Loading...
95-1466 OR Council File # �' / ��p� IGINAL Green Sheet # 3/ '7 0 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To Committee: Date p.lof2 2 3 4 WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul, Office of License, Inspections and Environmental 5 Protection (LIEP) initiated a contested case hearing relating to all licenses held by Jestpama, Inc. 6 dba East Side Liquor Store for premises located at 1362 Maryland Avenue East, St. Paul, MN, 7 seeking adverse action based upon alleged violations of section 409.08, of the Saint Paul 8 Legislative Code; and sections 340A.503 of the Minnesota Statutes, arising from an incident on 9 March 3, 1995, involving the sale, by licensee, of an alcoholic beverage to a minor; and 10 11 12 WHEREAS, an administrative hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Rita 13 A. McConnell on September 2, 1995, with Joseph J. Dudley, Esq., appearing on behalf of the 14 licensee, and Theodore D. Leon, Esq., appearing on behalf of LIEP. Each party submitting oral 15 testimony and documents into the record at the hearing. The matter was then taken under 16 advisement; and 17 18 19 WHEREAS, the Administrative Law Judge, in her Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law 20 and Recommendation found that the licensee reasonably and in good faith relied upon 21 representations of proof of age supplied by the minor in making a sale to him, and based upon 22 that finding, recommended that the St. Paul City Council take no adverse action against the 23 licenses held by Jestpama, Inc.; and 24 25 26 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the St. Paul City Council on November 22, 27 1995, to consider the report of the ALJ; now therefore 28 29 30 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of St. Paul, after due deliberation based 31 upon all the evidence contained in the files, records and proceedings herein including the 32 documents and exhibits submitted to the Administrative Law Judge, the adoption of the ALJ's 33 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation and the oral argument of Theodore 34 D. Leon, does hereby order: 35 36 37 1. That the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Administrative 38 Law Judge be accepted as the finding of the Council in this matter and be 39 incorporated herein, by reference. 40 41 42 2. That no action be taken against the licenses held by Jestpama, Inc. dba East 43 Side Liquor Store for premises located at 1362 Maryland Avenue East, St. Paul. _ - lc: /1 2 3. That a copy of this Resolution, as adopted, shall be sent by first class mail to 3 the licensee and the Administrative Law Judge. 4 p.2.42_ 5 6 7 (flIGINAL Ye Nays Absent Requested by Department of: Blakey /✓ Harris ✓` Grimm ✓ Guerin Megard ✓ Re ✓ Thune ✓ By: __ 0 1 Adopted by Council: Date V.d�. a p \M.I.5 Form Approved by City Attorney 1 Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: J By: ,k ailtiG..... Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council mr1? Approved by M :II Date LAP/F By: / / By: y. / • DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATE INITIATED O �� /4 � Ciit Council 12/13/95 GREEN SHEET N 3 4 INMAIJDATE N Hi NE ED DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ❑ CITY COUNCIL INITIAL/DATE - Nancy Anderson ANION ❑ CITY ATTORNEY ❑ CITY CLERK RIMER MUST BE COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) FOR ❑ BUDGET DIRECTOR ❑ FIN. a MGT. SERVICES DIR. December 20, 1995 ORDER ❑ MA1OR (OR ASSISTANT) ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) • ACTION REQUESTED: Finalizing City Council action taken November 22,:1995, concerning adverse action against licenses held by Jestpama, dba East Side'Liquor,1362 Maryland Avenue East. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Resat (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: — PLANNING COMM$SSION — CIVIL sew= COMu ss oN 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? - - CM COMMITTEE YES NO 2 Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? — STAB YES NO — DISTRICT COURT 3. Does this person/Ikm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? YES NO Explain all yes answers on separate shoot and attach to erssn sheet 1 INITIATING PROBLEM. ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who. Whit When. Whore, Why): ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: .DEC band %nein* Cathy .1 :; 17 DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUOGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN TiA*''GI N SHEET IIf1STRUCTIONAL MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASING OFFICE (RHONE NO. 298 -420.' ROUTING ORDER: Below are correct routings for the five most frequent types of documents: • CONTRACTS (assumes authorized budget exists) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Amend BudgeWAcospt. Grand) 1. Outside Agency 1. Department Director 2. Department Director 2. Budget Director 3. City Attorney 3. City Attorney 4. Mayor (for contracts over 615.000) 4. Mayor /Assistant 5. Human Rights (for contracts over $50,000) 5. City Council 6. Finance and Management Services Director 6. Chief Accountant, Finance and ll4enagement Services 7. Finance Accounting ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (Budget Revision) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all others, and Ordinances) 1. Activity Manager 1. Department Director 2. Department Accountant 2. City Attorney 3. Department Director 3. Mayor Assistant 4. Budget Director 4. City Council 5. City Clerk 6. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (all others) 1. Department Director 2. City Attorney 3. Finance and Management Services Director 4. City Clerk TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURE PAGES Indicate the #of pages on which signatures are required and paperclip or flag each of these pages. ACTION REQUESTED Describe what the project/request seeks to accomplish in either chronologi- cal order or order of importance, whichever is most appropriate for the issue. Do not write'oomplete sentences. Begin each item in your list with a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS Complete if the issue in question has been presented before any body, public or private. SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? Indicate which Council objective(s) your project/request supports by listing the key word(s) (HOUSING, RECREATION, NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUDGET, SEWER SEPARATION. (SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS: This information will be used to determine the citytt liability for workers compensation claims, taxes and proper cFvil service hiring rules. INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY Explain the situation or conditions that created a need for your project or request. ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED Indicate whether this in simply an annual budget procedure required by law/ charter or whether there are specific ways in which the City of Saint Paul and its citizens will benefit from this project/action. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED What negative effects or major changes to existing or past processes might this project/request produce if it is passed (e.g., traffic delays, noise, tax increases or assessments)? To Whom? When? For how long? DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED What will be the negative consequences if the promised action is not approved? Inability to deliver service? Continued high traffic, noise, accident rate? Loss of revenue? FINANCIAL IMPACT Although you must tailor the information you provide here to the issue you are, addressing, in general you must answer two questions: How much is it going to cost? Who is going to pay? OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 9: 5'7— i Timothy E. Marx, City Attorney s � P A U CITY OF SAINT PAUL Civil Division 404t Norm Coleman, Mayor 400 City Hall Telephone: 612 266 -8710 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Facsimile: 612 298 -5619 A A A A Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 December 13, 1995 Nancy Anderson 310 City Hall RE: Wednesday, December 20, 1995 Council Hearing Item for Consent Agenda: Jestpama, Inc. d /b /a East Side Liquor Nancy: Attached is the signed resolution identifying no penalty imposed by the City Council on East Side Liquor. Please schedule this item for the Consent Agenda for the Council Hearing on Wednesday, December 20, 1995. Thank you. Sincerolgl 6 Peter P. Pangbo Paralegal OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Timothy E. Marx, City Attorney S A 1 N T PAUL CITY OF SAINT PAUL Civil Division 9 r' �' ; 1 6 Norm Coleman, Mayor 400 City Hall Telephone: 612 266 -8710 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Facsimile: 612 298 -5619 AAAA Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 aramara November 8, 1995 Joseph J. Dudley, Jr. Dudley and Smith Attorneys and Counselors at Law American National Bank Building, Suite 2602 101 East 5th Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 NOTICE OF COUNCIL HEARING RE: All licenses held by Jestpama, Inc. dba East Side Liquor Store for premises located at 1362 Maryland Avenue East, St. Paul Our File Number: G95 -0144 Dear Mr. Dudley: Please take notice that a hearing on the report of the Administrative Law Judge concerning the above - mentioned establishment has been scheduled for 3:30 p.m., Wednesday, November 22, 1995, in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor, Saint Paul City Hall and Ramsey County Courthouse. You have the opportunity to file exceptions to the report with the City Clerk at any time during normal business hours. You may also present oral or written argument to the council at the Hearing. No new evidence will be received or testimony taken at this hearing. The Council will base its decision on the record of the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge and on the arguments made and exceptions filed, but may depart from the recommendations of such Judge as permitted by law in the exercise of its judgement and discretion. Sincerely, Theodore Leon Assistant City Attorney cc: Nancy Anderson, Assistant Council Secretary Robert Kessler, Director, LIEP Nancy Thomas, Office of Administrative Hearings, 100 Washington Square, Mpls, MN 55401 Tim Dornfeld, Community Organizer, District 2 Community Council, 2169 Stillwater Ave., St. Paul, MN 55119 J. A' li 1 :II .4. .. , • Y , 1 'PI . • . . el ri 4 i llf 'T .,..1.1 " . imh• 6••■ -'7.