The URL can be used to link to this page

90-548 � .��,..� �� , n � Council File # �:� � f � INAL . _ Green Sheet.# RESOLUTION ..-..,. CITY OF S INT PAUL, MINNESOTA ;'�� . , , . __ Presented By Referred To Committee: Date RESOLVED, that the Report of the AIJ dated, February 9, 1990, in the matter of licenses held by R-Mont. Inc, and John O. Kenna, d/b/a Gatsby, with its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Recommendations and Memorandum, is expressly ratified and adopted as written findings and conclusions of the Council with the following exceptions: � Finding No. 5 is amended to read as follows: That the city failed to prove that alcoholic beverages were consumed or displayed, or that the licensee allowed their consumption or display on October 15, 1989 on the licensed premises. Finding No. 6 is amended to read as follows: The licensee is advised that the matter described in the Findings of Fact do create concerns and that more care should be taken to assure that laws against the consumption.or display of alcoholic beverages after hours are obeyed. The Recommendation is amended to read to as follows: � It is hereby recommend that the City of Saint Paul take no adverse action against the licenses held by R-Mont. Ine. and John O. Kenna. �� Y c _ya. O.� I � Ii�,� L . This resolution is based on the record of the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge, including the hearing on January 16, 1990, the documents and exhibits introduced therein, the statements made by or on behalf the licensee, and the deliberations of Council in open session in the public hearing in the matter on March 15, 1990. The Report of the ALJ is attached hereto and is expressly incorporated in and made a part of the Resolution. � A copy of this Resolution, as adopted, shall be sent by first class mail to the Administrative Law-Judge, and to counsel for the licenseholder. �eas Navs Absent Requested by Department of: imon oswitz -� on -� acca ee T ettman � un e -�. ' i son � By� d Adopted by Council: Date ApR 5 1990 Form Approved by City Attorney Adoption Certified by Council 'Secretary gy: ` 3-�... v BY� _ Approved by M yor for Submission to �R g �g� counci�` Approved by Mayor: Date By: /�d�C%'u-c�/l�/ By� pU�t,ISHFA AP R � . o�,yo_s�� . ` � ' � .{ : � �� i� :�� - F t3 1 ? i9�� 66-2101-4255-6 �1�� STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE CITY OF ST. PAUL In the Matter of the FINDINGS OF FACT License of R-MONT, Inc. and CONCLUSIONS AND John O. Keena d/b/a Gatsby's RECOMMENDATION The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before Administrative Law Judqe Suzanne Born on January 16, 1990 at 1: 30 p.m. in conference room 1504A, City Hall Annex, St. Paul, Minnesota. Thomas J. Weyandt, Assistant City Attorney, 647 City Hall, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 appeared on behalf of the City of St. Paul. S. Mark Vaught, Attorney at Law, Suite 700, Six West Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 appeared on behalf of R- MONT, Inc. Testifying on behalf of the City were Officer Michael Lee and Officer David Anger. The Licensee called Renee Montpetit, James Clemmons, Joe Gilly Pearson, and Patrice Peterson as witnesses on its behalf. The record closed on January 18, 1990 when the Licensee 's attorney notified the undersigned that he would not be submitting a memorandum. The Assistant City Attorney waived his right to submit anything further at the hearing. This Report is a Recommendation, not a final decision. The City Council will make the final decision after a review of the record and after providing an opportunity to the Licensee to present oral or written arguments to it. The Council may accept, reject or modify the findings, conclusions and recommendations � contained herein. ISSUE The issue in this proceeding is whether the Licensee permitted the display or consumption of alcoholic beverages on its premises after 1: 00 a.m. on October 15, 1989 contrary to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 409. 07 (c) . Based upon the record herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Notice of Hearing in this matter was duly served upon Licensees R-MONT, Inc. and John O. Keena by letter dated November 27 , 1989 . The Notice stated the place, date and time of the s . ° �yo ,��' . . . � . � �:� r �. ..� hearing (which was subsequently amended by a letter of January 5, 1990) and stated the grounds upon which adverse action was being sought as follows: On October 15, 1989 you or your employees permitted the display or consumption of liquor after hours in violation of § 409 . 07 (c) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. 2 . The records of the License and Permit Division of the City of Saint Paul list the license holder as R-MONT, Inc. and John O. Keena. Mr. Keena owns no stock in R-MONT, Inc. His name remains on the license because he is owed money on the purchase agreement. The Notice of Hearing dated November 27, 1989 was mailed to R-Mont, Inc. and John O. Keena at 2554 Como Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 . Amended Notices of the Hearing were mailed to S. Mark Vaught on December 14 , 1989 and January 5, 1990. Mr. Vaught does not represent John O. Keena and no other notice to Mr. Keena appears in the file. 3 . Licensee is a corporation whose sole owner is Renee Montpetit. Licensee operates a nightclub known as Gatsby' s and a Sports Bar located in the same building at 2554 Como Avenue, St. Paul. Licensee holds an on-sale liquor and a Sunday liquor license from the City (Exhibit 1) . 4 . At approximately 2 :20 a.m. , October 15, 1989, Officer Michael Lee, a C'ity of Saint Paul Police Officer, was dispatched to Gatsby' s Sports Bar at 2550 West Como in response to a complaint of after hours drinking in the establishment. Two ather squads, operated by Officer David Anger and Officer C.M. LeClaire, arrived at the scene prior to Officer Lee. 5. Of f icer David Anger was the f irst of f icer to arrive at the establishment. He found one door unlocked, entered the bar area and observed people in a booth to his left, some people at a table to his right, one or two people at the bar and a person he concluded to be a bartender, standing behind the bar. Drink glasses and beer bottles were on the tables where the people were seated. 6. Officer Lee arrived a few minutes later and conferred with the other officers in the entry of the establishment. Officer Lee then entered the bar area and observed six people sitting at a table to his left, three people sitting at another table, one of whom appeared to be doing calculations with a calculator, two people standing at the bar, and one person standing behind the bar. Officer Lee observed beer bottles and a beverage glass, containing a liquid and ice, sitting on the table occupied by the group of six people, beverage glasses sitting on the table occupied by the three people, including the person doing the calculations, and two beer bottles with liquid in them on the bar. . 2 a - `� UG 9a�./�� • / � ' V� .. *..�'�'"'n `p � 7 . The bar area appeared in neat order to Officer Lee except for the areas where the people were concentrated. From the location of the bottles and glasses on the tables, Officer Lee' s impression was that the people had been consuming the beverages in front of them. 8. Officer Lee did not touch any of the bottles or glasses to determine if they were cold or smell the bottles or glasses to determine whether they contained alcoholic beverages. He did not seize any of the beer bottles or beverage glasses as evidence because he intended only to give a warning. Officer Lee recognized the beer bottles as being common brands and observed liquid in the bottles. 9 . Neither Officer Lee nor Officer Anger observed anyone being served alcoholic beverages. Neither officer observed anyone consume any beverage. Neither officer observed anyone place any of the glasses or bottles on the tables or bar. Neither officer observed anyone doing any cleaning in the bar area. 10. Officer LeClaire was not present at the hearing. Assistant City Attorney Thomas J. Weyandt had requested her appearance. Mr. Vaught objected to her failure to appear but had not subpoenaed her. 11. The establishment consists of a nightclub known as Gatsby's and a Sports Bar. Various employees are responsible for clearing tables, vacuuming, cleaning the bathrooms, taking out the trash, taking beer and liquor inventories, and generally cleaning up. The nightclub side is cleaned and closed first with all employees coming into the Sports Bar to count tips and check out. 12 . Ms. Montpetit routinely requests two, three or four employees to wait until she completes her reconciliation of the tills which takes until 2 : 15 - 3 : 00 a.m. This is a safety precaution so she is not alone. This reconciliation takes longest on Saturday nights. Ms. Montpetit had completed her reconciliation on October 15, 1989 and was drinking 7-Up when Office Anger entered the bar. 13 . James Clemmons, the assistant manager, usually waits for Ms. Montpetit as he �did on October 15, 1989 . Mr. Clemmons had completed his duties and was sitting with the other employees waiting for Ms. Montpetit to finish. There was a beer bottle sitting on the table in front of him. Mr. Clemmons did not observe anyone drinking alcoholic beverages in the bar after 1: 15 a.m. 14 . Joe Pearson, a bartender, was also present in the bar when the police officers arrived. Mr. Pearson did not observe anyone drinking alcoholic beverages in the bar after 1: 15 a.m. 3 , � ` - �y�-�� , . .. . �... ...:��•1 . i...:� t•- 4' .. ..y',� 15. Patrice Peterson, a coat check person in the nightclub, was in the bar when the police officers arrived. Ms. Peterson got off work at 12 : 00 midnight and went to the Sport's Bar where she drank until closing with at least one other employee. The beer bottles on the table where she was seated (the table to the left where the six people were seated) were hers. 16. The first Paragraph of licensee's Rules and Regulations dated August, 1989 (Exhibit 2) provides in part: . . . . All employees of Gatsby's side must come over to the Sports Bar side to count tips and you must be done doing this by 1: 30 a.m. . . . If you have any friends in here after 1: 15 and you are not out by 1: 30 a.m. , you will be fired! 17 . On October 15, 1989, at least 12 people were in the bar at 2 : 20 a.m. including Renee Montpetit, James Clemmons, Joe Gilly Pearson and Patrice Peterson. Everyone present was an employee, the majority from the nightclub. None of the employees were engaged in cleaning, which is usually completed by 1: 30 - 2 : 00 a.m. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: CONCLUSIONS 1. Minn. Stat. § 340A.415 (1989) provides in pertinent part: The authority issuing or approving any retail license or permit under this chapter shall either suspend for up to 60 days or revoke the license or permit or impose a civil fine not to exceed $ 2, 000. 00 for each violation on a finding that the license or permit holder has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule, or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. No suspension or revocation takes effect until the license or permit r,alder has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under §§ 14 . 57 to 14 . 69 of the administrative procedure act. 2. Saint Paul Legislative Code § 409. 07 (c) provides: No person shall consume or display or allow consumption or display of liquor upon the premises of an on-sale licensee at any time when the sale of such liquor is not permitted. 4 � . � . � t� c �,,�� f� . t� 4� 3 . The Saint Paul City Council and the Administrative Law Judge have jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 14. 50 and 340A.415. 4 . Licensee received timely and proper notice of the hearing. The City has complied with all procedural and substantive requirements of law and rule. 5. Alcoholic beverages were displayed on the premises on October 15, 1989, after proper closing hours. 6. The Licensee has violated Saint Paul Legislative Code § 409 . 07 (c) . 7 . Adverse action is appropriate in this case. 8 . Saint Paul Leqislati�e Code § 409.26 ;b) sets forth the presumptive penalties for violations of the liquor license code. The presumptive penalty for permitting the display of alcoholic beverages when the sale of such liquor is not permitted, for the first offense, is 2 consecutive days suspension of the license. Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: RECOMMENDATION - IT IS HEREBY RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED that the Saint Paul City Council take adverse action against Licensee. Dated this q�� day of February, 1990. �� Suza e Born Administrative Law Judge NOTICE Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14 .62, subd. 1, the Saint Paul City Council is required to serve its final decision upon each party and the Administrative Law Judge by first class mail. Reported: Taped, not transcribed, Tape Nos. 8377, 8378 5 « � 6 ' ` Gf�Cy� '3�� . . ( �ri� k3, ��,. c s- r i MEMORANDUM The testimony of the police officers in this case is sufficient to establish that Renee Montpetit, the owner of R-Mont, Inc. , permitted the display of alcoholic beverages after 1: 15 a.m. in violation of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 409 . 