ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before me pursuant to a request by the Respondents, Michael A. Kocak
("Kocak") and Carter Amusements, for a contested case hearing, pursuant to S. C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. and 12-4-30 (Supp. 1997). Respondents have appealed an administrative citation
issued by the South Carolina Department of Revenue ("Petitioner" or "Department") against them
for a violation of the South Carolina Video Game Machines Act.
The Department issued an Administrative Citation and Final Agency Determination finding
that the Respondents had violated the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) by applying
for, maintaining, and permitting to be used, permits and licenses for the operation of more than five
machines authorized under S. C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1997) at one "single place
or premises." Specifically, the Department alleges herein that the Respondents have violated both
the "one separate employee" and the "separate electric utility meter" provisions of S.C. Code Regs.
117-190 (Supp. 1996).
A hearing on this matter was held on January 29, 1998 at the Administrative Law Judge
Division ("Division") in Columbia, South Carolina.
After considering all the evidence, based upon the following Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, this court finds and concludes that the Respondent, Michael A. Kocak, d/b/a
LA Video, Best Bet Video and Video Plus violated S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) and 27 S. C.
Code Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996), by utilizing the video game machine licenses in contravention
of these laws; and, the licenses in these three game rooms shall be revoked. Further, no video game
machine licenses shall be utilized in these three rooms for a period of six (6) months from the date
of revocation of the licenses. Further, Michael A. Kocak is fined the sum of Five Thousand and
no/100 Dollars ($5,000.00) for the violations against the three game rooms.
Any issues raised in the proceedings or hearing of this case but not addressed in this Order
are deemed denied. ALJD Rule 29(B).
ISSUES
1. Did the Respondents violate the single place or premise provision of S.C. Code Ann.
§ 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1997) by failing to meet the "one separate employee" requirement of S.C.
Code Regs. 117-190?
2. Did the Respondents violate the "single place or premise" provision of S.C. Code
Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1997) by failing to have separate electric utility meters for each
"premise" as required under S.C. Code Regs. 117-190?
3. If the Respondents did violate the statutes and regulation, what are the appropriate
penalties to be imposed?
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 the evidence:
1. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was timely given to
the Petitioner and the Respondents.
2. Michael A. Kocak is the business owner and operator of a video gaming business
located at 9585 Highway 78 in Ladson, South Carolina. He holds both separate sales tax licenses
and separate business licenses for four (4) businesses operated at that address which are as follows:
(1) LA Video;
(2) Best Bet Video;
(3) Video Plus; and
(4) Super Video.
3. Mr. Kocak is a petroleum distributor and owns and operates two convenience stores
in addition to this location.
4. Carter Amusements is a sole proprietorship owned by Mr. Carlisle S. Carter, Sr. Mr.
Carter is assisted by his son, Carlisle S. Carter, Jr., in the operation of the business. The son places
video poker machines at locations, sets them up and services them.
5. Carter Amusements owned, operated, and held the South Carolina Class III Coin
Operated Devices licenses on January 22, 1997 for five video game machines operated at each of the
following:
1. L A Video (license #'s 027520, 027526, 027557, 027551, 028335);
2. Best Bet Video (license #'s 028806, 028807, 028808, 028809, 028810);
3. Video Plus (license #'s 027512, 027513, 027516, 027520, 027535.)
All fifteen of these licenses expired on May 31, 1997.
6. On January 22, 1997, at approximately 9:00 p.m., South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division ("SLED") special agents Stacey Snow and Lt. Phil Grimsley conducted an inspection of the
video gaming establishment located at 9581-B Highway 78 in Ladson, South Carolina. The location
consisted of a mall-type arrangement inside and contained four (4) video poker rooms, known as
rooms 1, 2, 3 and 4. The doors to three of the four rooms (#'s 1, 2 & 4) were open. These three
rooms or "premises" were called L A Video, Video Plus, and Best Bet Video.
7. Customers were playing the machines in rooms 1, 2 and 4 when the officers first
entered the location. Room # 3 (Super Video) was closed. Agents Snow and Grimsley went into
each of the three open rooms.
8. There were fifteen Class III licensed video poker machines in the three rooms at the
time of the inspection. All of the machines in these three rooms were turned "on" and were available
for play.
9. Only one employee, Dianne D. Roesner, was present and on the premises at the
location at the time of the inspection. She was in the commons area within the location. No
employee was within either room 1, 2 or 4. Ms. Roesner was working as a cashier for the
Respondent, Mr. Kocak, at the time of the inspection and had no supervisory obligations or duties
as a part of her employment. Further, she exercised no control over the other employees at the
location.
10. Agent Snow observed and recorded the license numbers and expiration dates of the
licenses on the fifteen machines in rooms 1, 2 and 4, as shown in the Regulatory Violation and
Proposed Assessment Report which was offered into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1.
11. There were separate electric metering devices located inside each of the four rooms
in the building. Each meter device was wired when the building was constructed. Each meter has
a digital read-out; however, they do not have moving parts or wheels which are typical of the
electrical meters located on the exterior of buildings which can be observed by the naked eye. None
of these meters inside the rooms had ever functioned satisfactorily and were not reading the
electricity usage in the rooms at the time of the inspection.
12. The main meter located on the exterior of the building was functional and operational
and was so observed by agent Snow during his inspection. It recorded the usage of electricity of the
entire operation at the location.
13. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Kocak was in the process of getting someone else from
the factory to work on the meters inside the rooms to have them function.
14. Carlisle S. Carter, Sr., the owner of Carter Amusements and his son, Mr. Carlisle S.
Carter, Jr., are aware of S. C. Code Regs. 117-190 and its requirements. However, they have no
control over or any interest in the operation or businesses owned by Mr. Kocak at the location.
15. Carter Amusements does not provide any employees at the location. Although
Carlisle S. Carter, Jr., testified that he checked on the location from time to time to ensure that it was
being operated in compliance with the law and, more particularly whether it was being operated on
Sundays, he stated that Carter Amusements had no written contract with Mr. Kocak to do so and,
that the only recourse of Carter Amusements, if it determined that the location was being operated
in violation of a statute or regulation with regard to the operation of the video game machines, would
be to remove its machines from the location.
16. Mr. Kocak testified that he knew that he had to have an employee in each separate
room at the location. Further, he testified that he keeps records on all the employees who work at
the location; however, he testified that he did not bring the records to the hearing. He was not able
to put into evidence proof of any employee other than Ms. Roesner being at the location at the time
of the inspection.
18. On the date of the inspection, Agent Snow issued a violation to the Respondents for
failure to comply with the "single place or premises" requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) and S. C. Code Regs. 117-190. The Respondents were cited for violating both the "one
separate employee" and the "separate electric utility meter" requirements of S.C. Code Regs. 117-190
(Supp. 1996).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the above 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. 1997) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-320 (Supp. 1997).
2. In civil cases, generally the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the
affirmative of an issue. 29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 127 (1994); Alex Sanders, et al., South Carolina
Trial Handbook § 9:3 Party With Burden, Civil Cases (1994). The Department is the party asserting
the affirmative in this case; therefore, the Department must prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that Respondents failed to have separate electric utility meters and failed to have an employee in each
of their respective businesses in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996) and 27
S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996). The preponderance of the evidence "is evidence which
is of the greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it .
. . ." Black's Law Dictionary 1182 (6th ed. 1990). "The preponderance of the evidence means such
evidence as, when considered and compared with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and
produces in the mind the belief that what is sought to be proved is more likely true than not true."
Sanders, supra, § 9.5 Quantum of Evidence in Civil Cases (1994), citing Frazier v. Frazier, 228 S.C.
149, 89 S.E.2d 225 (1955).
3. The Video Game Machines Act ("Act") which regulates video game machine activity
in South Carolina, was enacted in 1993 and became effective on July 1, 1993. The Act is codified
at S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-21-2770 et seq. (Supp. 1997). The expressed purpose of the Act is to
regulate the video games machine industry in South Carolina 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 1994 Op. Atty. Gen. No.
94-21 at 51.
4. The Department alleges that on January 22, 1997, Respondents violated S.C. Code
Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) and S.C. Code Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996) by applying for, maintaining, or
permitting to be used, permits for the operation of more than five machines authorized under S.C.
Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1996) at a single place or premises. § 12-21-2804(A) provides
that:
No person shall apply for, receive, maintain, or permit to be used, and
the commission shall not allow to be maintained, permits or licenses
for the operation of more than eight machines authorized under
Section 12-21-2720(a)(3) at a single place or premises for the period
beginning July 1, 1993, and ending July 1, 1994. After July 1, 1994,
the commission may not issue or authorize to be maintained any
licenses or permits for more than five machines authorized under S.C.
Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) at a single place or premises. . . .
5. On June 23, 1995, regulations were promulgated which further clarify the provisions
of the Video Game Machines Act, and, as such, these regulations have the force and effect of law.
See Young v. South Carolina Dep't of Highways and Pub. Trans., 287 S.C. 108, 336 S.E.2d 879
(1985); Faile v. South Carolina Employment Sec. Comm'n, 267 S.C. 536, 230 S.E.2d 219 (1976).
Specifically, Regulation 117-190 was promulgated to clarify the meaning of the phrase "single place
or premises" as set forth in § 12-21-2804(A). This regulation, effective June 23, 1995, provides in
relevant part:
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 firewalls
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 firewalls 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 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.
27 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996) (emphasis added).
6. Respondents first challenge the validity of 27 S.C. Code Regs. 117-190. Pursuant
to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2798 (Supp. 1996), the Department is authorized to promulgate
regulations to assist in the administration and enforcement of the Video Game Machines Act.
7. To determine if a regulation is reasonable, inquiry must be made as to whether the
regulation has a rational basis or is rationally related to the end sought to be achieved. Hunter &
Walden Co. v. S.C. State Licensing Bd. for Contractors, 272 S.C. 211, 251 S.E.2d 186 (1978). That
is, a regulation is valid as long as it is reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation.
Young v. SCDHPT, 287 S.C. 108, 336 S.E.2d 879 (Ct. App. 1985). However, a regulation which
is beyond the authorization of the agency's enabling legislation or which materially alters or adds to
the law is invalid. Society of Professional Journalists v. Sexton, 283 S.C. 563, 324 S.E.2d 313
(1984); Banks v. Batesburg Hauling Co., 202 S.C. 273, 24 S.E.2d 496 (1943). Regulation 117-190
does not lessen or enlarge the powers of the Department, but is reasonable for the enforcement of
the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A). The requirements of Regulation 117-190,
including the requirement that each business have an employee on the premises at all times during
business hours, do not constitute an impermissible alteration or addition to Section 12-21-2804(A).
Instead, the regulation clarifies the phrase "single place or premises" in order to allow for uniform
enforcement of the law. Furthermore, the regulation is reasonably related to and is designed to
further the purpose of the Video Game Machines Act.
Moreover, Regulation 117-190 has been held to be "valid and enforceable and a valid
exercise of the power of the . . . Department." McNickel's Inc. v. S.C. Dept. of Revenue, Court of
Common Pleas, Beaufort County, No. 96-CP-07-1072 (June 6, 1997); See also, AAA Entertainment
Corp., et. al. v. S.C. Dept. of Revenue, Court of Common Pleas, Beaufort County, No. 96-CP-07-1595 (June 6, 1997); William Scurry v. S.C. Dept. of Revenue, Court of Common Pleas, Beaufort
County, No. 97-CP-07-0408 (June 6, 1997). The separate employee requirement of Regulation 117-190 was specifically considered in each of these decisions and held to be a valid exercise of
legislative authority.
8. The second issue before this tribunal is whether any person, that is, Michael A. Kocak
and Carter Amusements, applied for, received, maintained, or permitted to be used permits for the
operation of more than five machines authorized under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp.
1996) at a single place or premises, in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) and 27 S.C.
Code Ann. Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996).
9. Whether an establishment is being operated as a "single place or premises" is
determined by evaluating the facts against the standard set forth in Regulation 117-190. With respect
to the "employee" requirement, Regulation 117-190 requires that each entity or business have at least
one separate employee on the premises of that respective entity or business during business hours
to comply with the "single place or premises" requirement of § 12-21-2804(A).
If a game room containing operational Class III video game machines is accessible to
customers and no employee is present in that room, the room is being operated in violation of § 12-21-2804(A). An employee working in a common area or anywhere else outside the game room is
not considered to be "on the premises" of the game room. See South Carolina Dep't of Revenue and
Taxation v. Stacks, 95-ALJ-17-0742-CC (March 8, 1996). This application is consistent with the
intent of the General Assembly to prevent large-scale casino type gambling. See Singletary v. South
Carolina Dep't of Educ., 316 S.C. 153, 447 S.E.2d 231 (Ct. App. 1994) citing State v. Thrift, 312
S.C. 282, 440 S.E.2d 341 (1994) (legislative intent must prevail if it can be reasonably discovered
and language of a statute must be construed in the light of the intended purpose of the statute).
10. The second criterion of Regs. 117-190 only requires that each separate game room have
an employee working on the premises during business hours. There is no requirement that the
employee remain within the four walls of the premises every minute he is on duty. An individual
employed to work in a specific game room from time to time may stand outside. If he continues to
observe the game room operation and remains in control of its operation, standing ready to assist in the
totality of its operation, this criterion is complied with. In interpreting this regulation, the court must
look to the purpose of the legislature in enacting § 12-21-2804(A) as a part of the Video Game
Machines Act. Our courts have held that "all rules of statutory construction are subservient to the one
that legislative intent must prevail if it can be reasonably discovered in the language used, and that
language must be construed in the light of the intended purpose." Lewis v. Gaddy, 254 S.C. 66, 71, 173
S.E.2d 376, 378 (1970). Further, the South Carolina Supreme Court has stated that "the language of
a revenue statute must not be extended beyond its clear import, the taxpayer being entitled to favorable
resolution of any substantial doubt arising therefrom." Deering Milliken, Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 257
S.C. 185, 187-88, 184 S.E.2d 711 (1971). Finally, the Court has stated the rule that "The legislature
must have intended to mean what it has plainly expressed, and consequently there is no room for
construction. . . ." Beaty v. Richardson, 56 S.C. 173, 34 S.E. 73 (1899).
11. In this case, the inspection revealed that no employee was working within the four
walls of three of the businesses (LA Video, Best Bet Video and Video Plus) at the location. No
evidence was offered to show that Ms. Roesner was hired or assigned for or to any specific game
room or business. The evidence is uncontroverted and overwhelming that the three game rooms
were open for business at the time of the inspection and no employees were in any of the three
rooms.
12. The documents and testimony presented before the court in this matter indicate that
there were fifteen (15) Class III video poker machines collectively located in the three (3) businesses
listed above which were open for business at the time of the SLED agent's inspection on January 22,
1997. Each of these three "places" contained five operational Class III video game machines.
Although there was one employee present in the commons area of the building at the time of the
inspection, none were "on the premises" of the three licensed video poker rooms. Mr. Kocak could
produce no evidence in the form of employment records, pay stubs or other documents either to the
SLED agents at the time of inspection or under cross-examination at trial to establish that any
employees were present in or working for the three cited businesses at the time of the inspection.
It is evident from the documents in evidence and the testimony presented at the hearing on
this matter that the Respondent/Michael A. Kocak applied for, received, or permitted permits to be
used for the operation of more than five (5) machines at a "single place or premises." Further, Mr.
Kocak violated this statute and regulation both by failing to have an employee on the premises of
each location and in failing to have separate electrical utility meters which were operational for each
separate "place or premise." Mr. Kocak was operating the three cited businesses as one "single place
or premises" on the night of the inspection. Despite the separation of the video game machines into
different rooms, each of which are licensed as an individual business, it is clear from the evidence
that the location operates as a video poker casino, with only one employee in the commons area
connecting the rooms and one central utility meter for all four of the business located within the
building. This business "set up" is precisely the type of arrangement which the General Assembly
attempted to prohibit with the adoption of Section 12-21-2804(A). I therefore conclude as a matter
of law that Respondent Kocak violated S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) and S.C. Code Ann. Regs.
117-190. However, the Department did not present sufficient evidence to establish that the
Respondent Carter Amusements applied for, received, maintained, or permitted to be used permits
for the operation of more than five machines authorized under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3)
(Supp. 1996) at a single place or premises, in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) and 27
S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 117-190 (Supp. 1996).
13. South Carolina Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996) clearly precludes any
"person" from applying for, receiving, maintaining, or permitting to be used permits for the operation
of more than five Class III video game machines at a single place or premises. The term "person"
is not defined in the Act but is generally defined as encompassing an individual or business entity,
as well as a licensee or machine owner. See Black's Law Dictionary p. 1142 (6th Ed., 1995).
Further, § 12-21-2804(A) requires the Department to revoke the licenses of machines located in an
establishment which fails to meet the requirements of § 12-21-2804(A). Such an interpretation is
consistent with the clear and unambiguous language of the statute. See, Home Health Services, Inc.
v. S.C. Tax Com'n, 312 S.C. 324, 440 S.E.2d 375 (1994); Bryant v. City of Charleston, 295 S.C. 408,
368 S.E.2d 899 (1988) (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); See also, Medlock v. 1985 Ford F-150 Pick Up, et. al., 308 S.C. 68, 417 S.E.2d 85
(1992); Green v. Zimmerman, 269 S.C. 535, 238 S.E.2d 323 (1977) (where the terms of a statute are
clear and unambiguous, they must be applied according to their literal meaning). Hence, § 12-21-2804(A) (Supp. 1996) mandates revocation of the licenses used in violation of the statute, even if
the licensee, Carter Amusements, was not directly involved in applying for, receiving, maintaining,
or permitting its licenses to be used by Michael Kocak in contravention of the statute. Such an
interpretation is consistent with the plain language of the statute.
14. 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." The clear meaning of this language is to preclude an
establishment which has had a license revoked from utilizing new licenses for a six month period.
Hence, the practical effect would be preclusion of operation at such an establishment. That is, the
Department does not issue licenses for specific locations, but rather issues licenses to individuals.
Therefore, licenses may be utilized by an operator at any, otherwise qualified, location in the State.
Consequently, the above provision would be rendered meaningless if it were read not to require an
establishment whose licenses have been revoked to cease operations for six months. See Singletary
v. South Carolina Dep't of Educ., 316 S.C. 153, 447 S.E.2d 231 (Ct. App. 1994), citing State v.
Thrift, 312 S.C. 282, 440 S.E.2d 341 (1994) (legislative intent must prevail if it can be reasonably
discovered and language of a statute must be construed in the light of the intended purpose of the
statute).
15. 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. The Department seeks a
$5,000 fine against Carter Amusements, the licensee of the machines in question. However, the
Department has not established that Carter Amusements, applied for, received, maintained, or
permitted to be used permits for the operation of more than five machines authorized under S.C.
Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1996) at a single place or premises. See Stacks v. South
Carolina Dep't of Revenue and Taxation, 95-CP-40-0239 at 8-9 (C.P. Richland County April 20,
1995).
Under § 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 § 12-21-2804(F) may only be imposed on the person directly
involved in the violation of § 12-21-2804(A). In this case, the Department only presented sufficient
evidence to establish that the operator of the location, Michael A. Kocak, was directly involved in
violating the Act. The Department did not present sufficient evidence to warrant the imposition of
a fine against Respondent Carter Amusements, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804(F) (Supp.
1996). When applying for a license, a licensee violates the statute if he applies for a license to be
used in the operation of more than five machines at a single place or premises. The statute does not
state, as the Department would like this tribunal to construe it, that a person who applies for a license
which is subsequently used for the operation of more than five machines at a single place or premises
is in violation of the statute. In the instant case, as the licensee did not violate the statute at the time
of application, or have direct involvement in the maintenance or operation of the businesses, the
alleged violation has not been established against the Respondent Carter Amusements.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that, as mandated by S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2804 (A) (Supp. 1996), the fifteen
(15) video game machine licenses referenced herein, owned by Carter Amusements, located in rooms
1, 2 and 4 (L A Video, Best Bet Video, and Video Plus) within the video gaming business at 9585
Highway 78, Ladson, South Carolina, are revoked, and it is further
ORDERED that no Class III video game machines shall be operated or utilized in the three subject rooms at the location at 9585 Highway 78, Ladson, South Carolina, for a
period of six (6) months from the date of the revocation of the fifteen licenses, and it is further
ORDERED that the Respondent Michael A. Kocak shall pay a monetary fine in the amount
of Five Thousand and no/100 ($5,000.00) to the Department of Revenue no later than fifteen (15)
days from the date of this order, and it is further
ORDERED that the violation against the Respondent, Carter Amusements, is dismissed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
April 13, 1998 |