2600 provides in relevant part that:
[A] person licensed to sell alcoholic liquors pursuant to the
provisions of this article who has in his possession on his licensed
premises alcoholic liquors in containers other than minibottles,
except wine as authorized for sale under Section 61-6-1540(B), or
who displays minibottles when the seals are broken or who violates
any other article of this article must:
. . . . .
(1) for a first offense be fined not less than two hundred
dollars and no more than five hundred dollars or have its license
suspended for not more than thirty days, or both;
(emphasis added)
6. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-240 (Supp. 1998) provides that the possession of alcoholic liquors on the licensed property
constitutes a violation of the law. While exceptions to the law exist for times when such locations are closed to the public, as
in the private party anticipated in the present case, the presence of liquor in any container other than a minibottle is
prohibited during periods in which the licensed location is operating under its license, i.e., as a private club or restaurant.
7. The Respondent's claimed unfamiliarity with the prohibition contained in § 61-6-2600 does excuse the violation. "It is a
well settled maxim of that ignorance of the law is no excuse." South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Dep't v.
Kunkle, 287 S.C. 177, 179, 336 S.E.2d 468 (1985). This axiom is particularly true when the party so charged is licensed to
conduct business in a highly regulated industry, such as the sale of alcoholic beverages.
8. Under the facts in this case, a violation of § 61-6-2600 was committed by the Respondent, despite the lack of intent on the
Respondent's part to evade or break the conditions of his license by allowing the presence of large, non-minibottle containers
of alcoholic liquor on his licensed premises.
10. The relevant penalty in this matter is dictated by S.C. Code Ann.§ 61-6-2600(1) and the Department's longstanding
interpretation and application of the penalties provided for in that statute as stated in S.C. Revenue Procedure #95-7,
wherein the appropriate penalty for a first offense is $400.00.
11. South Carolina Code Ann. Section 61-4-580(3) 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:
(3) permit gambling or games of chance.
12. In this matter, the Department has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent permitted
gambling to be committed on the licensed premises. The term "licensed premises" provided for in the statute includes not
only the interior of the Peppermint Lounge, but also the immediate area adjacent to the front door and all parking areas
where the prohibited activity took place. S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-81 provides in relevant part that "licensed premises shall
include those areas normally used by the permittee or licensee to conduct his business and shall include, but is not limited to,
the following areas: selling areas, storage areas, food preparation areas, and parking lots." (emphasis added)
13. Although a second offense for this location, the "permitting of gambling" is a first offense under the Respondent's beer
and wine permit. Therefore, the relevant penalty for the violation in this matter is a fine in the amount of $400 for a first
offense, as provided in Revenue Procedure #95-7.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Respondent pay to the Department a fine in the amount of Four Hundred ($400)
Dollars, for each of the two violations in this matter, for a total fine of Eight Hundred ($800) Dollars. The imposed fine of
Eight Hundred ($800) Dollars shall be paid to the South Carolina Department of Revenue within thirty (30) days of the date
of this Order.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
November 23, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina |