Local Licensing Authority Minutes 1999 11 29

Home Browse Search

Mr. Barnett asked the officer if Mr. Galvin had mentioned his policy of taking photocopies of driver's licenses of anyone close to twenty-one years of age, or that he had taken a picture of the Utah driver's license in question. Officer Moau stated that Mr. Galvin did not mention his policies or that he had a photocopy of the Utah driver's license in question. Re-Direct Attorney Rennich asked the officer if the date of birth on Mr. Jellema's driver's license was 9/17/78. Officer Moau stated that it was. Licensee's Rebuttal Witness Attorney Rennich asked Mr. Galvin if he was confused about the Wyoming and Utah drivers' licenses and therefore did not tell the officer about his policy to photocopy driver's license. He also asked if that confusion was caused by the timeframe difference of twenty minutes to one hour. Mr. Galvin stated that he believed that the different drivers' license and the time- frame confused him. Closing Attorney Barnett suggested to the Authority that whether or not an underaged person was served alcohol, on L&G premises is not in dispute. The testimony of Officer Moau was sufficient to prove that there was a sale made to an underage person. The testimony from the Licensee and his assistant was that the individual looked like the picture I.D., and they were able to identify and remember this individual. Attorney Rennich stated that the Licensee was able to recognize the individual because Mr. Jellema had worked at the Pine Street Junction Restaurant, and purchased non-alcoholic products prior to this evening. He also noted that Mr. Jellema had ignored his subpoena, which is a very important part of the hearing. Attorney Rennich stated that if Mr. Jellema had appeared, there was a potential that he would have perjured himself. Attorney Rennich stated that the Licensee, Mr. Galvin, had a lot at stake, having had one liquor violation this year, and he initiated a policy to photocopy questionable driver's licenses to protect himself. He stated that there was a dispute as to the time between the actual stop of Mr. Jellema and the time of the Officer's contact with Mr. Galvin. There was also confusion as to the two out-of- state driver's licenses. Attorney Rennich stated that he believed that Mr. Galvin has met his burden by the copy of the license that he made that evening. He requested that the Authority make a determination that Mr. Galvin has met his burden and has shown cause why there should be no suspension. Attorney Rennich stated that State Statute 12-47-901 (5) (A) (1) clearly sets forth that no suspension or revocation of a liquor license will proceed based upon a fraudulent I.D. 9