ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-4-30(D) and §§ 1-23-310
et seq. (Supp. 1996), upon Respondents' request for a contested case hearing after being cited by
the South Carolina Department of Revenue (DOR) for administrative violations of the Video
Game Machines Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996), and 27 S.C. Code Ann.
Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996). The primary issue for determination is whether the Respondents
failed to have at least one separate employee on each of the premises during business hours.
After notice was sent to each of the parties, a hearing on this matter was held before the
undersigned Administrative Law Judge on January 5, 1998. Based upon the relevant and
probative evidence and the applicable law, I find Respondents violated R. 117-190 and
§ 12-21-2804. The ten Class III machine licenses in the subject rooms are hereby revoked. No
machines may be operated in the game rooms for a period of six (6) months, and a fine of Four
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500) is imposed upon Casino Games, Inc.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I find the following by a preponderance of the:
1. The Administrative Law Judge Division has personal and subject matter
jurisdiction in this case.
2. Notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of the hearing was given to
Respondents and DOR.
3. On June 14, 1996, DOR Agents David Dean and Nancy Carter conducted an
inspection of 11 North Ocean Boulevard, Surfside Beach, South Carolina.
4. The location is a mall-type arrangement with two video game rooms and a
common area.
5. One employee was located in the common area.
6. Both game rooms were open and the machines available for play. Each game
room contained five Class III video game machines.
7. No employees were present in either game room.
8. The following video game machine licenses were affixed to machines located in
the respective game rooms.
Pierview: 041484, 041478, 041481, 041480, 3808615
Beachcomber: 041479, 041483, 041477, 041482, 3808614
9. Respondent J.M. Brown Amusements Co., Inc. was the machine licensee for all
ten game machines.
10. Respondent J.M. Brown Amusements Co., Inc. maintained no control,
management or supervision of the location or the employees.
11. Respondent Casino Games, Inc. held a retail license (Lic. No. 026-410027) for
the Pierview game room.
12. Respondent Casino Games, Inc. held a retail license (Lic. No. 026-41001-8) for
the Beachcomber game room.
13. Casino Games, Inc. is the retail operator of Pierview and Beachcomber game
rooms, with exclusive management, control and supervision of the location and the employees.
14. The Regulatory Violation and Proposed Assessment Report was left by Agents
Dean and Carter with Hannah Jacobs, an employee of Casino Games, Inc., at approximately
10:45 a.m., citing J.M. Brown Amusements Co., Inc. with a violation of § 12-21-2804(A) and
R. 117-190 for failing to have an employee on a single place or premises.
15. The Final Agency Determination citing J.M. Brown Amusements Co., Inc. and
Casino Games, Inc. with a violation of §12-21-2804(A) was issued on April 15, 1997. The
Final Agency Determination sought a $5,000 fine from each Respondent, revocation of ten
machine licenses and asked that no licenses be issued at the location for a period of six months.
16. On April 22, 1997, Respondents requested a contested case hearing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law the following:
The Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction to hear and decide this
matter pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-4-30(D) (Supp. 1996) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-320
(Supp. 1996).
The Video Game Machines Act (Act) which regulates video game machine
activity in South Carolina was enacted in 1993, became effective on July 1, 1993, and is
codified at S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-21-2770, et seq. (Supp. 1996). The purpose of the Act is to
regulate the video game machines industry and to prevent large scale casino-type gambling
operations in the State of South Carolina. See Reyelt v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 6:93-1491-3 and
6:93-1493-3 (U.S. Dist. Ct., Greenville, S.C., Nov. 15, 1993); see also 94-4 Op. Att'y Gen. 21
(1994).
S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) prohibits a person from applying for, receiving,
maintaining, or permitting to be used permits for the operation of more than five Class III
machines at a single place or premises.
27 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996), promulgated by DOR, clarifies
the meaning of the phrase "single place or premises" as set forth in § 12-21-2804(A). The
regulation provides in relevant part (emphasis added):
A "single place" or "premises" means a structure surrounded by
exterior walls or fire walls consistent with the requirements of the
applicable building code (or where no building code is applicable,
a one hour rated firewall), provided such exterior walls and fire
walls may not have any windows, doors or other openings leading
to another area where video game machines are located.
. . . .
In determining whether each entity is in fact a single place or
premises, the Department of Revenue will consider the following
factors:
(1) Does each entity or business have a separate electric utility
meter?
(2) Does each entity or business have at least one separate employee on the premises during business hours?
(3) Does each entity or business have a separate local business
license where required?
(4) Does each entity or business have a separate state sales tax
license?
A positive answer to these four questions is required for each area
to be considered a "single place or premise" for purposes of the
Video Game Machines Act.
5. In construing statutes, the language used should be given its plain and ordinary
meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation.
Home Health Serv., Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Comm'n, 312 S.C. 324, 440 S.E.2d 375 (1994).
Where terms of a statute are clear and unambiguous, they must be applied according to their
literal meaning. Medlock v. 1985 Ford F-150 Pick Up, 308 S.C. 68, 417 S.E.2d 85 (1992).
"[A] statute should be so construed that no word, clause, sentence, provision or part shall be
rendered surplusage, or superfluous . . . ." 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 346 (1953); See also Savannah
Bank & Trust Co. of Savannah v. Shuman, 250 S.C. 344, 157 S.E.2d 864 (1967).
6. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996) expressly authorizes DOR to
enforce the provisions of this section and also provides that the penalty for exceeding the
maximum number of video game machines permitted in a single place or premises requires the
revocation of the licenses of machines located in the establishment.
7. The trier of fact must weigh and pass upon the credibility of evidence presented.
See S.C. Cable Television Ass'n v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., 308 S.C. 216, 417 S.E.2d
586 (1992). The trial judge who observes a witness is in the best position to judge the witness's
demeanor and veracity and evaluate their testimony. See McAlister v. Patterson, 278 S.C. 481,
299 S.E.2d 322 (1982); Mann v. Walker, 285 S.C. 194, 328 S.E.2d (Ct. App. 1985).
8. Respondent Casino Games, Inc. failed to have "one separate employee" in
Pierview during business hours, in violation of the requirement set forth in R. 117-190.
9. Respondent Casino Games, Inc. failed to have "one separate employee" in
Beachcomber during business hours, in violation of the requirement set forth in R. 117-190.
10. Failing to satisfy one requirement is a sufficient ground constituting a violation
of the single place or premises requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996).
11. Respondent Casino Games, Inc. violated S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804 by
operating video machines in two locations which fail to meet all requirements of the "single
place or premises" criteria set forth in 27 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996).
12. Respondent J.M. Brown Amusements Co., Inc. did not violate the statute or
regulations because the J.M. Brown Amusements Co., Inc. exercised no management, control or
supervision of the location or the employees.
13. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996) further provides: "No license
may be issued for a machine in an establishment in which a license has been revoked for a
period of six months from the date of revocation."
14. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(F) (Supp. 1996) provides that a person who
violates S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) is subject to a fine of up to $5,000.
15. Under the facts of this case, a $4,500 fine, revocation of the ten machine licenses
and a six-month prohibition on the use of machine licenses on the premises is reasonable.
16. Pursuant to ALJD Rule 29(B), any issues or motions raised at the hearing but not
addressed in this Order are deemed denied.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Respondent Casino Games, Inc. shall pay a fine in the amount of Four
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500) to DOR within fifteen (15) days of the date of this
order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ten (10) Class III video machine licenses in
game rooms Pierview and Beachcomber are revoked.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no video game machine licenses shall be utilized at
Respondents' place of business for a period of six (6) months from the date of revocation of the
licenses.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
February 19, 1998
Columbia, South Carolina |