07 (c) . A reasonable person, upon observing beer bottles sitting on tables and the bar of a liquor establishment, would reasonably believe that the liquid in the bottles was beer. Licensee failed to enforce her own Rules and Regulations as set forth in her memorandum of August, 1989. While the testimony offered at the hearing would justify the presence of Ms. Montpetit and up to four additional employees to still be in the bar at 2 : 20 a.m. , there was no purpose for zhe additional seven people. Mosz of these people were employees of the nightclub side of the establishment, which by the testimony of licensee' s witnesses, was closed down by 1: 15 a.m. or shortly thereafter. While there was no evidence as to consumption of any alcoholic beverages after 1: 00 a.m. , licensee permitted numerous beer bottles and glasses to be on the tables at the same time that people remained in the bar with no purpose other than to socialize. The officers ' tes�cimony that they did not seize any evidence or investigate further because they only intended to issue a warning, is sufficient to explain their failure to obtain tangible evidence. Testimony that the bottles and glasses had simply not been cleared was not credible in light of the officers' testimony that the glasses and bottles were situated in front of the people as if they had been consuming the contents. SMB � �� .. �� , :• � C D�� cto�` ._".oy'. 4� � �6� - :� �•: _, ' __ �l��*1��,�°� STATE O F M I N N ESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FIFTH FLOOR, FLOUR EXCHANGE BUILDING R��EIVED 310 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55415 ��i ��wAo (612)341-7600 1 ��V �7�J February 12, 1990 r��, `�.�«�;� Albert B. Olson City Clerk St. Paul City Council 386 City Hall St. Paul , MN 55102 RE: In the Matter of the City of St. Paul v. R-Mont, Inc. and John 0. Kenna dba Gatsby' s; OAH Docket No. 56-2101-4255-6 Dear Mr. Olson: Enclosed please find the original Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge in the above-entitled matter. I also enclose the official record, and I am closing our file in this matter. Sincerely, � . �� PAIGE L. PURCELL Legal Secretary, OAH Telephone: 612/341-7615 PP enclosure AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER �� l��v��IIlry�� '�"'sn'Ck1ES?',9�,yI S p1LC D��.p�-,�,�I 'i�•{a :rti .F�I ��•. _ _� 4��*.....+ .� np�tr�lu�a� STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FIFTH FLOOR,FLOUR EXCHANGE BUILDING 310 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55415 (612)341-7600 February 9 , 1990 S. Mark Vaught Attorney at Law 700 St. Paul Building 6 West Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Thomas J. Weyandt Assistant City Attorney 647 City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: City of Saint Paul v. R-Mont, Inc. and John O. Kenna d/b/a Gatsby' s Dear Counsel : Enclosed herewith and served upon you are the undersigned' s Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation in the above- referenced matter. Yours truly, Suzanne Born Administrative Law Judge SB: 11 Enclosure AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER � � N +� Id O m a>U � a r-I .d �w O ' � hi c �"' '-" +� p� � �� ,� � C m +'�'UI O • � � G..,. � � �� ts � +� o Q � n�� o x � O �� x fYl p•rl pr-I 4-a � > o �fs-� c�p •�-I +� S � � � �c� � � s a > °� � � � � N 3 r � -� � v�V, x U� ,� � •'�-I � � � o � �-' cd O z .� d �� w �'-' cd+�-� � � � .a O � � U � •U � � �J e�•r-I � z � � � �� { � N � a> •�-I o•'-I d U �y ,.� p,� •rl p UII y L� � � � 4-I � +'rl O �/oI ' .�'""• � � y� � �Pa �--I +��' � �.,�.�.i � • .� �o � � � � +� ��o � � Op r O 'ZS � p}� � S-I N +' "� ,� �C Q � � � � � � � � a � � � • � �� O � �� Cd .Q U f: '� � �' f" '-� � +' N N �"� � � ��+ �' F � � � f3-� f�i ` .� ,,,� t-i � W 1 � .. Z a � 043 +� �� 'd � � �, � �rd .� O �;� 4.�., o �2 0 � � '�m � � a� � m a �W �� O � a � � � x �' '° � � �''� r,,, N o � � o�. �d � � � �-I w � � V � Q � x � � � � � � � � � � � �� o:� 3a c� w w� p . � V � � � a p � �rnUtn �•rl � � � F z � � �a a� � v, z � � � ca � � ,� U U o � .'� .� � � � � � � .. �� ' � � s:., ,� ... . .. .-, � �, � ?`> ,� -.�; s ��:'' �o � U � a � � � o �I G �w � � o c� � � a � �� ,� � � � � � � p ��+ [. �� V� t!� y�,, 'T" O O � � � a m �,' V�] �+ � O x �I •r'1 4-i � F" � O �b �'• N ,� s a t� o � o 0 o s o ri U rl � � U � V�1�I C� �1 �i � �i � � � � � �a � '� � �� " "C� � v� a'i c� .� � � � w z y � c� o w � � �� o � �� c .� a�i � �a � z � s, o • 'n S � � � +,,� �•� v� N � a� p cl� � �U w � p, � � �� 4-I � „ +�'r-I O �ol �.0, .�,.+'� � � � 3 y � � r� +�' � N �-�-� � .� � � �U � •O �.•,'~,l� 4-� '� O d' o �d � p,�o b o y ^ � � � � �� cd N � �, cd �, � � � � .� �. a> � > �-I � ^� Ti �r �,," � t� O � � � y� � � � (� N •.� ,..� � cd � � � a ... a� w � � -� g Z � � � � °'� � a�i � � �a � "5 ., r-I � �� s. z3 �.., W v� �'Z O •� ,� �d �"�� Z g ° `+-'a � N cn 3 u� �° o � m N S 2 T � �W � � 3-I � " s.+ ce '° �'�-� •r-I C: � � 'C 'C o a �z a a� -� �o � a.� � � � �x '� x �+� o'C � a � c» w � w,� ��,�j � � � z > oxE z° �a �rn °w � a�i � z � � � � � � c° U U o � � .� � � � �� r � . �:, i � _ �� x a �:� � .� � '� + i�� `�`..l",�°nno, iV �`� ` � �o��so�Ma` ��a (4 �0�� ••• :� � ��~ �••�• � 7''0,�'*1&i6t-�°6 '•nu:uum�ann" STAT E O F M I N N ESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS RE�:�IVED FIFTH FLOOR,FLOUR EXCHANGE BUILDING �g13�gg0 310 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55415 nVi�'i �/��"� (612)341•7600 January 12, 1990 Mark Vaught Attorney at Law 700 St. Paul Building 6 West Fifth Street St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 Thomas J. Weyandt Assistant City Attorney 647 City Hall St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 Re: City of St. Paul vs. J. J. Enterprises Inc./RMM Inc. and John 0 Keena d/ba/ Gatsby; OAH Docket No. 66-Z101-4255-6 Dear Counsel : Due to a scheduling conflict Judge Lunde is no longer asslgned to this matter. Please direct all future correspondence and questions to Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Born, 2116 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404, telephone number 871-4358. Thank you for your anticlpated cooperation. Sincerely, � �� , ,�- �� PAIGE L. PURCELL Docket Clerk, OAH Telephone: 612/341-7615 PP AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER , , E x�,:b:i� �.. � o -�� Qt�:�:o�tr January 5, 1990 I hereby certify that the attached is a true and exact copy of the records of the License & Permit Division of the City of St. Paul for R-Mont, Inc. DBA Gatsby's at 2254 Como Avenue. L � � ��`<-�-Lt/ Ja Odalen, Office Manager � � � "y� Date M t �r�. KRISTINA L.VAN HORN � `�1�NOTARY PUBLIC-411NNESOTA ; �.�ly GAKOTA COUNTY � F;y Commissiun Expires 1an. 2, 1�9� � .:�wwv�v�,wvvv�n�vvwvvwvvvw�� r � . 1�r,�-�--� 4-�T-~� 4� Page 2 of 3 Q'v�� !U BACK OF ON SALE LIQUOR CARD . _ 12219 6/29/89 Great American Ins. Co. Bond �0402429 Expires CONTINUOUS 6/29/89 Park Glen National Ins. Po.��MNLL890424 Expires 5/3?�/90 10/10/89 PH on appn to trfr On Sale Liq A; Sunda , Entert �II $� Res� D Lic from J. J. Ente��j�e�.FIn�9_�830A11 merican ar at the same address � c.F.xo. 89-1830 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Yage 3 ot j LICENSE NO. �� r � 69286 LICENSE�AND PERMIT DIVISION DATE 10/10/89 TI�.AN5FER LICENSE NAME OF LICENSE ENTERTAINMENT-CLASS 3, RESTAURANT 14HRS lOOS OR MORE, SUNDAY ON SALE LIQUOR, LIQ-ON SALE-OVER 200 SEATS-A TRANSFEROR J J ENTERPRISES INC DBA ALL AMERICAN BAR FORMER LOCATION 2554 COMO AVE, ST PAUL, MN 55108 TRANSFEREE R-MONT, INC:- R� JOHN�..O:,iCEE1�A � - �, . . DBA GATSBY'S PRESEN?' LOCATION 2554 COMO AVE, ST PAUL, MN 55108 THE TRANSFEREE TAKES THIS LICENSE SUBJECT TO THE SAME TERMS, CONDITION3,AND PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE ORIGINAL LICENSEE. THIS LICENSE EXPIRES 0 5/31/9 0 DATE OF ISSUANCE 08/29/89 LICENSE INSPECTOR SERVICE AREA-BACK NIGHT CLUB & FRONT BAR � ,c1n;b;� �.. �� --�-`��' i �c> �� tS ON t H�' G LL r �^'�'�% p d RULES AND REGULATIONS %; i No One is allowed. in here after 1 : 15 a.m. This means girlfriends , boyfriends , customers , etc . A11 employees of Gatsby 's side must come over. to the Sport:'s Bar side to count tips and you must be done doing this by 1 : 30 a .m. Do not count tips into the registers . � Bring your own coin wrappers and ask me if I want to buq them. I don ' t heve all night to count your money . When I t�ll qou to leave, then leave immediatelq. If you don ' t , you will be fired . I told you this at the meeting and you all ignored me this past weekend . Thia is my final warning to you . If you have anq friends in here after 1 ; 15 and you are not out by 1 ; 30, you will be fired ! Th� bartender on the Sport 's Bar �ide is responsibl'e to get everqone out by 1 ; 15 and the bouncers on Gatsby 's side gre responsible to get everyone out on that side by 1 ; 15. " ' . A11 checks must be made out to Gatsby 's or All American only . They mu9t be �initialed bq whomever takes the check . Everq check . must haJ,e the license number and phone number on it and the correct date . No P.O. Box numbers are acceptable , we must have e permane�at address . Always look at the driver 's license to tnake sure<<it is their check . . The new check system will not pay for stolen� or forged checks: If the license is from out of state , please writ� the state from � which it is on the check also . A11 charges must be� called in over $50.00 until we get the new • authorization machine . Attach the ticicet to tlie charge. Make sure you can read all of the numUers on the charge . Check the hard white copy. Make sure it is not expired . Make sure it gets aigned. We will be getting new uniform shirts . The amoung I pay for them will be taken out of your check and returned to you when pou quit and return the shirt provided it is in good condition . Please keep it cleaned and pressed at a11 times . If qou want to let friends in free , you must ask me ahead of time . You are not allowed to give friends free drinks . If qou do it once� theq will always expect it . � We don`t take canadian money , this includes canadian travelers checks. Make sure all travelers checks taken are U. S . DOLLARS . Check bathrooms to make sure clean , report any problems , (out of soap , out of toilet tissure , out of towels , toilet overflowed) . Everqone roust fill out a new W-4. If you were not at the meeting please see me as soon as possible . . �The bars and the kitchen will be cleaned . After this , if it is not kept clean , someone will be replaced ! •. No writing on napkins or throwing filberts . (I have seen someone doing these things . ) , No drugs or stealing and we will get along��ust fine ! Payday is on Fridays after 4:00. No Advances , do not ask ! Thank you , Renee �r��;�i. i ?;� . � I � , ��/� ��! RULES AND REGULATIONS OF GATSBY'S �v��7 70 M ��i � -'k �'� � D>�' n, ..,: �' 1 . No drinking i�hile working. • � ' k' #,�i�, F+�'tphron v ., :. . . �� , �. ��1�°4�f ��z you are going to be 1ate. �'ailure to ca11 can result � ��"in" di�miaea�. � x�3n��:.��x c�. J#h� 1.r ri.��r l.�. � � � nc y�.�,?. . � . P,i`� ' . . . �. . �,. �,'�, 3. .CheCk achedule. � If you do not show up because you didn ' t look y k�`Y t �'$t the schedule,, you will be sub�ect to dismiasal . a :� � .r-� > . �,�,. v § ,�, � ; ,-; ' ' , " `'` 4t;,tUnifoY�m - everyo�ie muat wear their uniform. +,�� ,�' ,. "k�.. �,� ��`ti W�3�if�t8�eg da� and night - white tuxedo blouse and aprons � � x��`��B�t�`�+�rider� - seme as waitresses �Nightclub only) �, r:�r . , }Bert��dera � Blue Gatsby.'s shirts (Sportsbar only) 5VFt,r�'�».,•�`'�� y��`y'�'tW1C'�.��9��e , ' .?��: �� "��li�C�t'e: " �$�Ue� �hirtg provided :�rv w'$r� f�1�� sst#g „' �. _`� . . . . �.�JL± � � ��`��'C��e�Vife ddea not have a shirt , please lct me know. ��r;�Y�� ' � .�: :.,,� . 1�Q��'�� e�t 'half ptice , except steak and pizzas . No one ` - ��t'��`�free, nee at lutfch or anqtime . Y8ur ticket must be � '��.t'��tt `up �b�r�'�nother emploqee . Cooks will not make food � ftl�°`�'A�lyoite.'i►lthbut 8 ticket. 'No one goes in the kitchen { ,. • �"�d�il�ke8, thei�' own food . ` � �:..° # -��a;.w� � . , . � �� ' e' ' . � z ,s , ° A��,?'''employe�$' must be out by 1 :30, unless given special A �4�z,�, F, - �+_�*L�t�� = �er;i�ission to Clean� etc. All customers , friends , must be '�15�'BhgPpl ` 'Nt� exCeptiona . If someone is giving qou � ,, �, �� + �1e `and yeu gre not finished , th�q have to wait outside . � �.�.�'° s ��` �`h��e�`er� rules gfven to me by the police . I do not want to ��, r heve' to te11 anyone once . If you do not abide by these rules �JKfi 4....-. . �j, � � ; you will be dismissed immediatelq . All tips must be counted ? on ''the sports bar side. Please punch out first . No one staqs '�` on the night club side. �, } S� . a�„�, ;° ; �'. $mployees allowed one after work drink at 12 : 45 only . You - � " � must be done drinking by 1 : 15. If qou get off work before , _ this fiime, you may drink for 1 .00, beer , bar , and wine drinks �`,�� ,Ori1y. '< You psy regular price for call drinks . This does not . ��'� �'��,��;ri1�811�'�fh8t you can buy dollar drinks ior your friends . If this �� g �bUBed in any waq, it will be taken away . Employees do »�-�r��`��:'�lot re+�e3ve gny free drinks , except their after work drink . �r ii �.