ORDERS:
FINAL 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 an $800 fine against the Respondent for violating 23 S.C.
Code Ann. Regs. 7-9 (b) (Supp. 1997).
A Hearing was held before the Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia on April
9, 1998. 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, I make the
following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1. 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 the
Shady Oaks in Hardeeville, South Carolina.
4. SLED Agent Neill entered the Shady Oaks on January 19, 1997, and
found Kevin Bartholomew in possession of beer during restricted
hours. Mr. Bartholomew, an individual under the age of twenty-one
(21), was leaning against the bar holding a beer in a clear plastic cup
in clear view of the Respondent, Ms. Lee. Agent Neill had Mr.
Bartholomew escorted into the parking area by a Jasper County
Sheriff Deputy. There it was determined that Mr. Bartholomew was
a resident of Florida. Since Mr. Bartholomew was not a resident of
South Carolina, he was carried to the Jasper Count Jail to be formally
charged.
5. After Agent Neill finished his duties at the Shady Oaks, he returned
to Jasper County Jail to formally charge Mr. Bartholomew for
possession of beer during restricted hours. At the jail Agent Neill
observed that Mr. Bartholomew appeared to be under the age of
twenty (21). Mr. Bartholomew admitted and his drivers license
verified that he was twenty (20) years old.
6. Since the Respondent has held this permit for the Shady Oaks, the
business has been previously cited within the last three years for
selling beer or wine during restricted hours.
7. The Respondent permitted and knowingly allowed Mr.Bartholomew
to possess beer at her establishment.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 1996) grants the Administrative
Law Judge Division the responsibilities to determine contested
matters governing alcoholic 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 off the beer and wine permit. 23 S.
C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-9(B) (Supp. 1997).
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
April 20, 1998
Columbia, South Carolina |
