ORDERS:
FINAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
This matter comes before me upon request for a Hearing by the Respondents after being cited
for violating S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A)(Supp. 1996). The South Carolina Department of
Revenue ("Department") contends that the Respondents operated more than five (5) video poker
machines in a "single place or premises." This matter was set for a contested case hearing on
February 10, 1998 at 9:30 a.m.. Counsel for both parties were notified of the date, time, and place
of the hearing in this matter by a Notice of Hearing mailed by my office on November 14, 1997.
Neither counsel for the Respondents or the Respondents themselves appeared at the designated time
and place. Furthermore, Respondents at no time contacted the court to request a continuance or to
inform the court that they would not appear at the hearing on this matter. After waiting until ten
minutes beyond the scheduled time of the hearing for Respondents to make an appearance, the
hearing was commenced in the Respondents' absence.
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. Legal notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the Hearing was given to the
Petitioner and the Respondents.
2. The Department's agents conducted an inspection at the "Coastal Mart" located at 1609
Leesburg Road, Columbia, South Carolina on August 29, 1996. After the inspection, the
Department's agents issued a violation report charging the Respondents with operating in violation
of S.C. Code Regs. § 117-190 (Supp. 1996) by not having "at least one separate employee on the
premises during business hours."
3. The Respondents' location was a convenience store with two rooms to the side of the store.
Those two rooms, Coastal Mart Rooms 1 and 2, are operated as video game businesses. At the time
of the inspection, both of the game rooms were open and the machines in these rooms were on and
operational. Each game room contained five (5) Class III video game machines.
4. The only employee on the premises of Coastal Mart was one cashier located at the cash
register in the convenience store of the location. There were no employees located on the premises
of Room 1 or 2.
5. The above game rooms had a retail sales tax license issued to Nasib, Inc. Nasib is a
corporation whose stockholders are Dinish Bavishi, Bert Patel, Sam Patel, and Janak Naik. The Class
III machine licenses were all purchased by Great Games, Inc. The following Class III video game
machine licenses were located in the respective game rooms:
Room 1: Room 2:
44616 44599
44618 44604
44619 44624
44628 44671
44637 44703
6. I find the Respondent Nasib, Inc., d/b/a Coastal Mart Rooms 1 and 2, was in violation of the
Video Game Machines Act for failing to have at least one separate employee on each of the game
room premises during business hours.
7. The Department seeks the imposition of a Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollar fine against
each of the Respondents, revocation of the machine permits and the restriction that no permit be
issued for the Respondents' location for six months. The Respondents Danish Bavishi, Bert Patel,
Sam Patel, and Janak Naik did not appear at the hearing to present any defense. I find that the
appropriate penalty in this case is a Two Thousand Five Hundred ($2,500.00) Dollar fine for each
violation against Nasib, Inc. and revocation of the machine licenses in game rooms 1 and 2.
8. I find that the previous findings of fact made in Department of Revenue v. Great Games, and
Dinish Bavishi, Bert Patel, Sam Patel, and Janak Naik, a partnership, d/b/a Coastal Mart, Docket No.
97-ALJ-17-0001-CC are relevant for consideration in this decision. See, Freeman v. McBee, 280
S.C. 490, 313 S.E.2d 325 (Ct. App. 1984) ("A court can take judicial notice of its own records, files,
and proceedings for all proper purposes including facts established in its records"). That case reflects
that on June 14, 1996 the Respondents were cited for failing to have employees in the game rooms
at the same location involved in this case. Therefore, since the Respondent Great Games was on
notice that the Coastal Mart was operating without employees in its game rooms where Great
Games' machines were located, I find that the appropriate penalty in this case is a One Thousand
($1,000.00) Dollar fine for each violation against Great Games.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
1. The Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to S.C.
Code Ann. § 12-4-30(D) (Supp. 1996) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-320 (Supp. 1996).
2. The Department contends that the Respondents violated S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A)(Supp. 1996). That section provides:
After July 1, 1994, the commission [Department] may not issue nor authorize to be
maintained any licenses or permits for more than five machines authorized under
Section 12-21-2720(A)(3) at a single place or premises.
3. Machines licensed under Section 12-21-2720(A)(3) include video games with a free play
feature operated by a slot in which a coin or thing of value is deposited. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720 (Supp. 1996).
4. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996) states that the penalty for failing to comply
with the maximum number of machines in a "single place or premises" is the revocation of the
licenses of machines located in the establishment.
5. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(F) (Supp. 1996) states that a person who violates Section 12-21-2804(A) may be fined up to Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars.
6. The Video Game Machines Act ("Act") does not define the term "single place or premises."
7. The Department contends that the Respondents violated S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A)(Supp. 1996). Section 2804(A) prohibits the operation of more than five video game
machines authorized under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) at a "single place or premises."
However, the Video Game Machines Act does not define the term "single place or premises." On
June 23, 1995, 27 S.C. Code Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996) became effective. It defines "single place
or premises" for purposes of interpreting the Video Game Machines Act, including Section 12-21-2804(A). It provides:
A "single place" or "premises" means a structure surrounded by exterior walls or
firewalls 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.
If a structure surrounded by exterior walls has two or more areas where video game
machines are located, each surrounded by exterior walls or fire walls as defined and
required above, the Department must review all the facts and circumstances to
determine if each area in reality constitutes a single place or premise for video game
machines. 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 separate sales tax licenses? 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.
8. The Department contends that the Respondents violated Regulation 117-190 by failing to
maintain an employee in each business. Regulation 117-190 requires that each business must have
a separate employee on the premises while the business is open. The cardinal rule of statutory
interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent wherever possible. Bankers Trust
of South Carolina v. Bruce, 275 S.C. 35, 267 S.E.2d 424 (1980). "Full effect must be given to each
section of a statute, giving words their plain meaning, and, in the absence of ambiguity, words must
not be added or taken away." Hartford Accident and Indem. Co. v. Lindsay, 273 S.C. 79, 254 S.E.2d
301, 304 (S.C. 1979). Thus, the phrase "on the premise" presumptively must have meaning.
Therefore, the employees of a video poker business must be sufficiently connected to an open video
game room as to indicate that each game room that is open for business has a specific employee
assigned to work solely in that room.
9. Under Section 12-21-2804(A), a license on a video game machine must be revoked by virtue
of its misuse under the Act, regardless of whether the actual violator is the licensee, machine owner,
or lessee. However, a monetary fine under Section 12-21-2804(F) may only be imposed on the
actual person directly involved in the violation of Section 12-21-2804(A). In this case, the evidence
established that Great Games was cited for violations of the Act on June 14, 1996. However, despite
Great Games' knowledge of the Department's citation of Coastal Mart for violating the Act, Great
Games allowed its machines to remain at the location until the inspection on August 29, 1996.
Therefore, Great Games was directly involved in violating the Act.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the licenses listed in Findings of Fact paragraph 5 are revoked, and a fine
of Two Thousand Five Hundred ($2,500.00) Dollars is imposed against Nasib, Inc. for each
violation, resulting in a total fine of Five Thousand ($5,000) Dollars. Furthermore, a fine of One
Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars for each violation against Great Games, resulting in a total fine of
Two Thousand ($2,000) Dollars.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no permits shall be issued for any Class III machine to
be operated in any of the above game rooms for a period of six (6) months from the date of this
Final Decision.
___________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
February 19, 1998 |