-. 7 .. .... * .,_ A" gliga N " COIN —,_.---- --..- r . . 4 DEFENDANT'S 1 -.-- r� / F t' .% OS • A .,-...- • . ..: .....„ 1 .,.. ,ki,_ sii .. ....: ,,.„. . e, .. ..., vis I. • v DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT I . • . ....` ' ) ' .t.' . . ..- : . EAST S IDE / -- / q j _ 41 • . --ah 's; - ■ ...q ,,,„wis li: it A , is ............ . f .:,,. .. ..,, __-7 •""'" _ '‘-.....i.' ...,...4 Ne a In* DEFENDAN E7CHIBrr . . 1 - y e/ 4 14 . , sr 1111sit =1 ' - - DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1111 111 1 m 1 w' 'l O Z i MI II q I ,,,.. t s .„,- 8 8 at 4 � . Ild b i ..p , . ... „, 4 Mil 1 1 1 Mil 11 , 1[,.. i ® Dil DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1 4 "Or ., uuuI 7,4AiTZ R : • i'' , . a■••• • -_—... ... --wow r ..., ._ 7111ii1747W'' e ' 8 . 1 i -• • F- ■ 7 - .-- --1 7-7 P' -.■ I 1 i . - — — ' : • .4'. UlliTIV"' rtAfer‘li;., , - . ---,--- , Is OIL v I .,. L 70 .••. j i ---_,....., _ ..r, 1 %ii :-_. i , • , ill Ili ... ..,., ,, 1 I _ i, 1 ..,...A.m - 1,111 g 114:::::: ,.._.- ime 1, --...-....., --...‘........H-..,,k ; v Ip 0 1 • ' . , ......... ' 7 ' I lirall* Si; k....H.. .., II ii. I DEFENDANT'S i EXHIBIT I 4 1 II 1 Ali ow .-111111 DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 7 te r, AN . . 1 1.iq mi i 0_. I hi .. _. , \i! • I, 03 , ' ■ 1 'f' it' ' rli ' �I I 4 .j • ',.t , DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 11ARNING I rd. D EFENDANT'S EXHIBIT Suid1N fOj au 1103 Qd3H e 4- 31 UN' ku 9 W.61. 1:1381,431d3S 31I033fl N11011 MGM flOx 31 ��tuiEttt �'u� �nan�nJ�� fi uu� insna !Ora , 0 � 3 o s iiip ' K ..'...!..,, --'• • in or . , - • .. I • , . 4 4 As . . . t , I 1 — .- ..:".. 1 1 ' 1 . . •", C. il d eit Ili/at-a_ , '.,- I ' JAIIHX3 SJNVON3.43a 1 aid A6 NO39HOS 1181HX3 Sd1NVaN3Q ,,.� . Amin } _ I r tll I y, h am , ::,... t•✓ , 1 le ., I.. - QA. I - _ , . ifk Is f .... - y am IZ �� pp::11 ' _ o gt _ 11•ALL., _____—.1. r aii r row I il J 1.t9IH)C3 SYON313a ''' . STATE OF MINNESOTA � uno' ;14 1 ' '.7 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700 C 5 - 6 100 Washington Avenue South ° y `��� �' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -2138 • RECEIVED NOV — 1 1995 CITY CLERK October 30, 1995 City Clerk Saint Paul City Council 386 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: In the Matter of the License held by Jestpama, Inc, dba East Side Liquor Store 1361 East Maryland Ave, Saint Paul, Minnesota File No. 80- 2101 - 9790 -6 Dear City Clerk: Enclosed for service upon the Saint Paul City Council are the Findings, Conclusions, Recommendation and Memorandum I prepared following a hearing in the above - referenced matter. A copy of this Report has also been served this day on Theodore Leon of the Office of the City Attorney and Joseph J. Dudley, attorney for the licensee. Sincerely, Rita A. McConnell `earing Officer cc: Mr. Theodore D. Leon Mr. Joseph J. Dudley Providing Impartial Hearings for Government and Citizens An Equal Opportunity Employer Administrative Law Section & Administrative Services (612) 341 -7600 • TDD No. (612) 341 -7346 • Fax No. (612) 349 -2665 � ,. ''; f '�� ` , STATE OF MINNESOTA : ' . ''' OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS C 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700 ' r 0 • 100 Washington Avenue South Cti ��' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -2138 RECEIVED NOV -1 1995 CITY CLERK October 30, 1995 Mr. Theodore D. Leon Assistant City Attorney 400 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55102 Mr. Joseph J. Dudley Dudley and Smith, P.A. Suite 2602 American Bank Bldg. 101 East Fifth Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 Re: In the Matter of the Licenses of Jestpama, Inc. dba East Side Liquor Store, 1361 East Maryland Ave. File No. 80- 2101 - 9790 -6 Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a copy of my Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation prepared in the above- captioned matter. A copy has also been served upon the City Clerk on this date. S ncerely, nc a A. McConnell Administrative Law Judge L City Clerk Providing Impartial Hearings for Government and Citizens An Equal Opportunity Employer Administrative Law Section & Administrative Services (612) 341 -7600 • TDD No. (612) 341 -7346 • Fax No. (612) 349 -2665 c 5_ 7 . ' 6 80- 2101 - 9790 -6 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS RECEIVED FOR THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL NOV -11995 In re the Licenses FINDINGS OF CITY of Jestpama, Inc. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW dba East Side Liquor Store AND RECOMMENDATION 1361 East Maryland Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota The above - entitled matter came on for hearing before Administrative Law Judge Rita A. McConnell on September 7, 1995 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 1503, Saint Paul City Hall Annex, 25 West Fourth Street, Saint Paul Minnesota, 55102. The record closed on October 1, 1995 upon receipt of the parties' written closing statements and responsive memoranda. Theodore D. Leon, Assistant City Attorney, 400 City hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, Saint Paul, 55102, appeared on behalf of the City of St. Paul's Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP). Joseph J. Dudley, Jr., Dudley and Smith, Suite 2602, American Bank Building, 101 East Fifth Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55101, appeared on behalf of licensee Jestpama, Inc., d /b /a East Side Liquor Store. Notice is hereby given that this Report is a recommendation only and not a final decision. The Saint Paul City Council will make the final decision. After a review of the record, it may adopt, reject, or modify the Findings of Fact and Recommendations contained herein. c_ Parties should contact the City Clerk, St. Paul City Council, 386 City Hall, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102, to learn the procedure for filing exceptions or presenting argument. STATEMENT OF ISSUES Is adverse action against the liquor license held by Jestpama, Inc. justified on the grounds it sold alcoholic beverages to a minor where the license holder claims the minor made the purchase using false identification? Based on the files, records and proceedings herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. East Side Liquor Store is located at the end of a strip mall at 1361 Maryland Avenue East. Defendant Exhibit 1 to 4.. The license holder for the store is Jestpama, Inc. City Exhibit 3. The manager of the store is Robert Dunkel whose wife, Joann D. Dunkel, is president of Jestpama, Inc. 2. On Friday, March 3, 1995, a customer named Michael Lentsch entered East Side Liquor Store at approximately 9:00 p.m. Present in the store were store employees Michael Butler and Shawn Arvin, as well as customer Jeff Grell. Manager Robert Dunkel was in the back of the store stocking shelves. 3. East Side Liquor has a policy to ask for identification from all customers who appear to be under the age of 30 and who are not known to the clerk to have presented valid identification during a previous 2 transaction. When Lentsch entered the store, Butler and Arvin briefly conferred and agreed Lentsch was an unfamiliar customer who appeared youthful and therefore should be "carded." 4. Lentsch brought a case of beer to the check -out counter where Michael Butler was working the cash register. Arvin and Grell were at a second cash register at the other end of the counter, approximately eleven feet away. They engaged in casual conversation while Grell waited to make his purchase. 5. Before making the sale, Mike Butler asked Lentsch to present identification. Lentsch complied with Butler's request, producing a Minnesota driver's license from his back pocket. The license was not in a wallet. Butler confirmed that the physical description and picture on the license were consistent with Lentsch's appearance and noted the year of birth was 1973. Both Arvin and Grell noticed that Lentsch handed Butler an identification card that was edged in red. Driver's licenses issued to drivers under the age of 21 are edged in black. 6. After making the purchase, Lentsch brought the beer to his station wagon parked in front of the store. Present in the car were five friends of Lentsch, all of whom were minors. Lentsch began to load the beer into the front seat next to one of his passengers, but then observed a police patrol car near the liquor store. Lentsch removed the beer from the front seat and loaded it into the back of the station wagon. He left the parking lot and drove west on Maryland Avenue. 7. Inside the patrol car observed by Lentsch were police officers William Paatalo and David Miller. Paatalo and Miller had been driving westbound on Maryland when they noticed some of Lentsch's passengers standing 3 outside the liquor store. The passengers appeared too young to be making liquor purchases so the police officers slowed down to watch their activities. The officers saw Lentsch come out of the store with the beer and load it into the car. The police believed Lentsch was 16 to 18 years old. Consequently, they followed Lentsch down Maryland Avenue for a short distance, keeping a close eye on the car and its occupants. The officers did not see any suspicious conduct, but stopped Lentsch after about four blocks to check his identification. 8. After stopping Lentsch, Officer Paatalo asked him his age. Lentsch replied he was 18 years old. Upon further questioning, Lentsch told the officers he did not show any identification to the liquor store clerk before purchasing the beer. Officer Paatalo searched Lentsch and found no identification on him. Lentsch told the police officer his license was in his wallet which he kept in the glove compartment of the car because it was too bulky to carry in his pocket. Officer Paatalo directed Lentsch to put his beer into the squad car and drive back to East Side Liquor. The officers followed in their squad car. 9. Lentsch returned to the store in the company of Officer Paatalo about 15 minutes later. There were one or two customers in the store at that time. Michael Butler was at the cash register ringing up a sale. Officer Paatalo, who was familiar with East Side Liquor, sought out Robert Dunkel and told him that Butler had sold beer to Lentsch who was underage. When questioned, Butler readily admitted his sale to Lentsch. Butler and Arvin both insisted, however, that Lentsch had produced a Minnesota driver's license that showed Lentsch to be over 21. 10. Lentsch again denied he supplied Butler with false identification, so Dunkel asked that Lentsch be searched. No identification was found on Lentsch, so Dunkel, Lentsch 4 CA; 5 f and Officer Paatalo went outside to where Officer Miller was waiting by Lentsch's car. With Lentsch's permission, Officer Paatalo searched the glove box where he found Lentsch's wallet containing a Minnesota driver's license showing Lentsch to be 18 years old. Officer Paatalo did a brief search of the car while the five passengers remained in the car. He did not find another identification during the search. 11. Michael Lentsch was issued a citation by Officer Paatalo on March 3. The matter was then referred to Police Officer Arthur Renteria who conducted a follow -up investigation of the events of March 3. Renteria conducted a telephone interview with Lentsch and with two of his five passengers. Lentsch denied using false identification in his conversation with Renteria. His passengers both denied that Lentsch told them he had used a false identification. Renteria also interviewed customer Jeff Grell at the request of Robert Dunkel. Grell confirmed for Renteria that he had seen Lentsch present an identification card to Butler prior to the sale on March 3, 1995. 12. A notice of violation was sent to Robert W. Dunkel and East Side Liquor Store on March 27, 1995. The notice stated that the violation could serve as a basis for adverse action against the store's license. City's Exhibit No. 7. Mr. Dunkel was subsequently served with notice of the hearing in this matter. City's Exhibits 5 and 6. 13. March 3 was not the first time Michael Butler made a sale to a minor. In March of 1994, shortly after he began to work at the liquor store, Butler sold alcohol to a female based on an statement by Arvin that the customer was over 21. Arvin's assurance was based on erroneous information given to him a few days earlier by another employee. As a result of that sale, Butler was reprimanded and Arvin fired by Dunkel. Arvin was subsequently rehired after his parents 5 C 5 .t intervened on his behalf and convinced Dunkel that the circumstances did not warrant discharge. Since the 1994 incident, both Butler and Arvin have been more conscientious about requiring identification from unfamiliar customers who do not appear to be of legal age. Based upon the foregoing, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: CONCLUSIONS 1. The Administrative Law Judge and the Saint Paul City Council have jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Sections 310.05, 310.06 and 409.12. 2. Notice of the hearing of this matter was timely and appropriate pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Section 310.05(b). 3. Suspension of a liquor license is authorized under Saint Paul Legislative Code section 409.12 for violations of applicable statutes, rules or ordinances. Such a suspension would be an adverse action against the license as that term is defined in section 310.01 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. 4. The sale of beer to Michael Lentsch on March 3, 1995 was a violation of Minnesota Statute section 340A.503 which prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages to individuals under the age of 21. 5. The licensee proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it reasonably and in good faith relied upon 6 representations of proof of age supplied by Michael Lentsch in making the sale to him. 6. Because of the affirmative defense established by the licensee, adverse action against the license held by Jestpama, Inc. in the form of a one -day suspension would be unreasonable and inappropriate. Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following: RECOMMENDATION IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the St. Paul City Council decline to take adverse action against the license held by Jestpama, Inc. Dated this < day of October, 1995. ' if Rit- A. McConnell inistrative Law Judge Reported: Taped (not transcribed; tape numbers 22,763, 22,764, 22,773, 22, 774). NOTICE The St. Paul City Council is requested to serve a copy of its final decision upon the parties by first class mail. 7 C5 MEMORANDUM This case presents two threshold factual issues: First, did East Side Liquor Store sell alcoholic beverages to a minor and second, did that sale take place only after the minor presented false identification? The first factual issue is not in dispute. Police Officer William Paatalo testified Lentsch told