� +F �r i's5 °n �A '$' �$. '� Ab9dlutely no one is to take bottles of beer outside with � "��'�4' F"��t�'the�1 efter work. Immediate dismissal will result . ��,� ,r ,; �� 9. A11 Checka must be initialed by the employee who takes them. ��`�k' Al1 Check� must have the license and pFione number and made out �4'�`r;� �� tQ. 'G�tSby 's or All American . Please check the license to make �'r - t �,sUi'e"�it is not a stolen check. Our check system does not pay ' �� ' ;:�fi,� �, fo�r "�forged .checks. Make sure theq are signed and ;the date is ��'`j r%.�, �� cort'�Ct. All checks must be looked up in the list � provided . � ��-r : � , ,��,�1(�� aAll 'Charges must be okayed a� the door in the nightclub. After '�, � tnidrtight � a mangger must okay them. All charges over $50. 00 -- x � �.� for`Visa must be called in . The information is on the charge �- � , mechine8. American express is good up to $200.00. Check ID ` to make aure it is the mu8t be looked up in theewarning�bulliteng it . Visa charges ��-�, . �a -�� s. M�x vnuG�rr Attorney At Law Suite 700 Six lXlest Fifth Street Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 (612)297-6400 REC�iVED �E6131994 C{�', GL�RK January 18, 1990 The Honorable Suzanne Born A�r.:iraistr��ive i,aw 3udge 2116 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, NIN 55404 Re: City of Saint Paul vs. R-Mont, Inc and John O. Keena d/b/a Gatsby's; OAH docket number 66-2102-4255-6 Dear Judge Born: At the conclusion of the hearing in the above entitled matter on January 16, 1990, I discussed the matter of post-hearing submission with my client and she has authorized me on behalf of R-Mont, Inc. , to waive any further submission and to ask that a decision be made based upon the record as reflected at the hearing. Very truly yours, ______ �i�/L— S. Mark Vaught Attorney at Law SNN:akmm cc: Thomas J. Weyandt J�Y� 2 ;G 1;�� S • , � �v —�"�� tr�o. ��EIVEI� R4' ••. CIT'Y OF SAINT PAUL ° � � 199(l ; ;��n : J AN OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY �+ ~a ADMINI�TRP►T111� �... �� JANE A. MC PEAK, CITY ATTORNEY 647 City Hali,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 612-298-5121 JAMES SCHEIBEL MAYOR Rr�,r..�,"' :i ��[) January 5, 1990 �'ED1319�0 D Mr. S. Mark Vaught ��,� ��,� Attorney At Law Suite 700 Six West Fifth Street AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING St. Paul, NIIJ 55102 RE: City of St. Paul vs R-Mont. Inc and John O. Keena d/b/a Gatsby' s, 2554 Como Avenue Dear Mr. Vaught: Enclosed please find copies of the original notice of hearing and all police reports relating to allegations made. In addition, your letter of January 2, 1990 advising me of the proper licensee has been verified. The license division has informed me that the name change was approved by the council and the changes have now been made both in our office and in the license division records. If you have any question, please call me at 298-5121. Sincerely, THOMAS J. WEYANDT Assistant City AttornPy cc Jon Lunde Administrative Law Judge . ��_�� _ v._.�;. Rr��'S7�a ' , _ .�r �wi. � -� _.-•. . � � � E I V E CITY OF SAINT PAUL , „�„�,,,,, � ��C OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY • m� �un , : � �••• �A� � 19� EDWARD P. STARR, CITY ATTORNEY 647 City Hall,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 ��{��p�� 612-29&5121 GEORGE LATIMER ��r�^ MAYOR �R� _ November 27, 1989 Ms. Renee Montpetit J. J. Enterprises Inc./RMM Inc. , NOTICE OF HEARING John O. Keena d/b/a Gatsby 2554 Como Avenue St. Paul, MN 55108 RE: City of Saint Paul vs J. J. Enterprises Inc./RMM Inc. and John O. Keena d/b/a Gatsby, 2554 Como Avenue Dear Ms. Montpetit: At your request, we have reviewed the file and find that there is sufficient reasons to bring this case forward. This is to notify you that the hearing will be held concerning all the licenses held at the premises stated above at the following time, date and place: Date: January 3, 1989 Time: 9 a.m. Place: Room 1503 A City Hall Annex 15 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 The judge will be an Administrative Law Judge from the State of Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings: Name: Mr. Jon Lunde Office of Administrative Hearings Fifth Floor, Flour Exchange Building 310 Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: 341-7645 The Council of the City of Saint Paul has the authority to provide for hearings concerning licensed premises, and for adverse action against such licenses, under Chapter 310, including sections 310. 05 and 310. 06, of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. In the case of licenses for intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquor, authority is also conveyed by section 340A.415 of the Minnesota Statutes. Adverse action may include revocation, suspension, fines and other penalties or conditions. .. . � 9�J vr� ' Page 2 November 27, 1989 Ms. Rene Montpetit Evidence will be presented to the judge which may lead to adverse action against all the licenses you hold at the above premises as follows: '- ' On October 15, 1989, you or your employees permitted the display or consumption of liquor after hours in violation of section 409.07 (c) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. You have the right to be represented by an attorney before and during the hearing if you so choose, or you can represent yourself. You may also have a person of you choice represent you, to the extent not prohibited as unauthorized practice of law. The hearing will be conducted accordance with the requirements of sections 14 . 57 to 14 . 62 of the Minnesota Statutes, and such parts of the procedures under section 310. 05 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code as may be applicable. At the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge will have all parties identify themselves for the record. Then the City will present its witnesses and evidence, each of whom the license or attorney may cross-examine. The licensee may then offer in rebuttal any witnesses or evidence it may wish to present, each of whom the City attorney may cross-examine. The Administrative Law Judge may in addition hear relevant and material testimony from persons not presented as witnesses who have substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding; for example, the owners or occupants of property located in close proximity tot he licensed premises may have substantial interest int he outcome of the proceeding. Concluding arguments may be made by the parties. Following the hearing, the Judge will prepare Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a specific recommendation for action to be taken. You should bring to the hearing all documents, records and witnesses you will or may need to support your position. Subpoenas may be available to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents in conformity with Minnesota Rules, part 1400.7000. If you think that this matter can be resolved or settled without a formal hearing, please contact or have your attorney contact the undersigned. If a stipulation or agreement can be reached as to the facts, that stipulation will be presented to the Administrative Law Judge for incorporation into his or her recommendation for Council action. : � . � q�-��" � Page 3 November 27 1989 Ms. Rene Montpetit If you fail to appear'� at the hearing, the allegations against you which have been stated earlier in this notice may be taken as true and your ability to challenge them forfeited. If non-public data is received into evidence at the hearing, it may become public unless objection is made and relief requested under Minnesota Statutes, section 14. 60, subdivision 2. Sincerely, THOMAS J. WEYANDT Assistant City Attorney cc: Joseph F. Carchedi License Inspector Albert B. Olson City Clerk Paige Purcell Office of Administrative Hearings Kris Van Horn License Enforcement Auditor Lt. Daryl Olson Vice Unit Ms. Roberta Megard, C.O. St. Anthony Park Community Council � � = � � �, -- .! � . {< � J 7 � .r � � \ � �\ � > L z ` S .T �� I ` ' ^.� \ � . �t r � `,� � , 3 , --� < < �: ,. J 3 � � Y t , � " ; Y < � ' '� v ` i � � z � � � 3 � - a' �-� ' � € � ` K ° : ° Z3 � � � i > f i ' � b l' -L � .: e� � � 0 � � i s ; + � � \ � � 1 )„ Q ` . � w � � � ` �o F �1 S � � '� � °' `�. � e V � F r � S .�[ � � � �. ��' � ; o > � r � � ,1 � � -1- � N �' � ❑ e G Q < , � .� .L. `� � �- � V' .l � o � ► u � � , ' - a o � � '� c: _L S ..\ � Y • � � � Y < � u � 1 ` "� \. -�. � � ,. � h �' � ` � � c u � � e -tt `4. °' �.T. �1.� � t� ` g � Z a � € 0 N a► � _ 1v" � ` -� � v � S o r � , r O 0 ■ � 0 ` � < Vf L.. �i � Z 'r .\ � J J` ,` e � � J � � ` v � }.� C T «\ ; � a f = i c �- � � -�- � t � < < v � , •• • � � �' � � � �, � c ' : � < � � ; � � � ` �' �v., d � ' F ° ` o = 1 �.� v � � � .. - a 'o o e � -�- � � `' � ,� � -�. . 'r t � � a.F � �, 'U .-=r . t -0 < � > � �. d ! 3 � - W `v °'$ ` ` �. ! � � -t+ }" i �. `• � ` � � !�,.i ; � ° i =� '- o , 1�' i �. f ��'u D � ; � rs � 1' � � � � a `V f � p-,l V • . F ! � "z;;X F : � h ��r-. ��.. �� z G f� , :J�+ �� C+ ,� ^2 z t y � C v t� " � � � ._. � t' ' �y 3 � �„� � ,-1 � � '0 �..� 7 f � � � ~ f+� Y .. .�t _� W z � , � � J C � � � .. � r �`�' Y ' +' � ��-O 0 ( b ' �,1 � ~1 `}.,� u .Z � r 2 . .� X S .� � O. � A „�.W z � � O _ � v � y '��} . � ` � S ..+ � � �(�. . _ � �., } , � J —�- � ` � � � �' , - •: v < o z 3 � t �`� � � � - �, � % Z Y � .� oQ- W < � � � _ : '�. J d � � b ; ` .. Z 3 r Z o . ' 4! O • o � y� _ �,f ".� �� i L7 0 ` � ey � � J � d � . � �� 1 Z < �. u� � �z = N � d � O .'` w "` � o u ; � } �" [� � � � 3 � 3 ; ,. < W � � � � • ti �o ° � � � � 6 � Q } d � d v = � a r � < r � � � � r = i � \ � � : u r � ► � � d < __� c � � 0 = r j � � � v ` � �( � ` , � � c a � o � � . � O � � � � • � � < = 3 � d � V .n ° � r w � �J E 3 . <N Y : Y � � � _ � d a O • ` r V ` � � I ' . ° f � = e� d 3 ` � a a �- � � ■ � { , 1 � � � . e � • �, i E .►- v p � 4 �. ► � �Z � .i J ?' S (�o -D . � r (� ^ � O_ J i ` } � ' } 7 f`,.; v � u F � - c . � M_ � O � � > � /" S - .� .��' "� �q � o � `° `� = , � h ,c� � . ' � ° � .z � v. < ; � � o v � ... ;m S � � : � � . t a � 3 > > • • � _� �. u � � d 0 � r I �. < " � � d � ° � � � � � � a L, , i � � � 0 ° 9 <s .�i � � _ i � J� r1 ��1 Z a � �= < � 3 ' � > � u �� i W � � � ( � ` � � .� : op ►� � < >_ a J � � o � � z � � � � s � � � .,id < < � . `r`� ttt+++,,,�� i � i: C � � o � � o Z i � � � � �' ,� `` �� J ' e . ' i � �fi {- y --� `� ,�, �� . _f N � � � ,.�^+ ? .� 1'1 O� .w .r ,€ ( /' �L'1 � ti � � .... . _._. . . . . :�' ' _ . . . ... . . ..____. . ."' .. _ _ . _ . w 1 � . .. . ._.._ _ �y� '_ _ _ .. . _. .. . ....��. _��'. . . � _.'• ' ___ �. .. '��,�,��--- _ - _ __ _ _ . _ , . � `' � � � I I ; I ; � � ' ► � : � ;� � , � , � � � � � ; ; . � �x ,�, rj �: � . � � � b ` 1 �1 ~ �...,' � t � ; ,N V1 x`., � t t� � '. •� � f � r .. � �b y � '..� .. � � �� d �._ , f � � S � -{ r� Y� ` � � M � �' �� i � � 6 � � � �.�t � y� � � ` --� ° 3 . � '� � �� \. . \, � � ` (� � a � � _ ; � ' t� • � ' � `� � � � � '� � i � - � � ; �� .. � � . � � � � b � a � °' L�; � � d � � � : � �; � � � � � , ,,;, o = -o � , I � . � � � Y � � � s � W , M .S �t t� � ! � � � '3 /'� � �- �> �I' i _ \� � `� 1 � � O � � N � `" `p ° ? . > � � v � V � ; _ f- G N ,�! , � .} � � � � � p '� � , �p � "� � � ' j � � v l� v � � 1 d � i 1 Q �` b �` � S: N tiI Z � �, N � 41 ` J � b � ( i z v n1 M "^ � v _ ` � $ � � z — � w � .l `� � ". � i . ' � i o � �o {` V � � � � � � � -� /$ +� �V � � °� � � d rl � d � � � � - � � � , - c.t � � .� •_ $ � + � � ; Q� J� � � � 1 � � � � � a �. � G h � � � � � � � � � � � � , , � d �� i �' � � � � -.' � d � `+. ;�� ( � ,� � t `. � � V, � Q � � � V ' - � � � ; � ' 6 3 � a ° s � � � ' ° � � S'� � ° 3 � , � � � G � °' � '^ � v � lo .� -1- d � J � ' � �. � r h � ! � � � � � �. �- .� � d ! • • � ,.. o, � U. � s "rJ � .c� � d ` � � � � ."': � .r1� ! � � . :. .,, - "_ .-- . . _ . :.-- . __ ': . _— _ - � �,.� �� _ - __ .._)`�- - - ___ - ._ �.� _ --- - _ - _ - . ; .y.e r �� rt '`•�` i � �• ` � R � n , ,.�` ,4 � J \ �' �� _ i� C f ' •� I \ \` 1 ` i . 1 \ Y � Y��_9 *\ � v Il � U v ^ � :' z � Y 1j O � p � •}� z , � ,`� Q \ t � 0 � y � • J � '� 1� • x � � � a •:t r � . � � � o ^ z • = � � � � o < � � :° � C �\ � V • � �� C � : ,- z � � Y r M � V ' t � • � . ` Y K I' l O � � � y �' O r < � ,;, .� � ,� � . � � � � r r j � � � ''1 �': W � � � � i �l� 1� ��' � U � > < < � Q > > . �, � ; � ` � . � ` • _ o � � S o � � ❑ � o �, �,. � � � � .� • p '�. Moz � � v � � . � Y �. " ) \ � \�.. U � � \ � �J � p O M � � O w � . f ` .. / � p J � � � � � �� O � � p < \ �� C LLJ � c c � � � _ a � • � \�• ❑ e� i— � �. � � � ' � r,� � „ z , o (.� � � j M 1. 1) � J \j Z � O � � t � J � O � o J p �. . U I � ` I J � � 3 r � 1 Z 1 � � � Y L � y � • � � � �� L oO � U � � _ � � O . � o : � � < , o D v . � F y V 0 ` � r \V f � •S A w O Q > Z '� � 1 [ W ► \ g p u � � � J ; � � � � � ��1 ` � u < a � i Z p � S � N � - � ° > � � c Q N �� a ` o � v t Y z\ �� 1- �` ` . i � i � N u p�. � • � � � 1 � � O � w � � i � � V � J � � • W w � � � ` `� � � r � ' �' J i � � t �, i� e � � v � ► O Y � , � � � `- u t cc � : ; 3 1, a 4. J = � � • � J .Y F. Z u � z � N Z • • � • Z � ' � CC� � v � /�' = a < � = J F" h v : I � � � V� � � x � � � � i i o � � r � � � t O Y tl � \ Y � '�O I > � � , 1 . \\ � « � /� [ � � u � � ' 1 � ' � c Y 0 � [ ; • r \ `- V �� N 1 r ► t � �' p ,� � r Y N V t �' • Z r � • � Y O J � U •• J t` � < u • a ► � I o • V u � < > ` � ► o I � � � � .. 'J ` ` 1 � < 6 r _ < _ c ' � � a a i - �. r � .. � > i a�� < i ` � r \rJ i � LL. � a V o j � ` < �' ` � � � . . . . . �� ♦ �o • � � -- �- �-_ ^. __ -� �•__ •• _ _ .._. _ _ __ _ .-- ._ -- °; .- - _ -. . '�Y! S� �✓ -- - -- _. __ __ _ - ___".__ _ -_—_ _. _ . _. ,_ - -- � ___ ^ _ , , " , .. � � � , ,.' J � t f � +G'/ �" � \ � u a� t Z 0 Y.;_ + � � _ ^n f �...:.. Z < Y ��I � �' Y �" J r � � .. ♦ K u u � � ��. � " b � J o r � 1 : c z u "a: y` Q ° � ad ,i F Y �ar..,: O • • �,�•'L,.� , ,y y y �:.rF.. .� p • X _ � J � i Y u u o � `, < i o� � a � � e r r � ^, � > > w .f W ; ; < < Y � O � J > > . > : � ` � � . v' o � .'� i a i o ` o \ z � O ❑ � • : o � � z � �Z � ` � ' ' � Z " JI � � u O ^ ` h ,r ' � j O � � :� [ t � • � Q d � � ` C � Q O ` � y o Q \ � O � � 7 � � W o t � n � � o � y u , y Q c � � o > \ z v � ¢ � Q � j w < � a �+ • V' � i � � � � u o � o � _ o � � o ° ��, o � ; < _ � � Y f W � � O � i� a � � u � < � � o l F i � \ � � � � V o � � � f W r � p t y l � � _ ` Q t W F � M p U y � < c J � i , ° i � ° N • ► C a � � z � � � � W a o � e � � ° � � � H � o � r O c a , � � ` (A �� I e � � H � r . w r � j N u 0 O � t . � Y � ; � . V . J � u � � W e ° � � o � Y � L � � � � � U r . � � u � r � � o W � d ` J O J � ` � � � � � ; a < < � „ � , a ; � • < � Z � - : � {� V Z f } ' w � O Y v O ` � J F- � V � : ` � < u � � Z � V` o o : .°, _ � � x � r Z > o � 0 0 I [ � O Y Y �I � < W O O � ` t f�� Y Y r ( � ` � < O < = z O � r u u u ` , w Y y O > � ; A w [ r r o < < o • • � � Y Y J � 3 Y � ( � t J N � ` ` T 1r7 O � o u z s ; ,: •• + o ; V � � � � r o � � � V 0 � Z rr � 2 � r ? � < < � w r c � � � z i � � o a � � • i LL t i ► < o Z � � � � i � _ d o � . � � V . . . . . . . - ^--_ � � -_ '� "'. ^ _-_: _ _- - ' -: -- - _ _ -: � :- _ - - � � 1 . . - - -- ---_ --___ __ _ =- --.._. .__- - __ __ - .,_ .:-:.� . ..-- _ �-�rS�'�v� _ -- _--_ - _-- -- _ _ _ -------- - - �� 9��,-�� 4�itr o� ��r�ED ,�� ;, CIT'Y OF SAINT PAUL � ,�,_��„�� ; DEC 1 � OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ADIW�N� ��9 �' �� STR,qT�{/E �••• EDWARD P. STARR, CITY ATTORNEY HEqR�p� 647 City Halt,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 612-29&5121 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR RFC�s�r�� December 14, 1989 �g131990 Mr. Mark Vaught c��'� �_E�t,{ Attorney At Law AMENDED 700 St. Paul Building NOTICE OF HEARING 6 West Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 RE: City of Saint Paul vs J. J. Enterprises Inc./RMM Inc. and John O. Keena d/b/a Gatsby, 2554 Como Avenue Dear Mr. Vaught: At your request, we have rescheduled the hearing in the above referenced matter to January 16, 1990, 1: 30 p.m. , in Room 1503A of the City Hall Annex, 25 West Fourth Street. The Judge will remain the same. If you have any questions, please call me at 298-5121. Sincerely, THOMAS J. WEYANDT Assistant City Attorney cc: Joseph F. Carchedi License Inspector Albert B. Olson City Clerk Lt. Daryl Olson Vice Unit Paige Purcell Office of Administrative Hearings Kris Van Horn License Enforcement Auditor Ms. Roberta Megard, C.O. St. Anthony Park Community Council Jon Lunde Office Of Administrative Hearings � �,�_�-�p q�, s�� R�� - ,�a``' _�":, � �g$9 CITY OF SAINT PAUL ° ~ N�v � � OFFICE OF THE CIT'Y ATTORNEY � Iit�111 I a r- •,�T�pTIVE . � App.R :� , '•" ��pR�NGS EDWARD P. STARR, CITY ATTORNEY 647 City Hall,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 ' 612-29&5121 GEORGE LATIMER ,�' ' MAYOR � - � � O � _ � �C> 5 - � R�C�t�t�D November 27, 1989 �EB131990 . i.��i� l,�i.t f i� Ms. Renee Montpetit J. J. Enterprises Inc./RNIIK Inc. , NOTICE OF HEARING John O. Keena d/b/a Gatsby 2554 Como Avenue St. Paul, MN 55108 , RE: City of Saint Paul vs J. J. Enterprises Inc./RMM Inc. and John O. Keena d/b/a Gatsby, 2554 Como Avenue Dear Ms. Montpetit: At your request, we have reviewed the file and find that there is sufficient reasons to bring this case forward. This is to notify you that the hearing will be held concerning all the licenses held at the premises stated above at the following time, date and place: Date: January 3, 1989 � Time: 9 a.m. l'�3 Place: Room 1503 A City Hall Annex 15 West Fourth 3treet Saint Paul, MN 55102 The judge will be an Administrative Law Judge from the State of Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings: Name: Mr. Jon Lunde Office of Administrative *.iearinqs Fifth Floor, Flour Exchange Buildinq 310 Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: 341-7645 ___ The Council of the City of Saint Paul has the authority to provide for hearings concerning licensed premises, and for adverse action against such licenses, under Chapter 310, including sections 310.05 and 310. 06, of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. In the case of licenses for intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquor, authority is also conveyed by section 340A.415 of the Minnesota Statutes. Adverse action may include revocation, suspension, fines and other penalties or conditions. . 9v�'�� Page 2 November 27, 1989 Ms. Rene Montpetit Evidence will be presented to the judge which may lead to adverse action against all the licenses you hold at the above premises as follows: �� ' On October 15, 1989, you or your employees permitted the display or consumption of liquor after hours in violation of section 409.07 (c) of the Saint Paul Leqislative Code. You have the right to be represented by an attorney before and during the hearing if you so choose, or you can represent yourself. You may also have a person of you choice represent you, to the extent not prohibited as unauthorized practice of law. The hearing will be conducted accordance with the requirements of sections 14 .57 to 14. 62 of the Minnesota Statutes, and such parts of the procedures under section 310.05 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code as may be applicable. At the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge will have all parties identify themselves for the record. Then the City will present its witnesses and evidence, each of whom the license or attorney may cross-examine. The licensee may then offer in rebuttal any witnesses or evidence it may wish to present, each of whom the City attorney may cross-examine. The Administrative Law Judge may in addition hear relevant and material testimony from persons not presented as witnesses who have substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding; for example, the owners or occupants of property located in close proximity tot he licensed premises may have substantial interest int he outcome of the proceeding. Concluding arguments may be made by the parties. Following the hearing, the Judge will prepare Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a specific recommendation for action to be taken. You should bring to the hearing all documents, records and witnesses you will or may need to support your position. Subpoenas may be available to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents in conformity with Minnesota Rules, part 1400.7000. If you think that this matter can be resolved or settled without a formal hearing, please contact or have your attorney contact the undersigned. If a stipulation or agreement can be reached as to the facts, that stipulation will be presented to the Administrative Law Judge for incorporation into his or her recommendation for Council action. . 9�,�� Page 3 November 27 1989 Ms. Rene Montpetit If you fail to appear�,at the hearing, the allegations against you which have been stated' earlier in this notice may be taken as true and your ability to challenge them forfeited. If non-public data is received into evidence at the hearing, it may become public unless objection is made and relief requested under Minnesota Statutes, section 14.60, subdivision 2 . Sincerely, THOMAS J. WEYANDT Assistant City Attorney cc: Joseph F. Carchedi License Inspector Albert B. Olson City Clerk Paige Purcell Office of Administrative Hearings Kris Van Horn License Enforcement Auditor Lt. Daryl Olson Vice Unit Ms. Roberta Megard, C.O. St. Anthony Park Community Council � { � e � � , � , , � , .� � � � � � � � � � � � � .� °� � � � ��r � � � � . ��, �� '� � � � � � � a� x '� � � �;; � �.:. � � ^ � � � ', ��. � •� cd �n .,� ,�: � � � � _ '� cd U �t � �C u1 a.-� W .� �r1 � � � r-� •rl �+ � _._. � � � O � U •ri O c!1 � 'd !� . .. w � ^ � � N 4a �-I � � •� ° o° ,.� a � � � � � P-+ U fs; �t N •� � • 4-I .-� O � � 4-I �1 r-I •r-I �; O � M � N O � � � � .� } O w '^ Z c � c � � � F- Q 3 � a ~ � V � u, �ro 2 `� F- — � @ � _ w � U V ` � n � �, � � .i. e�,�T PA4t O � �r \ �� °a�� 'o� �. .�� .,�. / �,, �"�n,�,°,,,��,° 1 �-. �� J v (- E ` � n °�w � s , ar ,� , � � � �''� �b •� � � •� � � � a� x a � u� ao � � � � � -ti •� �a a-.� �--i � � � �� j cd U O �1 �-I 5C Cl� u1 3 +-� W c� � a� a •� � � • a� •� oa�i � � � � � � rd •� 'df� � � � � � �.� •� a �+ w � +� � +� oo � o � �n o � Pa o •� a�� o �s h � U W (� N •r-I •r-I (�"' • � 4--i ,.0 o � �+•d 4-� �-1 r-I •rl �� O�nM � N O � �n � I � >- O Z c � c � � � F- Q 3 � � � �, V � w `� 2 `n F- — LL ro O = W y U U � ^ � � � � ��,NT P�G� O �� .�"r�c.`. '��% � ��y��t��in..j1e�s �y,�l'.� . �1�. sJ t 90-6��' S piTi 01 �� . CITY OF SAINT PAUL O M ; ��„��; ; OFFICE OF T'HE CITY ATTORNEY y h0 P ��`� JANE MC PEAK, CITY ATTORNEY 647 City Hall, Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 612-298-5121 JAMES SCHEIBEL RECEIVED MAYOR Ma rch 5, 19 9 0 �AR061990 Mr. S. Mark Vaught �1�f�� C�Ek�C Attorney At Law Suite 700 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING Six West Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: City of St. Paul vs R. Mont, Inc and John O. Keena d/b/a Gatsby's Dear Mr. Vaught: Please take notice that a hearing on the report of the Administrative Law Judge concerning the above en ione establishment has been scheduled for 9: 00 o'clock a.m. , March 2 1990, in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor, Saint ity r Hall and Ramsey County Courthouse. You have the opportunity to file exceptions to the report with the City Clerk at any time during normal business hours. You may also present oral or written argument to the Council at the this hearing. The Council will base its decision on the record of the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge and on the arguments made and exceptions filed, but may depart form the recommendations of such Judge as permitted by law in the exercise of its judgment and discretion. Sincerely, THOMAS J. WEYANDT Assistant City Attorney cc: Robert Kessler Acting License Inspector Lt. Daryl Olson Vice Unit Albert B. Olson City Clerk City Council Members 9vvt��' ,��Il�� , . , , �� . . 9/�'to��e u�Ho� �Y' � '� � . �': ' (- _ ��`�'� STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FIFTH FLOOR,FLOUR EXCHANGE BUILDING 310 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55415 ,6,2,34,-isoo REC�IUED February 16, 1990 �'CD4��a7V C1TY CLERK Albert B. Olson City Clerk � St. Paul City Council 386 City Hall St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 Re: In the Matter of the City of St. Paul vs. R-Mont, Inc. and John 0. Ke�na d/b/a Gatsby's; OAH Docket No. 66-2101-4255-6. Dear Mr. Olson: Enclosed is the duplicate tape of the hearing in the above-referenced matter which was heard on January 16, 1990. The official record was returned to you on February 12. Sincerely, ��`�''� C� ��'U� SANDRA A. HAVEN Office Services Supervisor Telephone: 612/341-7642 sh Enc. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER � � ��-�� {"/"/�,��n �� ^I -r� �- � , l �.✓��~ V �V� ' � r � , , , , ------- ---- ._ .s.. : -n,i�--� ---_c� _��__ __� �-- ---�.Y,�_--- _ . _------ ----- --- - -- � ��.�,.�- w---_ � �` w--d�-- ____---_ ____ __.:- _ `Q.�J _ ___ .---------- 1oe"'-�'s-�' _ __ -------—- -- - 1° � -- 1 _ ._ _---__ _- - ----._.d�-�___l-�ce�.a.e,� _ __ d.QQ.�,ve�Q _.__��_-_ ._._.-_ ---�_v__--�'i°(r�-J----�-------,--. __ . _- -___ --- .--_ 1_�►.._._�o�G�__ ��_, __r��i - ---,�_----G�S�y�S.___sp�,�-�,__ r��.--_- -- --------_____-_- _ -- ---- ._(�.___11,�.�1___41%.c _ .I�c�ks-eo __ �s : ��d � --_ _. � ,.� ___.�. .._ _____---��__cc��., b�-��____ _ ----- _.___ __ . ..--- :__l� �� __�•�v�-�v.�s __. b�. _'�c�ca_-- �o _c.i!'er�- -Gely�cPi1�S Ct_�ct___-_11u,� ` ----- --_._____._ _. .___- -• . 1/�!M9•h�. _(..� �`-f _ tS�.e�_ __�.f� _ `�A.�_ .__�o CJ�45 L�.,/`�C . a� e _... -- -- -- � --_ 1� _✓�-cJ�9�____({�c�..�2�_._----- � 1 - - ----- - �--._-.:--cYVtti.�l�^-� __!!V. _t��s.,O�U� . _Dl_-@�CO�D��--b_��i�_ __ a't-d-?,r__1tic�ws a� _____---- . � -- -� -- --- -------._...�'�t;�-�-cl.� ------------- _...---------------------- ----------_------------------------------------ ` � _ _._________ . ;_._� �Co�,,r��_-_-�____�, ,-�,�--------- _ ---- ----------------- _- ---------------- _------ � ��.� �� __ _ _ . _..__- ---.-.----------_ _- - ----- �- -_ ---- --- _--------�-u.