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 30,
1996. I find the Respondent guilty of violating Regulation 7-9(b) and impose an $800 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 on-premise beer and wine permit for Parrot
Bar & Grill at 1005 Withers Drive North, Mrytle Beach, South
Carolina.
4. SLED Agent Williamson entered Parrot Bar & Grill (Parrot's) on
January 31, 1996, and found Avery Dalessandro, an individual under
the age of twenty-one (21), in possession of beer. Mr. Dalessandro sat
in clear view of the employees of Parrot's with a pitcher of beer.
Agent Williamson watched Mr. Dalessandro pour beer into a cup and
drink the beer. After Agent Williamson confronted Mr. Dalessandro
he produced a S.C. Drivers License that stated his birth date was
August 17, 1976.
5. Since the Respondent has held this permit for Parrot's, the business
has been cited by SLED on previous occasions for permitting the
possession or consumption of beer/wine by a person under the age of
twenty-one(21). As recent as January 24, 1996, the Respondent was
given a warning for permitting the possession of a beer by a minor.
6. The Respondent permitted and knowingly allowed Mr. Dalessandro
to possess beer at his establishment.
7. The Respondent contends that this violation was punitively written. I
find the evidence fails to support his contention.
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:
That the Respondent pay a monetary penalty of $800 to the South Carolina Department of
Revenue within ten (10) days of service of this Order for the offense of permitting the possession of
beer by a person under the age of 21 years.
______________________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
September 5, 1996
Columbia, South Carolina |
