ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
This
matter comes before this Court pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp.
2004), S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2004), and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310
et seq. (2005). Petitioner South Carolina Department of Revenue (Department)
contends that Respondent Li’l Cricket Food Stores (Li’l Cricket), knowingly
allowed an underage individual to purchase beer from its convenience store at 1523 Savannah Highway, Charleston, South Carolina, in violation of 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs.
7-200.4 (Supp. 2004). For this fourth such violation in three years, the
Department seeks revocation of Li’l Cricket’s off-premises beer and wine permit
for the location in question. In response, Li’l Cricket concedes that the
alleged violation did occur, but further contends that the proposed penalty for
the violation is excessive in light of its efforts to prevent such sales.
After
timely notice to the parties, a hearing of this matter was held on March 28,
2006, at the South Carolina Administrative Law Court in Columbia, South Carolina. Based upon the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing, I find that
the appropriate penalty for Li’l Cricket’s violation is the imposition of a sixty
(60) day suspension of Li’l Cricket’s off-premises beer and wine permit.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
Having
carefully considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments presented at the
hearing of this matter, and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of
the evidence, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the
evidence:
1.
Li’l Cricket Food Stores (Li’l Cricket) owns and operates the
convenience store located at 1523 Savannah Highway, Charleston, South Carolina.
2. On
June 22, 2005, Tranetta Palmer, an employee of Respondent Li’l Cricket, allowed
a fifteen-year-old Underage Cooperating Individual (UCI) working with the South
Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) to purchase beer at its location at 1523 Savannah Highway, Charleston, South Carolina. Ms. Palmer completed the sale of the beer
to the UCI without requesting identification. The sale of the beer constituted
a knowing violation of South Carolina law and the violation was Li’l Cricket’s fourth
such violation within a three-year period. Tranetta Palmer had only been
working for Li’l Cricket a very short period of time when the violation
occurred and her employment was terminated as a result of the sale to the
Underage Cooperating Individual.
3.
Li’l Cricket has made good-faith efforts to prevent the sale of
alcoholic beverages to underage individuals. For example, Li’l Cricket actively
participates in a program provided by Anheuser Busch designed to prevent
alcohol sales to underage individuals. Training programs are held twice a year
at four different areas in the state of South Carolina. The program also
provides signage to be posted throughout stores to discourage underage sales of
alcohol. Li’l Cricket believes that the Anheuser Busch training program
effectively addresses its problem with sales to underage individuals.
4. Li’l
Cricket has strengthened its efforts to prevent underage sales by implementing
its current policies and procedures regarding sales of alcoholic beverages.
These efforts include:
(1)
strict policies and procedures concerning checking the identification and
verifying the age of customers purchasing alcoholic beverages (e.g., under
company policy, cashiers must request proof of age from all customers
purchasing alcoholic beverages and any cashier caught not checking for such
identification is terminated);
(2)
technological safeguards against illegal alcohol sales (e.g., the company uses
a "legal age" cash register that requires the cashier to enter the
date of birth of the customer before completing a sale of alcohol and has
available to the cashier an ID scanner that calculates the age of the customer
for the cashier);
(3)
training programs regarding the prevention of underage sales (e.g., the company
trains new employees thoroughly regarding the laws and company policies
governing the sale of alcoholic beverages and reiterates that training frequently);
and,
(4)
methods of monitoring whether its employees are complying with the laws and
company policies related to the sale of alcoholic beverages (e.g., the company
operates a "secret shopper" program that checks its stores and the
company's managers review samples of the video surveillance of each cashier's
shift on a daily basis).
These
efforts are indicative of Li’l Cricket’s commitment to prevent the sale of
alcoholic beverages to underage individuals and are relevant for determining
the appropriate penalty to be imposed in this matter.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
Based
upon the foregoing Stipulated Facts and Findings of Fact, I conclude the
following as a matter of law:
1.
The Department is charged with the responsibility of administering and
enforcing the laws and regulations governing alcoholic beverages, including
beer and wine. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-20 (Supp. 2004).
2.
Regulation 7-200.4 prohibits holders of beer and wine permits from
selling beer or wine to persons under twenty-one years of age. The regulation
provides that:
To permit or
knowingly allow a person under twenty-one years of age to purchase or possess
or consume beer or wine in or on a licensed establishment which holds a license
or permit issued by the Department is prohibited and constitutes a violation
against the license or permit. Such violation shall be sufficient cause to
suspend or revoke the license or permit by the Department.
23 S.C. Code
Ann. Regs. 7-200.4 (Supp. 2004). Respondent Li’l Cricket concedes that it
committed a violation of Regulation 7-200.4 as alleged by the Department.
3.
