ORDERS:
CONSENT ORDER
This matter was initiated by a citation issued by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division against Respondent on
August 31, 1997, for violations of
S.C. Code Ann. Section 61-4-580(5) (Supp. 1998), "Permitting a criminal act by employing an individual under the age of
twenty-one as a bartender," and 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regulation 7-86 (1976), "Sale of beer during restricted hours." A Final
Department Determination was issued sustaining the imposition of these violations and imposing a forty-five day suspension
against Respondent's license. Respondent appealed the matter and it was transmitted to the Administrative Law Judge
Division ("Division").
At the hearing on August 5, 1999, on the record, the parties entered into an agreement resolving the matter. That
agreement is incorporated in this Order.
The agreement between the parties is as follows:
1. For the violation on August 31, 1997 of Regulation 7-86, "sale of beer during restricted hours," Respondent agrees to
serve a thirty day suspension of its beer and wine permit, such suspension to begin on December 1, 1999, and end on the
thirtieth day thereafter. Respondent will surrender its permit to Department for service of the suspension.
2. Respondent further admits that on May 17, 1998, SLED issued citations to it for violations of the alcohol licensing
provisions of Title 61, specifically, "permitting purchase of beer by a person under twenty-one," 23 S.C. Code Ann. Reg. 7-9(b) (1976). Respondent admits these violations occurred and that on May 17, 1998, its bartender permited three males
under the age of twenty-one to purchase beer on its licensed premises. Although Respondent will contest the penalty sought
by the Department on this latter violation, it does not dispute that it did, in fact, commit such violation, by its employee's
failure to request identification from the three individuals under the age of twenty-one. (This violation of May 17, 1998, is
identified as SLED case No. 54-98-0541).
3. In consideration of the above the Department will not pursue the remaining violation of August 31, 1997.
I find this agreement to be fair and equitable, approve such agreement, and hereby Order its adoption. This court retains
continuing jurisdiction to enforce this Order. As Respondent no longer requires a hearing on this matter, I also Order this
matter Dismissed with Prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Honorable Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
September 3, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina
WE SO CONSENT:
By:
Carol I. McMahan
Attorney for Petitioner
By:______________________________
James H. Harrison
Attorney for Respondent
By:
Gaines W. Smith
Attorney for Respondent |
