ORDERS:
ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER
The Petitioner filed a Motion to Reconsider my Order dated July 8, 2004 based on several
grounds, including that the transcript of the Petitioner’s husband’s convictions contained erroneous
material. Following a hearing on the motion on August 19, 2004, I granted the Petitioner’s motion
to reconsider and hereby renew the Petitioner’s license, with restrictions.
At the hearing on the motion to reconsider, counsel for the Petitioner stated that the criminal
record of the Petitioner’s husband, as submitted by the Respondent following the hearing on the
merits, was incorrect. Counsel for the Respondent agreed and stipulated that Petitioner’s husband’s
sole conviction was for simple possession of marijuana. The source of confusion was the way the
North Charleston Police Department processes its paperwork which made it appear that the
Petitioner’s husband had been convicted of numerous other offenses.
The fact, however, remains that the Petitioner did not list her husband on the license
application as a person involved in the day to day management of the store, and her husband testified
under oath that he did not have a criminal record. While both of these actions were wrong, I find
that they can be explained sufficiently. Counsel for the Petitioner indicated that Petitioner’s husband
“helps out as needed” when the Petitioner needs assistance in the store, but is not involved in the day
to day operation or management. In addition, the Petitioner’s husband testified that he did not realize
that a conviction for a misdemeanor offense of simple possession constituted a “criminal record.”
He indicated that he understood “criminal record” to mean a felony only.
While these positions may be hard to comprehend, I find that this couple does believe just
that. Based on these assumptions, and the understanding that this store provides an important
livelihood for this family, and that the Respondent initially did not oppose the renewal and did not
change its position until the Petitioner’s husband took the stand and testified at the hearing, I find
and conclude that the renewal application for the off-premises permit for the location at Midland
Market, 2599 Midland Park Road, North Charleston, South Carolina, shall be granted with the
following restriction:
The Petitioner’s husband, Tilal Abdelrahim, shall not be involved in the operation
of the store known as Midland Market, located at 2599 Midland Park Road, North
Charleston, South Carolina.
Licenses and permits issued by the State for the sale of beer, wine, and liquor are
not rights or property, but are rather privileges granted in the exercise of the police power of the State
to be used and enjoyed only so long as the restrictions and conditions governing them are complied
with. As the tribunal authorized to grant the issuance of a license is also authorized, for cause, to
revoke it, that tribunal is likewise authorized to place restrictions or conditions on the license. See
Feldman v. S.C. Tax Comm’n, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943).
ORDERIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s application for the renewal of her off-premises
beer and wine permit for the premises located at 2599 Midland Park Road in North Charleston,
South Carolina, is GRANTED with the following restrictions: The Petitioner’s husband, Tilal
Abdelrahim, shall not be involved in the operation of the store known as Midland Market, located
at 2599 Midland Park Road, North Charleston, South Carolina.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Carolyn C. Matthews,
Administrative Law Judge
September 21, 2004
Columbia, South Carolina |
