ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 1996) and
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. (1986 & Supp. 1996), upon request for a contested case
hearing by Respondent. Respondent was cited with an administrative violation of 23 S.C. Code
Ann. Regs. 7-9(B) (Supp. 1996), for allegedly permitting or knowingly allowing the purchase of
beer by a person under twenty-one (21) years of age on April 6, 1997. The South Carolina
Department of Revenue (DOR) seeks a 45-day permit suspension for the alleged violation.
Respondent denies the allegations. A contested case hearing on the merits was held in Columbia,
South Carolina, on December 1, 1997. Upon review of the relevant and probative evidence and
the applicable law, I find and conclude Respondent did not commit an administrative violation of
23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-9(B) (Supp. 1996).
FINDINGS OF FACT
By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:
The ALJD has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this case.
Notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of the hearing was given to
Respondent and DOR.
Respondent holds an on-premises beer and wine permit (BW 947219) for a
restaurant and bar known as Fat Tuesday, located at Broadway at the Beach, 1318 Celebrity
Square, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
Fat Tuesday has a corporate policy that all patrons which appear to be under the
age of thirty are required to show proof of age to purchase beer, wine, or liquor.
On or about April 6, 1997, at approximately 1:15 a.m., Scott Brown, assistant
manager of Fat Tuesday, was serving as doorman on duty when Bart M. Quincannon entered the
premises of Fat Tuesday.
Brown did not require Quincannon to display identification when he entered
because Brown was acquainted with Quincannon as a frequent patron of Fat Tuesday and Brown
had checked Quincannon's identification several months previous to April 6, 1997.
On the previous occasions when Quincannon had been requested to show proof of
age, Quincannon showed a valid driver's license with a photograph with his likeness which
indicated that he was age twenty-one or older.
Quincannon was an employee at another restaurant at Broadway at the Beach and
regularly patronized Fat Tuesday after he finished work.
Over a period of approximately two years, Quincannon consistently held himself
out to be over the age of twenty-one to employees of Fat Tuesday.
Employees of Fat Tuesday reasonably relied on the identification presented by
Quincannon on several occasions in forming the belief that he was of legal drinking age.
After Brown and other employees of Fat Tuesday became acquainted with and
recognized Quincannon, Quincannon was no longer required to show proof of age at Fat
Tuesday.
Brown reasonably formed the opinion based upon Quincannon's previous
representation of age that Quincannon was age twenty-one or older.
On April 6, 1997, Pam Williamson, agent of the South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division (SLED), Alcohol Enforcement Unit visited the licensed location and other licensed
locations at Broadway at the Beach.
Williamson observed Quincannon on the patio of Fat Tuesday in possession of
two twelve-ounce beers.
Williams requested identification from Quincannon to determine his age.
Quincannon presented Williamson with a driver's license (SCDL# 004228407)
indicating his name was Heath McLean King, his date of birth was April 20, 1975, and that he
was six feet, one inch tall, and weighed one hundred seventy-five pounds.
Quincannon's facial appearance closely resembled the photograph on the King
license.
Upon further inquiry, Quincannon presented his true driver's license (SCDL#
004386572) to Williamson.
Quincannon's true driver's license shows his real date of birth is July 7, 1976, his
height being six feet, and his weight one hundred and sixty pounds.
The photographs on the two licenses bear a striking resemblance to each other.
On April 6, 1997, Quincannon was twenty years and ten months of age.
Williamson issued a violation report to Respondent for permitting possession of
beer by a person under twenty-one.
Williamson issued a criminal citation to Quincannon for carrying and using a false
form of identification.
Respondent, nor his agents, did not knowingly allow the purchase or possession
of beer by a person under twenty-one years of age on April 6, 1997.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 1996) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. (1986 & Supp. 1996), the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division has
jurisdiction in this matter.
S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-9(B) (Supp. 1996) prohibits a licensee from knowingly
allowing the purchase or possession of beer by a person under the age of twenty-one on a
licensed premises. A violation constitutes grounds for suspension or revocation of the beer and
wine permit.
"Knowingly" includes, not only actual knowledge of a fact, but also situations
where a person has such information, or the circumstances are such, as would lead a prudent
person to form a belief as to the fact, and if followed by inquiry would have disclosed its
character. State v. Thompkins, 263 S.C. 472, 211 S.E.2d 549 (1975);Feldman v. South Carolina
Tax Comm'n, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E. 2d 22 (1943); Daley v. Ward, 303 S.C. 81, 399 S.E.2d 13 (Ct.
App. 1990).
A party manifests consent and knowledge in allowing a person under twenty-one
years of age to purchase beer if, from the appearance of the person or from other submission of
evidence of age, the party had sufficient information that would lead a prudent person to believe
the purchaser was under twenty-one years of age. Feldman v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 203
S.C. 49, 26 S.E. 2d 22 (1943).
The agents of the Respondent did not have actual knowledge that Quincannon was
not of legal drinking age.
The agents of the Respondent did not have sufficient information to form a belief
that Quincannon was under twenty-one years of age.
The circumstances of the present case are not such as would lead a prudent person
to form the belief that Quincannon was under twenty-one years of age, nor would further inquiry
have likely disclosed Quincannon's true age.
Fat Tuesday did not knowingly allow the purchase of beer by a person under the
age of twenty-one on April 6, 1997, in violation of S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-9(B).
Any issues raised in the proceedings or hearing of this case but not addressed in
this Final Decision are deemed denied. ALJD Rule 29(B).
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the administrative violation against the
Respondent is dismissed with prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
December 31, 1997
Columbia, South Carolina |
