ORDERS:
ORDER and DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before me upon a request for a hearing by the Respondent pursuant to an
administrative violation written against his beer and wine permit. A citation was issued to the
Respondent for violation of S.C. Code Regs. 7-9(B)(Supp. 1994), for permitting a person under
the age of twenty-one (21) years of age to purchase a beer at his licensed establishment at 927
East Main Street, Chesterfield, South Carolina.
The South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation ("Respondent" or "Department") seeks
a thirty (30) day suspension of Respondent's beer and wine permit at this location.
A hearing was held at the Administrative Law Judge Division hearing room on October 9, 1995,
pursuant to notice. I find that the Respondent committed the violation and assess a monetary
penalty of three hundred dollars ($300.00).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the witnesses and closely passed upon their credibility, taking into consideration
the burden of persuasion of the parties, I make the following findings by a preponderance of the
evidence:
1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case.
2. The Respondent holds an off-premise beer and wine permit for the Stroud and Save store at
927 East Main Street, Chesterfield, South Carolina.
3. Notice of the date, time, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to the parties.
4. On April 22, 1995, State Law Enforcement Division ("SLED") agent Lunella Williams went to
Respondent's location, Stroud and Save, located at 927 East Main Street, Chesterfield, South
Carolina with an Underage Cooperating Individual ("UCI"), Rogerick D. Thomas. At the time of
the incident, Mr. Thomas was sixteen (16) years of age; at the hearing he was seventeen (17)
years of age.
5. Mr. Thomas entered the Respondent's store with a valid South Carolina Drivers License, which
reflected his actual age, and two dollars ($2.00) cash. He then presented his license to the clerk,
Pamela Sellers, and purchased a beer. He then left the store with the beer and informed SLED
agent Williams of the transaction, showing her the beer and the change he received from the
purchase.
6. Pamela Sellers, a part-time employee of the Respondent, acknowledged working at the store on
April 22, 1995, and selling the beer to Mr. Thomas. However, she stated she did check the
identification of the UCI, and due to heavy activity in the store, misread the age on the license.
7. The Department contends the Respondent's beer and wine permit should be suspended for
thirty (30) days. No evidence was placed in the record impugning the integrity, credibility, or
morality of the Respondent. Respondent stipulated to 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. 1994) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative Law Judge
Division to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1994) grants to the Administrative Law Judge Division the
powers, duties and responsibilities as a hearing officer in protested and contested matters
governing alcoholic beverages, beer and wine.
3. S.C. Code Regs. 7-9(B)(Supp. 1994) prohibits a permittee from permitting or knowingly
allowing a person under twenty-one years of age to purchase or possess beer upon the licensed
premises. Such an act is a violation against the permit and constitutes grounds for suspension or
revocation of the beer and wine permit.
4. Black's Law Dictionary defines "permit" as: "(1) To suffer, allow, consent, let; (2) to give leave
or license; (3) to acquiesce, by failure to prevent, or to expressly assent or agree to the doing of
an act." Black's Law Dictionary 1140 (6th ed. 1990).
5. The evidence in the record, as stipulated to by Respondent, clearly shows that the permittee,
through his employee, permitted the sale of beer to a person under twenty-one years of age.
Permittee's employee did not carefully review the drivers license of the UCI despite the fact that
he was youthful in appearance.
6. Permits and licenses issued by the State for sale of liquor, beer, and wine are not rights or
property, but are rather privileges granted in the exercise of the police power of the State to be
used and enjoyed only so long as the restrictions and conditions governing them are complied
with. The Administrative Law Judge Division, being the tribunal authorized to grant the issuance
of a permit is likewise authorized for cause to revoke or suspend the permit. See Feldman v. S.C.
Tax Comm'n, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943).
7. Accordingly, based upon the evidence and stipulation of the Respondent, I conclude that the
permittee and/or his agent for whose action he is responsible violated S.C. Code Regs.
7-9(B)(Supp. 1994) on April 22, 1995, by selling beer to a person under twenty-one years of age.
8. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-13-510 (Supp.1994) authorizes, for any violation of any regulation
promulgated by the Department pertaining to beer and wine, in lieu of a suspension or revocation
of the beer and wine permit, the imposition of a monetary penalty not less than twenty-five dollars
($25.00) and nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00).
9. Based upon the evidence and considering the sincerity and credibility of both the Respondent
and his employee, I conclude that a monetary penalty in the amount of three hundred dollars
($300.00) shall be imposed upon the Respondent in lieu of suspension or revocation of the permit.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Respondent, John F. Stroud, shall pay a monetary penalty in the amount of three
hundred dollars ($300.00), within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order, for violation of S.C.
Code Regs. 7-9(B)(Supp.1994) as enumerated above. If the Petitioner does not receive a total of
$300.00 from John F. Stroud within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order, it is Ordered
that the beer and wine permit be suspended for a period of fifteen (15) days. If the Petitioner
does not receive the funds as stated, any agent of the State Law Enforcement Division shall serve
a copy of this Order on Respondent and shall take possession of the beer and wine permit issued
to John F. Stroud, d/b/a Stroud and Save, 927 East Main Street, Chesterfield, South Carolina.
Said agent shall hold the permit for fifteen (15) days. Upon expiration of the fifteen (15) day
suspension, said agent shall return the permit to Respondent. During the period of this
suspension, Respondent is ordered to post of copy of this Order at a visible location at his place
of business, and to cease and desist all sales of beer and wine.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________________
Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
October 11, 1995
|
