ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
This matter comes before me upon request for a Hearing by the Respondent after being cited
for an administrative violation against his beer and wine permit. The South Carolina Department of
Revenue and Taxation (DOR) seeks a 30-day suspension of the Respondent's permit for violating 23
S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-9(b) (Supp. 1995).
A Hearing was held before the Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia on July 11,
1996. I find the Respondent guilty of violating Regulation 7-9(b) and impose a $400 fine to be paid
15 days from the date of this Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon
their credibility, taking into consideration the burden of persuasion by the Parties or Protestants, I
make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1. The court has subject matter jurisdiction of this case.
2. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the Hearing was
given to the Petitioner and the Respondent.
3. The Respondent holds an off-premise beer and wine permit for Petro
Mart Inc. at 7621 Garners Ferry Road, Columbia, South Carolina.
4. Bennett Brown, a 19-year-old student working in conjunction with the
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Alcohol Enforcement Unit
(SLED), entered the Respondent's store on January 12, 1996. Brown
then picked up a quart bottle of Budweiser beer and carried that bottle
to the cash register where Larry Cooper was working as the checkout
clerk. Mr. Cooper did not checked Brown's South Carolina driver's
license or ask if Brown was over 21 years of age.
5. Though Brown was 19 years of age on January 12, 1996, the
Respondent's employee sold a quart bottle of Budweiser to him.
6. SLED specifically picks individuals who are youthful in appearance
for undercover work to attempt to purchase beer or wine. Bennett
Brown, as of the time of the Hearing, did not appear to be the age of
21 years.
7. Mr. Cooper testified that Bennett Brown had previously been in the
Respondent's store and purchased a beer with a valid ID. The
Respondent testified that he had seen Brown in the store previously
but did not see the purchase. Both Mr. Cooper and the Respondent's
testimony are not credible. I specifically find that Bennett Brown has
neither previously purchased beer at this location nor has he ever been
to this location.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1995) grants the Administrative
Law Judge Division the powers, duties and responsibilities as Hearing
Officer in contested matters governing alcohol beverages, beer and
wine.
2. Permits and licenses issued by this state for the sale of liquor, beer and
wine are not property rights. They are, rather, 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 Judge Division, being the
tribunal authorized to grant the issuance of a license, is likewise
authorized for cause to revoke or suspend the license. See, Feldman
v. S.C. Tax Commission, 203 S. C. 49, 26 S. E. 2d, 22 (1943)
3. Permitting or knowingly allowing a person under the age of 21 to
purchase or possess beer upon the license premises is a violation
against a license or a permit. Such a violation constitutes grounds for
either suspension or revocation oft the beer and wine permit. 23 S. C.
Code Ann. Regs. 7-9(B) (Supp. 1995).
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ordered:
The Respondent shall pay a $400 fine to DOR 15 days from the date of this Order
______________________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
July 29, 1996
Columbia, South Carolina |
