ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division on citations issued by the South
Carolina Department of Revenue ("Department") against William B. Ward, III, President and
Sand Pipers, d/b/a Sand Pipers, located at 4883 Hwy. 17 Bypass, Murrells Inlet, South Carolina,
for administrative violations of S.C. Regs. 7-9(B) by permitting the possession/consumption of
beer by a person under twenty-one (21) years of age and S.C. Regs. 7-17(J) by permitting the
consumption of an alcoholic beverage on the licensed premises by a nonmember. For the alleged
violations, the Department seeks a monetary penalty of $900 ($500 for possession/consumption
nonmember and $400 for person under the age of twenty-one). After notice to the parties, a
hearing was conducted on January 10, 1997.
Based upon the evidence presented, the Respondent violated the regulations cited. Any issues
raised in the proceedings or hearing of this case and not specifically addressed in this Order are
deemed denied. ALJD Rule 29(B).
FINDINGS OF FACT
I make the following findings of fact, taking into consideration the burden on the parties to
establish their cases by a preponderance of the evidence and taking into account the credibility of
the witnesses:
1. The Division has personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
2. William B. Ward, III, as President of Sand Pipers, a non-profit organization, holds a private
sales and consumption license and beer and wine permit for the location at 4883 Hwy. 17 Bypass,
Murrells Inlet, South Carolina.
3. On Friday, January 26, 1996, Ryan Neill, an agent from the South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division ("SLED") entered the licensed premises. Agent Neill is not a member of the club nor
was he a guest of a member. The doorman on duty checked the agent's identification and allowed
Agent Neill to enter the premises. Neill was never asked if he was a member or a guest of a
member. The doorman did not check the membership roster to determine if his name was on it.
4. Upon entering the location, Neill saw about 50-75 people inside. There are two bars; a large
one in the front next to the dance floor and staging area and a smaller one in the rear near the
game machines and rest rooms.
5. Agent Neill went to the first bar and purchased a mixed alcoholic drink (Crown Royal and
Coca-cola) from the bartender and drank a small portion. The bartender did not request any form
of identification from Agent Neill or inquire about his membership status.
6. While sitting at the bar, Agent Neill observed two females seated at a table in the rear bar area.
The females were in possession of alcoholic beverages and appeared to be under the age of
twenty-one (21).
7. Two other SLED agents, Rhett Holden and Lonnie Roberts, entered the location and identified
themselves as SLED agents to the doorman who allowed them to enter. They then located Agent
Neill.
8. Agent Neill pointed out the females whom he believed were underage to Holden and Roberts.
The agents approached the table where the females were seated and requested identification of
everyone at the table. One female was charged with possession of beer and wine by a person
under the age of twenty-one (21); and the other one was charged with possession of liquor by a
person under the age of twenty-one (21).
9. The two (2) violations written against William B. Ward, III, on January 26, 1996.
Subsequently, the Department received an "application for change" of corporate officer on behalf
of Sand Pipers. The license holder on behalf of Sand Pipers was changed to Charles Curran.
10. At the time of the violations, Mr. Ward was the responsible license holder on behalf of Sand
Piper.
11. Ward and Sand Pipers have a prior administrative violation for this location for permitting
consumption of liquor by a non-member on July 15, 1995 for which a $200 fine was paid.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
1. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1995) and Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the 1976
Code, as amended, the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction in this
matter.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-5-20 establishes when the consumption of alcoholic beverages is lawful
and, therefore, by the inverse, when it is not. Subsection (3) permits service of alcoholic liquor by
the kind a non-profit organizations serves to only members and their guest on the premises.
3. Sand Pipers operates as a non-profit organization with limited membership, not open to the
general public, serving alcoholic beverages to its members and their guest pursuant to S.C. Code
Ann. § 61-5-20(3) (Supp. 1995).
4. S.C. Code Regs. 7-17(J) provides that "[o]nly bona fide members and bona fide guests of
members of [a private club] may consume alcoholic beverages sold in [minibottles] upon the
licensed premises."
5. The bartender sold alcoholic beverages to a person who was not a bona fide member or a guest
of a member.
6. Where a violation of liquor laws is committed by an agent or servant, with knowledge and
consent of the principal or master, or in pursuance of his express command, or of a general
authority to the agent or servant, the principal or master is liable. 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors
§ 276 (1981). The bartender acted within his general authority and in furtherance of his
principal's business, when he sold the drink to the agent.
7. Liquor licenses are neither contracts nor property rights. They are mere permits, issued or
granted in the exercise of the State's police power and to be enjoyed only so long as the
restrictions and conditions governing their continuance are complied with. The tribunal
authorized to grant the issuance of a license is likewise authorized, for cause, to revoke it.
Feldman v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943).
8. The former Tax Commission in Commission Decision 95-20 (January 23, 1995) held that
violations written on the same day should be construed as one violation for purposes of imposing
a penalty under S.C. Code Ann. § 61-5-110 (Supp. 1995). Therefore, the citations issued on
January 26, 1996 which arise out of a single transaction shall be treated as one violation for
purposes of the penalty.
9. For the second offense of a provision of Article 2, Chapter 5, Title 61, within three years of the
first offense, a person shall be fined not less than two hundred dollars nor more than $500 or have
his license suspended for not more than 180 days, or both pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-5-110
(Supp. 1995).
10. The citation was properly issued by the Department and constitutes the second violation of
the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act and regulations promulgated. Pursuant to the law, the
monetary penalty of $500 is appropriate.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Sand Pipers and William B.
Ward, III, violated the provisions of S.C. Code Regs. 7-17(J) and S.C. Code Ann. § 61-5-20
(Supp. 1995) on January 26, 1996. It is therefore,
ORDERED that the Respondents, William B. Ward, III, and Sand Pipers shall pay to the
Department the statutorily mandated fine of $500.00 within ten (10) days of the date of this
Order. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
February 7, 1997
Columbia, South Carolina |
