ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This
matter comes before the Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) for a contested
case hearing pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (2005) and §§
61-2-260, 61-4-580(5), 61-4-590, 61-6-1820(2) and 61-6-1830 (Supp. 2005). The
South Carolina Department of Revenue (Department) seeks to permanently revoke
the beer and wine permit, 32004184-PBW, and the restaurant liquor by the drink
license, 32004184-PSB, which were issued to Respondent, Odell Clubs, Inc. for
the location doing business as “Hideaways,” located at 3604 Broad River Road, Columbia, South Carolina.
On June 27, 2006, pursuant to a Motion for Emergency
Suspension filed by the Department, the Court issued an Order of Summary
Suspension, which suspended Respondent’s beer and wine permit and restaurant
liquor by the drink license pending a hearing on the merits of their permanent
revocation. A hearing on the merits was held on July 6, 2006 at the offices of
the Administrative Law Court in Columbia, South Carolina. Counsel for the
Petitioner appeared at the hearing with witnesses. However, Respondent made no
appearance. Evidence was introduced and testimony was given. After carefully considering
the evidence, I find that Respondent’s beer and wine permit and restaurant
liquor by the drink license is permanently revoked.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
Having
observed the witnesses and reviewed the exhibits presented at the hearing and
closely passed upon their credibility, and having taken into consideration the
burden of persuasion by the parties, I make the following Findings of Fact by a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. Notice of the
time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was timely given to all the
parties.
2. Respondent failed
to appear at the hearing on July 6, 2006.
3.
Since 2003, a growing number of criminal incidents have occurred at the
location. Some of the incidents are as follows:
September 8,
2003 – Motor Vehicle Theft
September 20,
2003 – Traffic Offenses
September 29,
2003 – Aggravated Assault (stabbing)
October 6, 2003
– Theft from Motor Vehicle
December 15,
2003 – Narcotics Violation
December 25,
2003 – Aggravated Assault
December 28,
2003 – Motor Vehicle Theft
March 29, 2004 –
Aggravated Assault
March 29, 2004 –
Aggravated Assault and Weapons Violation
April 19, 2004 –
Vandalism of Property
May 24, 2004 –
Vandalism
July 3, 2004 –
Vandalism of Property
November 8, 2004 –
Aggravated Assault and Liquor Law Violations
March 14, 2005 –
Vandalism
March 28, 2005 –
Narcotics Violation
May 5, 2005 –
Vandalism
May 25, 2005 –
Traffic Offenses and Narcotics Violation
May 25, 2005 –
Vandalism
August 1, 2005 –
Aggravated Assault (ABHAN)
August 8, 2005 –
Resisting Arrest
November 26, 2005 –
Shooting Incident and Aggravated Assault (CDVHAN)
January 26, 2006 –
Disorderly Conduct
February 11, 2006 –
Loud Music
March 13, 2006 –
Simple Assault
March 18, 2006 –
Shooting Incident
March 20, 2006 – Loud
Music
March 27, 2006 –
Aggravated Assault
April 20, 2006 –
Shooting Incident
May 11, 2006 –
Fighting
June 1, 2006 – Simple
Assault
June 19, 2006 –
Aggravated Assault
4. Over
the past four (4) to five (5) months, there have been a series of shootings at
the location. In a number of these incidents individuals have been shot, some
of which were innocent bystanders. On at least one occasion, body guards
employed by the club were involved in a shooting at the location in which
individuals were struck by gunfire. Some of these shooting incidents have also
resulted in car chases which lead into surrounding neighborhoods. The most
recent shooting occurred on June 19, 2006, and an individual was injured by
gunfire.
5. Captain
Robert Scott Plexico of the Richland County Sheriff’s Department is in charge
of the area where the club is located and is familiar with Hideaways. Captain
Plexico, along with other members of the Richland County Sheriff’s Department,
has responded to numerous incidents at the club including aggravated assaults,
vandalisms, and shootings. He has also met with the owner, manager, and
operators of the club to voice his safety concerns on three separate occasions.
6. There
are residences in close proximity to the location. Roger Doudy lives
approximately two hundred (200) yards behind the location. He has experienced
problems with patrons of the club parking in the street, making it difficult
for him to drive to his home. He has also had his sleep disturbed by loud music
and gun shots emanating from the location. He fears for his safety and the
safety of others in the area.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
Based
upon the above Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (2005) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative Law Court
to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act.
2. S.C.
Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2005) grants the Administrative Law Court the
responsibility to determine contested matters governing alcoholic beverages,
including beer, wine and liquor.
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-580(5) (Supp. 2005)
provides, in pertinent part:
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…(5) permit any act, the commission of
which tends to create a public nuisance or which constitutes a crime under the
laws of this State…A violation of any provision of this section is ground for
the revocation or suspension of the holder’s permit.
A public nuisance exists whenever acts or conditions are subversive of
public order, decency, or morals, or constitute an obstruction of public
rights.” State v. Turner, 198 S.C. 487, 495, 18
S.E.2d 372, 375 (1942). Furthermore, to be deemed a public nuisance it must
affect a number of people. See Morison v. Rawlinson, 193 S.C. 25,
7 S.E.2d 635 (1940).
4. Furthermore, S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-1820(2)
requires that a corporation holding a mini-bottle license have "a
reputation for peace and good order in its community, and [that] its principals
[be] of good moral character." Failure to meet this requirement
constitutes grounds for revocation of the license. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-1830.
5. The Department may seek revocation or suspension
of permits for the sale of beer and wine “on its own initiative or on complaint
signed and sworn to by two or more freeholders resident for the preceding six
months in the community in which the licensed premises are located or by a
local peace officer, all of whom are charged with the duty of reporting
immediately to the department a violation of the provisions of Section 61‑4‑580…”
S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-590 (Supp. 2005).
6. Licenses and permits for the sale of liquor, beer
and wine are property of the Department and must be surrendered to the
Department immediately “upon the termination of a business, upon a
change of ownership, possession, or control of a corporation or business
entity, or upon a change in the character of the property, facilities, or
nature of the business activity for which a license or permit has been issued.” S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-140(B) (Supp. 2005).
7. Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure for
the Administrative Law Court provides:
The administrative law judge may dismiss a
contested case or dispose of a contested case adverse to the defaulting party. A default occurs when a party fails to plead or otherwise prosecute or
defend, fails to appear at a hearing without the proper consent of the judge or
fails to comply with any interlocutory order of the administrative law judge.
Any non-defaulting party may move for an order dismissing the case or terminating it adversely
to the defaulting party.
8. Permits and licenses issued by this state
for the sale of liquor, beer and wine are not property rights. Rather, they
are 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 Administrative Law Court, as the tribunal
authorized to grant the issuance of a permit, is likewise authorized to revoke
or suspend the permit for cause. See Feldman v. S.C. Tax Commission,
203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943).
9. In
this case, the evidence clearly shows that law enforcement officers have had to
respond to numerous complaints of crimes and violent incidents at the location,
which have increased in both frequency and severity, over the past several
years. There have also been an increasing number of shootings at the location
over the past several months, some of which have been life-threatening. Because
of these incidents, law enforcement is unable to maintain public order there
and provide for the safety of members of the public and patrons of the
location.
Several
neighborhoods also surround the location. Residents of these neighborhoods have
not only been disturbed by loud music and gunshots emanating from the location,
but they have also been threatened by shots fired during car chases through
these neighborhoods which result from incidents originating at the location.
Due
to these numerous criminal incidents, Respondent no longer has a reputation for
peace and good order in the community. Furthermore, the many crimes which have
taken place at the location and the totality of the many acts which have
occurred there constitute a public nuisance. Thus, the continued sale of beer,
wine, and liquor at this location will only exacerbate the occurrence of
criminal incidents at the location and continue to put the safety and welfare of
the citizens at risk.
Therefore,
due to the escalating number of criminal incidents at the location which
threaten the safety and welfare of the public, and the fact that Respondent
failed to appear at the hearing without the proper
consent of the Court and, as a result, failed to defend the matter, I find and
conclude that Respondent’s beer and wine permit and liquor by the drink
license are permanently revoked.
ORDER
For
all the foregoing reasons,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the beer and wine permit, 32004184-PBW, and the
restaurant liquor by the drink license, 32004184-PSB, which were issued to the
Respondent, Odell Clubs, Inc. for the location doing business as “Hideaways,”
located at 3604 Broad River Road, Columbia, South Carolina are hereby permanently
revoked; and
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall promptly surrender its license and
permit to the Department.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
July 13, 2006 Marvin F. Kittrell
Columbia, South Carolina Chief
Administrative Law Judge
|
