Local Licensing Authority Minutes 2001 02 26

Home Browse Search

Louisville Local Licensing Authority' Meeting Date: February 26, 2001 13 exception. Jeffers asked Attorney Rennich if evidence of observations of the person after the fact are relevant. Rennich agreed they are relevant, but stated they are not the best evidence. Member Jeffers stated his opinion that Attorney Rennich was trying to prove that what happened inside the establishment is alt that is relevant. Jeffers referred to Brown v. Hollywood Bar and Card, page 5 and read, "Hollywood also contends that the trial court erred in allowing plaintiffs to present the testimony of lay witnesses regarding their observations of the driver after the accident. Specifically, Hollywood contends that this evidence was not relevant to determining whether the driver appeared visibly intoxicated before he was served alcohol at HollDvood. We are not persuaded." Chairperson Myers asked if there were any further matters to be considered. None heard. Chairperson Myers closed the hearing. Chairperson Myers called for member discussion or a morion. Myers reviewed the alternatives for action with the new members of the Authority. Chairperson Myers stated that in his opinion, all prongs of the violations named in the Order have been proved. First, that the establishment is licensed and that the sale did take place. He stated that the third factor concerning sale to a visibly intoxicated person, appears to be the item in question. Myers stated that he believed the Prosecuting Attorney met the burden of proof necessary to prove the violation, and that he found the testimony of Officer Sundberg concerning the events upon Mr. Meagher's exidng Bungalow Wine & Spirits to be credible. Myers stated the amount of dme Mr. Meagher spent in the store and the fact that the item purchased was a gift does not alter his opinion. Member Jeffers stated that he concurred with Chairperson Myers, and stated that the evidence presented in this case reflected the immediate contact and observation of Mr. Meagher by Officer Sundberg following the purchase. Jeffers stated that Mr. Meagher testified that he had been &in'king that night and that he was concerned enough about how much he had consumed to ask someone else to drive him to the liquor store. Member Lipton stated that she concurred with Myers and Jeffers and that she did not hear or see any evidence to support Mr. Shin's and Mr. Lee's allegations that Mr. Meagher always slurred his speech. She voice concern, as did Myers, that it appears Mr. Shin is not able to detect alcohol intoxication unless he sees a customer over and over that suddenly seems to act differendy. She stated she thought the City proved the violation had occurred. Member I4Ammett stated his agreement with statements made by member Jeffers, Vice Chairperson Lipton and Chairperson Myers. He stated he had nothing to add. Member Koertje stated that case law establishes visibly intoxicated as a subjective test and that, though he did not hold it against the licensee, it was unfortunate that the videotape requested by Prosecutor Shapiro could not be provided. Member Sackett stated that the burden is on the licensee to determine if a patron is visibly intoxicated. Sackett stated that if the distance from the door to the service counter is so small that the licensee is unable to observe a customer's behavior or motor skills, then perhaps they should consider corrective action. \\FRED\VARRAN\LIQUOR~2001 \,MINUTES\MINUTES022601.DOC 13