This matter comes before the Administrative Law Court (ALC or
Court) pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-2-20 and 61-2-260 (Supp. 2004). The
South Carolina Department of Revenue (Department) seeks a $1,000 fine against
Respondent for its violation of S.C. Code Ann., §§ 61-4-580(6) and 61-4-160
(Supp. 2003). A hearing was held before me on February 28, 2006, at the
offices of the Administrative Law Court in Columbia, South Carolina.
Having
observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and taking into
consideration the burden of persuasion and the credibility of the witnesses, I
make the following findings of fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1. Notice of
the time, date, place and subject matter of the Hearing was given to the
Petitioner and the Respondent.
2. The
Respondent, Walter Gibson, holds an on-premise beer and wine permit for Toni’s
Restaurant at 614 Kaminski Street in Georgetown, South Carolina.
3. SLED along
with the Georgetown Police conducted a compliance check of Respondent’s location
on the night of November 12 and early morning of November 13, 2005. Shawana
White and Billy White, Jr., had been placed in charge of running the business
that night by Walter Gibson’s manager. When the agents arrived at Toni’s
Restaurant they observed a flier advertising the grand opening of “S & B
Lounge a/k/a Toni’s Place” at 614 Kaminski Street. The flier was taped to the
front door and indicated that there would be a five dollar ($5.00) cover charge
and “free drinks while they last”. The same flier was also posted on a podium
at the entrance along with a cash box.
4. On the night
of the above inspection, there were also four (4) bottles of liquor on the food counter.
5. After
Ms. White contacted the Respondent, he arrived at the business approximately
one and a half (1 ½) hours later. Two violation reports were later issued to
Walter Gibson; permitting a criminal act and unlawful possession of liquor, and
violation of happy hour laws by advertising for free alcohol.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
Based upon the above
Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code
Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 1998) grants the Administrative Law Judge Division the
responsibilities to determine contested matters governing alcoholic beverage, beer
and wine permits.
2. S.C. Code
Ann.§ 61‑4‑160 (Supp. 2003) provides that:
No person who holds a biennial permit to sell beer or wine
for on-premises consumption may advertise, sell, or dispense these beverages
for free, at a price less than one-half of the price regularly charged, or on a
two or more for the price of one basis. Beer or wine may be sold at a price
less than the price regularly charged from four o'clock p.m. until eight
o'clock p.m. only. The prohibition against dispensing the beverages for free
does not apply to dispensing to a customer on an individual basis, to a
fraternal organization in the course of its fund-raising activities, to a
person attending a private function on premises for which a biennial permit has
been issued, or to a customer attending a function sponsored by the person who
holds a biennial permit.
3. S.C. Code
Ann. § 61-4-580(6) (Supp. 2003) prohibits a permittee licensed to sell beer and
wine from selling, offering to sell or even possessing alcoholic liquors on the
licensed premises.
4. Permits and
licenses issued by this state for the sale of liquor, beer and wine are not
property rights. They are, rather, privileges granted in the exercise of the
state's police power to be used and enjoyed only so long as the holder complies
with the restrictions and conditions governing them. The ALC, being the
tribunal authorized to grant the issuance of a license, is likewise authorized
to revoke or suspend the license for cause. See Feldman v. S.C. Tax
Commission, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943).
5. The
permittee is responsible for all acts of his servants, agents, or employees and
cannot seek to avoid the consequences of a violation for lack of personal
knowledge. Following that principle, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld a
civil forfeiture of a corporation’s boat based upon an employee’s transporting
drugs even though the corporation claimed the use of the boat to transport
drugs was without its knowledge. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division v.
The "Michael and Lance,” 281 S.C. 339, 315 S.E. 2d 171 (Ct. App.
1984). The Court held that “[a] principal is affected with constructive
knowledge of all material facts of which its agent receives notice while acting
within the scope of his authority.” Id. at 173, citing Crystal Ice
Co. of Columbia, Inc. v. First Colonial Corp., 273 S.C. 306, 257 S.E. 2d
496 (1979). Likewise, the license holder is responsible for the actions and
conduct of employees utilizing the permit upon the permitted premises. 48
C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 259 (1981).
6. Where the
General Assembly authorizes a range of alternatives for an administratively
imposed penalty, the administrative fact-finder may set the amount of the
penalty after a hearing on the dispute. Walker v. South Carolina ABC
Comm'n, 305 S.C. 209, 407 S.E.2d 633 (1991). Here, the Department, and
therefore the ALC, has jurisdiction to “revoke or suspend permits authorizing
the sale of beer or wine.” S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-590 (Supp. 2005).
Furthermore, for violations of S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-4-160 and 61-4-580(6), the
Department, and therefore the ALC, may impose a monetary penalty upon the
holder of a beer or wine permit in lieu of a suspension or revocation. S.C.
Code Ann.§ 61-4-250 (Supp. 2005). The fine may range from twenty-five dollars
to one thousand dollars for retail beer and wine licensees. Id.
7. The
Respondent clearly violated the above provisions. Other than his attempt to
blame his employees he offered no expectable evidence in mitigation. South
Carolina Department of Revenue Procedure 04-4 suggests a penalty in the amount
of $500 for a licensee's first violation of the Alcohol Beverage Licensing
Statutes. I find those guidelines appropriate in this case and therefore find
that a $500 penalty should be imposed for each offense.
ORDER
Based upon the
foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent pay a monetary penalty of $1,000.00 to the South
Carolina Department of Revenue within thirty (30) days from the date of this
Order.
______________________________
Ralph
King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
February 28, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina