Local Licensing Authority Minutes 2001 02 26

Home Browse Search

Louisville Local Licensing Authority Meeting Date: February 26, 2001 12 that he was "loud and rowdy, had bloodshot eyes, and needed to hold onto the wall to walk." And finally from the Brown v. Holl.~vood Bar and Caf6 case, 942 P.2d 1363, which states that "the driver was visibly intoxicated at the dine he was se~-ved beer" and that "he poured the beer down the front of his shirt." Attorney Rennich argued that Mr. Meagher was not visibly intoxicated at the time he purchased the Jack Daniel's gift set from Mr. Shin at Bungalow Wine & Spirits. Rennich stated that Officer Sundberg testified that he could spot a legally intoxicated person easier than a lay person because of his training. He continued staring that, at the time of the purchase, Mr. Shin, Mr. Lee and Mr. Meagher himself testified that Mr. Meagher did not stumble, trip, slur his words, knock anything over, fall down, fumble with his wallet, hold on to the wall, or break anything. Rennich added that Mr. Meagher did not smell of alcohol and did not purchase his normal Budweiser, but rather a gift for someone else. Attorney Rennich questioned why Officer Sundberg did not confiscate the alcohol Mr. Meagher purchased. Rennich stated that if Mr. Meagher was so intoxicated as to need to be transported to the Alcohol Recovery Center in Boulder, then why would he be atlo~ved to keep the liquor he purchased. Rennich continued that Officer Sundberg testified that it was possible for an intoxicated person to maintain composure for a minute or two. Rennich stated that Mr. Meagher was in Bungalow Wine & Spirits for less than two minutes. Rennich stated that Officer Sundberg ~vas not in the store at the time of the purchase and did not observe the interaction between Mr. Meagher and Mr. Shin. Rennich asked the Authority to consider the case law presented and testimony given. Attorney Rennich stated that he did not believe the Prosecuting Attorney satisfied the burden of proof in this case. On rebuttal, Attorney Shapiro stated that Mr. Meagher testified that he was intoxicated at the dine he purchased the gift set from Mr. Shin at Bungalo~v Wine & Spirits. Shapiro stated that the case law presented by the defense counsel does not set a legal standard for "visibly intoxicated," but rather cases on factual situations that were reviewed by the Court. He stated there is no legal standard for "legally intoxicated," continuing that one piece of evidence used to determine intoxication is the Blood Alcohol Content (BAC), however, Shapiro stated a BAC test is not even necessary to find someone guilty of DUI. Attorney Shapiro directed the Authority to the case of Brown v. Holl.vwood Bar and Caf6, page 4, and read that "the plaintiffs presented circumstantial evidence that the driver was visibly intoxicated at the dine he was served beer by Holl)~vood." Shapiro stated that the Authority is being asked to make a determination based on circumstantial evidence as well. Shapiro stated, however, that Mr. Meagher offered direct evidence that he was intoxicated at the time of the purchase. Attorney Shapiro noted that the last paragraph on page 4 of Brown v. Holl.vwood states that "viewing these facts in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, as we must, we conclude that the record supports the trial court's rulings." Shapiro concluded by stating that Officer Sundberg testified that Mr. Meagher was visibly intoxicated when he left Bungalow Wine & Spirits and that Mr. Meagher tesdfied that he was intoxicated at the dine he made the purchase. Chairperson Myers asked members if there ~vere any questions for the attorneys. Member Jeffers asked Attorney Rennich if there was any exception in the law that allows for a visibly intoxicated person to purchase alcohol as a gift as opposed to for consumption. Rennich stated there was not such an 12 ~ ~FRED~VARILSN~LIQUOR~2001 'xMIN UTES~MINUTES022601.DOC