99-766Q�1�1NAL
Presented B`
Referred To
Council File # �� � � ti �
Green Sheet # _�Q����
RESOLUTION
1 WI-IEREAS, the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP)
2 nutiated adverse action agaanst the licenses of Blues 5aloon, Inc. dib/a Blues Saloon, 601 N.
3 Western Avenue for alleged violations of the laws relating to sale and service of alcohol; and
4
5 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Barbaza Neilson on
6 Apri121, 1999 and she issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation on
7 June 4, 1999 in which she found that the City had not proved the allegations, and recommended
8 no action against the licenses; and
9
10 WHEREAS, at the hearing on July 14, 1999, LIEP did not file excepfions to the Report
11 but recommended the adoption of the ALJ's Report and Recommendation; now, therefore, be it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, after due deliberation based upon
a11 of the files, records and proceedings herein, adopts the ALJ's Findings, Conciusions and
Recommendation, and the same shall be attached and incorporated herein by reference; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the adverse action against the licenses held by Blues
Saloon, Inc. d/b/a Blues Saloon, 601 N. Western Avenue, is hereby dismissed and no penalty
shall be imposed.
A copy of this Resolution, as adopted, shall be sent by first class mail to the Licensee, her
attorney and the Administrative Law Judge.
Requested by Depastment of:
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
sr� � 5 �-x-en
Approved by May for Submission to Council
� `
' - �- _ ��� r�
...lifY - YI�G _1i/
By:
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MIIVNESOTA � �
Adopted by Council: Date _� V " ��
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
44-7�G
DEPARTMENTlOFFICHCWNCIL DATEwIMTW
City Council Of£ices 8-4-99 GREEN SHEET tvo 63431
CONTAGT PER9JN 8 PFpNE NMIaIID� MnhuDffie
Jerry Blakey, 266-8610 �, �.�
MUS7 BEON GWNCIL AGENDA 8Y (MTE)
August 11, 1999 �"�"
xu�nwrt arc�noear rnra.Fwc
aartixc
�� wuwcsuamYCFaow, wawcui.aErtwKero
- ❑wYOR10R.asmS�Axn ❑
TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
GTION REQUESTED
Dismissing the adverse action against the licenses held by Blues Saloon, 601 Western Avenue
North.
RECOM ENDATIONAPPfOV2 A)W 2j¢CL(R) , PERSONALSERVICECANTRALTSMUSTANSWERTHEFOLLOWINGQUESiIONS:
1. Has fhis persoNfirtn ever worked untler a coMract for this departmeM?
PLANNMGCOMMISSION YES NO
CIB CAMMITTEE 2. Nas this persoNfirm ever been a ciry empbyee9
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vES No
3. DcesYnis Pe���m P�s a sftill not normalYypossessetl by aM curteM cM emPioyee?
YES NO
4. Is this persoMim e farpMetl vendoR
YES NO
� D�iain all yes answe�s on separate shcet and attach to greensheM
INITIATMG PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (Who, What, When, Whe�e, Why)
ADVAMA6ES IF APPROVED ga yg p^�
ll9�.�i�i Cl�u�..L�Er�.:? Si�'rt.�.�
� . � �� � AU6 � 4 ���9
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED � � � �
DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED .
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TqAN3ACTiOH S � COSTIREVENUE BUDGESED (CIRCLE OtiE} � VES � NO
FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITY NUTABER
FINkNCW.INFORMATbN(IXPWN) � . , .
°f9 -�GG
t
In the Matter of the Licenses Held by
Blues Saloon, Inc., d/b/a Blues Saloon
for the Premises at 601 Western Ave. N.,
Saint Paul, Minnesota
License lD No. 49441
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMIN{STRATiVE HEAR{NGS
FOR THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL
11-2111-12118-3
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on April 21, 1999, before
Administrative Law Judge Barbara L. Neilson, in Room 220 of the Saint Paul City
Hall in Saint Paul, Minnesota. The record remained open until May 17, 1999, for
the filing of a reply brief by the City.
Virginia D. Palmer, Assistant City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney, 400
City Hail, 15 West Kellogg Blvd., Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102, represented the
City of St. Paul's Office of License, Inspections and Environmentai Protection.
Roger A. Christianson, Attorney at Law, 386 North Wabasha, Suite 600, St. Paul,
Minnesota 55102-1308, appeared on behalf of the Licensee, the Biues Saloon.
NOTICE
This Report contains a recommendation, not a finai decision. The Saint
Paul City Council wil( make the final decision after reviewing tne record and may
adopt, re}ect or modify the Findings of Fact, Concfusions and Recommendation
contained herein. Pursuant to Section 310.05 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code,
the City Council's final decision shall not be made until this Report has been
made avaiiable to the parties to the proceeding and the Licensee has been
provided an opportunity to present oral or written arguments aiieging error on the
part of the Administrative Law Judge in the application of the law or the
interpretation of the facts and an opportunity to present argument relating to any
recommended adverse action. The Licensee and any interested parties should
contact the Saint Paul City Council, 310 City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102,
to ascertain the procedure for presenting argument to the Council.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
This case presents the following issues:
1. Did the Licensee permit consumption or dispVay of alcohol upon its
premises at a time when the sale of fiquor was not permitted, in violation in Saint
Paul Legislative Code § 409.07(c)?
°l 1-'1��
2. If so, should the Sf. Paul City Council impose discipline against the
Licensee's on sale liquor, off sale malf, entertainment, restaurant, or
cigarette/tobacco licenses in accordance with Section 409.26 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code?
Based upon ali of the fiies, records and proceedings herein, and for the
reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the Administrative Law
Judge makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Licensee, Bfues Saloon, Inc., operates a food, liquor, and music
estabfishment known as the Slues Saloon at 601 Western Avenue North in Saint
Paul. The Licensee holds cigarette(tobacco, on-sals liqu�r, off-sale malt,
entertainment, and restaurant licenses from the City of Saint Paul (license no.
0049441). These licenses expired on April 30, 1999. (Testimony of Schweinler;
Ex. 2.)
2. The Blues Saloon has an upstairs bar and entertainment area in
which bands perform as weil as a downstairs bar. Typically, band members
remain at the Biues Saloon for a period of time after they finish playing to wind
down, talk to people in the audience, use the bathroom, pack up their equipment,
and haul equipment out to their vehicles. After the band leaves and the bar's
customers leave the Blues Saloon, its employees have to count, secure, and
complete paperwork regarding the money taken in; set up money to be used at
the beginning of the next day; conduct security checks; put things away; wipe aff
the bar and tables; put up the cha+rs; clean the stage, band room, and
bathrooms; restock andlor reorder depleted items; throw away bottles, cups, and
debris; pick up the floor; carry out the trash; wash out the pitchers, glasses,
mixers and ashtrays; and otherwise clean up. It is the practice of those working
at the Blues Saloon to leave the bar together when they are finished working, for
safety reasons. (Testimony of Prange, Weber, Fritsch, Coale.) It is not unusual
for employees to still be at the Bfues Saloon at 3:30 a.m. on a weekend.
(Testimony of Coale.)
3. It is against the policy of the Blues Saloon for employees to drink
alcohol on the premises while they are working. Employees have been
terminated for violating this policy. (Testimony of Prange, Coale.)
4. On Saturday night, January 9, 1999, the Eddie King Band was
performing in the upstairs entertainment area of the Blues Saloon. Last call
occurred at approximately 12:50 a.m. and the band finished playing at
approximately 12:45 or 1:00 a.m. in the early morning hours of January 10. The
band members remained upstairs at the B{ues Saloon for a period of time to chat
with members of the audience. By the time the five band membess packed up
their instruments and sound equipment and carried these items downstairs and
out to their vehicles, it was approximately 2:15 a.m. After the band members left,
Karen Prange (the manager of the Blues Saloon who also works as an upstairs
bartender on weekends) and Lynn Weber (an upstairs bartender) went
�
q q- 7t�
downstairs to assist other employees in cieaning up the downstairs area. The
other employees who were present in the Blues Saloon during the early morning
hours of January 10 were Steve Fritsch, the downstairs bartender at the Blues
Saloon, and David Gangle, a bouncer empioyed by the Blues Saloon. Penny
Schanus, Mr. Gangle's girlfriend, arrived to give Mr. Gangle and Ms. Weber a
ride home. Joe Jeffreys, an individual who is paid by the Biues Saioon on an
occasionaf basis to perForm maintenance work, was also present. He had come
that evening to repair the women's bathroom after the bar was closed and the
customers had left, and remained in the bar to help with c4ean-up and for security
reasons. Because it was cold outside that evening, several of the employees
went outside to start their cars and finished their clean-up duties while their cars
warmed up outside. (Testimony of Prange, Weber, Jeffreys, Fritsch, Coale.)
5. During the early srsorn�ng hours o# Sunday, !anaary 1Q, 1999, fi�ao
Saint Paul Police Officers (Steven Bystrom and Dawn Roeder) were patrolling in
the vicinity of the Blues Saloon. At approximately 3:23 a.m., they noticed a
woman (Ms. Schanus) entering the Blues Saloon after she had started her
vehicle. They decided to investigate because there had been a recent burglary
at another bar after closing time. They followed Ms. Schanus into the Blues
Saloon. They saw a person standing behind the bar and approximately six other
people seated at the bar. O�cer Bystrom asked who was in charge, and Ms.
Prange responded that she was. He asked her for identification, which she then
produced. He then said, "You aren't seroing alcohol after hours, are you?" She
sa+d "no" and indicated that they were just getting ready to feave. The Police
O�cers were only in the Biues Saloon for approximately five minutes. They left
without issuing a citation. (Testimony of Bystrom, Roeder, Prange, Jeffreys
Weber, Fritsch.)
6. Following the visit, O�cer Bystrom prepared a report and provided it
to the City's Department of Licensing, Inspection, and Environmental Protection
(LIEP). in the report, Officer Bystrom stated in pertinent part as follows:
We saw a bartender behind the bar and six people sitting at the bar
with drinks. When they saw us they all tried to hide their drinks.
Some put ihe glass in their iaps, others quick drank them, etc. I
asked the bartender who was in charge? She said she was
identified by mn photo DL as (PRANGE, KAREN ANN DOB 11-15-
59 of 5846 Hale Lane White Bear Lk, MN 55110). I asked her if it
wasn't a little late to be serving alcohol? She said "Yea, but
everyone was just leaving." 1 informed her a info report would be
written.
(Ex. 1; Testimony of Bystrom.)
7. The Police Officers did not have any conversation with fhe people in
the Blues Saloon, other than Ms. Prange. They did not ask why they were there
or whether they were empioyees. They did not check any bottles or glasses to
confirm that alcohol was being displayed or consumed, and they did not get close
3
°i� -���
enough to these people to see if they smelied of alcohof. (Testimony of Bystrom,
Roeder, Prange.)
8. None of the persons present during the police vis+t on January 1�,
1999, was drinking any afcohoi. If they were drinking anything, it was simpfy soft
drinks or water. (Testimony of Prange, Jeffreys, Weber, Fritsch.)
9. FoNowing the issuance of the po{ice report relating to the January 10,
1999, visit to the Blues Saloon, the Director of LIEP decided to recommend that
adverse action be taken for a second appearance in accordance with tfie penalty
matrix set forth in Section 409.26 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code. The
recommendation was made due to the conclusion of the police officers that after-
hours consumptio� of alcohol had occurred at the Blues Safoon on that date.
(Testimony of Schweinler.)
10. On or about February 8, 1999, the City served a Notice of Violation
on the Licensee noting that the Director of LIEP was recommending that adverse
action be taken against the Licensee's licenses as a result of the January 10,
1999, police visit. (Ex. 3.) The Licensee apparently filed a timely appeal
contesting the facts alleged in the Notice of Violation.
11. The Notice of Hearing scheduling the April 21, 1999, hearing in this
matter was served on counsel for the Licensee by mail on February 26, 1999,
and filed with the Office of Administrative Fiearings on March 1, 1999. (Ex. 4.)
12. In February of 1999, the City suspended all of the Licensee's
licenses for ten days due to a brief lapse that occurred in the Licensee's liquor
liability insurance. Eight days of the 10-day suspension were stayed.
(Testimony of Schweinler, Coale; Ex. 2.)
13. The District Seven Planning Councii has received complaints
concerning Iate n+ght activity at the Blues Saloon, noise, and people coming in
and out of the bar after hours. (Testimony of Samueison.}
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
CONCI.USIONS
1. The Saint Pau1 City Council and the Administrative Law Judge have
jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to § 310.05 of the St. Paui Legisfative Code
and Minn. Stat. § 14.55 (1998).
2. The hearing was conducted in accordance with the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes sections 14.57 to 14.62 and appiicable portions of the
procedures set forth in section 310.05 of the Saint Pau! Legislative Code.
3. The City has given proper notice of the hearing in this matter and has
fulfiiled all relevant substantive and procedural requirements of law or rufe.
�
q9 - ?LG
4. The City bears the burden in this matter of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that adverse action is warranted with respect to
the Licensee's licenses.
5. Chapter 310 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code contains general
provisions relating to licenses issued by the City. Section 310.Q6(b)(6)(a) of the
Saint Pauf Legisiative Code provides that adverse action may be taken when
"[t]he licensee or applicant (or any person whose conduct may by {aw be imputed
to the licensee or applicant) has violated, or performed any act which is a
violation of, any of the provisions of these chapters or of any staiute, ordinance
or regulation reasonably related to the licensed activity, regardless of whether
criminal charges have or have not been brought in connection therewith ...."
6. Pursuant to Section 310.17 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code °[aJny
act or conduct by any clerk, emp{oyee, manager or agent of a licensee ... which
act or conduct takes place ... on the licensed premises ..., and which act or
conduct violates any state or federal statutes or regufations, or any city
ordinance, shall be considered to be and treated as the act or conduct of the
licensee for the purpose of adverse action against all or any of the licenses held
by such licensee."
7. Section 409.07(a) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code provides, inter
alia, that "[n]o sale of intoxicating liquor shall be made after 1:00 a.m. on Sunday
nor untii 8:00 a.m. on Monday." Section 409.07(c) specifies that "[n}o person
shall consume or display or allow consumption or display of fiquor upon the
premises of an on-sale licensee at any time when the sale of such liquor is not
permitted."
8. Pursuant to Section 310.05(I) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code,
adverse license action may include the imposition of a fine "in such amount as
the council deems reasonable and apprapriate, having in m+nd the regulatory and
enforcement purposes embodied in the particular licensing ordinance."
9. Section 409.2"0 ofi the Saint Paui Legis}ativ2 Code sets forth a
schedule of penaities that are presumed to be appropriate for on-sale and off-
sale licensed premises, but permits the City Council to deviate from these
penalties in individuaf circumstances where warranted. The penalty for after-
hours display or consumption of alcoholic beverage is a 4-day suspension for the
second appearance.
