ORDERS:
ORDER
This matter comes before me upon Respondent's Motion To Stay and Reconsider the
Order and Decision of this Court in the above-captioned case, dated April 24, 1995, in which
Respondent's business sale and consumption license and beer and wine permit were suspended for
fifteen (15) days and Respondent was fined $1,000 for two violations of alcoholic beverage laws.
Pursuant to ALJD Rule 29(D), Respondent's Motion to Stay was granted by Order of this Court
dated May 9, 1995, pending a hearing and decision on the Motion to Reconsider. Respondent
served four (4) of the fifteen (15) days suspension prior to the stay being granted.
Pursuant to ALJD Rule 29(C), a hearing was conducted on June 2, 1995, on the Motion
to Reconsider the fifteen (15) day suspension for the violation of allowing consumption of liquor
during restricted hours.. Respondent argued that, while within the legally authorized range for the
violation, the assessed penalty was arbitrary and excessive in light of: (1) past penalties assessed
by the ABC Commission or the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation ("DOR")
for the same violation in previous cases; (2) the manner in which the suspension was carried out
prior to the stay being granted; and (3) other mitigating factors. Respondent submitted
information gathered from DOR files indicating that $200 was the usual penalty assessed for a
violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 61-5-20(4) (Supp. 1994).
DOR argued that the penalty assessed was not excessive because it was within the
statutorily allowed range and less severe than revocation which was the sanction sought by DOR
at the hearing on the merits. Further, DOR asserted that information relating to penalties assessed
in other cases involving other parties is irrelevant and immaterial.
It is the opinion of this Court after careful consideration of the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the violations, including the $1,000 fine imposed for the violation of
S.C. Code Ann. § 61-5-410(5), the manner in which the suspension was served and the partial
service of ordered suspension, that amendment of the penalty is warranted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the terms of this Court's Order dated April 24,
1995, relating to the suspension of Respondent's business sale and consumption license and beer
and wine permit for violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 61-5-20(4) shall be amended as follows:
Respondent shall pay a fine in the amount of Seven Hundred
Dollars ($700) and Respondent's business sale and consumption
license and beer and wine permit is suspended for a period of
four days, said suspension having been served. Failure of
Respondent to pay the assessed fine within fifteen (15) days
of service of this Order shall result in suspension of Respondent's
business sale and consumption license and beer and wine permit
for a total of fifteen (15) days, of which four (4) days have been
served. During the period of suspension, Respondent is ordered
to cease a desist all beer, wine, and minibottle sales.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all findings of fact, conclusions of law, and all other
penalties imposed in the April 24, 1995 Order and Decision in this matter remain in force and
effect.
_______________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
June ___, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina |
