South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
SCDOR vs. Canton Restaurant Inc., d/b/a Jungle Jim

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

Respondents:
Canton Restaurant Inc., d/b/a Jungle Jim
724 Harden Street, Columbia, SC
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
01-ALJ-17-0256-CC

APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner: Leah B. Moody, Esquire

For the Respondent: Yu Sing Tam, pro se
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE



The South Carolina Department of Revenue (DOR) seeks to impose an $800 fine for a violation of the prohibition on knowingly selling beer to a person under the age of twenty-one. The Respondent opposes the fine and asserts no violation occurred since no sale was made knowingly.

This matter came before this Division for a contested case hearing on October 9, 2001, in Columbia, South Carolina.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Having carefully considered the testimony and the arguments of both sides, and taking into account the credibility of the evidence and witnesses, I find by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to all parties in a timely manner.

2. Mr. Yu Sing Tam is the business owner of Canton Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a Jungle Jims, located at 724 Harden Street, Columbia, South Carolina. Respondent Canton Restaurant holds an on-premises beer and wine permit (#BW-003947) for this location. Respondent has a previous violation against the permit. On July 5, 2000, the Respondent paid a $400.00 fine for violation of S.C. Reg. 7-86 which is the sale or delivery of beer during restricted hours.

3. On October 26, 2000, the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED)

conducted an undercover operation in the Five Points area of Columbia, South Carolina. The intent of the operation was identify and charge persons and businesses who were not following the alcohol laws of this state.

4. On October 26, 2000, there was an event underway in Five Points known as the

Carolina Bar Crawl. A patron who wished to participate in the Bar Crawl would go to a bar that was participating in the event. For a fee, the patron would receive a t-shirt, a mug and a wristband. The wristband was meant to signify that the initial bar had checked the patron's identification and that the patron was at least twenty-one years of age. As an official participant in the event, the patron could then go to a participating bar and have the mug filled with beer for $1.00.

5. On this night, Melanie Asche was working as an underage confidential information

(UCI) for SLED. She was searched by the SLED agents. She was allowed to keep her valid Maryland drivers license in her possession. SLED also provided her with $20 in cash. She went to a bar other than the Respondent's and followed the procedure set out above for becoming a participant in the Bar Crawl. (1) Later the UCI went to the Respondent's bar. She was at all times accompanied by a plain-clothed SLED agent.

6. At the Respondent's bar, she presented her mug to the bartender and requested it be

filled with beer. The bartender, Luke Trent Miller, asked for some age identification. The UCI presented her Maryland drivers license. Her drivers license indicated her date of birth as 09-20-81. The license also contained a small statement under the picture - "UNDER 21 ALCOHOL RESTRICTED." Mr. Miller filled the mug with beer. The UCI and the SLED agent then went to the restroom and pour a sample of the liquid into a small evidence container. The evidence bottle was present at the hearing.

7. Mr. Miller was then charged with a criminal violation of transferring beer to a person

under the age of twenty-one. The Respondent was charged with an administrative violation of permitting the purchase of beer by a person under the age of twenty-one.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:

1. S.C. Code Ann. §1-23-600 (Supp.2000) grants jurisdiction to the Division to hear

contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act. S.C. Code Ann. §61-2-260 (Supp.2000) grants the Division the authority to hear contested case hearings in matters governing alcoholic beverages, beer, and wine.

2. Any holder of a permit or employee of the permit holder who knowingly sells beer

or wine to a person under twenty-one years of age creates a ground for a penalty or suspension of the holder's permit. S.C. Code Ann.§61-4-580(1)(Supp.2000); S.C. Code Regs. 7-9 (B) (Supp.2000).

3. The term knowingly is defined by case law in South Carolina.

Within the meaning of the term, "knowingly," as used in this statute, 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 that 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. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943). The Respondent claims that the bartender did not knowingly sell to a minor because the UCI was wearing a wristband and he had no reason to believe that she was under twenty-one years of age.

4. However, in this case that issue need not be reached. In this instance the bartender

did not rely on the wristband. The bartender here either did suspect the UCI was underage or was doing as he was trained and checked the identification of the UCI. The Maryland drivers license showed that on the date of this violation she was nineteen years of age. Mr. Miller claims he misread the license and did not intentionally give the beer to a minor. Nevertheless, he had the information from a very reliable document in front of him to show him that she was not twenty-one years old. Therefore, the bartender "knowingly" delivered the mug of beer to her.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:

ORDERED that the Respondent pay a monetary fine in the amount of Eight Hundred dollars ($800) to the Department of Revenue within thirty days of the date of this order.







AND IT IS SO ORDERED.



___________________________________

CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS

Administrative Law Judge



November 19, 2001

Columbia, South Carolina.

1. It is unclear how the UCI initially received the wristband, t-shirt and mug and whether another bar was charged with violation of the law for issuing a minor these items.


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court