--------------------_.. -- q� s�� s. MAxic vauGx�r Attorney At Lau� Suite 700 Six West Fifth Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612)297-6400 RfCE1VED March 21 , 1990 ��1,� The Hcmorable william wilson, President CIT� �LERK and Members of the City Council City of Saint Paul 7th Floor, City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: In the Matter of the License of R-Mont, Inc. , d/b/a Gatsby' s Dear Council President Wilson: I represent R-Mont, Inc. A matter concerning R-Mont, Inc. � will be before the City Council on Thursday, March 22, 1990, pursuant to a recommendation of Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Born of February 9, 1990, that the City take adverse action against the licensee for display of alcoholic beverages after hours . The purpose of this letter is to take exception to the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge and to urge the City Council to find, on the basis of precedent and the facts, that the finding of the Administrative Law Judge is clearly erroneous and to determine that no violation took place and no penalty is appropriate. In simple, direct language, it is the contention of R-MOnt, Inc. , that the Administrative Law Judge in this case was wrong in her findings and conclusions and that she erred in the recommendation. Precedent supports the contention. You attention is drawn to the enclosed Findings of Fact, Conclusions, Recommendation, and Memorandum, of Administrative Law Judge Al1an W. Klein dated June 16, 1989, In the Matter of the Liquor Licenses Issued to GMH, Inc. , d/b/a Grand Central. '' When the Grand Central matter was before the City Council, the recommendation of Administrative Law Judge Klein that the City dismiss the matter was followed. R-Mont, Inc. hopes that you will re-read Administrative Law . Judge Klein' s Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Recommendation, and particularly the Memorandum. A reading of the facts of Administrative Law Judge Born' s Findings of Fact in the Gatsby' s matter will also show that the two cases are virtually indistinguishable. �b�s 9d — �5�� March 21 , 1990 � Page 2 The factual similarities between the Grand Central case, where no sanction was recommended or meted out against the licensee, and this case involving Gatsby' s, where a sanction is recommended, are numerous. Both cases involve the police officer or officers finding individuals in a licensed establishment after regular hours. In the Grand Central case the incident took place at 2 : 45 a.m. on April 27, 1989 . In this case the incident took place at 2:20 a.m. on October 15, 1989. In both cases, the police observed 10 to 12 individuals in the respective establishment. In both cases the testimony identified all of the individuals present as employees. In the Grand Central - case, the employees had just finished cleaning the establishment. In this case, the employees had just finished cleaning and were waiting to escort the current owner/manager to her car. She was just completing her closing bookwork and reconciliation of the various tills. The testimony indicated that she routinely, as she did in this incident, asked employees to wait to escort her to her car as the bar is in an industrial area and a former janitor of the establishment had been shot on the premises late at night. In these circumstances, she had legitimate fears about her safety. In both cases there were numerous bottles, including beer bottles, and glasses throughout the bar. In both cases there was a single individual behind the bar, though in neither case was there any evidence that the person was serving the individuals present. In this case, the person behind the bar testified that he had not served anyone after hours and was simply retrieving his coat, for the purposes of leaving the establishment, from behind the bar when the officers entered. In both cases the owners/operators of the establishments had strict written policies against drinking or serving after hours by employees or patrons. In both cases the police failed to touch any of the bottles or glasses to see if they were cold. In both cases the police officers failed to smell any of the contents of the glasses or bottles to ascertain if the odor of �alcohol was present. In neither case did the police officers seize any of the bottles or glasses or contents as physical evidence. These points weighed heavily in the Memorandum submitted by Administrative Law Judge Klein in the Grand Central case in which he found that the City had � not proved its case, in large part because of the failure to take any physical evidence. • ��-�5�� March 21 , 1990 � Page 3 Ironically, the dissimilarities in the two cases demonstrate that the conduct of the licensee in the Grand Central case was much more egregious than in this case involving Gatsby' s. The Gatsby' s incident occurred on a Saturday night when patronage would naturally be higher and clean-up would take longer. The Grand Central incident occurred on a Wednesday evening with lower patronage, though evidence indicated a large fund-raiser had been held in the establishment that evening. In the Grand Central case, the individuals were sitting at the bar with bottles and glasses in front of them. In the Gatsby' s case most of the individuals were at tables containing glasses and bottles, but there was testimony that glasses and bottles were also present on tables at which no parties were sitting. Such a fact was consistent with the testimony here that on some busy evenings glasses and bottles are left to be removed by the janitor the next morning. In the Grand Central case the police officer observed a woman � holding a bottle in her hand and drinking from the bottle. In this case there was no testimony from any witness that any individual present was holding a glass or bottle or was observed drinking from one. In fact the only testimony offered was that no individual in Gatsby's had consumed any alcoholic beverage of any kind after hours. In the Grand Central case, the glasses and bottles were removed from the bar top while the police officer was in the bar, preventing the taking of evidence. In this case no attempt was made to remove the glasses and bottles and the police were not prevented from seizing evidence had they chosen to. In the Grand Central case a criminal citation for after hours display was issued. No citation at all was issued in this case. In fact, the incident was treated as so minor that one of the officers on t�e scene didn' t even write a report until several weeks later. In the Grand Central case, the owner/operator�had been warned about past alleged after hours violations. No such warning was issued to Gatsby' s nor was there any testimony that past alleged after hours violations had occurred. The similarities in the two cases are substantial. The dissimilarities argue more strongly that a sanction should have . been applied against Grand Central rather than against Gatsby' s. Yet the opposite result will occur if the City Cauncil follows the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge in this case. �� - �5�� March 21 , 1990 Page 4 My client would urge upon you the conclusion that licensees ought to be able to point to some standards in judging rules proscribing their behavior or conduct. Two essentially similar fact situations ought not to be resolved two separate ways just because different Administrative Law Judges hear the cases. This is particularly true where in one of the cases a sanction is not applied and in the other a sanction is sought. Precedent and consistency should have a place in this process. In addition to the similarities in the fact situations there are two other reasons why the City Council should reject the Administrative Law Judge' s recommendation in this case and dismiss the matter as it did in the Grand Central case. First, because the decision in the Grand Central case occurred earlier. Licensees ought to be able to count on past decisions to guide them in ascertaining what behavior is allowed. The City Council ought to be guided in its future decisions by its past decisions . Decisions in similar cases ought to be consistent. Second, because the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge in the Grand Central case is more credible and based on greater experience. Allan Klein is an experienced Administrative Law Judge with over a decade' s service. Suzanne Born, who heard this case, was hearing her first case involving a holder of a license issued by the City of Saint Paul. My client doesn' t contend and doesn' t believe that Administrative Law Judge Born was guilty of any malevolence. It simply believes she made the wrong decision and the wrong recommendation. There is absolutely no evidence that R-Mont, Inc. displayed alcohol after hours for the purpose of offering or inviting consumption. The argument here is that it is display in that context that the ordinance seeks to prohibit. : If leaving the remnants of a beverage which had been consumed prior to closing in a bottle or glass on a table or the bar after closing constitutes illegal after hours display, then virtually every on sale licensee in the City regular].y violates the ordinance. Many routinely leave bottles, glasses, and cans around the establishment to be cleaned or discarded by janitorial or cleaning personnel the next morning. - In this case, the evidence indicates that there was no offer to serve alcohol after hours, no service of alcohol after hours, and no consumption of alcohol after hours. The uncontroverted testimony was that every bottle or glass present on the table in the establishment when the police arrived had been placed there prior to closing. �o -��' March 21 , 1990 Page 5 Precedent, consistency, and the facts argue that the City Council should reject the finding and recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge and follow its earlier decision in the Grand Central case. . Very truly yours, S. Mark Vaught Attorney at Law SMV:akmm Enclosure cc: Thomas J. Weyandt, Assistant City Attorney . • � ` F;^��101-3523-6 �v-�� STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF AOMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE CITY OF ST. PAUL In the Matter of the FINDINGS OF FACT, Liquor Licenses Issued CONCLUSIONS, to G M & H, Inc. , d/b/a RECOMMENDATION Grand Central at 788 AND MEMORANOUM Grand Avenue, St. Paul . A hearing in this matter was held on June 15, 1989, in St. Paul , before Allan W. Klein, Administrative Law Judge from the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Appearing on behalf of the City of St. Paul was Thomas Weyandt, Assistant City Attorney� 647 City Hall , St. Paul , Minnesota 55102. Appearing on behalf of the Licensee, G M & H, Inc. , was Richard J. Kadrie, Attorney at Law, Suite 400, 310 Cedar Street, St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 . This Report is a recomnendation, not a final decision. The City Council will make the final decision after a review of the record. The Council may adopt, reject or modify the Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Recommendations contained herein. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14.61 and the City's Legislative Code § 310.05 (c-1 ) , the final decision of the Council shall not be made until this Report has been made available to the parties to the proceeding for at least ten days. An opportunity must be afforded to each party adversely affected by this Report to file exceptions and present argument to the Council . Parties should contact Thomas Weyandt to ascertain the procedure for filing exceptions or presenting argument. STATEMENT OF ISSUE Did Licensee allow alcoholic beverages to be displayed and consumed at Grand Central at approximately 2:50 a.m. on April 27, 1989? Based upon all of the proceedings herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . Grand Central is a food and liquor establishment located at 788 Grand Avenue in the City of St. Paul . The facility has operated under various names and ownership interests since at least 1980. G M & H, Inc. currently holds an on-sale liquor license� a Sunday liquor license, a restaurant Class D license, and an entertainment Class 4 license. All these licenses are set to expire on January 31 , 1990. 2. Donald E. Wilson is a police officer for the City of St. Paul police department. He has been with the Department for approximately five and ""-'= _—_ ___....�.. -,..,�. _�....��.._�._..�..�.� _..._�..��_�_....�,..�,.,.�.o.�.,.. � � • �' one-half years� and fc ��ive years has worked in the sE;� ';:�west section of the ��'��`� '. city. Four and one-ha�r��of those five years, he has wo�•:`:ed on the midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift. Officer Wilson is familiar with the businesses along Grand Avenue� and is familiar with Grand Central . Officer Wilson passes by Grand Central an average of twice per night, although the actual number of drive-bys can vary from none to five, depending upon the needs for his services. The vast majority of nights, however, he merely drives by Grand Central , and does not enter. He has entered the establishment approximately 24 times in five years, which is roughly once every two and a half months. 