ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, S.C. Code
Ann. §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (1986 and Supp. 1997), upon a request for a contested case hearing by
Respondent Charles M. Powell subsequent to the issuance by Petitioner Department of Revenue
("DOR") of a citation for having an unlicensed Class III video game machine, in violation of S.C.
Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1996). DOR seeks a fine of $2,500 for the violation.
Respondent disputes violation and seeks a dismissal of the citation.
A contested case hearing was held in the matter at the Administrative Law Judge Division
in Columbia, South Carolina, on October 2, 1998. Based upon the relevant and probative evidence
and the applicable law, I find and conclude that Respondent did not violate S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1996), and, therefore, dismiss the matter with prejudice.
DISCUSSION
DOR cited Respondent with violating S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1996),
which requires owners of Class III video poker machines to apply for and procure licenses for those
machines. Accordingly, DOR bore the burden to prove that Respondent failed to apply for and
procure a license for a Class III video game machine (serial no. 200466050596) ("subject machine")
located at the Blythewood Oil Company, at the intersection of Highway 59 and Interstate 77.
DOR, however, produced no evidence to indicate that the subject machine was actually
unlicensed. Petitioner, rather, attempted to show that no license was attached to the subject
machine through testimony of SLED agents who indicated they were unable to find a license on the
subject machine. The weight of the evidence establishes that the subject machine was licensed and
that the license was attached to the side of the subject machine. The Respondent's case further
explains why the license was not found by the SLED agents.
It is important to note that DOR cited Respondent for violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1996) and not S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2726, which requires the conspicuous
display of licenses for Class III video game machines. Because the DOR final determination did
not allege that Respondent violated S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2726, whether or not Respondent
violated that section is not properly before this tribunal.
FINDINGS OF FACT
By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:
- Prior to January 21, 1997, the Respondent applied for and procured licenses for a Class III
video game machine (serial no. 200466050596) and three other Class III video game
machines located at the Blythewood Oil Company, at the intersection of Highway 59 and
Interstate 77.
- On January 21, 1997, agents of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division ("SLED"),
conducted an investigation of the Blythewood Oil Company to determine compliance with
laws regulating Class III video game machines.
- During the SLED investigation, the SLED agents inspected the subject machine and the
three other Class III video game machines at the location.
- The SLED agents determined that three of the video game machines had all licenses and
signs as required by statute.
- The SLED agents examined the subject machine but were unable to find a license affixed
to it. The agents moved the subject machine during their inspection but did not pull the
machine completely away from the wall and the adjoining machine.
- The license for the subject machine was attached under a plexiglass cover on the lower left
side of the machine.
- The SLED agents failed to see the license attached to the subject machine because they did
not pull the machine completely away from the wall and an adjoining machine, and their
view was obscured.
- Respondent was not present at the location during the SLED inspection.
- Upon completion of their inspection, the SLED agents left a Preliminary Findings Report
with an employee of the location and explained their findings.
- The employee contacted Respondent by telephone, who arrived approximately thirty
minutes after the inspection.
- Although the SLED agents were unable to find a license for the subject machine during the
inspection, a license was attached to the subject machine and secured under a plexiglass
cover.
- After the SLED agents left the location, Respondent telephoned one of the SLED agents to
ask them to return to the location so that he could show them the license for the subject
machine. The SLED agent declined Respondent's invitation to return to the Blythewood
Oil Company.
- Subsequently, Respondent removed the license and plexiglass cover from the side of the
machine and attached it to the front of the machine.
- DOR issued a final determination fining Respondent $2,500 for having one Class III
machine unlicensed, in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1996).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the above 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 the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310 et seq.
(1986 & Supp. 1997), S.C. Code § 12-4-30(D), and §§ 12-60-1310 through 12-60-1350 of
the South Carolina Revenue Procedures Act (RPA).
- The standard of proof in a contested case hearing is a preponderance of the evidence.
National Health Corp. v. South Carolina Dep't of Health and Envtl. Control, 298 S.C. 373,
380 S.E.2d 841 (Ct. App. 1989).
3. As the party asserting the affirmative of an issue, the Petitioner bears the burden to prove
the Respondent violated S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) (Supp. 1996) by failing to
apply for and procure a Class III license for the subject machine. See 29 Am. Jur. 2d
Evidence § 127 (1994); Sanders, Neese, and Nichols, South Carolina Trial Handbook, § 9:3
(1994).
4. The weight and credibility assigned to evidence presented at the hearing of a matter is
within the province of the trier of fact. See South Carolina Cable Television Ass'n v.
Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., 308 S.C. 216, 417 S.E.2d 586 (1992).
5. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3) (emphasis added) provides as follows:
Every person who maintains for use or permits the use of, on
a place or premises occupied by him, one or more of the
following machines or devices shall apply for and procure from
the South Carolina Department of Revenue a license effective for
two years for the privilege of making use of the machine in South
Carolina and shall pay for the license a tax of fifty dollars for each
machine in item (1), two hundred dollars for each machine in
item (2), and four thousand dollars for each machine in item (3):
. . . .
(3) a machine of the nonpayout type, in-line pin game, or video
game with free play feature operated by a slot in which is deposited
a coin or thing of value except machines of the nonpayout pin table
type with levers or "flippers" operated by the player by which the
course of the balls may be altered or changed.
6. Respondent applied for and procured a Class III license for the subject machine before the
SLED inspection and, therefore, was in compliance with S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2720(A)(3).
7. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2726 (Supp. 1997) requires the conspicuous display of licenses for
Class III video game machines.
8. It is improper to find a licensee guilty of misconduct not alleged in the complaint. Wilson
v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 305 S.C. 194, 406 S.E.2d 345 (1991).
9. It is a denial of due process in an administrative proceeding to hold a licensee responsible
for allegations not specifically made. Burdge v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 304 S.C. 32,
403 S.E.2d 114 (1991).
10. Because the DOR final determination did not allege that Respondent violated S.C. Code
Ann. § 12-21-2726 (Supp. 1997), that issue is not properly before this tribunal.
11. Any issues raised or presented in the proceedings or hearing of this case not specifically
addressed in this Order are deemed denied. ALJD Rule 29(C).
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the violation against Charles M. Powell, d/b/a
World Games, be dismissed with prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
October 30, 1998
Columbia, South Carolina |