ORDERS:
ORDER
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to the Agency
Transmittal Form filed by the Department of Revenue (“Department”) on December 3, 2002. Glenda
Hicks, d/b/a Foothill Spirits III (“Respondent”) is appealing the Department’s finding that she
violated S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-1500(3)(c) (Supp. 2002), which prohibits permitting the sale of
liquor to a person who is less than twenty-one years of age. According to the Department, on August
24, 2002, Respondent sold liquor to a sixteen-year-old customer. The Department seeks a fine of
$400.00 for this violation. After notice to the parties, a hearing was held at the offices of the Division
on February 13, 2003. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, I find that
the Department’s requested fine of $400.00 is appropriate.
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 license no. 32011678-PRL for her location at 1363 Tiger
Blvd., Clemson, South Carolina, allowing her to sell liquor for off-premises consumption.
4.On August 24, 2002, the Respondent was charged with an administrative violation
of S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-1500(3)(c) (Supp. 2002) for “permitting the sale of liquor to a
individual under the age of twenty-one.”
5.On August 24, 2002, Underage Cooperating Individual (“UCI”) Whitfield Brooks,
in cooperation with an agent from the State Law Enforcement Division (“SLED”), entered
Respondent’s liquor store.
6.UCI Brooks, who was sixteen years of age at the time of the incident, picked up a
200 ml bottle of vodka and took it to the cashier.
7.O.C. Graham, the clerk on duty, asked UCI Brooks for his identification. Brooks
showed his license to Graham. The license showed Brooks’ age as sixteen years old. Graham
then sold the vodka to UCI Brooks.
8.After purchasing the vodka, UCI Brooks left the store and notified SLED agent
Brunson Asbill of the purchase. Agent Asbill proceeded inside and issued citations for the
violation.
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. §61-6-1500 (Supp. 2002) provides that no retail dealer may
“sell...or permit the sale of alcoholic liquors to a person under twenty-one years of age.”
4.A licensee may be held liable for violations of liquor statutes and regulations
committed by his agent while pursuing the ordinary business entrusted to him. The licensee is
liable even though the violations are committed in his absence and without his knowledge,
consent, or authority. C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 276.
5.“If the clerk knew that the [purchaser] was a minor or had such information, from
his appearance or otherwise, as would lead a prudent man to believe he was a minor, and if
followed by inquiry must bring knowledge of that fact home to him, then the sale was made
knowingly.” Feldman v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1947).
Here, O.C. Graham, an employee of Glenda Hicks, d/b/a Foothill Spirits III, asked for and
received the identification stating that the buyer was a minor. Mr. Graham then proceeded to sell
the alcohol.
6.Glenda Hicks, d/b/a Foothill Spirits III, violated S.C. Code Ann. §61-6-1500
(Supp. 2002) through the actions of her employee, O.C. Graham, by selling alcoholic liquor to a
minor.
7.S.C. Code Ann. §61-6-2600 (Supp. 2002) provides that “for a first offense [of the
alcohol licensing provisions] to be fined not less than two hundred dollars nor more than five
hundred dollars or have his license suspended for not more than thirty days or both.”
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department’s fine of $400.00 is upheld.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
MARVIN F. KITTRELL
Chief Administrative Law Judge
April 22, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