the officer he was 18 when the police pulled him over. Lentsch's age was verified by the driver's license Officer Paatalo subsequently found in Lentsch's wallet. None of the witnesses presented by the licensee disputed that Lentsch was underage when he purchased the beer at East Side Liquor. The second factual issue, on the other hand, is the subject of vigorous dispute. The only witnesses to Lentsch's purchase were employees Butler and Arvin, customer Jeff Grell, and Lentsch himself. Three of those four individuals appeared at the hearing and supplied consistent testimony that Lentsch produced identification from his back pocket upon request by Butler. The City's only rebuttal to the testimony of these three witnesses was Officer Paatalo's testimony that Lentsch denied being "carded" when the police detained him. The officer admitted, however, that Lentsch had motivation to lie to the police. Lentsch did not appear at the hearing to repeat his statement under oath.' As further rebuttal of the licensee's claim, the City also offered the testimony of Officer Paatalo that he was unable to find any false identification on Lentsch. The result of the officer's search is not inconsistent with the testimony of the licensee's witnesses, however. Lentsch 1 Lentsch failed to appear at the hearing even though he was served with a subpoena by the City. 8 spotted the police squad and knew he was under observation even before he got into his car. Lentsch had ample opportunity to discard the identification or hide it in the car before the police stopped him four blocks later. When the police searched the car, they did not search the five passengers and confined the search primarily to the glove box and front seat. They did not search the trunk area where Lentsch had put the beer. Butler, Arvin, and Grell were credible witnesses on the issue of the false identification. All three claimed that Lentsch pulled the identification from his back pocket rather than from a wallet. This description of events is consistent with Lentsch's earlier statement to Officer Paatalo that Lentsch routinely kept his wallet in the glove compartment. It is also consistent with the real identification being found in the wallet. The City disputes the accuracy of the witnesses' recollections. First, the City claims Butler's recollection of the date on Lentsch's false identification is not credible because he has forgotten other details of Lentsch's appearance. The date was significant to Butler, however, because he did not expect Lentsch to be old enough to make the purchase. In addition, the store was not particularly 2 The information later supplied to Officer Renteria by two of the five passengers in Lentsch's car did not contradict the licensee's witnesses. The two passengers merely said that they did not see a false identification or hear Lentsch mention one. 3 The City attempted to impugn the credibility of the witnesses by presenting evidence of past criminal infractions by Butler and Grell. These violations did not establish either witness to be generally unreliable, however. In fact, Grell endured considerable inconvenience to be interviewed by Renteria and to testify at the hearing where he responded truthfully to questions from the City Attorney despite ample motivation to lie. Given this truthfulness, it seems unlikely he would lie about Lentsch's identification out of customer loyalty to East Side Liquor. 9 busy that evening, so Butler had not serviced many customers between the time he made the sale to Lentsch and the police returned Lentsch to the store. Butler's recollection of the birth date on the identification was undoubtedly revived with clarity when he was confronted with the prospect of having sold to a minor. The City also claims that Arvin and Grell were too far away to have seen Lentsch present identification to Butler. Arvin and Grell were standing at the other end of the check- out counter only 11 feet away. There were no other customers behind Lentsch. That vantage point was sufficient to allow Arvin and Grell see Lentsch take the identification from his pocket and show it to Butler. A preponderance of the evidence offered at the hearing supports the licensee's claim that Lentsch made his purchase from East Side Liquor Store under the guise of a false identification. This conclusion raises the final issue in this case: Is reliance on false identification a defense to the imposition of an administrative penalty under the Saint Paul Legislative Code? The penalty being sought in this case is authorized under Saint Paul Legislative Code Section 409.12. That section provides that a license may be suspended for each finding by the council that the license holder "failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverage." St. Paul Legis. Code Sec. 409.12. In this case, no city ordinance directly prohibits the sale of packaged liquor to a minor by an off -sale licensee. Rather, the ordinance incorporates state law by prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor to any person "to whom sale...is forbidden by law." St. Paul Legis. Code Sec. 