10. The City faifed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence
that the Licensee permitted the consumption or display of liquor upon its
premises on January 10, 1999, at a time when the sale of liquor was not
permitted.
11. The City's recommended imposition of a four-day suspension of the
Licensee's Gcenses thus is not warranted.
5
�t q •1 G�
Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
RECOMMENDATION
IT IS HEREBY RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED:
That the St. Paui City Council not take adverse action against the licenses
held by Blues Saloon, Inc., doing business as Blues Saloon.
Dated this `�'�'h day of June, �999.
P�.�r� �.. t�c,�.s�.r—
BARBARA L. NEILSON
Administrative Law Judge
MEMORANDUM
The City of Saint Paui's Office of License, Inspections and Environmental
Protection (LIEP) has recommended discipline of the ficenses held by the B{ues
Saloon, Inc., pursuant to Section 310.06(b)(6)(a) of the Saint Paul Legisfative
Code. This section provides that adverse action may be taken when "[t]he
licensee or applicant (or any person whose conduct may by faw be imputed to
the licensee or appiicant) has violated, or performed any act which is a violation
of, any of the provisions of these chapters or of any statute, ordinance or
regulation reasonably related to the licensed activity, regardless of whether
criminai charges have or have not been brought in connection therewith ...:'
The LIEP alleges that those present at the Blues Saloon during the early morning
hours of January 10, 1999, violated the ordinance that prohibits the display or
consumption of alcoholic beverages after 1:00 a.m.�
This case presents a close question of fact. The testimony of the police
officers and the Blues Saloon employees was directly at odds. AltMough it is
evident that the employees would have some incentive to conceal the improper
consumption of alcohol on the work premises since they wouid be subject to
termination for such a violation of company policy, they appeared to give straight-
forward and credible testimony co�ceming the events of January 10. While they
did not a{I give the same descr+ption of what, if any, soft drinks were being
consumed that evening, they al4 agreed that no one was drinking any alcoholic
beverages. The police o�cers were only in the Blues Saloon for approximately
� Although LIEP initially asserted at the hearing that the incident in the Blues Saloon on January
10, 1999, amounted to after-hours sale or after-hours displaylconsumption of alcohol, there was
absolutely no evidence of sale and it is evident from the post-hearing brief submitted by LIEP that
it no longer alleges after-hours sale.
q9-14�
five minutes. They admittedly did not inspect any of the beverages that they
asserted they observed or get cfose enough to any of the people who were
present fo determine whether they smeiled of alcohoi.
Moreover O�cer Bystrom's police report was inconsistent with his
fiearing testimony and that of O�cer Roeder in cr+tical respects, thereby
undermining his credibiliiy. For example, the police report indicated that Officer
Bystrom saw "six people sitting at the bar with drinks" and alleges that "they ail
tried to hide their drinks" when they saw the police officers: "Some put the glass
in their laps, others quick drank them, etc." {n testimony, Oificer Bystrom said
that he could not say that everyone had a beverage in front of him or her but
believed that most of those present did. He testified that he saw beer bottles out
in plain view, despite the fact that there was no mention of beer bottles in the
report. He was unabie to identify what type of beer it was. He testified that two
men on west side of the bar turned to hide their beers, but did not claim at the
hearing that ail of those present tried to hide their drinks, as the report asserted.
There is no convincing evidence that the drink glasses with clear liquid in them
observed by the o�cers contained alcohol rather than water or soft drinks.
O�cer Roeder testified that she observed oniy one person with a beer bottie,
which she "thinks" was a Premium Grain Belt. However, she did not go over and
look at it.
O�cer Bystrom consistentiy asserted in both his report and his hearing
testimony that he asked Ms. Prange "if it wasn't a little late to be serving
alcohol?" and that Ms. Prange said, "Yeah, but everyone was just leaving." This
version of what happened was not, however, supposted by Officer Roeder, who
did not remember what was specificaily said by O�cer Systrom. it was a{so
contradicted by the testimony of Ms. Prange, Ms. Weber, and Mr. Fritsch, who ali
testified that Officer Bystrom instead asked, "You aren't serving alcohoi after
hours, are you?" and that Ms. Prange said "no" and indicated that they were just
getting ready to leave. Although these witnesses were sequestered and did not
hear each other's testimony, they were consistent in their memory thai Ms.
Prange did not make an admission to the police officers that alcohol was being
served. Ms. Prange's testimony concerning what happened during the incideni
also explains why she was confused about the purpose of the police cafl and felt
it necessary to inquire about the situation by caliing the police station a few days
later. The Administrative Law Judge thus has c�edited the testimony of the Blues
Saloon empioyees in this regard.
It appears that the police o�cers simply assumed that the peopie present
in the Blues Saloon on January 10 were drinking and did not take the logical
steps necessary to confirm their suspic+ons. Such assumptions do not form the
proper basis fior the imposition of adverse action against the Licensee. It would
have been simple for the police officers to inspect the beverages they saw or
assess the persons present, and it is not clear why that was not done. At a
minimum, it seems to the Administrative Law Judge that such evidence is
properly required for LIEP to tip the baiance and make the requisite showing by a
7
aa-14�
preponderance of the evidence that a violation ofi the liquor ordinance occurred.
In the absence of such evidence, the offcers simply could not be sure what
people were drinking (as O�cer Roeder admitfed during the hearing).
Based upon all of the circumstances, the Administrative Law Judge finds
that the City has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that adverse
action shouid be taken against the Licensee's licenses for after-hours display or
consumption of alcohol. It is therefore recommended that the City Council
determine that it is not appropriate to discipline the Licensee's licenses.
B.L.N.
E�
SA[Ni
PALL
�
AAAA
CIT'Y OF SAINT pAUI,
Norm Coleman, Mayor
June 30, 1949
��-���
OFFICE OF THE CIZ'y ATTORNEy
Clayyon M Robinron, Jr., Ciry A[torney
38 -
Civil Divisron
400CityHa11 Te7ephone:657266-8710
I S West Ket(ogg Btvd Facsimile: 65l 298-5619
Saint PQUI, Minrresota 55101
NOTICE OF COUNCII, HEAI2I1�rG
Mr. Roger Christianson
Attorney at Law
386 North Wabasha Street, Suite 600
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: All licenses held by Blues Saloon, Inc. dJb/a Blues Saloon
for the premises located at 601 Western Ave. N, in gt, paul
License ID No.:49441
Our File Number: G99-0064
Dear Mr. Christianson:
Please take notice that a hearing on the report of the Administrative Law Judge concerning the
above-mentioned license has been scheduled for 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 14,1999, in the City
Council Chambers, Third Floor, Saint Paui City Ha11 and Ramsey County Courthouse.
You have the oppommity to file exceptions to the report with the City Clerk at any time during
normal business hours. You may also present orai or written argument to the council at the Hearing.
No new evidence will be received or testimony taken at this hearing, The Council will base its
decision on the record ofthe proceedings before the Admiiustrative LawJudge and on the arguments
made and exceptions filed, but may depart from the recommendations of such Judge as permitted
by law in the exercise of its judgement and discretion.
Sincerely,
� '>CLG� �,���
Virgi�D. Paimer
Assistant City Attorney
cc: Nancy Anderson, Assistant Council Secretary, 310 City Hall
Robert Kessler, Director, LIEP
Cl�ristine Rozek, LIEP
�t3�,�«� F�s'o�A�r;h �a�
�, k 1�
Michael Samuelson, Exec. Director, Thomas-Dale/Dist. 7 Planning Council, 689 N. Dale St.,
St. Paui, MN 55103
Johsmy goryard, Exec. Director, Thomas Dale Block Clubs,1034 Lafond Ave., St. Paul, MN �
55104
�
�q, �G�
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE NEARINGS
FOR THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL
In the Matter of the Licenses Held by
Slues Saloon, Inc., d/bla Blues Saloon
for the Premises at 601 Western Ave. N.,
Saint Paul, Minnesota
License fD No. 49441
11-2111-12118-3
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on April 21, 1999, before
Administrative Law Judge Barbara L. Neilson, in Room 220 of the Saint Paul City
Hall in Saint Paul, Minnesota. The record remained open until May 17, 1999, for
the filing of a reply brief by the City.
Virginia D. Pafiner, Assistant City Attorney, O�ce of the City Attomey, 400
City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Blvd., Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102, represented the
City of St. Paui's Office of License, lnspections and Environmentai Protection.
F2oger A. Christianson, Attorney at Law, 386 North Wabasha, Suite 600, St. Pauf,
Minnesota 55102-1308, appeared on behalf of the Licensee, the Blues Saloon.
NOTICE
This Report contains a recommendation, not a final decision. The Saint
Paul City Councif will make the final decision after reviewing the record and may
adopt, reject or modify the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation
contained herein. Pursuant to Section 310.05 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code,
the City Gouncil's final decision shall not be made until this Report has been
made avai�able to the parties to the proceeding and the Licensee has been
provided an opportunity to present orai or written arguments aileging error on the
part of the Administrative Law Judge in the appiication of the law or the
interpretation of the facts and an opportunity to present argument relating to any
recommended adverse action. The Licensee and any interested parties should
contact the Saint Paul City Gouncil, 310 City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102,
to ascertain the procedure for presenting argument to the Council.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
This case presents the following issues:
1. Did the Licensee perm+t consumption or display of alcohol upon ifs
premises at a time when the sale of liquor was not permitted, in viofation in Saint
Paul Legislative Code § 409.07(c)?
a� -�y�
2. {f so, should the St. Paul City Council impose discipline against the
Licensee's on sale liquor, off sale maft, entertainment, restaurant, or
cigarette/tobacco licenses in accordance with Section 409.26 of the Saint Paul
Legis{ative Code?
Based upon alf of the files records and proceedings herein, and for the
reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the Adm+nistrative Law
Judge makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Licensee, Blues Saloon, Inc., operates a food, liquor, and music
estabfishment known as the Blues Saloon at 601 Western Avenue North in Saint
Paul. The Licensee hofds cigaretfe/tobac�o, on-sale liquor, off-sale malt,
entertainment, and restaurant licenses from the City of Saint Pauf (license no.
0049441). These licenses expired on April 30, 1999. (Testimony of Schwein{er;
Ex. 2.)
2. The Blues Saloon has an upstairs bar and entertainment area in
which bands perform as well as a downstairs bar. Typically, band members
remain at the Blues Saloon for a period of time after they finish playing to wind
down, talk to people in the audience, use the bathroom, pack up their equipment,
and haul equipment out to their vehicies. After the band leaves and the bar's
customers leave the B{ues Saloon, its employees have to count, secure, and
complete paperwork regarding the money taken in; set up money to be used at
the beginning of the next day; conduct security checks; put things away; wipe off
the bar and tables; put up the chairs; clean the stage, band room, and
bathrooms; restock andior reorder depieted items; throw away bottfes, cups, and
debris; pick up the floor; carry out the trash; wash out the pitchers, gfasses,
mixers and ashtrays; and otherwise clean up. It is the practice of those working
at the Blues Safoon to leave the bar together when they are finished working, for
safety reasons. (Testimony of Prange, Weber, Fritsch, Coale.) it is not unusuai
for employees to still be at the Blues Saloon at 3:30 a.m, on a weekend.
(Testimony of Coale.)
3. {t is against the poficy of the Blues Saloon for empioyees to drink
alcohol on the premises while they are working. Employees have been
terminafed for violating this policy. (Testimony of Prange, Coale.)
4. On Saturday night, January 9, 1999, the Eddie King Band was
perEorming in the upstairs entestainment area of the Blues Saloon. Last call
occurred at approximately 12:50 a.m. and the band finished playing at
approximately 12:45 or 1:00 a.m. in the eariy morning hours of January 10. The
band members remained upstaiss at the Blues Saloon for a period of time to chat
with members of the audience. By the time the five band members packed up
their instruments and sound equipment and carried these items downstairs and
out to their vehicles, it was approximately 2:15 a.m. After the band members left,
Karen Prange (the manager of the Blues Saloon who also works as an upstairs
bartender on weekends) and Lynn Weber (an upstairs bartender) went
2
aR-�i�
downstairs to assist other employees in cleaning up the downstairs area. The
other employees who were present in the Blues Saloon during the early morning
hours of January 10 were Steve Fritsch, the downstairs bartender at the Blues
Saloon, and David Gangie, a bouncer employed by the Blues Saloon. Penny
Schanus, Mr. Gangle's girlfriend, arrived to give Mr. Gangle and Ms. Weber a
ride home. Joe Jeifreys, an indiv+dua{ who is paid by fhe Biues Saloon on an
occasional basis to perform maintenance work, was also present. He had come
that evening to repair the women's bathroom after the bar was closed and the
customers had left, and remained in the bar to help with clean-up and for security
reasons. Because it was cold outside that evening, several of the employees
went outside to start their cars and finished their clean-up duties while their cars
warmed up outside. (Testimony of Prange, Weber, Jeffreys, Fritsch, Coale.)
5. Guring the eariy mornir,g hours of Sunday, Jan:�ary 1Q, 1999, hvo
Saint Paul Police Officers (Steven Bystrom and Dawn Roeder) were patrolling in
the vic+nity of the Blues Saloon. At approximately 3:23 a.m., they noticed a
woman (Ms. Schanus) entering the Blues Safoon after she had started her
vehicle. They decided to investigate because there had been a recent burglary
at another bar after closing time. They followed Ms. Schanus into the Blues
Saloon. They saw a person standing behind the bar and approximately six other
people seated at the bar. O�cer Bystrom asked who was in charge, and Ms.
Prange responded that she was. He asked her fior identification, which she then
praduced. He then said, "You aren't serving alcohol after hours, are you?" She
said "no" and indicated that they were }ust getting ready fo leave. The Police
Officers were only in the Blues Safoon for approximately five minutes. They left
without issuing a citation. (Testimony of Bystrom, Roeder, Prange, Jeffreys,
Weber, Fritsch.)
6. Following the visit, Officer Bystrom prepared a report and provided it
to the City's Department of Licensing, Inspection, and Environmental Protection
(L4EP). in the report, O�cer Bystrom stated in pertinent part as follows:
We saw a bartender behind the ba� and six people sitting at the bar
with drinks. When they saw us they all tried to hide their drinks.
Some pui the giass in their faps, others quick drank them, etc. i
asked the bartender who was in charge? She said she was
identified by mn photo DL as (PRANGE, KAREN ANN DOB 11-15-
59 of 5846 Hale Lane White Bear tk, MN 55110). ! asked her if it
wasn't a little late to be serving alcohol? She said "Yea, but
everyone was just leaving." I informed her a info report would be
written.
(Ex. 1; Testimony of Bystrom.j
7. The Police O�cers did not have any conversation with the people in
the Blues Saloon, other than Ms. Prange. They did not ask why they were there
or whether they were employees. They did not check any battles or glasses to
confirm that alcohol was being dispiayed or consumed, and they did not get cfose
�
�t-���
enough to these peop4e to see if they smelled of a(cohol. (Testimony of Bystrom,
Roeder, Prange.)
8. None of the persons present during the police visit on January 10,
1999, was drinking any alcohol. lf they were drinking anything, it was simply soft
drinks or water. (Testimony of Prange, Jeffreys, Weber, Fritsch.)
9. Following the issuance of the police report relating to the January 10,
1999, visit to the Blues Safoon, the Director of LIEP decided to recommend that
adverse action be taken for a second appearance in accordance with the penalty
matrix set forth in Section 409.26 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The
recommendation was made due to the conciusion of the police o�cers that after-
hours consumption of alcohol had occurred at the Blues Saloon on that date.
(Testimony of Schweinler.)
10. On or about February 8, 1999, the City served a Notice of Vio(ation
on the Licensee noting that the Director of LIEP was recommending that adverse
action be taken against the Licensee's licenses as a result of the January 10,
1999, police visit. (Ex. 3.) The Licensee apparently filed a timely appeal
contesting the facts afleged in the Notice of Violation.
11. The Notice of Hearing scheduling the April 21, 1999, hearing in this
matter was served on counsef for the Licensee by mail on February 26, 1999,
and filed with the O�ce of Administrative Hearings on March 1, 1999. (Ex. 4.)
12. !n February of 1999, the City suspended ail of the Licensee's
licenses for ten days due to a brief fapse that occurred in the Licensee's liquor
liability insurance. Eight days of the 10-day suspension were stayed.
(Testimony of Schweinler, Coale; Ex. 2.)
13. The District Seven Planning Council has received complaints
concerning late night activity at the Blues Saloon, noise, and people coming in
and out of the bar after hours. (Testimony of Samue4son.)
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administra6ve Law Judge
makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Saint Paul City Council and the Administrative Law Judge have
jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to § 310.05 of the St. Pau{ Legisfative Code
and Minn. Stat. § 14.55 (1998).
2. The hearing was conducted in accordance with the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes sections 14.57 to 14.62 and appiicable portions of the
procedures set forth in section 310.05 of the Saint Paui Legisiative Code.
3. The City has given proper notice of the hearing in this matter and has
fulfilled all relevant substantive and procedural requirements of law or rule.
3
�t9'- �GL
4. The City bears the burden in this matter of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence fhat adverse action is warranted with respect to
the Licensee's licenses.
5. Chapter 310 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code contains generaf
provisions relating to licenses issued by the City. Section 310.06(b)(6)(a) of the
Saint Pau{ Legislafive Code provides that adverse action may be taken when
"[t]he licensee or applicant (or any person whose conduct may by faw be imputed
to the licensee or applicant) has violated, or performed any act which is a
violation of, any of the provisions of these chapters or of any statute, ordinance
or regufation reasonabiy related to the licensed activity, regardiess of whether
criminal charges have or have not been brought in connection therewith ...."
6. Pursuant to Section 310.17 of the Saint Pau1 Legislative Code, "[a}ny
act or conduct by any clerk, employee, manager or agent of a licensee ... which
act or conduct takes place ... on the licensed premises ...> and which act or
conduct violates any state or federa{ statutes or regulations, or any city
ordinance, shall be considered to be and treated as the act or conduci of the
licensee for the purpose of adverse action against ali or any of the licenses held
by such licensee."
7. Section 409.07(a) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code provides, inter
alia, that "[n]o sale of intoxicating liquor shall be made after 1:Q0 a.m. on Sunday
nor until 8:00 a.m. on Monday:' Section 409.07(c) specifies that "[n]o person
shall consume or dispiay or allow consumption or display of liquor upon the
premises of an on-sale licensee at any time when the safe of such liquor is not
permitted."
8. Pursuant to Section 310.05(I) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code,
adverse license action may include the imposition of a fine "in such amount as
the councif deems reasonable and appropriate, having in mind the regu{atory and
enforcement purposes embodied in the particular licensing ordinance."
9. Section 409.20 of the Sain# Pau4 Legislative Code sets forth a
schedule of penalties that are presumed to be appropriate for on-sale and off-
sale licensed premises, but permits the City Councif to deviate from these
penalties in individual circumstanees where warranted. The penalty fos after-
hours display or consumption of alcoholic beverage is a 4-day suspension for the
second appearance.
10. The City failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence
that the Licensee permitted the consumption or display of liquor upon its
premises on January 10, 1999, af a time when the sale of liquor was not
permitted.
11. 7he City's recommended imposition of a four-day suspension of the
Licensee's {icenses thus is not warranted.
5
�q- ��y
Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
RECOMMENDATION
iT fS HEREBY RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED:
That the St. Paul City Council not take adverse action against the licenses
held by Blues Saloon, Inc., doing business as Blues Saloon.
Dated this `t �'�^ day of June, 1999.
�... l' . F.1c,�.J(. s
BARBARA L. NEILSON
Administrative Law Judge
MEMORANDUM
The City of Saint Paul's Office of License, lnspections and Environmentaf
Protection (LIEP) has recommended discipline of the licenses held by the Blues
Saloon, Inc., pursuant to Section 310.06(b){6){a) of the Saint Paul Legis(ative
Code. This section provides that adverse action may be taken when "[t]he
licensee or applicant (or any person whose conduct may by law be imputed to
the licensee or applicant) has violated, or performed any act which is a violation
of, any of the provisions of these chapters or af any statute, ordi�ance or
regulation reasonabiy related to the iicensed activity, regardless of whether
criminal charges have or have not been brought in connection therewith ...."
The LIEP aileges that those present at the Blues Saloon during the early morning
hours of January 10, 1999, violated the ordinance that prohibits the display or
consumption of alcoholic beverages after 1:00 a.m.�
This case presents a close question of fact. The testimony of the police
o�cers and the B1ues Saloon emp{oyees was directly at odds. Although it is
evident that the employees would have some incentive to conceal the improper
consumption of alcohol on the work premises since they would be subject to
termination for such a violation of company policy, they appeared to give straight-
forward and credibie testimony conceming the events of January 10. While they
did not all give the same description of what, if any, soft drinks were being
consumed that evening, they all agreed that no one was drinking any alcoholic
beverages. The police o�cers were on4y in the B{ues Saloon for approximatefy
� Although LIEP initially asserted at the hearing that the incident in the Blues Saloon on January
10, 1999, amounted to after-hours sale or after-hours display/consumption of alcohol, there was
absolutely no evidence of safe and it is evident from the post-hearing brief submitted by LIEP that
it no longer al{eges after-hours sale.
�`� - 1(��
five minutes. They admittedly did not inspect any of the beverages that they
asserted they observed or get close enough to any of the people who were
present to determine whether they smelled of a{cohol.
Moreover, O�cer Bystrom's police report was inconsistent with his
hearing testimony and that of Officer Roeder in critical respects, thereby
undermining his credibility. For example, the police report +ndicated that O�cer
Bystrom saw "six people sitting at the bar with drinks" and afleges that °they all
tried to hide their drinks" when they saw the police officers: "Some put the glass
in their faps, others quick drank them, etc." In testimony, Officer Bystrom said
that he could not say that everyor�e had a beverage in front of him or her but
believed that most of those present did. He testified that he saw beer bottles out
in plain view, despite the fact that there was no mention of beer bottles in the
report. He was unabie to identify what type of beer it was. He testified that two
men on west side of the bar turned to hide their beers, but did not claim at the
hearing that ail of those present tried to hide their drinks, as the report asserted.
There is no convincing evidence that ihe drink gfasses with clear liquid in them
observed by the officers contained alcohol rather than water or soft drinks.
O�cer Roeder testified that she observed only one person with a beer bottle,
which she "thinks" was a Premium Grain Beit. However, she did not go over and
look at it.
O�cer Bystrom consistently asserted in both his report and his hearing
testimony that he asked Ms. Prange "if it wasn't a little late to be serving
alcohol?" and that Ms. Prange said, "Yeah, but everyone was just leaving ° This
version of what happened was not, however, supported by Officer Roeder, who
did not remember what was specifica{ly said by O�cer Bystrom. It was also
contradicted by the testimony of Ms. Prange, Ms. Weber, and Mr. Fritsch, who all
testified that O�cer Bystrom instead asked, "You aren't serving alcoho! after
hours, are you?" and that Ms. Prange said "no" and indicated that they were just
getting ready to leave. Although these witnesses were sequestered and did not
hear each other's testimony, they were consistent in their memory that Ms.
Prange did not make an admission to the police o�cers that alcoho4 was being
served. Ms. Prange's testimony conceming what happened during the incideni
also explains why she was confused about the purpose of the police cail and feft
it necessary to inquire about the situation by calling the police station a few days
later. The Administrative Law Judge thus has credited the testimony of the Blues
Saloon employees in this regard.
It appears that the police officers simply assumed that the people present
in the Blues Sa400n on January 10 were drinking and did not take the logical
steps necessary to confirm their suspicions. Such assumptions do not form the
proper basis for the imposition of adverse action against the Licensee. ft woutd
have been simple for the police o�cers to inspect the beverages they saw or
assess the persons present, and it is not clear why that was not done. At a
minimum, it seems to the Administrative taw Judge that such evidence is
properly required for LIEP to tip the balance and make the requisite showing by a
7
9� -'iG�
preponderance of the evidence that a violation of the liquor ordinance occurred.
in the absence of such evidence, the officers simply could not be sure what
peopfe were drinking (as O�cer Roeder admitted during the hearing).
Sased upon all of the circumstances, the Administrative Law Judge finds
that the City has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that adverse
action should be taken against the Licensee's licenses for after-hours display or
consumption of alcohol. lt is therefore recommended that the City Council
determine that it is not appropriate to discipline the Licensee's licenses.
B.L.N.
�
Q�1�1NAL
Presented B`
Referred To
Council File # �� � � ti �
Green Sheet # _�Q����
RESOLUTION
1 WI-IEREAS, the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP)
2 nutiated adverse action agaanst the licenses of Blues 5aloon, Inc. dib/a Blues Saloon, 601 N.
3 Western Avenue for alleged violations of the laws relating to sale and service of alcohol; and
4
5 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Barbaza Neilson on
6 Apri121, 1999 and she issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation on
7 June 4, 1999 in which she found that the City had not proved the allegations, and recommended
8 no action against the licenses; and
9
10 WHEREAS, at the hearing on July 14, 1999, LIEP did not file excepfions to the Report
11 but recommended the adoption of the ALJ's Report and Recommendation; now, therefore, be it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, after due deliberation based upon
a11 of the files, records and proceedings herein, adopts the ALJ's Findings, Conciusions and
Recommendation, and the same shall be attached and incorporated herein by reference; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the adverse action against the licenses held by Blues
Saloon, Inc. d/b/a Blues Saloon, 601 N. Western Avenue, is hereby dismissed and no penalty
shall be imposed.
A copy of this Resolution, as adopted, shall be sent by first class mail to the Licensee, her
attorney and the Administrative Law Judge.
Requested by Depastment of:
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
sr� � 5 �-x-en
Approved by May for Submission to Council
� `
' - �- _ ��� r�
...lifY - YI�G _1i/
By:
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MIIVNESOTA � �
Adopted by Council: Date _� V " ��
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
44-7�G
DEPARTMENTlOFFICHCWNCIL DATEwIMTW
City Council Of£ices 8-4-99 GREEN SHEET tvo 63431
CONTAGT PER9JN 8 PFpNE NMIaIID� MnhuDffie
Jerry Blakey, 266-8610 �, �.�
MUS7 BEON GWNCIL AGENDA 8Y (MTE)
August 11, 1999 �"�"
xu�nwrt arc�noear rnra.Fwc
aartixc
�� wuwcsuamYCFaow, wawcui.aErtwKero
- ❑wYOR10R.asmS�Axn ❑
TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
GTION REQUESTED
Dismissing the adverse action against the licenses held by Blues Saloon, 601 Western Avenue
North.
RECOM ENDATIONAPPfOV2 A)W 2j¢CL(R) , PERSONALSERVICECANTRALTSMUSTANSWERTHEFOLLOWINGQUESiIONS:
1. Has fhis persoNfirtn ever worked untler a coMract for this departmeM?
PLANNMGCOMMISSION YES NO
CIB CAMMITTEE 2. Nas this persoNfirm ever been a ciry empbyee9
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vES No
3. DcesYnis Pe���m P�s a sftill not normalYypossessetl by aM curteM cM emPioyee?
YES NO
4. Is this persoMim e farpMetl vendoR
YES NO
� D�iain all yes answe�s on separate shcet and attach to greensheM
INITIATMG PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (Who, What, When, Whe�e, Why)
ADVAMA6ES IF APPROVED ga yg p^�
ll9�.�i�i Cl�u�..L�Er�.:? Si�'rt.�.�
� . � �� � AU6 � 4 ���9
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED � � � �
DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED .
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TqAN3ACTiOH S � COSTIREVENUE BUDGESED (CIRCLE OtiE} � VES � NO
FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITY NUTABER
FINkNCW.INFORMATbN(IXPWN) � . , .
°f9 -�GG
t
In the Matter of the Licenses Held by
Blues Saloon, Inc., d/b/a Blues Saloon
for the Premises at 601 Western Ave. N.,
Saint Paul, Minnesota
License lD No. 49441
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMIN{STRATiVE HEAR{NGS
FOR THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL
11-2111-12118-3
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on April 21, 1999, before
Administrative Law Judge Barbara L. Neilson, in Room 220 of the Saint Paul City
Hall in Saint Paul, Minnesota. The record remained open until May 17, 1999, for
the filing of a reply brief by the City.
Virginia D. Palmer, Assistant City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney, 400
City Hail, 15 West Kellogg Blvd., Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102, represented the
City of St. Paul's Office of License, Inspections and Environmentai Protection.
Roger A. Christianson, Attorney at Law, 386 North Wabasha, Suite 600, St. Paul,
Minnesota 55102-1308, appeared on behalf of the Licensee, the Biues Saloon.
NOTICE
This Report contains a recommendation, not a finai decision. The Saint
Paul City Council wil( make the final decision after reviewing tne record and may
adopt, re}ect or modify the Findings of Fact, Concfusions and Recommendation
contained herein. Pursuant to Section 310.05 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code,
the City Council's final decision shall not be made until this Report has been
made avaiiable to the parties to the proceeding and the Licensee has been
provided an opportunity to present oral or written arguments aiieging error on the
part of the Administrative Law Judge in the application of the law or the
interpretation of the facts and an opportunity to present argument relating to any
recommended adverse action. The Licensee and any interested parties should
contact the Saint Paul City Council, 310 City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102,
to ascertain the procedure for presenting argument to the Council.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
This case presents the following issues:
1. Did the Licensee permit consumption or dispVay of alcohol upon its
premises at a time when the sale of fiquor was not permitted, in violation in Saint
Paul Legislative Code § 409.07(c)?
°l 1-'1��
2. If so, should the Sf. Paul City Council impose discipline against the
Licensee's on sale liquor, off sale malf, entertainment, restaurant, or
cigarette/tobacco licenses in accordance with Section 409.26 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code?
Based upon ali of the fiies, records and proceedings herein, and for the
reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the Administrative Law
Judge makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Licensee, Bfues Saloon, Inc., operates a food, liquor, and music
estabfishment known as the Slues Saloon at 601 Western Avenue North in Saint
Paul. The Licensee holds cigarette(tobacco, on-sals liqu�r, off-sale malt,
entertainment, and restaurant licenses from the City of Saint Paul (license no.
0049441). These licenses expired on April 30, 1999. (Testimony of Schweinler;
Ex. 2.)
2. The Blues Saloon has an upstairs bar and entertainment area in
which bands perform as weil as a downstairs bar. Typically, band members
remain at the Biues Saloon for a period of time after they finish playing to wind
down, talk to people in the audience, use the bathroom, pack up their equipment,
and haul equipment out to their vehicles. After the band leaves and the bar's
customers leave the Blues Saloon, its employees have to count, secure, and
complete paperwork regarding the money taken in; set up money to be used at
the beginning of the next day; conduct security checks; put things away; wipe aff
the bar and tables; put up the cha+rs; clean the stage, band room, and
bathrooms; restock andlor reorder depleted items; throw away bottles, cups, and
debris; pick up the floor; carry out the trash; wash out the pitchers, glasses,
mixers and ashtrays; and otherwise clean up. It is the practice of those working
at the Blues Saloon to leave the bar together when they are finished working, for
safety reasons. (Testimony of Prange, Weber, Fritsch, Coale.) It is not unusual
for employees to still be at the Bfues Saloon at 3:30 a.m. on a weekend.
(Testimony of Coale.)
3. It is against the policy of the Blues Saloon for employees to drink
alcohol on the premises while they are working. Employees have been
terminated for violating this policy. (Testimony of Prange, Coale.)
4. On Saturday night, January 9, 1999, the Eddie King Band was
performing in the upstairs entertainment area of the Blues Saloon. Last call
occurred at approximately 12:50 a.m. and the band finished playing at
approximately 12:45 or 1:00 a.m. in the early morning hours of January 10. The
band members remained upstairs at the B{ues Saloon for a period of time to chat
with members of the audience. By the time the five band membess packed up
their instruments and sound equipment and carried these items downstairs and
out to their vehicles, it was approximately 2:15 a.m. After the band members left,
Karen Prange (the manager of the Blues Saloon who also works as an upstairs
bartender on weekends) and Lynn Weber (an upstairs bartender) went
�
q q- 7t�
downstairs to assist other employees in cieaning up the downstairs area. The
other employees who were present in the Blues Saloon during the early morning
hours of January 10 were Steve Fritsch, the downstairs bartender at the Blues
Saloon, and David Gangle, a bouncer empioyed by the Blues Saloon. Penny
Schanus, Mr. Gangle's girlfriend, arrived to give Mr. Gangle and Ms. Weber a
ride home. Joe Jeffreys, an individual who is paid by the Biues Saioon on an
occasionaf basis to perForm maintenance work, was also present. He had come
that evening to repair the women's bathroom after the bar was closed and the
customers had left, and remained in the bar to help with c4ean-up and for security
reasons. Because it was cold outside that evening, several of the employees
went outside to start their cars and finished their clean-up duties while their cars
warmed up outside. (Testimony of Prange, Weber, Jeffreys, Fritsch, Coale.)
5. During the early srsorn�ng hours o# Sunday, !anaary 1Q, 1999, fi�ao
Saint Paul Police Officers (Steven Bystrom and Dawn Roeder) were patrolling in
the vicinity of the Blues Saloon. At approximately 3:23 a.m., they noticed a
woman (Ms. Schanus) entering the Blues Saloon after she had started her
vehicle. They decided to investigate because there had been a recent burglary
at another bar after closing time. They followed Ms. Schanus into the Blues
Saloon. They saw a person standing behind the bar and approximately six other
people seated at the bar. O�cer Bystrom asked who was in charge, and Ms.
Prange responded that she was. He asked her for identification, which she then
produced. He then said, "You aren't seroing alcohol after hours, are you?" She
sa+d "no" and indicated that they were just getting ready to feave. The Police
O�cers were only in the Biues Saloon for approximately five minutes. They left
without issuing a citation. (Testimony of Bystrom, Roeder, Prange, Jeffreys
Weber, Fritsch.)
6. Following the visit, O�cer Bystrom prepared a report and provided it
to the City's Department of Licensing, Inspection, and Environmental Protection
(LIEP). in the report, Officer Bystrom stated in pertinent part as follows:
We saw a bartender behind the bar and six people sitting at the bar
with drinks. When they saw us they all tried to hide their drinks.
Some put ihe glass in their iaps, others quick drank them, etc. I
asked the bartender who was in charge? She said she was
identified by mn photo DL as (PRANGE, KAREN ANN DOB 11-15-
59 of 5846 Hale Lane White Bear Lk, MN 55110). I asked her if it
wasn't a little late to be serving alcohol? She said "Yea, but
everyone was just leaving." 1 informed her a info report would be
written.
(Ex. 1; Testimony of Bystrom.)
7. The Police Officers did not have any conversation with fhe people in
the Blues Saloon, other than Ms. Prange. They did not ask why they were there
or whether they were empioyees. They did not check any bottles or glasses to
confirm that alcohol was being displayed or consumed, and they did not get close
3
°i� -���
enough to these people to see if they smelied of alcohof. (Testimony of Bystrom,
Roeder, Prange.)
8. None of the persons present during the police vis+t on January 1�,
1999, was drinking any afcohoi. If they were drinking anything, it was simpfy soft
drinks or water. (Testimony of Prange, Jeffreys, Weber, Fritsch.)
9. FoNowing the issuance of the po{ice report relating to the January 10,
1999, visit to the Blues Saloon, the Director of LIEP decided to recommend that
adverse action be taken for a second appearance in accordance with tfie penalty
matrix set forth in Section 409.26 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code. The
recommendation was made due to the conclusion of the police officers that after-
hours consumptio� of alcohol had occurred at the Blues Safoon on that date.
(Testimony of Schweinler.)
10. On or about February 8, 1999, the City served a Notice of Violation
on the Licensee noting that the Director of LIEP was recommending that adverse
action be taken against the Licensee's licenses as a result of the January 10,
1999, police visit. (Ex. 3.) The Licensee apparently filed a timely appeal
contesting the facts alleged in the Notice of Violation.
11. The Notice of Hearing scheduling the April 21, 1999, hearing in this
matter was served on counsel for the Licensee by mail on February 26, 1999,
and filed with the Office of Administrative Fiearings on March 1, 1999. (Ex. 4.)
12. In February of 1999, the City suspended all of the Licensee's
licenses for ten days due to a brief lapse that occurred in the Licensee's liquor
liability insurance. Eight days of the 10-day suspension were stayed.
(Testimony of Schweinler, Coale; Ex. 2.)
13. The District Seven Planning Councii has received complaints
concerning Iate n+ght activity at the Blues Saloon, noise, and people coming in
and out of the bar after hours. (Testimony of Samueison.}
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
CONCI.USIONS
1. The Saint Pau1 City Council and the Administrative Law Judge have
jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to § 310.05 of the St. Paui Legisfative Code
and Minn. Stat. § 14.55 (1998).
2. The hearing was conducted in accordance with the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes sections 14.57 to 14.62 and appiicable portions of the
procedures set forth in section 310.05 of the Saint Pau! Legislative Code.
3. The City has given proper notice of the hearing in this matter and has
fulfiiled all relevant substantive and procedural requirements of law or rufe.
�
q9 - ?LG
4. The City bears the burden in this matter of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that adverse action is warranted with respect to
the Licensee's licenses.
5. Chapter 310 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code contains general
provisions relating to licenses issued by the City. Section 310.Q6(b)(6)(a) of the
Saint Pauf Legisiative Code provides that adverse action may be taken when
"[t]he licensee or applicant (or any person whose conduct may by {aw be imputed
to the licensee or applicant) has violated, or performed any act which is a
violation of, any of the provisions of these chapters or of any staiute, ordinance
or regulation reasonably related to the licensed activity, regardless of whether
criminal charges have or have not been brought in connection therewith ...."
6. Pursuant to Section 310.17 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code °[aJny
act or conduct by any clerk, emp{oyee, manager or agent of a licensee ... which
act or conduct takes place ... on the licensed premises ..., and which act or
conduct violates any state or federal statutes or regufations, or any city
ordinance, shall be considered to be and treated as the act or conduct of the
licensee for the purpose of adverse action against all or any of the licenses held
by such licensee."
7. Section 409.07(a) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code provides, inter
alia, that "[n]o sale of intoxicating liquor shall be made after 1:00 a.m. on Sunday
nor untii 8:00 a.m. on Monday." Section 409.07(c) specifies that "[n}o person
shall consume or display or allow consumption or display of fiquor upon the
premises of an on-sale licensee at any time when the sale of such liquor is not
permitted."
8. Pursuant to Section 310.05(I) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code,
adverse license action may include the imposition of a fine "in such amount as
the council deems reasonable and apprapriate, having in m+nd the regulatory and
enforcement purposes embodied in the particular licensing ordinance."
9. Section 409.2"0 ofi the Saint Paui Legis}ativ2 Code sets forth a
schedule of penaities that are presumed to be appropriate for on-sale and off-
sale licensed premises, but permits the City Council to deviate from these
penalties in individuaf circumstances where warranted. The penalty for after-
hours display or consumption of alcoholic beverage is a 4-day suspension for the
second appearance.
10. The City faifed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence
that the Licensee permitted the consumption or display of liquor upon its
premises on January 10, 1999, at a time when the sale of liquor was not
permitted.
11. The City's recommended imposition of a four-day suspension of the
Licensee's Gcenses thus is not warranted.
5
�t q •1 G�
Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
RECOMMENDATION
IT IS HEREBY RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED:
That the St. Paui City Council not take adverse action against the licenses
held by Blues Saloon, Inc., doing business as Blues Saloon.
Dated this `�'�'h day of June, �999.
P�.�r� �.. t�c,�.s�.r—
BARBARA L. NEILSON
Administrative Law Judge
MEMORANDUM
The City of Saint Paui's Office of License, Inspections and Environmental
Protection (LIEP) has recommended discipline of the ficenses held by the B{ues
Saloon, Inc., pursuant to Section 310.06(b)(6)(a) of the Saint Paul Legisfative
Code. This section provides that adverse action may be taken when "[t]he
licensee or applicant (or any person whose conduct may by faw be imputed to
the licensee or appiicant) has violated, or performed any act which is a violation
of, any of the provisions of these chapters or of any statute, ordinance or
regulation reasonably related to the licensed activity, regardless of whether
criminai charges have or have not been brought in connection therewith ...:'
The LIEP alleges that those present at the Blues Saloon during the early morning
hours of January 10, 1999, violated the ordinance that prohibits the display or
consumption of alcoholic beverages after 1:00 a.m.�
This case presents a close question of fact. The testimony of the police
officers and the Blues Saloon employees was directly at odds. AltMough it is
evident that the employees would have some incentive to conceal the improper
consumption of alcohol on the work premises since they wouid be subject to
termination for such a violation of company policy, they appeared to give straight-
forward and credible testimony co�ceming the events of January 10. While they
did not a{I give the same descr+ption of what, if any, soft drinks were being
consumed that evening, they al4 agreed that no one was drinking any alcoholic
beverages. The police o�cers were only in the Blues Saloon for approximately
� Although LIEP initially asserted at the hearing that the incident in the Blues Saloon on January
10, 1999, amounted to after-hours sale or after-hours displaylconsumption of alcohol, there was
absolutely no evidence of sale and it is evident from the post-hearing brief submitted by LIEP that
it no longer alleges after-hours sale.
q9-14�
five minutes. They admittedly did not inspect any of the beverages that they
asserted they observed or get cfose enough to any of the people who were
present fo determine whether they smeiled of alcohoi.
Moreover O�cer Bystrom's police report was inconsistent with his
fiearing testimony and that of O�cer Roeder in cr+tical respects, thereby
undermining his credibiliiy. For example, the police report indicated that Officer
Bystrom saw "six people sitting at the bar with drinks" and alleges that "they ail
tried to hide their drinks" when they saw the police officers: "Some put the glass
in their laps, others quick drank them, etc." {n testimony, Oificer Bystrom said
that he could not say that everyone had a beverage in front of him or her but
believed that most of those present did. He testified that he saw beer bottles out
in plain view, despite the fact that there was no mention of beer bottles in the
report. He was unabie to identify what type of beer it was. He testified that two
men on west side of the bar turned to hide their beers, but did not claim at the
hearing that ail of those present tried to hide their drinks, as the report asserted.
There is no convincing evidence that the drink glasses with clear liquid in them
observed by the o�cers contained alcohol rather than water or soft drinks.
O�cer Roeder testified that she observed oniy one person with a beer bottie,
which she "thinks" was a Premium Grain Belt. However, she did not go over and
look at it.
O�cer Bystrom consistentiy asserted in both his report and his hearing
testimony that he asked Ms. Prange "if it wasn't a little late to be serving
alcohol?" and that Ms. Prange said, "Yeah, but everyone was just leaving." This
version of what happened was not, however, supposted by Officer Roeder, who
did not remember what was specificaily said by O�cer Systrom. it was a{so
contradicted by the testimony of Ms. Prange, Ms. Weber, and Mr. Fritsch, who ali
testified that Officer Bystrom instead asked, "You aren't serving alcohoi after
hours, are you?" and that Ms. Prange said "no" and indicated that they were just
getting ready to leave. Although these witnesses were sequestered and did not
hear each other's testimony, they were consistent in their memory thai Ms.
Prange did not make an admission to the police officers that alcohol was being
served. Ms. Prange's testimony concerning what happened during the incideni
also explains why she was confused about the purpose of the police cafl and felt
it necessary to inquire about the situation by caliing the police station a few days
later. The Administrative Law Judge thus has c�edited the testimony of the Blues
Saloon empioyees in this regard.
It appears that the police o�cers simply assumed that the peopie present
in the Blues Saloon on January 10 were drinking and did not take the logical
steps necessary to confirm their suspic+ons. Such assumptions do not form the
proper basis fior the imposition of adverse action against the Licensee. It would
have been simple for the police officers to inspect the beverages they saw or
assess the persons present, and it is not clear why that was not done. At a
minimum, it seems to the Administrative Law Judge that such evidence is
properly required for LIEP to tip the baiance and make the requisite showing by a
7
aa-14�
preponderance of the evidence that a violation ofi the liquor ordinance occurred.