The Department has jurisdiction to revoke or suspend permits
authorizing the sale of beer and wine. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-590 (Supp. 2004).
Pursuant to such authority, the Department may suspend or revoke a beer and
wine permit if the permittee has knowingly sold beer or wine to a person under
twenty-one years of age. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-580(1) (Supp. 2004); 23 S.C.
Code Ann. Regs. 7-200.4 (Supp. 2004); see also S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-270
(Supp. 2004) (authorizing the Department to "revoke the permit of a person
failing to comply with any requirements" in Chapter 4 of Title 61).
Further, the Department may exercise this authority to suspend or revoke a
permit for a first violation of the prohibition against selling beer and wine
to minors. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-4-270, 61-4-580, 61-4-590; 23 S.C.
Code Ann. Regs. 7-200.4. In lieu of such suspension or revocation, the
Department may also impose a monetary penalty upon a permittee for selling beer
and wine to minors. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-250 (Supp. 2004). For retail beer and
wine permittees, this monetary penalty must be no less than $25 and no greater
than $1,000. Id.
4.
S.C. Revenue Procedure 95-7 (1995) sets forth the Department's penalty
guidelines for violations of the alcoholic beverage control laws. For retail
beer and wine permits, Revenue Procedure 95-7 provides for a $400 fine for the
first violation by a permittee, an $800 fine for the second violation, a 45-day
suspension of the permit for the third violation, and revocation of the permit
for the fourth violation. However, this document does not set binding norms for
the Department, but rather only provides guidance to the Department in
assessing penalties for violations of the alcoholic beverage control laws. See Revenue Procedure 95-7, at ¶ 4 ("These are guidelines only and this
advisory opinion does not establish a binding norm."). As such, Revenue
Procedure 95-7 is not law and thus is not binding upon this Court. Cf. Home
Health Serv., Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 312 S.C. 324, 328, 440 S.E.2d 375,
378 (1994) (holding that "whether a particular agency proceeding announces
a rule or a general policy statement depends upon whether the agency action
establishes a binding norm") (citing Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. United
States, 716 F.2d 1369 (11th Cir. 1983)).
5.
The weight and credibility assigned to evidence presented at the hearing of a matter
is within the province of the trier of fact. See S.C. Cable
Television Ass'n v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 308 S.C. 216, 222, 417
S.E.2d 586, 589 (1992); see also Doe v. Doe, 324 S.C. 492, 502,
478 S.E.2d 854, 859 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding that a trial judge, when acting as
finder of fact, "has the authority to determine the weight and credibility
of the evidence before him"). Furthermore, a trial judge who observes a
witness is in the best position to judge the witness's demeanor and veracity
and to evaluate the credibility of his testimony. See, e.g., Woodall
v. Woodall, 322 S.C. 7, 10, 471 S.E.2d 154, 157 (1996); Wallace v.
Milliken & Co., 300 S.C. 553, 556, 389 S.E.2d 448, 450 (Ct. App. 1990).
6.
The facts in this case warrant a lesser penalty than that sought to be
imposed by the Department. It is a generally recognized principle of
administrative law that the fact finder has the authority to determine an
appropriate administrative penalty, within the statutory limits established by
the legislature, after the parties have had an opportunity for a hearing on the
issues. See, e.g., Walker v. S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control
Comm'n, 305 S.C. 209, 407 S.E.2d 633 (1991). Further, in assessing a
penalty, the finder of fact "should give effect to the major purpose of a
civil penalty-deterrence." Midlands Utility, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of
Health & Envtl. Control, 313 S.C. 210, 212, 437 S.E.2d 120, 121 (Ct.
App. 1993).
7.
However, Respondent should be reminded that the purpose of the
statutory prohibition against selling alcohol to underage individuals is to
protect both the underage individuals and the public at large from the possible
adverse consequences of such sales. The sale of alcohol to an underage
individual is a serious offense and cannot be taken lightly. Further, it should
be noted that a permit to sell beer and wine is neither a contract nor a
property right. Rather, it is merely a permit to do what otherwise would be
unlawful to do, and to be enjoyed only so long as the restrictions and
conditions governing its continuance are complied with. Feldman v. S.C. Tax
Comm'n, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943). Accordingly, beyond satisfying
the penalty imposed in this matter, Respondent is advised to make every effort
to prevent such sales in the future, as the failure to do so may subject it to
more severe penalties in the event of a future violation.
ORDER
Based
upon the Stipulated Facts, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law stated
above,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for Respondent's fourth violation of 23 S.C. Code
Ann. Regs. 7-200.4 (Supp. 2004) within three years, the Department shall SUSPEND Respondent’s off-premises beer and wine permit for a period of sixty (60) days.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
JOHN
D. MCLEOD
Administrative
Law Judge
April 4, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina |