ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1994) and
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310, et seq. (Supp. 1994) for a hearing pursuant to the application of
Belinda Lloyd for an off-premises beer and wine permit (AI 101021) for a convenience store
located at 644 Rock Hill Highway, Lancaster, South Carolina.
After timely notice to the parties, a hearing was held at the Administrative Law Judge
Division in Columbia, South Carolina. The off-premises beer and wine permit is hereby granted,
with conditions and restrictions.
STIPULATIONS
1. The parties stipulate that the only statutory criterion for holding an off-premises
beer and wine permit in dispute is the moral character of the applicant's spouse, the current
manager of the convenience store.
2. If this tribunal determines that it will deny the permit due to the moral character of
the applicant's spouse, the parties agree that as a condition to the issuance of the permit, Ronald
A. Lloyd will not have any partnership or other ownership interest in Lloyd's Quick Stop or
participate in the management or day to day operation of Lloyd's Quick Stop. The parties further
agree that Ronald A. Lloyd will not serve as an employee or agent of the applicant in any
capacity, paid or otherwise, as it relates to the permitted premises.
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. The applicant seeks an off-premises beer and wine permit for a convenience store
located at 644 Rock Hill Highway, Lancaster, South Carolina.
2. The South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation 's ("DOR") file was
made a part of the record by reference with the consent of the parties.
3. The proposed location is leased to the applicant by Harold Crenshaw. 4. The applicant's spouse, Ronald A. Lloyd, is currently operating the leased premises
as a convenience store which sells beer and wine under the previous owner's permit. The hours
of operation are Monday through Sunday from 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.
5. The applicant's spouse, Ronald A. Lloyd, was convicted in 1990 for violating 18
U.S.C. § 2 and 18 U.S.C. § 1951. These offenses involved extortion and acceptance of money by
Ronald A. Lloyd while he was a Lieutenant at the Lancaster County Sheriff's Department. He
used his office to inform video poker operators about investigations and furnish favorable
treatment to certain persons. Ronald A. Lloyd was fined $5,000.00 and sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of thirty-seven (37) months and three (3) years supervised probation. He was
released from federal prison in April 1994 and from a half-way house in July 1994.
6. The applicant is of good moral character.
7. The applicant is at least 21 years of age, a U.S. citizen, a citizen of the State of
South Carolina, and has maintained her principal residence in the state for at least thirty (30) days
prior to the date of making application for an off-premises beer and wine permit.
8. There are no churches, schools, or playgrounds in close proximity to the proposed
location.
9. Notice of the application appeared in The Lancaster News, a newspaper of
general circulation in the area of the proposed location, for three (3) consecutive weeks and
notice was posted at the proposed location for fifteen (15) days.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1994) authorizes the South Carolina
Administrative Law Judge Division to hear this case pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title I of the 1976
Code, as amended.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320 (Supp. 1994) establishes the criteria for the issuance
of a beer and wine permit.
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320(1) (Supp. 1994) provides that in order to obtain and
maintain a beer and wine permit, the holder must be of good moral character. This section
provides that no permit authorizing the sale of beer or wine may be issued unless: the applicant,
any partner or co-shareholder of the applicant, and each agent, employee, or servant of the
applicant to be employed on the licensed premises, are of good moral character.
4. In South Carolina, there is no single criterion by which to determine whether or
not one is possessed of good moral character. 1969 Op. S.C. Att'y. Gen. No. 2709 at 159.
Generally, good moral character means that one should possess all elements essential to make up
that character, such as honesty and veracity . Id.; See also Zemour, Inc. v. State Division of
Beverage, 347 So.2d 1102 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977); Broers v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 773
P.2d 320 (Mont. 1989).
5. Moral turpitude is "an act of baseness, evilness, or depravity in the private and
social duties which man owes to his fellow man or society in general, contrary to the customary
and accepted rule of right and duty between man and man." State v. Perry, 294 S.C. 311, 364
S.E.2d 201 (1988). Acts of moral turpitude are antithetical to what is considered good moral
character. 1989 OP. S.C. Att'y Gen. No. 89-89. Moreover, acts of moral turpitude imply the
absence of good moral character. Id.
6. The law is silent on whether a criminal act violative of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 18
U.S.C. § 1951 which involve "conspiracy to obstruct by exhortation, aiding, and abetting" is a
crime of moral turpitude. Nonetheless, given the definition of "moral turpitude" set forth in
Perry, the crime for which Ronald A. Lloyd was convicted while a Lieutenant at the Lancaster
County Sheriff's Department equates to an act of depravity in the social duties which man owes to
his fellow man or society in general. Even if the crime for which Ronald A. Lloyd was convicted
is not a crime of moral turpitude, it involved "conspiracy to obstruct by exhortation, aiding, and
abetting" and is indicative of a person deficient in honesty and veracity, thus dispossessed of good
moral character.
7. It is a generally recognized principle that an alcoholic beverage permit or license
may be refused a person who has been previously convicted of a crime. Wall v. South Carolina
ABC Comm'n., 269 S.C. 13, 235 S.E.2d 806 (1977).
8. Because of Ronald A. Lloyd's conviction for the above stated crime, he does not
meet the good moral character requirement of S.C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320(1) (Supp. 1994).
9. The applicant satisfies the statutory requirements for the issuance of an off-premises beer and wine permit with various restrictions, and stipulations as set forth herein, and
accordingly, the proposed location is a proper one for granting an off-premises beer and wine
permit.
10. Beer and wine permits are neither contracts nor property rights, but are mere
permits issued or granted in the exercise of the State's police power, and are to be enjoyed only so
long as the restrictions and conditions governing their continuance are complied with. Feldman v.
South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943).
11. 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-88 (1976), authorizing the imposition of restrictions to
permits, provides:
Any stipulation and/or agreement which is voluntarily entered
into by an applicant in writing for a beer and wine permit between
the applicant and the South Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control
Commission, if accepted by the Commission, will be incorporated
into the basic requirements for the enjoyment and privilege of
obtaining and retaining the beer and wine permit and which shall
have the same effect as any and all laws and any and all other
regulations pertaining to the effective administration of beer and
wine permittee.
In the event that evidence is presented to this Commission that
any part of the stipulation or agreement is or has been knowingly
broken by the permittee will be a violation against the permit and
shall constitute sufficient grounds to suspend or revoke said beer
and wine permit.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the off-premises beer and wine permit at 644 Rock Hill Highway,
Lancaster, South Carolina, is granted upon the applicant signing a written agreement to be filed
with DOR to adhere to the stipulations previously set forth herein and the following restrictions:
1. Ronald A. Lloyd may not have any partnership or other ownership interest in
Lloyd's Quick Stop or participate in the management or day to day operation of Lloyd's Quick
Stop. Further, he may not serve as an employee or agent of the applicant in any capacity, paid or
otherwise, as it relates to the permitted premises.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a violation of any of the above stated stipulations or
restrictions is considered a violation against the permit and license and may result in a fine,
suspension, or revocation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Department of Revenue and Taxation issue an
off-premises beer and wine permit upon the payment of the required fee(s) and cost(s) by the
applicant.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Edgar A. Brown Building
1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
May 30, 1995 |