In the absence of such evidence, the offcers simply could not be sure what
people were drinking (as O�cer Roeder admitfed during the hearing).
Based upon all of the circumstances, the Administrative Law Judge finds
that the City has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that adverse
action shouid be taken against the Licensee's licenses for after-hours display or
consumption of alcohol. It is therefore recommended that the City Council
determine that it is not appropriate to discipline the Licensee's licenses.
B.L.N.
E�
SA[Ni
PALL
�
AAAA
CIT'Y OF SAINT pAUI,
Norm Coleman, Mayor
June 30, 1949
��-���
OFFICE OF THE CIZ'y ATTORNEy
Clayyon M Robinron, Jr., Ciry A[torney
38 -
Civil Divisron
400CityHa11 Te7ephone:657266-8710
I S West Ket(ogg Btvd Facsimile: 65l 298-5619
Saint PQUI, Minrresota 55101
NOTICE OF COUNCII, HEAI2I1�rG
Mr. Roger Christianson
Attorney at Law
386 North Wabasha Street, Suite 600
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: All licenses held by Blues Saloon, Inc. dJb/a Blues Saloon
for the premises located at 601 Western Ave. N, in gt, paul
License ID No.:49441
Our File Number: G99-0064
Dear Mr. Christianson:
Please take notice that a hearing on the report of the Administrative Law Judge concerning the
above-mentioned license has been scheduled for 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 14,1999, in the City
Council Chambers, Third Floor, Saint Paui City Ha11 and Ramsey County Courthouse.
You have the oppommity to file exceptions to the report with the City Clerk at any time during
normal business hours. You may also present orai or written argument to the council at the Hearing.
No new evidence will be received or testimony taken at this hearing, The Council will base its
decision on the record ofthe proceedings before the Admiiustrative LawJudge and on the arguments
made and exceptions filed, but may depart from the recommendations of such Judge as permitted
by law in the exercise of its judgement and discretion.
Sincerely,
� '>CLG� �,���
Virgi�D. Paimer
Assistant City Attorney
cc: Nancy Anderson, Assistant Council Secretary, 310 City Hall
Robert Kessler, Director, LIEP
Cl�ristine Rozek, LIEP
�t3�,�«� F�s'o�A�r;h �a�
�, k 1�
Michael Samuelson, Exec. Director, Thomas-Dale/Dist. 7 Planning Council, 689 N. Dale St.,
St. Paui, MN 55103
Johsmy goryard, Exec. Director, Thomas Dale Block Clubs,1034 Lafond Ave., St. Paul, MN �
55104
�
�q, �G�
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE NEARINGS
FOR THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL
In the Matter of the Licenses Held by
Slues Saloon, Inc., d/bla Blues Saloon
for the Premises at 601 Western Ave. N.,
Saint Paul, Minnesota
License fD No. 49441
11-2111-12118-3
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on April 21, 1999, before
Administrative Law Judge Barbara L. Neilson, in Room 220 of the Saint Paul City
Hall in Saint Paul, Minnesota. The record remained open until May 17, 1999, for
the filing of a reply brief by the City.
Virginia D. Pafiner, Assistant City Attorney, O�ce of the City Attomey, 400
City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Blvd., Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102, represented the
City of St. Paui's Office of License, lnspections and Environmentai Protection.
F2oger A. Christianson, Attorney at Law, 386 North Wabasha, Suite 600, St. Pauf,
Minnesota 55102-1308, appeared on behalf of the Licensee, the Blues Saloon.
NOTICE
This Report contains a recommendation, not a final decision. The Saint
Paul City Councif will make the final decision after reviewing the record and may
adopt, reject or modify the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation
contained herein. Pursuant to Section 310.05 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code,
the City Gouncil's final decision shall not be made until this Report has been
made avai�able to the parties to the proceeding and the Licensee has been
provided an opportunity to present orai or written arguments aileging error on the
part of the Administrative Law Judge in the appiication of the law or the
interpretation of the facts and an opportunity to present argument relating to any
recommended adverse action. The Licensee and any interested parties should
contact the Saint Paul City Gouncil, 310 City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102,
to ascertain the procedure for presenting argument to the Council.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
This case presents the following issues:
1. Did the Licensee perm+t consumption or display of alcohol upon ifs
premises at a time when the sale of liquor was not permitted, in viofation in Saint
Paul Legislative Code § 409.07(c)?
a� -�y�
2. {f so, should the St. Paul City Council impose discipline against the
Licensee's on sale liquor, off sale maft, entertainment, restaurant, or
cigarette/tobacco licenses in accordance with Section 409.26 of the Saint Paul
Legis{ative Code?
Based upon alf of the files records and proceedings herein, and for the
reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the Adm+nistrative Law
Judge makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Licensee, Blues Saloon, Inc., operates a food, liquor, and music
estabfishment known as the Blues Saloon at 601 Western Avenue North in Saint
Paul. The Licensee hofds cigaretfe/tobac�o, on-sale liquor, off-sale malt,
entertainment, and restaurant licenses from the City of Saint Pauf (license no.
0049441). These licenses expired on April 30, 1999. (Testimony of Schwein{er;
Ex. 2.)
2. The Blues Saloon has an upstairs bar and entertainment area in
which bands perform as well as a downstairs bar. Typically, band members
remain at the Blues Saloon for a period of time after they finish playing to wind
down, talk to people in the audience, use the bathroom, pack up their equipment,
and haul equipment out to their vehicies. After the band leaves and the bar's
customers leave the B{ues Saloon, its employees have to count, secure, and
complete paperwork regarding the money taken in; set up money to be used at
the beginning of the next day; conduct security checks; put things away; wipe off
the bar and tables; put up the chairs; clean the stage, band room, and
bathrooms; restock andior reorder depieted items; throw away bottfes, cups, and
debris; pick up the floor; carry out the trash; wash out the pitchers, gfasses,
mixers and ashtrays; and otherwise clean up. It is the practice of those working
at the Blues Safoon to leave the bar together when they are finished working, for
safety reasons. (Testimony of Prange, Weber, Fritsch, Coale.) it is not unusuai
for employees to still be at the Blues Saloon at 3:30 a.m, on a weekend.
(Testimony of Coale.)
3. {t is against the poficy of the Blues Saloon for empioyees to drink
alcohol on the premises while they are working. Employees have been
terminafed for violating this policy. (Testimony of Prange, Coale.)
4. On Saturday night, January 9, 1999, the Eddie King Band was
perEorming in the upstairs entestainment area of the Blues Saloon. Last call
occurred at approximately 12:50 a.m. and the band finished playing at
approximately 12:45 or 1:00 a.m. in the eariy morning hours of January 10. The
band members remained upstaiss at the Blues Saloon for a period of time to chat
with members of the audience. By the time the five band members packed up
their instruments and sound equipment and carried these items downstairs and
out to their vehicles, it was approximately 2:15 a.m. After the band members left,
Karen Prange (the manager of the Blues Saloon who also works as an upstairs
bartender on weekends) and Lynn Weber (an upstairs bartender) went
2
aR-�i�
downstairs to assist other employees in cleaning up the downstairs area. The
other employees who were present in the Blues Saloon during the early morning
hours of January 10 were Steve Fritsch, the downstairs bartender at the Blues
Saloon, and David Gangie, a bouncer employed by the Blues Saloon. Penny
Schanus, Mr. Gangle's girlfriend, arrived to give Mr. Gangle and Ms. Weber a
ride home. Joe Jeifreys, an indiv+dua{ who is paid by fhe Biues Saloon on an
occasional basis to perform maintenance work, was also present. He had come
that evening to repair the women's bathroom after the bar was closed and the
customers had left, and remained in the bar to help with clean-up and for security
reasons. Because it was cold outside that evening, several of the employees
went outside to start their cars and finished their clean-up duties while their cars
warmed up outside. (Testimony of Prange, Weber, Jeffreys, Fritsch, Coale.)
5. Guring the eariy mornir,g hours of Sunday, Jan:�ary 1Q, 1999, hvo
Saint Paul Police Officers (Steven Bystrom and Dawn Roeder) were patrolling in
the vic+nity of the Blues Saloon. At approximately 3:23 a.m., they noticed a
woman (Ms. Schanus) entering the Blues Safoon after she had started her
vehicle. They decided to investigate because there had been a recent burglary
at another bar after closing time. They followed Ms. Schanus into the Blues
Saloon. They saw a person standing behind the bar and approximately six other
people seated at the bar. O�cer Bystrom asked who was in charge, and Ms.
Prange responded that she was. He asked her fior identification, which she then
praduced. He then said, "You aren't serving alcohol after hours, are you?" She
said "no" and indicated that they were }ust getting ready fo leave. The Police
Officers were only in the Blues Safoon for approximately five minutes. They left
without issuing a citation. (Testimony of Bystrom, Roeder, Prange, Jeffreys,
Weber, Fritsch.)
6. Following the visit, Officer Bystrom prepared a report and provided it
to the City's Department of Licensing, Inspection, and Environmental Protection
(L4EP). in the report, O�cer Bystrom stated in pertinent part as follows:
We saw a bartender behind the ba� and six people sitting at the bar
with drinks. When they saw us they all tried to hide their drinks.
Some pui the giass in their faps, others quick drank them, etc. i
asked the bartender who was in charge? She said she was
identified by mn photo DL as (PRANGE, KAREN ANN DOB 11-15-
59 of 5846 Hale Lane White Bear tk, MN 55110). ! asked her if it
wasn't a little late to be serving alcohol? She said "Yea, but
everyone was just leaving." I informed her a info report would be
written.
(Ex. 1; Testimony of Bystrom.j
7. The Police O�cers did not have any conversation with the people in
the Blues Saloon, other than Ms. Prange. They did not ask why they were there
or whether they were employees. They did not check any battles or glasses to
confirm that alcohol was being dispiayed or consumed, and they did not get cfose
�
�t-���
enough to these peop4e to see if they smelled of a(cohol. (Testimony of Bystrom,
Roeder, Prange.)
8. None of the persons present during the police visit on January 10,
1999, was drinking any alcohol. lf they were drinking anything, it was simply soft
drinks or water. (Testimony of Prange, Jeffreys, Weber, Fritsch.)
9. Following the issuance of the police report relating to the January 10,
1999, visit to the Blues Safoon, the Director of LIEP decided to recommend that
adverse action be taken for a second appearance in accordance with the penalty
matrix set forth in Section 409.26 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The
recommendation was made due to the conciusion of the police o�cers that after-
hours consumption of alcohol had occurred at the Blues Saloon on that date.
(Testimony of Schweinler.)
10. On or about February 8, 1999, the City served a Notice of Vio(ation
on the Licensee noting that the Director of LIEP was recommending that adverse
action be taken against the Licensee's licenses as a result of the January 10,
1999, police visit. (Ex. 3.) The Licensee apparently filed a timely appeal
contesting the facts afleged in the Notice of Violation.
11. The Notice of Hearing scheduling the April 21, 1999, hearing in this
matter was served on counsef for the Licensee by mail on February 26, 1999,
and filed with the O�ce of Administrative Hearings on March 1, 1999. (Ex. 4.)
12. !n February of 1999, the City suspended ail of the Licensee's
licenses for ten days due to a brief fapse that occurred in the Licensee's liquor
liability insurance. Eight days of the 10-day suspension were stayed.
(Testimony of Schweinler, Coale; Ex. 2.)
13. The District Seven Planning Council has received complaints
concerning late night activity at the Blues Saloon, noise, and people coming in
and out of the bar after hours. (Testimony of Samue4son.)
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administra6ve Law Judge
makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Saint Paul City Council and the Administrative Law Judge have
jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to § 310.05 of the St. Pau{ Legisfative Code
and Minn. Stat. § 14.55 (1998).
2. The hearing was conducted in accordance with the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes sections 14.57 to 14.62 and appiicable portions of the
procedures set forth in section 310.05 of the Saint Paui Legisiative Code.
3. The City has given proper notice of the hearing in this matter and has
fulfilled all relevant substantive and procedural requirements of law or rule.
3
�t9'- �GL
4. The City bears the burden in this matter of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence fhat adverse action is warranted with respect to
the Licensee's licenses.
5. Chapter 310 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code contains generaf
provisions relating to licenses issued by the City. Section 310.06(b)(6)(a) of the
Saint Pau{ Legislafive Code provides that adverse action may be taken when
"[t]he licensee or applicant (or any person whose conduct may by faw be imputed
to the licensee or applicant) has violated, or performed any act which is a
violation of, any of the provisions of these chapters or of any statute, ordinance
or regufation reasonabiy related to the licensed activity, regardiess of whether
criminal charges have or have not been brought in connection therewith ...."
6. Pursuant to Section 310.17 of the Saint Pau1 Legislative Code, "[a}ny
act or conduct by any clerk, employee, manager or agent of a licensee ... which
act or conduct takes place ... on the licensed premises ...> and which act or
conduct violates any state or federa{ statutes or regulations, or any city
ordinance, shall be considered to be and treated as the act or conduci of the
licensee for the purpose of adverse action against ali or any of the licenses held
by such licensee."
7. Section 409.07(a) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code provides, inter
alia, that "[n]o sale of intoxicating liquor shall be made after 1:Q0 a.m. on Sunday
nor until 8:00 a.m. on Monday:' Section 409.07(c) specifies that "[n]o person
shall consume or dispiay or allow consumption or display of liquor upon the
premises of an on-sale licensee at any time when the safe of such liquor is not
permitted."
8. Pursuant to Section 310.05(I) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code,
adverse license action may include the imposition of a fine "in such amount as
the councif deems reasonable and appropriate, having in mind the regu{atory and
enforcement purposes embodied in the particular licensing ordinance."
9. Section 409.20 of the Sain# Pau4 Legislative Code sets forth a
schedule of penalties that are presumed to be appropriate for on-sale and off-
sale licensed premises, but permits the City Councif to deviate from these
penalties in individual circumstanees where warranted. The penalty fos after-
hours display or consumption of alcoholic beverage is a 4-day suspension for the
second appearance.
10. The City failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence
that the Licensee permitted the consumption or display of liquor upon its
premises on January 10, 1999, af a time when the sale of liquor was not
permitted.
11. 7he City's recommended imposition of a four-day suspension of the
Licensee's {icenses thus is not warranted.
5
�q- ��y
Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
RECOMMENDATION
iT fS HEREBY RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED:
That the St. Paul City Council not take adverse action against the licenses
held by Blues Saloon, Inc., doing business as Blues Saloon.
Dated this `t �'�^ day of June, 1999.
�... l' . F.1c,�.J(. s
BARBARA L. NEILSON
Administrative Law Judge
MEMORANDUM
The City of Saint Paul's Office of License, lnspections and Environmentaf
Protection (LIEP) has recommended discipline of the licenses held by the Blues
Saloon, Inc., pursuant to Section 310.06(b){6){a) of the Saint Paul Legis(ative
Code. This section provides that adverse action may be taken when "[t]he
licensee or applicant (or any person whose conduct may by law be imputed to
the licensee or applicant) has violated, or performed any act which is a violation
of, any of the provisions of these chapters or af any statute, ordi�ance or
regulation reasonabiy related to the iicensed activity, regardless of whether
criminal charges have or have not been brought in connection therewith ...."
The LIEP aileges that those present at the Blues Saloon during the early morning
hours of January 10, 1999, violated the ordinance that prohibits the display or
consumption of alcoholic beverages after 1:00 a.m.�
This case presents a close question of fact. The testimony of the police
o�cers and the B1ues Saloon emp{oyees was directly at odds. Although it is
evident that the employees would have some incentive to conceal the improper
consumption of alcohol on the work premises since they would be subject to
termination for such a violation of company policy, they appeared to give straight-
forward and credibie testimony conceming the events of January 10. While they
did not all give the same description of what, if any, soft drinks were being
consumed that evening, they all agreed that no one was drinking any alcoholic
beverages. The police o�cers were on4y in the B{ues Saloon for approximatefy
� Although LIEP initially asserted at the hearing that the incident in the Blues Saloon on January
10, 1999, amounted to after-hours sale or after-hours display/consumption of alcohol, there was
absolutely no evidence of safe and it is evident from the post-hearing brief submitted by LIEP that
it no longer al{eges after-hours sale.
�`� - 1(��
five minutes. They admittedly did not inspect any of the beverages that they
asserted they observed or get close enough to any of the people who were
present to determine whether they smelled of a{cohol.
Moreover, O�cer Bystrom's police report was inconsistent with his
hearing testimony and that of Officer Roeder in critical respects, thereby
undermining his credibility. For example, the police report +ndicated that O�cer
Bystrom saw "six people sitting at the bar with drinks" and afleges that °they all
tried to hide their drinks" when they saw the police officers: "Some put the glass
in their faps, others quick drank them, etc." In testimony, Officer Bystrom said
that he could not say that everyor�e had a beverage in front of him or her but
believed that most of those present did. He testified that he saw beer bottles out
in plain view, despite the fact that there was no mention of beer bottles in the
report. He was unabie to identify what type of beer it was. He testified that two
men on west side of the bar turned to hide their beers, but did not claim at the
hearing that ail of those present tried to hide their drinks, as the report asserted.
There is no convincing evidence that ihe drink gfasses with clear liquid in them
observed by the officers contained alcohol rather than water or soft drinks.
O�cer Roeder testified that she observed only one person with a beer bottle,
which she "thinks" was a Premium Grain Beit. However, she did not go over and
look at it.
O�cer Bystrom consistently asserted in both his report and his hearing
testimony that he asked Ms. Prange "if it wasn't a little late to be serving
alcohol?" and that Ms. Prange said, "Yeah, but everyone was just leaving ° This
version of what happened was not, however, supported by Officer Roeder, who
did not remember what was specifica{ly said by O�cer Bystrom. It was also
contradicted by the testimony of Ms. Prange, Ms. Weber, and Mr. Fritsch, who all
testified that O�cer Bystrom instead asked, "You aren't serving alcoho! after
hours, are you?" and that Ms. Prange said "no" and indicated that they were just
getting ready to leave. Although these witnesses were sequestered and did not
hear each other's testimony, they were consistent in their memory that Ms.
Prange did not make an admission to the police o�cers that alcoho4 was being
served. Ms. Prange's testimony conceming what happened during the incideni
also explains why she was confused about the purpose of the police cail and feft
it necessary to inquire about the situation by calling the police station a few days
later. The Administrative Law Judge thus has credited the testimony of the Blues
Saloon employees in this regard.
It appears that the police officers simply assumed that the people present
in the Blues Sa400n on January 10 were drinking and did not take the logical
steps necessary to confirm their suspicions. Such assumptions do not form the
proper basis for the imposition of adverse action against the Licensee. ft woutd
have been simple for the police o�cers to inspect the beverages they saw or
assess the persons present, and it is not clear why that was not done. At a
minimum, it seems to the Administrative taw Judge that such evidence is
properly required for LIEP to tip the balance and make the requisite showing by a
7
9� -'iG�
preponderance of the evidence that a violation of the liquor ordinance occurred.
in the absence of such evidence, the officers simply could not be sure what
peopfe were drinking (as O�cer Roeder admitted during the hearing).
Sased upon all of the circumstances, the Administrative Law Judge finds
that the City has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that adverse
action should be taken against the Licensee's licenses for after-hours display or
consumption of alcohol. lt is therefore recommended that the City Council
determine that it is not appropriate to discipline the Licensee's licenses.
B.L.N.
�
Q�1�1NAL
Presented B`
Referred To
Council File # �� � � ti �
Green Sheet # _�Q����
RESOLUTION
1 WI-IEREAS, the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP)
2 nutiated adverse action agaanst the licenses of Blues 5aloon, Inc. dib/a Blues Saloon, 601 N.
3 Western Avenue for alleged violations of the laws relating to sale and service of alcohol; and
4
5 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Barbaza Neilson on
6 Apri121, 1999 and she issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation on
7 June 4, 1999 in which she found that the City had not proved the allegations, and recommended
8 no action against the licenses; and
9
10 WHEREAS, at the hearing on July 14, 1999, LIEP did not file excepfions to the Report
11 but recommended the adoption of the ALJ's Report and Recommendation; now, therefore, be it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, after due deliberation based upon
a11 of the files, records and proceedings herein, adopts the ALJ's Findings, Conciusions and
Recommendation, and the same shall be attached and incorporated herein by reference; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the adverse action against the licenses held by Blues
Saloon, Inc. d/b/a Blues Saloon, 601 N. Western Avenue, is hereby dismissed and no penalty
shall be imposed.
A copy of this Resolution, as adopted, shall be sent by first class mail to the Licensee, her
attorney and the Administrative Law Judge.
Requested by Depastment of:
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
sr� � 5 �-x-en
Approved by May for Submission to Council
� `
' - �- _ ��� r�
...lifY - YI�G _1i/
By:
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MIIVNESOTA � �
Adopted by Council: Date _� V " ��
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
44-7�G
DEPARTMENTlOFFICHCWNCIL DATEwIMTW
City Council Of£ices 8-4-99 GREEN SHEET tvo 63431
CONTAGT PER9JN 8 PFpNE NMIaIID� MnhuDffie
Jerry Blakey, 266-8610 �, �.�
MUS7 BEON GWNCIL AGENDA 8Y (MTE)
August 11, 1999 �"�"
xu�nwrt arc�noear rnra.Fwc
aartixc
�� wuwcsuamYCFaow, wawcui.aErtwKero
- ❑wYOR10R.asmS�Axn ❑
TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
GTION REQUESTED
Dismissing the adverse action against the licenses held by Blues Saloon, 601 Western Avenue
North.
RECOM ENDATIONAPPfOV2 A)W 2j¢CL(R) , PERSONALSERVICECANTRALTSMUSTANSWERTHEFOLLOWINGQUESiIONS:
1. Has fhis persoNfirtn ever worked untler a coMract for this departmeM?
PLANNMGCOMMISSION YES NO
CIB CAMMITTEE 2. Nas this persoNfirm ever been a ciry empbyee9
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vES No
3. DcesYnis Pe���m P�s a sftill not normalYypossessetl by aM curteM cM emPioyee?
YES NO
4. Is this persoMim e farpMetl vendoR
YES NO
� D�iain all yes answe�s on separate shcet and attach to greensheM
INITIATMG PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (Who, What, When, Whe�e, Why)
ADVAMA6ES IF APPROVED ga yg p^�
ll9�.�i�i Cl�u�..L�Er�.:? Si�'rt.�.�
� . � �� � AU6 � 4 ���9
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED � � � �
DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED .
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TqAN3ACTiOH S � COSTIREVENUE BUDGESED (CIRCLE OtiE} � VES � NO
FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITY NUTABER
FINkNCW.INFORMATbN(IXPWN) � . , .
°f9 -�GG
t
In the Matter of the Licenses Held by
Blues Saloon, Inc., d/b/a Blues Saloon
for the Premises at 601 Western Ave. N.,
Saint Paul, Minnesota
License lD No. 49441
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMIN{STRATiVE HEAR{NGS
FOR THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL
11-2111-12118-3
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on April 21, 1999, before
Administrative Law Judge Barbara L. Neilson, in Room 220 of the Saint Paul City
Hall in Saint Paul, Minnesota. The record remained open until May 17, 1999, for
the filing of a reply brief by the City.
Virginia D. Palmer, Assistant City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney, 400
City Hail, 15 West Kellogg Blvd., Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102, represented the
City of St. Paul's Office of License, Inspections and Environmentai Protection.
Roger A. Christianson, Attorney at Law, 386 North Wabasha, Suite 600, St. Paul,
Minnesota 55102-1308, appeared on behalf of the Licensee, the Biues Saloon.
NOTICE
This Report contains a recommendation, not a finai decision. The Saint
Paul City Council wil( make the final decision after reviewing tne record and may
adopt, re}ect or modify the Findings of Fact, Concfusions and Recommendation
contained herein. Pursuant to Section 310.05 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code,
the City Council's final decision shall not be made until this Report has been
made avaiiable to the parties to the proceeding and the Licensee has been
provided an opportunity to present oral or written arguments aiieging error on the
part of the Administrative Law Judge in the application of the law or the
interpretation of the facts and an opportunity to present argument relating to any
recommended adverse action. The Licensee and any interested parties should
contact the Saint Paul City Council, 310 City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102,
to ascertain the procedure for presenting argument to the Council.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
This case presents the following issues:
1. Did the Licensee permit consumption or dispVay of alcohol upon its
premises at a time when the sale of fiquor was not permitted, in violation in Saint
Paul Legislative Code § 409.07(c)?
°l 1-'1��
2. If so, should the Sf. Paul City Council impose discipline against the
Licensee's on sale liquor, off sale malf, entertainment, restaurant, or
cigarette/tobacco licenses in accordance with Section 409.26 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code?
Based upon ali of the fiies, records and proceedings herein, and for the
reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the Administrative Law
Judge makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Licensee, Bfues Saloon, Inc., operates a food, liquor, and music
estabfishment known as the Slues Saloon at 601 Western Avenue North in Saint
Paul. The Licensee holds cigarette(tobacco, on-sals liqu�r, off-sale malt,
entertainment, and restaurant licenses from the City of Saint Paul (license no.
0049441). These licenses expired on April 30, 1999. (Testimony of Schweinler;
Ex. 2.)
2. The Blues Saloon has an upstairs bar and entertainment area in
which bands perform as weil as a downstairs bar. Typically, band members
remain at the Biues Saloon for a period of time after they finish playing to wind
down, talk to people in the audience, use the bathroom, pack up their equipment,
and haul equipment out to their vehicles. After the band leaves and the bar's
customers leave the Blues Saloon, its employees have to count, secure, and
complete paperwork regarding the money taken in; set up money to be used at
the beginning of the next day; conduct security checks; put things away; wipe aff
the bar and tables; put up the cha+rs; clean the stage, band room, and
bathrooms; restock andlor reorder depleted items; throw away bottles, cups, and
debris; pick up the floor; carry out the trash; wash out the pitchers, glasses,
mixers and ashtrays; and otherwise clean up. It is the practice of those working
at the Blues Saloon to leave the bar together when they are finished working, for
safety reasons. (Testimony of Prange, Weber, Fritsch, Coale.) It is not unusual
for employees to still be at the Bfues Saloon at 3:30 a.m. on a weekend.
(Testimony of Coale.)
3. It is against the policy of the Blues Saloon for employees to drink
alcohol on the premises while they are working. Employees have been
terminated for violating this policy. (Testimony of Prange, Coale.)
4. On Saturday night, January 9, 1999, the Eddie King Band was
performing in the upstairs entertainment area of the Blues Saloon. Last call
occurred at approximately 12:50 a.m. and the band finished playing at
approximately 12:45 or 1:00 a.m. in the early morning hours of January 10. The
band members remained upstairs at the B{ues Saloon for a period of time to chat
with members of the audience. By the time the five band membess packed up
their instruments and sound equipment and carried these items downstairs and
out to their vehicles, it was approximately 2:15 a.m. After the band members left,
Karen Prange (the manager of the Blues Saloon who also works as an upstairs
bartender on weekends) and Lynn Weber (an upstairs bartender) went
�
q q- 7t�
downstairs to assist other employees in cieaning up the downstairs area. The
other employees who were present in the Blues Saloon during the early morning
hours of January 10 were Steve Fritsch, the downstairs bartender at the Blues
Saloon, and David Gangle, a bouncer empioyed by the Blues Saloon. Penny
Schanus, Mr. Gangle's girlfriend, arrived to give Mr. Gangle and Ms. Weber a
ride home. Joe Jeffreys, an individual who is paid by the Biues Saioon on an
occasionaf basis to perForm maintenance work, was also present. He had come
that evening to repair the women's bathroom after the bar was closed and the
customers had left, and remained in the bar to help with c4ean-up and for security
reasons. Because it was cold outside that evening, several of the employees
went outside to start their cars and finished their clean-up duties while their cars
warmed up outside. (Testimony of Prange, Weber, Jeffreys, Fritsch, Coale.)
5. During the early srsorn�ng hours o# Sunday, !anaary 1Q, 1999, fi�ao
Saint Paul Police Officers (Steven Bystrom and Dawn Roeder) were patrolling in
the vicinity of the Blues Saloon. At approximately 3:23 a.m., they noticed a
woman (Ms. Schanus) entering the Blues Saloon after she had started her
vehicle. They decided to investigate because there had been a recent burglary
at another bar after closing time. They followed Ms. Schanus into the Blues
Saloon. They saw a person standing behind the bar and approximately six other
people seated at the bar. O�cer Bystrom asked who was in charge, and Ms.
Prange responded that she was. He asked her for identification, which she then
produced. He then said, "You aren't seroing alcohol after hours, are you?" She
sa+d "no" and indicated that they were just getting ready to feave. The Police
O�cers were only in the Biues Saloon for approximately five minutes. They left
without issuing a citation. (Testimony of Bystrom, Roeder, Prange, Jeffreys
Weber, Fritsch.)
6. Following the visit, O�cer Bystrom prepared a report and provided it
to the City's Department of Licensing, Inspection, and Environmental Protection
(LIEP). in the report, Officer Bystrom stated in pertinent part as follows:
We saw a bartender behind the bar and six people sitting at the bar
with drinks. When they saw us they all tried to hide their drinks.
Some put ihe glass in their iaps, others quick drank them, etc. I
asked the bartender who was in charge? She said she was
identified by mn photo DL as (PRANGE, KAREN ANN DOB 11-15-
59 of 5846 Hale Lane White Bear Lk, MN 55110). I asked her if it
wasn't a little late to be serving alcohol? She said "Yea, but
everyone was just leaving." 1 informed her a info report would be
written.
(Ex. 1; Testimony of Bystrom.)
7. The Police Officers did not have any conversation with fhe people in
the Blues Saloon, other than Ms. Prange. They did not ask why they were there
or whether they were empioyees. They did not check any bottles or glasses to
confirm that alcohol was being displayed or consumed, and they did not get close
3
°i� -���
enough to these people to see if they smelied of alcohof. (Testimony of Bystrom,
Roeder, Prange.)
8. None of the persons present during the police vis+t on January 1�,
1999, was drinking any afcohoi. If they were drinking anything, it was simpfy soft
drinks or water. (Testimony of Prange, Jeffreys, Weber, Fritsch.)
9. FoNowing the issuance of the po{ice report relating to the January 10,
1999, visit to the Blues Saloon, the Director of LIEP decided to recommend that
adverse action be taken for a second appearance in accordance with tfie penalty
matrix set forth in Section 409.26 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code. The
recommendation was made due to the conclusion of the police officers that after-
hours consumptio� of alcohol had occurred at the Blues Safoon on that date.
(Testimony of Schweinler.)
10. On or about February 8, 1999, the City served a Notice of Violation
on the Licensee noting that the Director of LIEP was recommending that adverse
action be taken against the Licensee's licenses as a result of the January 10,
1999, police visit. (Ex. 3.) The Licensee apparently filed a timely appeal
contesting the facts alleged in the Notice of Violation.
11. The Notice of Hearing scheduling the April 21, 1999, hearing in this
matter was served on counsel for the Licensee by mail on February 26, 1999,
and filed with the Office of Administrative Fiearings on March 1, 1999. (Ex. 4.)
12. In February of 1999, the City suspended all of the Licensee's
licenses for ten days due to a brief lapse that occurred in the Licensee's liquor
liability insurance. Eight days of the 10-day suspension were stayed.
(Testimony of Schweinler, Coale; Ex. 2.)
13. The District Seven Planning Councii has received complaints
concerning Iate n+ght activity at the Blues Saloon, noise, and people coming in
and out of the bar after hours. (Testimony of Samueison.}
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
CONCI.USIONS
1. The Saint Pau1 City Council and the Administrative Law Judge have
jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to § 310.05 of the St. Paui Legisfative Code
and Minn. Stat. § 14.55 (1998).
2. The hearing was conducted in accordance with the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes sections 14.57 to 14.62 and appiicable portions of the
procedures set forth in section 310.05 of the Saint Pau! Legislative Code.
3. The City has given proper notice of the hearing in this matter and has
fulfiiled all relevant substantive and procedural requirements of law or rufe.
�
q9 - ?LG
4. The City bears the burden in this matter of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that adverse action is warranted with respect to
the Licensee's licenses.
5. Chapter 310 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code contains general
provisions relating to licenses issued by the City. Section 310.Q6(b)(6)(a) of the
Saint Pauf Legisiative Code provides that adverse action may be taken when
"[t]he licensee or applicant (or any person whose conduct may by {aw be imputed
to the licensee or applicant) has violated, or performed any act which is a
violation of, any of the provisions of these chapters or of any staiute, ordinance
or regulation reasonably related to the licensed activity, regardless of whether
criminal charges have or have not been brought in connection therewith ...."
6. Pursuant to Section 310.17 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code °[aJny
act or conduct by any clerk, emp{oyee, manager or agent of a licensee ... which
act or conduct takes place ... on the licensed premises ..., and which act or
conduct violates any state or federal statutes or regufations, or any city
ordinance, shall be considered to be and treated as the act or conduct of the
licensee for the purpose of adverse action against all or any of the licenses held
by such licensee."
7. Section 409.07(a) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code provides, inter
alia, that "[n]o sale of intoxicating liquor shall be made after 1:00 a.m. on Sunday
nor untii 8:00 a.m. on Monday." Section 409.07(c) specifies that "[n}o person
shall consume or display or allow consumption or display of fiquor upon the
premises of an on-sale licensee at any time when the sale of such liquor is not
permitted."
8. Pursuant to Section 310.05(I) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code,
adverse license action may include the imposition of a fine "in such amount as
the council deems reasonable and apprapriate, having in m+nd the regulatory and
enforcement purposes embodied in the particular licensing ordinance."
9. Section 409.2"0 ofi the Saint Paui Legis}ativ2 Code sets forth a
schedule of penaities that are presumed to be appropriate for on-sale and off-
sale licensed premises, but permits the City Council to deviate from these
penalties in individuaf circumstances where warranted. The penalty for after-
hours display or consumption of alcoholic beverage is a 4-day suspension for the
second appearance.
10. The City faifed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence
that the Licensee permitted the consumption or display of liquor upon its
premises on January 10, 1999, at a time when the sale of liquor was not
permitted.
11. The City's recommended imposition of a four-day suspension of the
Licensee's Gcenses thus is not warranted.
5
�t q •1 G�
Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
RECOMMENDATION
IT IS HEREBY RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED:
That the St. Paui City Council not take adverse action against the licenses
held by Blues Saloon, Inc., doing business as Blues Saloon.
Dated this `�'�'h day of June, �999.
P�.�r� �.. t�c,�.s�.r—
BARBARA L. NEILSON
Administrative Law Judge
MEMORANDUM
The City of Saint Paui's Office of License, Inspections and Environmental
Protection (LIEP) has recommended discipline of the ficenses held by the B{ues
Saloon, Inc., pursuant to Section 310.06(b)(6)(a) of the Saint Paul Legisfative
Code. This section provides that adverse action may be taken when "[t]he
licensee or applicant (or any person whose conduct may by faw be imputed to
the licensee or appiicant) has violated, or performed any act which is a violation
of, any of the provisions of these chapters or of any statute, ordinance or
regulation reasonably related to the licensed activity, regardless of whether
criminai charges have or have not been brought in connection therewith ...:'
The LIEP alleges that those present at the Blues Saloon during the early morning
hours of January 10, 1999, violated the ordinance that prohibits the display or
consumption of alcoholic beverages after 1:00 a.m.�
This case presents a close question of fact. The testimony of the police
officers and the Blues Saloon employees was directly at odds. AltMough it is
evident that the employees would have some incentive to conceal the improper
consumption of alcohol on the work premises since they wouid be subject to
termination for such a violation of company policy, they appeared to give straight-
forward and credible testimony co�ceming the events of January 10. While they
did not a{I give the same descr+ption of what, if any, soft drinks were being
consumed that evening, they al4 agreed that no one was drinking any alcoholic
beverages. The police o�cers were only in the Blues Saloon for approximately
� Although LIEP initially asserted at the hearing that the incident in the Blues Saloon on January
10, 1999, amounted to after-hours sale or after-hours displaylconsumption of alcohol, there was
absolutely no evidence of sale and it is evident from the post-hearing brief submitted by LIEP that
it no longer alleges after-hours sale.
q9-14�
five minutes. They admittedly did not inspect any of the beverages that they
asserted they observed or get cfose enough to any of the people who were
present fo determine whether they smeiled of alcohoi.
Moreover O�cer Bystrom's police report was inconsistent with his
fiearing testimony and that of O�cer Roeder in cr+tical respects, thereby
undermining his credibiliiy. For example, the police report indicated that Officer
Bystrom saw "six people sitting at the bar with drinks" and alleges that "they ail
tried to hide their drinks" when they saw the police officers: "Some put the glass
in their laps, others quick drank them, etc." {n testimony, Oificer Bystrom said
that he could not say that everyone had a beverage in front of him or her but
believed that most of those present did. He testified that he saw beer bottles out
in plain view, despite the fact that there was no mention of beer bottles in the
report. He was unabie to identify what type of beer it was. He testified that two
men on west side of the bar turned to hide their beers, but did not claim at the
hearing that ail of those present tried to hide their drinks, as the report asserted.
There is no convincing evidence that the drink glasses with clear liquid in them
observed by the o�cers contained alcohol rather than water or soft drinks.
O�cer Roeder testified that she observed oniy one person with a beer bottie,
which she "thinks" was a Premium Grain Belt. However, she did not go over and
look at it.
O�cer Bystrom consistentiy asserted in both his report and his hearing
testimony that he asked Ms. Prange "if it wasn't a little late to be serving
alcohol?" and that Ms. Prange said, "Yeah, but everyone was just leaving." This
version of what happened was not, however, supposted by Officer Roeder, who
did not remember what was specificaily said by O�cer Systrom. it was a{so
contradicted by the testimony of Ms. Prange, Ms. Weber, and Mr. Fritsch, who ali
testified that Officer Bystrom instead asked, "You aren't serving alcohoi after
hours, are you?" and that Ms. Prange said "no" and indicated that they were just
getting ready to leave. Although these witnesses were sequestered and did not
hear each other's testimony, they were consistent in their memory thai Ms.
Prange did not make an admission to the police officers that alcohol was being
served. Ms. Prange's testimony concerning what happened during the incideni
also explains why she was confused about the purpose of the police cafl and felt
it necessary to inquire about the situation by caliing the police station a few days
later. The Administrative Law Judge thus has c�edited the testimony of the Blues
Saloon empioyees in this regard.
It appears that the police o�cers simply assumed that the peopie present
in the Blues Saloon on January 10 were drinking and did not take the logical
steps necessary to confirm their suspic+ons. Such assumptions do not form the
proper basis fior the imposition of adverse action against the Licensee. It would
have been simple for the police officers to inspect the beverages they saw or
assess the persons present, and it is not clear why that was not done. At a
minimum, it seems to the Administrative Law Judge that such evidence is
properly required for LIEP to tip the baiance and make the requisite showing by a
7
aa-14�
preponderance of the evidence that a violation ofi the liquor ordinance occurred.
In the absence of such evidence, the offcers simply could not be sure what
people were drinking (as O�cer Roeder admitfed during the hearing).
Based upon all of the circumstances, the Administrative Law Judge finds
that the City has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that adverse
action shouid be taken against the Licensee's licenses for after-hours display or
consumption of alcohol. It is therefore recommended that the City Council
determine that it is not appropriate to discipline the Licensee's licenses.
B.L.N.
E�
SA[Ni
PALL
�
AAAA
CIT'Y OF SAINT pAUI,
Norm Coleman, Mayor
June 30, 1949
��-���
OFFICE OF THE CIZ'y ATTORNEy
Clayyon M Robinron, Jr., Ciry A[torney
38 -
Civil Divisron
400CityHa11 Te7ephone:657266-8710
I S West Ket(ogg Btvd Facsimile: 65l 298-5619
Saint PQUI, Minrresota 55101
NOTICE OF COUNCII, HEAI2I1�rG
Mr. Roger Christianson
Attorney at Law
386 North Wabasha Street, Suite 600
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: All licenses held by Blues Saloon, Inc. dJb/a Blues Saloon
for the premises located at 601 Western Ave. N, in gt, paul
License ID No.:49441
Our File Number: G99-0064
Dear Mr. Christianson:
Please take notice that a hearing on the report of the Administrative Law Judge concerning the
above-mentioned license has been scheduled for 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 14,1999, in the City
Council Chambers, Third Floor, Saint Paui City Ha11 and Ramsey County Courthouse.
You have the oppommity to file exceptions to the report with the City Clerk at any time during
normal business hours. You may also present orai or written argument to the council at the Hearing.
No new evidence will be received or testimony taken at this hearing, The Council will base its
decision on the record ofthe proceedings before the Admiiustrative LawJudge and on the arguments
made and exceptions filed, but may depart from the recommendations of such Judge as permitted
by law in the exercise of its judgement and discretion.
Sincerely,
� '>CLG� �,���
Virgi�D. Paimer
Assistant City Attorney
cc: Nancy Anderson, Assistant Council Secretary, 310 City Hall
Robert Kessler, Director, LIEP
Cl�ristine Rozek, LIEP
�t3�,�«� F�s'o�A�r;h �a�
�, k 1�
Michael Samuelson, Exec. Director, Thomas-Dale/Dist. 7 Planning Council, 689 N. Dale St.,
St. Paui, MN 55103
Johsmy goryard, Exec. Director, Thomas Dale Block Clubs,1034 Lafond Ave., St. Paul, MN �
55104
�
�q, �G�
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE NEARINGS
FOR THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL
In the Matter of the Licenses Held by
Slues Saloon, Inc., d/bla Blues Saloon
for the Premises at 601 Western Ave. N.,
Saint Paul, Minnesota
License fD No. 49441
11-2111-12118-3
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on April 21, 1999, before
Administrative Law Judge Barbara L. Neilson, in Room 220 of the Saint Paul City
Hall in Saint Paul, Minnesota. The record remained open until May 17, 1999, for
the filing of a reply brief by the City.
Virginia D. Pafiner, Assistant City Attorney, O�ce of the City Attomey, 400
City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Blvd., Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102, represented the
City of St. Paui's Office of License, lnspections and Environmentai Protection.
F2oger A. Christianson, Attorney at Law, 386 North Wabasha, Suite 600, St. Pauf,
Minnesota 55102-1308, appeared on behalf of the Licensee, the Blues Saloon.
NOTICE
This Report contains a recommendation, not a final decision. The Saint
Paul City Councif will make the final decision after reviewing the record and may
adopt, reject or modify the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation
contained herein. Pursuant to Section 310.05 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code,
the City Gouncil's final decision shall not be made until this Report has been
made avai�able to the parties to the proceeding and the Licensee has been
provided an opportunity to present orai or written arguments aileging error on the
part of the Administrative Law Judge in the appiication of the law or the
interpretation of the facts and an opportunity to present argument relating to any
recommended adverse action. The Licensee and any interested parties should
contact the Saint Paul City Gouncil, 310 City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102,
to ascertain the procedure for presenting argument to the Council.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
This case presents the following issues:
1. Did the Licensee perm+t consumption or display of alcohol upon ifs
premises at a time when the sale of liquor was not permitted, in viofation in Saint
Paul Legislative Code § 409.07(c)?
a� -�y�
2. {f so, should the St. Paul City Council impose discipline against the
Licensee's on sale liquor, off sale maft, entertainment, restaurant, or
cigarette/tobacco licenses in accordance with Section 409.26 of the Saint Paul
Legis{ative Code?
Based upon alf of the files records and proceedings herein, and for the
reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the Adm+nistrative Law
Judge makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Licensee, Blues Saloon, Inc., operates a food, liquor, and music
estabfishment known as the Blues Saloon at 601 Western Avenue North in Saint
Paul. The Licensee hofds cigaretfe/tobac�o, on-sale liquor, off-sale malt,
entertainment, and restaurant licenses from the City of Saint Pauf (license no.
0049441). These licenses expired on April 30, 1999. (Testimony of Schwein{er;
Ex. 2.)
2. The Blues Saloon has an upstairs bar and entertainment area in
which bands perform as well as a downstairs bar. Typically, band members
remain at the Blues Saloon for a period of time after they finish playing to wind
down, talk to people in the audience, use the bathroom, pack up their equipment,
and haul equipment out to their vehicies. After the band leaves and the bar's
customers leave the B{ues Saloon, its employees have to count, secure, and
complete paperwork regarding the money taken in; set up money to be used at
the beginning of the next day; conduct security checks; put things away; wipe off
the bar and tables; put up the chairs; clean the stage, band room, and
bathrooms; restock andior reorder depieted items; throw away bottfes, cups, and
debris; pick up the floor; carry out the trash; wash out the pitchers, gfasses,
mixers and ashtrays; and otherwise clean up. It is the practice of those working
at the Blues Safoon to leave the bar together when they are finished working, for
safety reasons. (Testimony of Prange, Weber, Fritsch, Coale.) it is not unusuai
for employees to still be at the Blues Saloon at 3:30 a.m, on a weekend.
(Testimony of Coale.)
3. {t is against the poficy of the Blues Saloon for empioyees to drink
alcohol on the premises while they are working. Employees have been
terminafed for violating this policy. (Testimony of Prange, Coale.)
4. On Saturday night, January 9, 1999, the Eddie King Band was
perEorming in the upstairs entestainment area of the Blues Saloon. Last call
occurred at approximately 12:50 a.m. and the band finished playing at
approximately 12:45 or 1:00 a.m. in the eariy morning hours of January 10. The
band members remained upstaiss at the Blues Saloon for a period of time to chat
with members of the audience. By the time the five band members packed up
their instruments and sound equipment and carried these items downstairs and
out to their vehicles, it was approximately 2:15 a.m. After the band members left,
Karen Prange (the manager of the Blues Saloon who also works as an upstairs
bartender on weekends) and Lynn Weber (an upstairs bartender) went
2
aR-�i�
downstairs to assist other employees in cleaning up the downstairs area. The
other employees who were present in the Blues Saloon during the early morning
hours of January 10 were Steve Fritsch, the downstairs bartender at the Blues
Saloon, and David Gangie, a bouncer employed by the Blues Saloon. Penny
Schanus, Mr. Gangle's girlfriend, arrived to give Mr. Gangle and Ms. Weber a
ride home. Joe Jeifreys, an indiv+dua{ who is paid by fhe Biues Saloon on an
occasional basis to perform maintenance work, was also present. He had come
that evening to repair the women's bathroom after the bar was closed and the
customers had left, and remained in the bar to help with clean-up and for security
reasons. Because it was cold outside that evening, several of the employees
went outside to start their cars and finished their clean-up duties while their cars
warmed up outside. (Testimony of Prange, Weber, Jeffreys, Fritsch, Coale.)
5. Guring the eariy mornir,g hours of Sunday, Jan:�ary 1Q, 1999, hvo
Saint Paul Police Officers (Steven Bystrom and Dawn Roeder) were patrolling in
the vic+nity of the Blues Saloon. At approximately 3:23 a.m., they noticed a
woman (Ms. Schanus) entering the Blues Safoon after she had started her
vehicle. They decided to investigate because there had been a recent burglary
at another bar after closing time. They followed Ms. Schanus into the Blues
Saloon. They saw a person standing behind the bar and approximately six other
people seated at the bar. O�cer Bystrom asked who was in charge, and Ms.
Prange responded that she was. He asked her fior identification, which she then
praduced. He then said, "You aren't serving alcohol after hours, are you?" She
said "no" and indicated that they were }ust getting ready fo leave. The Police
Officers were only in the Blues Safoon for approximately five minutes. They left
without issuing a citation. (Testimony of Bystrom, Roeder, Prange, Jeffreys,
Weber, Fritsch.)
6. Following the visit, Officer Bystrom prepared a report and provided it
to the City's Department of Licensing, Inspection, and Environmental Protection
(L4EP). in the report, O�cer Bystrom stated in pertinent part as follows:
We saw a bartender behind the ba� and six people sitting at the bar
with drinks. When they saw us they all tried to hide their drinks.
Some pui the giass in their faps, others quick drank them, etc. i
asked the bartender who was in charge? She said she was
identified by mn photo DL as (PRANGE, KAREN ANN DOB 11-15-
59 of 5846 Hale Lane White Bear tk, MN 55110). ! asked her if it
wasn't a little late to be serving alcohol? She said "Yea, but
everyone was just leaving." I informed her a info report would be
written.
(Ex. 1; Testimony of Bystrom.j
7. The Police O�cers did not have any conversation with the people in
the Blues Saloon, other than Ms. Prange. They did not ask why they were there
or whether they were employees. They did not check any battles or glasses to
confirm that alcohol was being dispiayed or consumed, and they did not get cfose
�
�t-���
enough to these peop4e to see if they smelled of a(cohol. (Testimony of Bystrom,
Roeder, Prange.)
8. None of the persons present during the police visit on January 10,
1999, was drinking any alcohol. lf they were drinking anything, it was simply soft
drinks or water. (Testimony of Prange, Jeffreys, Weber, Fritsch.)
9. Following the issuance of the police report relating to the January 10,
1999, visit to the Blues Safoon, the Director of LIEP decided to recommend that
adverse action be taken for a second appearance in accordance with the penalty
matrix set forth in Section 409.26 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The
recommendation was made due to the conciusion of the police o�cers that after-
hours consumption of alcohol had occurred at the Blues Saloon on that date.
(Testimony of Schweinler.)
10. On or about February 8, 1999, the City served a Notice of Vio(ation
on the Licensee noting that the Director of LIEP was recommending that adverse
action be taken against the Licensee's licenses as a result of the January 10,
1999, police visit. (Ex. 3.) The Licensee apparently filed a timely appeal
contesting the facts afleged in the Notice of Violation.
11. The Notice of Hearing scheduling the April 21, 1999, hearing in this
matter was served on counsef for the Licensee by mail on February 26, 1999,
and filed with the O�ce of Administrative Hearings on March 1, 1999. (Ex. 4.)
12. !n February of 1999, the City suspended ail of the Licensee's
licenses for ten days due to a brief fapse that occurred in the Licensee's liquor
liability insurance. Eight days of the 10-day suspension were stayed.
(Testimony of Schweinler, Coale; Ex. 2.)
13. The District Seven Planning Council has received complaints
concerning late night activity at the Blues Saloon, noise, and people coming in
and out of the bar after hours. (Testimony of Samue4son.)
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administra6ve Law Judge
makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Saint Paul City Council and the Administrative Law Judge have
jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to § 310.05 of the St. Pau{ Legisfative Code
and Minn. Stat. § 14.55 (1998).
2. The hearing was conducted in accordance with the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes sections 14.57 to 14.62 and appiicable portions of the
procedures set forth in section 310.05 of the Saint Paui Legisiative Code.
3. The City has given proper notice of the hearing in this matter and has
fulfilled all relevant substantive and procedural requirements of law or rule.
3
�t9'- �GL
4. The City bears the burden in this matter of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence fhat adverse action is warranted with respect to
the Licensee's licenses.
5. Chapter 310 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code contains generaf
provisions relating to licenses issued by the City. Section 310.06(b)(6)(a) of the
Saint Pau{ Legislafive Code provides that adverse action may be taken when
"[t]he licensee or applicant (or any person whose conduct may by faw be imputed
to the licensee or applicant) has violated, or performed any act which is a
violation of, any of the provisions of these chapters or of any statute, ordinance
or regufation reasonabiy related to the licensed activity, regardiess of whether
criminal charges have or have not been brought in connection therewith ...."
6. Pursuant to Section 310.17 of the Saint Pau1 Legislative Code, "[a}ny
act or conduct by any clerk, employee, manager or agent of a licensee ... which
act or conduct takes place ... on the licensed premises ...> and which act or
conduct violates any state or federa{ statutes or regulations, or any city
ordinance, shall be considered to be and treated as the act or conduci of the
licensee for the purpose of adverse action against ali or any of the licenses held
by such licensee."
7. Section 409.07(a) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code provides, inter
alia, that "[n]o sale of intoxicating liquor shall be made after 1:Q0 a.m. on Sunday
nor until 8:00 a.m. on Monday:' Section 409.07(c) specifies that "[n]o person
shall consume or dispiay or allow consumption or display of liquor upon the
premises of an on-sale licensee at any time when the safe of such liquor is not
permitted."
8. Pursuant to Section 310.05(I) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code,
adverse license action may include the imposition of a fine "in such amount as
the councif deems reasonable and appropriate, having in mind the regu{atory and
enforcement purposes embodied in the particular licensing ordinance."
9. Section 409.20 of the Sain# Pau4 Legislative Code sets forth a
schedule of penalties that are presumed to be appropriate for on-sale and off-
sale licensed premises, but permits the City Councif to deviate from these
penalties in individual circumstanees where warranted. The penalty fos after-
hours display or consumption of alcoholic beverage is a 4-day suspension for the
second appearance.
10. The City failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence
that the Licensee permitted the consumption or display of liquor upon its
premises on January 10, 1999, af a time when the sale of liquor was not
permitted.
11. 7he City's recommended imposition of a four-day suspension of the
Licensee's {icenses thus is not warranted.
5
�q- ��y
Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
RECOMMENDATION
iT fS HEREBY RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED:
That the St. Paul City Council not take adverse action against the licenses
held by Blues Saloon, Inc., doing business as Blues Saloon.
Dated this `t �'�^ day of June, 1999.
�... l' . F.1c,�.J(. s
BARBARA L. NEILSON
Administrative Law Judge
MEMORANDUM
The City of Saint Paul's Office of License, lnspections and Environmentaf
Protection (LIEP) has recommended discipline of the licenses held by the Blues
Saloon, Inc., pursuant to Section 310.06(b){6){a) of the Saint Paul Legis(ative
Code. This section provides that adverse action may be taken when "[t]he
licensee or applicant (or any person whose conduct may by law be imputed to
the licensee or applicant) has violated, or performed any act which is a violation
of, any of the provisions of these chapters or af any statute, ordi�ance or
regulation reasonabiy related to the iicensed activity, regardless of whether
criminal charges have or have not been brought in connection therewith ...."
The LIEP aileges that those present at the Blues Saloon during the early morning
hours of January 10, 1999, violated the ordinance that prohibits the display or
consumption of alcoholic beverages after 1:00 a.m.�
This case presents a close question of fact. The testimony of the police
o�cers and the B1ues Saloon emp{oyees was directly at odds. Although it is
evident that the employees would have some incentive to conceal the improper
consumption of alcohol on the work premises since they would be subject to
termination for such a violation of company policy, they appeared to give straight-
forward and credibie testimony conceming the events of January 10. While they
did not all give the same description of what, if any, soft drinks were being
consumed that evening, they all agreed that no one was drinking any alcoholic
beverages. The police o�cers were on4y in the B{ues Saloon for approximatefy
� Although LIEP initially asserted at the hearing that the incident in the Blues Saloon on January
10, 1999, amounted to after-hours sale or after-hours display/consumption of alcohol, there was
absolutely no evidence of safe and it is evident from the post-hearing brief submitted by LIEP that
it no longer al{eges after-hours sale.
�`� - 1(��
five minutes. They admittedly did not inspect any of the beverages that they
asserted they observed or get close enough to any of the people who were
present to determine whether they smelled of a{cohol.
Moreover, O�cer Bystrom's police report was inconsistent with his
hearing testimony and that of Officer Roeder in critical respects, thereby
undermining his credibility. For example, the police report +ndicated that O�cer
Bystrom saw "six people sitting at the bar with drinks" and afleges that °they all
tried to hide their drinks" when they saw the police officers: "Some put the glass
in their faps, others quick drank them, etc." In testimony, Officer Bystrom said
that he could not say that everyor�e had a beverage in front of him or her but
believed that most of those present did. He testified that he saw beer bottles out
in plain view, despite the fact that there was no mention of beer bottles in the
report. He was unabie to identify what type of beer it was. He testified that two
men on west side of the bar turned to hide their beers, but did not claim at the
hearing that ail of those present tried to hide their drinks, as the report asserted.
There is no convincing evidence that ihe drink gfasses with clear liquid in them
observed by the officers contained alcohol rather than water or soft drinks.
O�cer Roeder testified that she observed only one person with a beer bottle,
which she "thinks" was a Premium Grain Beit. However, she did not go over and
look at it.
O�cer Bystrom consistently asserted in both his report and his hearing
testimony that he asked Ms. Prange "if it wasn't a little late to be serving
alcohol?" and that Ms. Prange said, "Yeah, but everyone was just leaving ° This
version of what happened was not, however, supported by Officer Roeder, who
did not remember what was specifica{ly said by O�cer Bystrom. It was also
contradicted by the testimony of Ms. Prange, Ms. Weber, and Mr. Fritsch, who all
testified that O�cer Bystrom instead asked, "You aren't serving alcoho! after
hours, are you?" and that Ms. Prange said "no" and indicated that they were just
getting ready to leave. Although these witnesses were sequestered and did not
hear each other's testimony, they were consistent in their memory that Ms.
Prange did not make an admission to the police o�cers that alcoho4 was being
served. Ms. Prange's testimony conceming what happened during the incideni
also explains why she was confused about the purpose of the police cail and feft
it necessary to inquire about the situation by calling the police station a few days
later. The Administrative Law Judge thus has credited the testimony of the Blues
Saloon employees in this regard.
It appears that the police officers simply assumed that the people present
in the Blues Sa400n on January 10 were drinking and did not take the logical
steps necessary to confirm their suspicions. Such assumptions do not form the
proper basis for the imposition of adverse action against the Licensee. ft woutd
have been simple for the police o�cers to inspect the beverages they saw or
assess the persons present, and it is not clear why that was not done. At a
minimum, it seems to the Administrative taw Judge that such evidence is
properly required for LIEP to tip the balance and make the requisite showing by a
7
9� -'iG�
preponderance of the evidence that a violation of the liquor ordinance occurred.
in the absence of such evidence, the officers simply could not be sure what
peopfe were drinking (as O�cer Roeder admitted during the hearing).
Sased upon all of the circumstances, the Administrative Law Judge finds
that the City has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that adverse
action should be taken against the Licensee's licenses for after-hours display or
consumption of alcohol. lt is therefore recommended that the City Council
determine that it is not appropriate to discipline the Licensee's licenses.
B.L.N.