3. Officer Wilson had worked as a bartender in two bars in the past. While he was in college, between 1977 and 1978, he worked at a bar in Rochester, Minnesota an average of four nights per week. He generally was the person who closed the bar. He also worked at Michael 's restaurant in Rochester for eight months, working the night shift at the bar. He was responsible for cleaning up and closing the bar. He does, therefore, have experience in bar operations which enhances his evaluations of activities in ba rs. 4. At approximately 2:45 a.m. on the morning of Thursday, April 27, 1989, Officer Wilson was driving along Grand Avenue when he noticed unusual activities in the parking lot of the Grand Central . He noticed about 13 or 14 cars in the parking lot� noticed others parked along Grand Avenue directly in front of Grand Central , and noticed a large white truck backed into a set of doors as if it were being loaded or unloaded f rom the premises. Officer Wilson glanced at the front windows of the Grand Central , and saw nothing unusual , but decided to stop and investigate the matter. 5. The f ront door to Grand Central faces north onto Grand Avenue. The parking lot is to the east of the building, between Grand Avenue and the alley which separates Grand Avenue f rom Lincoln Avenue. The parking lot runs the full length of the half block on the south side of Grand Avenue. There are large plate glass windows on three sides of the bar building. They are on the north side (facing Grand Avenue) on the east side (facing the parking lot) and on the south side (facing the alley) . 6. Officer Wilson parked his squad car, and proceeded towards the north facing windows, the ones which face Grand Avenue. Although there were lights on in the bar, they were turned down very low, and the bar area was quite dark. The windows were tinted, and flowers obscured a direct view of the entire bar. Nevertheless, Officer Wilson was able to perceive "quite a few" people in the bar. He then went around to one of the east windows and was able to see more people in the bar. He then went around to one of the south windows, and saw even more people. The people were generally sitting at the bar, and a woman was behind the bar. While he was watching from the north windows, Officer Wilson observed a woman take a sip from a green bottle which he thought was a bottle of Moosehead beer. From all three vantage points he saw several glasses of what he thought were beer and "low-ball" cocktail glasses containing liquid. He assumed these were alcoholic beer and other aicoholic beverages. 7. After he had observed the inside of the bar from the north and east windows, he proceeded to the south window. He shined his flashlight inside the window, aimed at the general area of where the woman had been drinking out of the green bottlQ. The woman drinking out of the green bottle noticed it. -2- —___'__'__� . ..-....�,--.�,y.«sa....,.a.,m,�A..m...�..�.,.a...a,«�.�...:...,...-z�.�..00.nw�rear�aasmvmss _.aa.t�+w±Q.rbs.teoere�ean.vnYSnr:a ..a;,...°a� .aXc:.5caleme.e.�a1' • •He then shined his fla�'"�ght on his badge to identify �s self. The woman C��,�� imnediately turned her� _ .,.:k on him, as did other women s:. �ing near her. Officer Wilson then proceeded past the large white truck towards the back door of the establishment. As he was nearing the back door� it was opened for him. The individual who opened-the door identified himself as an employee, and let Officer Wilson in. S. When Officer Wilson entered the bar, he observed approximately 11 to 12 people seated at the bar, most of whom had some sort of beverage in front of them. The individual who let him in the door stated that all the people in the bar were employees and were just finishing cleaning up following a fundraiser for a cancer research project. While Officer Wilson was talking with the employee, he noticed two glasses of amber liquid on the bar. One was full , and had a head of foam on it as if it was beer that had recently been drawn. The other was between half and three-quarters full . After Officer Wilson had been told that everyone there were employees, he directed the individual who had let him in the door to get their time cards. At that point� several of the people approached Officer Wilson and indicated they were not employees of the bar, but were rather affiliated with the fundraiser which had been held there that night. While this was going on, the woman behind thz bar was removing all of the glasses and bottles from the bar. At the same time, Anthony Gagliardi (one of the owners) approached Officer Wilson, and introduced himself. Officer Wilson indicated that it was late in the evening, but Mr. Gagliardi explained that he had just concluded a fundraising event for cancer research which had drawn a very large crowd, and it took longer than usual to clean up because of the large crowd. Officer Wilson replied that it was 2:50 in the morning and Gagliardi should have had all the drinks off the bar long ago. Officer Wilson indicated that because of the lateness of the hour, he deemed this to be a flagrant violation and told Gagliardi that he was going to write up a citation for displaying alcohol after hours. Gagliardi then asked him, "Where is there alcohol displayed?", and motioned towards the bar. By this time, the bar was entirely clean of any glasses or bottles. 9. Officer Wilson proceeded to issue Gagliardi a citation (#3-31883) for after-hours display of alcohol . Gagliardi signed it, and promised to appear. 10. Wilson did not check out the time cards of the employees, he did not take the names of any of the people present, and he did not collect any evidence of alcohol being dispensed or consumed. He did not, for example, examine any of the bottles or glasses which had been just removed from the bar. He did not do any of these things because he did not feel it was necessary because the violation was, in his mind, so flagrant. 11 . Officer Wilson had noticed that on occasion there would be an unusually large number of cars parked in the lot next to Grand Central . However, during approximately the month imnediately preceding April 27, the frequency of this occurrinq had seemed to increase. Officer Wilson knew a fellow officer who frequented the bar, and Officer Wilson told his fellow officer that he might want to warn Gagliardi about keeping a strict observance of closing hours. That was approximately two weeks before the incident that Officer Wilson talked with his friend, and at the time of the incident, Officer Wilson was unaware of whether the friend had talked with Gagliardi or not. Sometime after the incident, Officer Wilson learned that his friend had, in fact, talked with Gagliardi before April 27, and had essentially warned him about the appearance that he might be operating after hours. -3- -- .._...,,�n-.,.-. .. .. � . . .�.. - .:�xv... _ ..:_,.:..?�'�'�:�s�.�----�=�'.�F.'�T:m�.•.!a°�. ;•-s+�.•..�.w.-:-n�>'�'w*r�r�,ea�-��'�•*•� .. .. . �... . . . .. ._...._:..... ,t^'S.°�i:.r?°4�*??9�' „x..�.>t _...�:...� ,. . ... . . ' . � . ,. . �a�,5�� 12. Wilson's obser...tions of the bar, both from the� :;utside through the � windows, and from the inside after he entered, showed roughly the number of glasses that would be expected given the number of people sitting at the bar. In other words, there were not a large number of glasses concentrated in one place as might be the case if they had been cleaned up from various parts of the facility and brought over to the bar for cleaning. Based on his experience and his observations both through the window and when he first entered the bar� Wilson believed that Grand Central was not in the process of being cleaned up just prior to closing, but rather people were sitting around the bar drinking. 13. The fundraiser in question was known as the "Ride for Life" children's cancer research fundraiser. It involved comedians and other entertainers, and a band. It was also videotaped by a professional filming crew. This crew used three large cameras which required the construction of special platforms. The cameras were connected by cable to a truck which housed more electronic equipment. The sponsors of the event began setting it up about noon, and it took approximately five hours to get all the equipment and decorations in place. The band donated its services to the fundraiser, as did some of the entertainers and the film crew. All the door proceeds went to the fundraising entity, as did a percentage of the bar sales. 14. There had been a noise. complaint against Grand Central called in earlier that evening, near midnight. . 15. Dismantling the equipment and returning the facility to a normal condition after the fundraiser had ended took longer than usual . Some of the bar's personnel helped with the cleanup of the equipment, and thus they did not begin cleaning up the bar itself (including such jobs as clearing glasses off tables and delivering them to the bar for cleaning) as early as they normally would. 16. At about 2:45, the truck with the video equipment had just left, and one of the owners and the manager, Anthony Gagliardi, had just taken the receipts downstair5 for placement in a safe when he was told there was an officer upstairs. He was not gone from the bar area for more than a minute. 17. There were 15 employees working for the bar that night, an additional nine in the band� and an additional ten associated with the videotaping work. 18. Gagliardi had received a prior citation from a different police officer in connection with gambling on the premises. The date of the violation was approximately a year and a half ago, but due to various legal proceedings, the actual six-day suspension received did not begin until April of 1989. The net impact of the six consecutive day closing was approximately $25,000. Gagliardi knew that any future violations would result in more severe penalties, and he had recently been warned about the after hours problem. He had instructed his employees to strictly enforce a "nothing served after 1 :00" policy on both customers and other employees. Employees were allowed to drink non-alcoholic beverages after 1 :00, but not alcoholic beverages. Gagliardi is certain that on the date in question, no alcohol was served, consumed, or displayed after 1 :00 in the morning. 19. Gagliardi does serve near-beer, but in brown bottles, not glasses. He does not serve Moosehead beer in bottles. He does serve Claushauler beer -4- r.7 . .�. . n.�r-..... . . . .a_.... .:.......__.... ...:._:._.. '�F'TA+?'2^F•'^s^�vif!"-el:�'!?cl..i3MRP«•:?!!��!'C�.:_=T:?.C�;S'`.tll"'XSR'Or.YRM��'4:.#AF�nW't.R�1,fi'FSRY'b,•i�F'i.:wT.S�'1"-Y��N�<y�:'%.{±' . � . ._,. ... . .P:7.c...i...^�Jf'_e,".!t..�'%'1"� '�......._._.� . .....�.._._�(. � . ^ ' •in green bottles that ��: shaped like Moosehead bottles'�-;Claushauler beer is A�lL�B' " , � non—alcoholic. �- � 20. The green bottle in question was not a bottle of Cold Spring sparking water. Officer Wilson testified that although he could not be positive, he believed that the bottle of Cold Spring sparkling water which was introduced into the record as Exhibit 7 was shaped differently than the bottle which he saw on the bar. A Claushauler bottle is more similarly shaped to the Moosehead bottle which Officer Wilson described than is Cold Spring sparking water. 21 . On May 11 , 1989, Assistant City Attorney Philip B. Byrne issued a Notice of Hearing indicating that a hearing would be held on June 15 which might lead to adverse action against G M & H's licenses as a result of the display and consumption of alcoholic beverages on licensed premises on April 27, 1989. The Notice set forth various procedural information and informed the Licensee of various rights and opportunities available through the hearing process. Based upon the foregoing Findings, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: CONCLUSIONS 1 . That the City Council and the Administrative Law Judge have jurisdiction in this matter, that proper notice was timely given, and that all other procedural requirements of law or rule have been complied with. 2. That the burden of proof is upon the City to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the facts alleged and to demonstrate that the facts constitute a violation of the ordinance or statute. 3. That the City failed to prove that alcoholic beverages were consumed or displayed, or that the licensee allowed their consumption or display, on April 27, 1989 at Grand Central . 4. The attached Memorandum is incorporated herein. Based upon the foregoing, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: RECOMMENDATION That the City dismiss the proceedings against G M & H, Inc. , d/b/a Grand Central , and that no further disciplinary action be taken. Dated this � �� day of June, 1989. ��---- � • � ALLAN W. KLEIN Administrative Law Judge —5— . _,._.. .._... .P.. .a. .,_ . �+rSr?t° ��*T'._.^��'*r-�mn-,±n�^^°'?'°4 x'"' °:i.R_..'^".n',w'.fs"""y`.:<.�...1^•�^�+�!.�+.!re� sna-aa'3.+4`� -.. �S .. ., r-w^.�R.�'P°7 . - .- .: • , , °. � NOTICE ,��'� /w�7� c . _.^:��' __. . Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 1 , the City is requested to serve its final decision upon each party and the Administrative Law Judge. Reported: Tape Recorded. MEMORANDUM This case essentially boils down to comparing the bar owner's word that no . alcoholic beverages were consumed or displayed, against the police officer's assumption that what he saw constituted the display and consumption of alcohol . Unfortunately, there is no "hard" evidence. If the green bottle had been retrieved from behind the bar, we would know whether it was Moosehead� Heinekens or Claushauler. If the officer had smelled or tasted the amber liquid in the glass, we would know if it were beer, and whether it had been recently drawn or had sat in the glass for some time. Unfortunately, these things were not done, and we are left without any hard evidence to know what was going on there. Were the employees, band members and entertainers just sitting around after a hard night of work, sipping on Claushaulers and ginger ale? Or, on the other hand. were they sitting around drinking beer and whiskey, with the bar essentially remaining open for business for nearly two hours after 1 :00 a.m.? The standard of proof applicable in these cases requires the City to prove that a violation occurred by a "preponderance of the evidence". That is a much easier standard to meet than the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Nonetheless, assumptions and inferences do not carry anywhere near the weight that "hard" evidence does. The only person observed drinking was a woman at the bar, who was drinking out of a green bottle. The bottle was observed through a window, and Officer Wilson candidly admitted that he could not read the label from that distance. The bar stocks both Heinekens and Claushauler in green bottles. We do not know which it was. The officer assumed it was Moosehead� but the bar does not stock Moosehead in bottles. Therefore, we are left with only hunches and guesses with regard to whether or not a violation occurred. Under such circumstances, the City has failed to meet its burden. A.W.K. -6- me�s.�ea.wcv..cit��v_ . ._.: .__. .. .�,.,. ...._. _�. -_ ...... ..,..._..__,._...,... _:�;n�e.:s*t;¢�3^-:5?�Y.^!q..'*."r...P_!.�.nv;.s*.r!ra�.,.;r�o�r-M'.^°S A'�'°e�+S:,'�-'�=.''�?�:..::.'�".".A'�.'a3Y"-F.'r"_r'..'^K's.*..°"."F�th7_'1s4< ,. •.,,•''� . - q � ,.�� 66-2101-4255-6 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE CITY OF ST. PAUL In the Matter of the FINDINGS OF FACT License of R-MONT, Inc. and CONCLUSIONS AND John O. Keena d/b/a Ga�sby' s RECOMMENDATION The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before Administrative Law Judge Suzanr.e Born. on January 16, 1990 at 1: 30 p.m. in conference room 1504A, City Hall Annex, St. Paul, Minnesota. Thomas J. Weyandt, Assistant City Attorney, 647 City Hall, St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 appeared on behalf of the City of St. Paul . S. Mark Vaught, Attorney at Law, Suite 700, Six West Fifth Street, St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 appeared on behalf of R- MONT, Inc. Testifying on behalf of the City were Officer Michael Lee and Officer David Anger. The Licensee called Renee Montpetit, James Clemmons, Joe Gilly Pearson, and Patrice Peterson as witnesses on its behalf. The record closed on January 18, 1990 when the Licensee ' s attorney notified the undersigned that he would not be submitting a memorandum. The Assistant City Attorney waived his right to submit anything further at the hearing. This Report is a Recommendation, not a final decision. The City Council will make the final decision after a review of the record and after providing an opportunity to the Licensee to present oral or written arguments to it. The Council may accept, reject or modify the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained herein. ISSUE The issue in this proceeding is whetner tne Licensee permitted the display or consumption of alcoholic beverages on its premises after 1: 00 a.m. on October 15, 1989 contrary to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 409 . 07 (c) . Based upon the record herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT l. The Notice of Hearing in this matter was duly served upon Licensees R-MONT, Inc. and John O. Keena by letter dated November 27 , 1989 . The Notice stated the place, date and time of the . . � 9� �� hearing (which was subsequently amended by a letter of January 5, 1990) and stated the grounds upon which adverse action was being sought as follows: On October 15, 1989 you or your employees permitted the display or consumption of liquor after hours in violation of § 409 . 07 (c) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. � 2 . The records of the License and Permit Division of the City of Saint Paul list the license holder as R-MONT, Inc. and John O. Keena. Mr. Keena owns no stock in R-MONT, Inc. His name remains on the license because he is owed money on the purchase agreement. The Notice of Hearing dated November 27, 1989 was mailed to R-Mont, Inc. and John O. Keena at 2554 Como Avenue, St. Paul , Minnesota 55108 . Amended Notices of the Hearing were mailed to S. Mark Vaught on December 14 , 1989 and January 5, 1990. Mr. Vaught does not represent John O. Keena and no other notice to Mr. Keena appears in the file. 3 . Licensee is a corporation whose sole owner is Renee Montpetit. Licensee operates a nightclub known as Gatsby' s and a Sports Bar located in the same building at 2554 Como Avenue, St. Paul. Licensee holds an on-sale liquor and a Sunday liquor license from the City (Exhibit 1) . 4 . At approximately 2 : 20 a.m. , October 15, 1989 , Officer Michael Lee, a City of Saint Paul Police Officer, was dispatched to Gatsby's Sports Bar at 2550 West Como in response to a complaint of after hours drinking in the establishment. Two other sguads, operated by Officer David Anger and Officer C.M. LeClaire, arrived at the scene prior to Officer Lee. 5 . Officer David Anger was the first officer to arrive at the establishment. He found one door unlocked, entered the bar area and observed people in a booth to his left, some people at a table to his right, one or two people at the bar and a person he concluded to be a bartender, standing behind the bar. Drink glasses and beer bottles were on the tables where the people were seated. 6. Officer Lee arrived a few minutes later and conferred with the other officers in the entry of the establishment. Officer Lee then entered the bar area and observed six people sitting at a table to his left, three people sitting at another table, one of whom appeared to be doing calculations with a calculator, two people standing at the bar, and one person standing behind the bar. Officer Lee observed beer bottles and a beverage glass, containing a liquid and ice, sitting on the table occupied by the group of six people, beverage glasses sitting on the table occupied by the three people, including the person doing the calculations, and two beer bottles with liquid in them on the bar. 2 - �v�6�� 7 . The bar area appeared in neat order to Officer Lee except for the areas where the people were concentrated. From the location of the bottles and glasses on the tables, Officer Lee's impression was that the people had been consuming the beverages in front of them. 8 . Officer Lee did not touch any of the bottles or glasses to determine if they were cold or smell the bottles or glasses to determine whether they contained alcoholic beverages. He did not seize any of the beer bottles or beverage glasses as evidence because he intended only to give a warning. Officer Lee recognized the beer bottles as being common brands and observed liquid in the bottles. 9 . Neither Officer Lee nor Officer Anger observed anyone being served alcohclic beverages. Neither officer observed ar�yone consume any beverage. Neither officer observed anyone place any of the glasses or bottles on the tables or bar. Neither officer observed anyone doing any cleaning in the bar area. 10. Officer LeClaire was not present at the hearing. Assistant City Attorney Thomas J. Weyandt had requested her appearance. Mr. Vaught objected to her failure to appear but had not subpoenaed her. 11. The establishment consists of a nightclub known as Gatsby�s and a Sports Bar. Various employees are responsible for clearing tables, vacuuming, cleaning the bathrooms, taking out the trash, taking beer and liquor inventories, and generally cleaning up. The nightclub side is cleaned and closed first with all employees coming into the Sports Bar to count tips and check out. 12 . Ms. Montpetit routinely requests two, three or four employees to wait until she completes her reconciliation of the tills which takes until 2 : 15 - 3 : 00 a.m. This is a safety precaution so she is not alone. This reconciliation takes longest on Saturday nights. Ms. Montpetit had completed her reconciliation on October 15, 1989 and was drinking 7-Up when Office Anger entered the bar. 13 . James Clemmons, the assistant manager, usually waits for Ms. Montpetit as he did on October 15, 1989 . Mr. Clemmons had completed his duties and was sitting with the other employees waiting for Ms. Montpetit to finish. There was a beer bottle sitting on the table in front of him. Mr. Clemmons did not observe anyone drinking alcoholic beverages in the bar after 1: 15 a.m. 14 . Joe Pearson, a bartender, was also present in the bar when the police officers arrived. Mr. Pearson did not observe anyone drinking alcoholic beverages in the bar after 1: 15 a.m. 3 , ' 90�S�� 15. Patrice Peterson, a coat check person in the nightclub, was in the bar when the police officers arrived. Ms. Peterson got off work at 12 : 00 midnight and went to the Sport' s Bar where she drank until closing with at least one other employee. The beer bottles on the table where she was seated (the table to the left where the six people were seated) were hers. 16. The first Paragraph of licensee' s Rules and Regulations dated August, 1989 (Exhibit 2) provides in part: . . . . All employees of Gatsby's side must come over to the Sports Bar side to count tips and you must be done doing this by 1: 30 a.m. . . . If you have any friends in here after 1: 15 and you are not out by 1: 30 a.m. , you will be fired! 17 . On October 15, 1989, at least 12 people ��ere in the bar at 2 : 20 a.m. including Renee Montpetit, James Clemmons, Joe Gilly Pearson and Patrice Peterson. Everyone present was an employee, the majority from the nightclub. None of the employees were engaged in cleaning, which is usually completed by 1: 30 - 2 : 00 a.m. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: CONCLUSIONS 1. Minn. Stat. § 340A. 415 (1989) provides in pertinent part: The authority issuing or approving any retail license or permit under this chapter shall either suspend for up to 60 days or revoke the license or permit or impose a civil fine not to exceed $ 2 , 000. 00 for each violation on a finding that the license or permit holder has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule, or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. No suspension or revocation takes effect until the license or permit holder has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under §§ 14 . 57 to 14 . 69 of the administrative procedure act. 2 . Saint Paul Legislative Code § 409 . 07 (c) provides: No person shall consume or display or allow consumption or display of liquor upon the premises of an on-sale licensee at any time when the sale of such liquor is not permitted. 4 • 9�-v��' 3 . The Saint Paul City Council and the Administrative Law Judge have jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 14 . 50 and 340A. 415. 4 . Licensee received timely and proper notice of the hearing. The City has complied with all procedural and substantive requirements of law and rule. 5. Alcoholic beverages were displayed on the premises on October 15, 1989, after proper closing hours. 6. The Licensee has violated Saint Paul Legislative Code § 409 . 07 (c) . 7 . Adverse action is appropriate in this case. 8 . Saint Paul Legislative Code § 409 . 26 (b) sets forth the presumptive penalties for violations of the liquor license code. The presumptive penalty for permitting the display of alcoholic beverages when the sale of such liquor is not permitted, for the first offense, is 2 consecutive days suspension of the license. Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: RECOMMENDATION IT IS HEREBY RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED that the Saint Paul City Council take adverse action against Licensee. Dated this `�� day of February, 1990. � u-^�-- Suza'� e Born Administrative Law Judge NOTICE Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14 . 62 , subd. 1, the Saint Paul City Council is required to serve its final decision upon each party and the Administrative Law Judge by first class mail. Reported: Taped, not transcribed, Tape Nos. 8377 , 8378 5 . �o -�--� MEMORANDUM The testimony of the police officers in this case is sufficient to establish that Renee Montpetit, the owner of R-Mont, Inc. , permitted the display of alcoholic beverages after 1: 15 a.m. in violation of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 409. 07 (c) . A reasonable person, upon observing beer bottles sitting on tables and the bar of a liquor establishment, would reasonably believe that the liquid in the bottles was beer. Licensee failed to enforce her own Rules and Regulations as set forth in her memorandum of August, 1989 . While the testimony offered at the hearing would justify the presence of Ms. Montpetit and up to four additional employees to still be in the bar at 2 : 20 a.m. , there was no purpose for the additional seven people. Most of these people were employees of the nightclub side of the establishment, which by the testimony of licensee's witnesses, was closed down by 1: 15 a.m. or shortly thereafter. While there was no evidence as to consumption of any alcoholic beverages after 1: 00 a.m. , licensee permitted numerous beer bottles and glasses to be on the tables at the same time that people remained in the bar with no purpose other than to socialize. The officers ' tesLimony that they did not seize any evidence or investigate further because they only intended to issue a warning, is sufficient to explain their failure to obtain tangible evidence. Testimony that the bottles and glasses had simply not been cleared was not credible in light of the officers ' testimony that the glasses and bottles were situated in front of the people as if they had been consuming the contents. SMB - � ��E� � ' , � -�:� ��=`�'��`� . ,� �'�.�c.�.� � �;,�.� �� , �- � �e �� , �V�„�c�t.C✓ /`�� 6 6-2101-4 2 5 5-6 v�� STATE OF MINNESOTA R��VE� OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE CITY OF ST. PAUL '�g1�1990 Cif':' �W�F;�i In the Matter of the FINDINGS OF FACT License of R-MONT, Inc. and CONCLUSIONS AND John O. Keena d/b/a Gatsby's RECONII�IENDATION The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Born on January 16, 1990 at 1:30 p.m. in conference room 1504A, City Hall Annex, St. Paul, Minnesota. Thomas J. Weyandt, Assistant City Attorney, 647 City Hall, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 appeared on behalf of the City of St. Paul. S. Mark Vaught, Attorney at Law, Suite 700, Six West Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 appeared on behalf of R- MONT, Inc. Testifying on behalf of the City were Officer Michael Lee and Officer David Anger. The Licensee called Renee Montpetit, James Clemmons, Joe Gilly Pearson, and Patrice Peterson as witnesses on its behalf. The record closed on January 18, 1990 when the Licensee's attorney notified the undersigned that he would not be submitting a memorandum. The Assistant City Attorney waived his right to submit anything further at the hearing. This Report is a Recommendation, not a final decision. The City Council will make the final decision after a review of the record and after providing an opportunity to the Licensee to present oral or written arguments to it. The Council may accept, reject or modify the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained herein. ISSUE The issue in this proceeding is whether the Licensee permitted the display or consumption of alcoholic beverages on its premises after 1: 00 a.m. on October 15, 1989 contrary to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 409. 07 (c) . Based upon the record herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Notice of Hearing in this matter was duly served upon Licensees R-MONT, Inc. and John O. Keena by letter dated November 27, 1989. The Notice stated the place, date and time of the . � � . � 9�-�5�� hearing (which was subsequently amended by a letter of January 5, 1990) and stated the grounds upon which adverse action was being sought as follows: On October 15, 1989 you or your employees permitted the display or consumption of liquor after hours in violation of § 409.07 (c) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. 2 . The records of the License and Permit Division of the City of Saint Paul list the license holder as R-MONT, Inc. and John O. Keena. Mr. Keena owns no stock in R-MONT, Inc. His name remains on the license because he is owed money on the purchase agreement. The Notice of Hearing dated November 27, 1989 was mailed to R-Mont, Inc. and John O. Keena at 2554 Como Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108. Amended Notices of the Hearing were mailed to S. Mark Vaught on December 14, 1989 and January 5, 1990. Mr. Vaught does not represent John O. Keena and no other notice to Mr. Keena appears in the file. 3 . Licensee is a corporation whose sole owner is Renee Montpetit. Licensee operates a nightclub known as Gatsby's and a Sports Bar located in the same building at 2554 Como Avenue, St. Paul. Licensee holds an on-sale liquor and a Sunday liquor license from the City (Exhibit 1) . 4. At approximately 2 :20 a.m. , October 15, 1989, Officer Michael Lee, a City of Saint Paul Police Officer, was dispatched to Gatsby's Sports Bar at 2550 West Como in response to a complaint of after hours drinking in the establishment. Two other squads, operated by Officer David Anger and Officer C.M. LeClaire, arrived at the scene prior to Officer Lee. 5. Officer David Anger was the first officer to arrive at the establishment. He found one door unlocked, entered the bar area and observed people in a booth to his left, some people at a table to his right, one or two people at the bar and a person he concluded to be a bartender, standing behind the bar. Drink glasses and beer bottles were on the tables where the people were seated. 6. Officer Lee arrived a few minutes later and conferred with the other officers in the entry of the establishment. Officer Lee then entered the bar area and observed six people sitting at a table to his left, three people sitting at another table, one of whom appeared to be doing calculations with a calculator, two people standing at the bar, and one person standing behind the bar. Officer Lee observed beer bottles and a beverage glass, containing a liquid and ice, sitting on the table occupied by the group of six people, beverage glasses sitting on the table occupied by the three people, including the person doing the calculations, and two beer bottles with liquid in them on the bar. . 2 . . . . . ��-s�� 7. The bar area appeared in neat order to Officer Lee except for the areas where the people were concentrated. From the location of the bottles and glasses on the tables, Officer Lee's impression was that the people had been consuming the beverages in front of them. 8. Officer Lee did not touch any of the bottles or glasses to determine if they were cold or smell the bottles or glasses to determine whether they contained alcoholic beverages. He did not seize any of the beer bottles or beverage glasses as evidence because he intended only to give a warning. Officer Lee recognized the beer bottles as being common brands and observed liquid in the bottles. 9. Neither Officer Lee nor Officer Anger observed anyone being served alcoholic beverages. Neither officer observed anyone consume any beverage. Neither officer observed anyone place any of the glasses or bottles on the tables or bar. Neither officer observed anyone doing any cleaning in the bar area. 10. Officer LeClaire was not present at the hearing. Assistant City Attorney Thomas J. Weyandt had requested her appearance. Mr. Vaught objected to her failure to appear but had not subpoenaed her. 11. The establishment consists of a nightclub known as Gatsby's and a Sports Bar. Various employees are responsible for clearing tables, vacuuming, cleaning the bathrooms, taking out the trash, taking beer and liquor inventories, and generally cleaning up. The nightclub side is cleaned and closed first with all employees coming into the Sports Bar to count tips and check out. 12. Ms. Montpetit routinely requests two, three or four employees to wait until she completes her reconciliation of the tills which takes until 2: 15 - 3: 00 a.m. This is a safety precaution so she is not alone. This reconciliation takes longest on Saturday nights. Ms. Montpetit had completed her reconciliation on October 15, 1989 and was drinking 7-Up when Office Anger entered the bar. 13 . James Clemmons, the assistant manager, usually waits for Ms. Montpetit as he did on October 15, 1989. Mr. Clemmons had completed his duties and was sitting with the other employees waiting for Ms. Montpetit to finish. There was a beer bottle sitting on the table in front of him. Mr. Clemmons did not observe anyone drinking alcoholic beverages in the bar after 1: 15 a.m. 14. Joe Pearson, a bartender, was also present in the bar when the police officers arrived. Mr. Pearson did not observe anyone drinking alcoholic beverages in the bar after 1: 15 a.m. 3 . . ,. . 9�--�-�� 15. Patrice Peterson, a coat check person in the nightclub, was in the bar when the police officers arrived. Ms. Peterson got off work at 12: 00 midnight and went to the Sport's Bar where she drank until closing with at least one other employee. The beer bottles on the table where she was seated (the table to the left where the six people were seated) were hers. 16. The first Paragraph of licensee's Rules and Regulations dated August, 1989 (Exhibit 2) provides in part: . . . . Al1 employees of Gatsby's side must come over to the Sports Bar side to count tips and you must be done doing this by 1: 30 a.m. . . . If you have any friends in here after 1: 15 and you are not out by 1: 30 a.m. , you will be fired! 17. On October 15, 1989, at least 12 people were in the bar at 2:20 a.m. including Renee Montpetit, James Clemmons, Joe Gilly Pearson and Patrice Peterson. Everyone present was an employee, the majority from the nightclub. None of the employees were engaged in cleaning, which is usually completed by 1: 30 - 2: 00 a.m. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: CONCLUSIONS 1. Minn. Stat. § 340A.415 (1989) provides in pertinent part: The authority issuing or approving any retail license or permit under this chapter shall either suspend for up to 60 days or revoke the license or permit or impose a civil fine not to exceed $ 2, 000.00 for each violation on a finding that the license or permit holder has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule, or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. No suspension or revocation takes effect until the license or permit holder has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under §§ 14.57 to 14. 69 of the administrative procedure act. 2 . Saint Paul Legislative Code § 409.07 (c) provides: No person shall consume or display or allow consumption or display of liquor upon the premises of an on-sale licensee at any time when the sale of such liquor is not permitted. 4 , . � . . 90- 5�� 3. The Saint Paul City Council and the Administrative Law Judge have jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 14.50 and 340A.415. 4 . Licensee received timely and proper notice of the hearing. The City has complied with all procedural and substantive requirements of law and rule. 5. Alcoholic beverages were displayed on the premises on October 15, 1989, after proper closing hours. 6. The Licensee has violated Saint Paul Legislative Code § 409.07 (c) . 7. Adverse action is appropriate in this case. 8. Saint Paul Legislative Code § 409.26 (b) sets forth the presumptive penalties for violations of the liquor license code. The presumptive penalty for permitting the display of alcoholic beverages when the sale of such liquor is not permitted, for the first offense, is 2 consecutive days suspension of the license. Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: RECOMMENDATION IT IS HEREBY RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED that the Saint Paul City Council take adverse action against Licensee. '�"� Dated this 9'�� day of February, 1990. �= Suza e Born Administrative Law Judge NOTICE Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 1, the Saint Paul City Council is required to serve its final decision upon each party and the Administrative Law Judge by first class mail. Reported: Taped, not transcribed, Tape Nos. 8377, 8378 5 . ,, . ��-.s�� MEMORANDUM The testimony of the police officers in this case is sufficient to establish that Renee Montpetit, the owner of R-Mont, Inc. , permitted the display of alcoholic beverages after 1: 15 a.m. in violation of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 409. 07 (c) . A reasonable person, upon observing beer bottles sitting on tables and the bar of a liquor establishment, would reasonably believe that the liquid in the bottles was beer. Licensee failed to enforce her own Rules and Regulations as set forth in her memorandum of August, 1989. While the testimony offered at the hearing would justify the presence of Ms. Montpetit and up to four additional employees to still be in the bar at 2 :20 a.m. , there was no purpose for the additional seven people. Most of these people were employees of the nightclub side of the establishment, which by the testimony of licensee's witnesses, was closed down by 1: 15 a.m. or shortly thereafter. While there was no evidence as to consumption of any alcoholic beverages after 1: 00 a.m. , licensee permitted numerous beer bottles and glasses to be on the tables at the same time that people remained in the bar with no purpose other than to socialize. The officers' testimony that they did not seize any evidence or investigate further because they only intended to issue a warning, is sufficient to explain their failure to obtain tangible evidence. Testimony that the bottles and glasses had simply not been cleared was not credible in light of the officers' testimony that the glasses and bottles were situated in front of the people as if they had been consuming the contents. SMB