409.08(12). The state statute forbidding the sale of 10 intoxicating beverages to a minor is found at Minnesota Statutes section 340A.503. That statute provides as follows: Purchasing. It is unlawful for any person: (1) to sell, barter, furnish, or give alcoholic beverages to a person under 21 years of age.... Minn. Stat. Sec. 340A.503, subd.2. The statute goes on to provide that a seller may present as an affirmative defense evidence that the seller "reasonably and in good faith relied upon representations of proof of age authorized in paragraph (a) in selling...alcoholic beverage." Minn. Stat. Sec. 340A.503, subd. 6(b)(1994). The seller must prove the reliance by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. The reasonable reliance defense is available in both criminal and civil actions under section 340A.503. Wagner v. Schwecimann's South Town Liquor, Inc., 485 N.W. 2d 730, 732 -33 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). Notwithstanding this broad application, the City claims the defense is not available to a seller seeking to avoid an administrative penalty. The City's position is based on its conclusion that the requested suspension in this case would be based not on the statute, but on the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The Legislative Code does not specifically provide for the reasonable reliance defense. Nevertheless, the Code does incorporate Minnesota Statute section 340A.503 by reference. A penalty is available only on the basis that East Side Liquor violated that statute. See St. Paul Legis. Code Secs. 409.08(12) and 409.12. If the statute is used by 4 The court reached this conclusion even though the statute provides that the defense was available for a "prosecution" under the statute. The court did not agree that the word "prosecution" was intended to limit the defense to criminal actions. 485 N.W.2d at 732. 11 the City to establish a code violation, it should be equally available to licensee to establish an affirmative defense to that violation. Moreover, the practice of the office of License, Inspection and Environmental Protection (LIEP) is consistent with the application of the defense. Kristina Schweinler, the Senior License Inspector for LIEP, testified that LIEP does not seek adverse action against licensees who can establish reliance on false identification. Ms. Schweinler characterized such reliance as "due diligence" that would not warrant a penalty under the Code. Even if LIEP did not forego penalties where the licensee reasonably relied on false identification, the City Council could still do so under the authority of section 409.26 of the Code. That section, which sets forth the presumptive penalties against licensees who violate the Code's provisions, states as follows: (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish a standard by which the city council determines the length of license suspensions...and shall apply to all on -sale and off -sale licensed premises for... intoxicating liquor under this chapter.... These penalties are presumed to be appropriate for every case; however the council may deviate therefrom in an individual case where the council finds or determines that there exist substantial and compelling reasons making it more appropriate to do so. St. P. Legis. Code Sec. 409.26(a)(emphasis supplied). In this case, a deviation from the presumptive one -day suspension is justified. East Side Liquor Store established at the hearing that it took all reasonable precautions to ensure it did not sell to a 5 Under the matrix provided in section 409.26, the presumptive penalty for a first violation of a sale to a minor is a one -day suspension. St. Paul Legis. Code Sec. 409.26(b)(3). 12 9 minor. Its evidence was both credible and persuasive. The violation was unintentional and not the result of either negligent or intentional disregard of the prohibition against sales to minors. The imposition of an administrative penalty should not -- and need not -- be so automatic as to overlook the circumstances of the sale. R.A.M. • 13 :'e ,;„ STATE OF MINNESOTA �J '•ii OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ;Q�;� ? 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700 ` 100 Washington Avenue South `; ,"" Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -2138 95 1 November 13, 1995 RECEIVED NOV 1 41995 CITY CLERK Fred Owusu City Clerk 170 City Hall 15 W. Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: In the Matter of the Licenses of Jestpama, Inc. D /b /a East Side Liquor Store; OAH Docket No. 80- 2101 - 9790 -6 Dear Mr. Owusu: On Octrober 31, 1995, Administrative Law Judge McConnell served the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation in the above - entitled matter. Enclosed is the official record. A copy of the tape recording will follow. Our file in this matter is now being closed. Very truly yours, Nancy M. Thomas Docket Clerk Telephone: 612/341 -7615 NT Enc. cc: Janet Reiter, Asst. City Atty. Penny Smith Providing Impartial Hearings for Government and Citizens An Equal Opportunity Employer Administrative Law Section & Administrative Services (612) 341 -7600 • TDD No. (612) 341 -7346 • Fax No. (612) 349 -2665 95 -14 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL Rita A. McConnell, of the City of St. Paul, County of Ramsey, in the State of Minnesota, being duly sworn, states that on the 31st day of October, 1995, she served the annexed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Recommendation, and Memorandum, upon the individuals named below by mailing to them a copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope, postage prepaid, and by depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Minneapolis, Minnesota as follows: Mr. "Theodore Leon Assistant City Attorney 400 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Saint Paul, MN 55102 Mr. Joseph P. Dudley, Jr. Dudley and Smith, P.A. Suite 2602 American Bank BLdg. 101 East Fifthe Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 City Clerk Saint Paul City Council 386 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55102 t4,44/(1/ McConnell Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3 - day of November, 1995. l-- , ` Notary Public VU "°• CARLA F. STAFFORD NOT.ARYPUBUC .INNESOTA 4 '(, ,,: MY COMpAISSION EXPIRES ' JANUARY 3L 2000 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Timothy E. Marx, City Attorney SA P A U L CITY OF SAINT PAUL Civil Division Alt Norm Coleman, Mayor 400 City Hall Telephone: 612 266 -8710 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Facsimile: 612 298 -5619 A A A A Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 September 28, 1995 Judge Rita McConnell Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 100 Washington Square Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 -2138 RE: In re the licenses of Jestpama, Inc. d /b /a East Side Liquor Store 1361 East Maryland Avenue Dear Judge: Enclosed please find the City's Responsive Memoranda in the above captioned case. Sincerely heodore D. Leon Asst. City Attorney OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL OAH Docket No. 8- 2101 - 9790 -6 In re the Licenses of Jestpama, Inc. d /b /a East Side Liquor Store 1361 East Maryland Avenue CITY OF ST. PAUL'S RESPONSIVE ARGUMENT The City of St. Paul offers this brief responsive argument to correct certain inaccuracies contained in licensee's responsive argument. 1. Subd. 6(b) of Minn.Stat. §340A.503 does not provide a defense in this administrative hearing. Licensee argues that the proof of age defense is available to it, in this administrative action, because the legislature specifically allowed for the defense in actions brought under Minn.Stat. §340A.801 and because the court in Wagner v. Schwegmann's South Town Liquor, 485 N.W.2d 730 (Minn.Ct.App. 1992), correctly read that statute to apply to the dramshop case before it and brought under Minn.Stat. §340A.801. §340A.801 is the dramshop statute. This present action is not brought under that statute and is not a dramshop action. Consequently, even though the legislature provided for the proof of age defense in that action it did not provide for the defense in our administrative action. Recall the maxim of statutory interpretation which reads "expressio unius est exclusio alterius ", literally: the expression of one thing is the exclusion of all others. This maxim is embodied in Minn. Stat. §645.19, referring to construction of Minnesota Statutes. Consequently, the fact that the proof of age defense is available in a dramshop action under Minn.Stat. §340A.801 does not logically lead to the conclusion that the defense is also available in our administrative action. Quite the contrary, the fact that the exception is embodied in the dramshop statute implies that it does not apply in any other statutes, unless expressly provided for. Consequently, the position taken in the City's closing argument still controls and the defense is not available to licensee. 2. The Burden of Proof Rests With Licensee in Establishing That a Valid I.D. Was Offered. Licensee, throughout it's responsive argument asserts that the City has failed to meet its burden of establishing that no proof of age was offered. First, for the reasons articulated above and in the City's Final Argument memorandum, the proof of age defense is simply not applicable in this case. Second, if the court should see fit to apply it in this case, the burden clearly is Licensee's. 340A.503, Subd. 6(b) reads: ...it is a defense for the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant reasonably and in good faith relied upon representation of proof of age... (emphasis added). Licensee is simply mistaken when he asserts that the burden of establishing lack of proof of I.D. rests with the City. Rather the burden is on Licensee to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proper I.D. was offered. That burden, of the 2 licensee's, was simply not met by it in this case. Consequently, the City should prevail on this issue and on the case as a whole. Respectfully submitted, c Theodore D. Leon Asst. City Attorney 3 2222222 3 • DUDLEY AND SMITH ? r, A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION JOSEPH J. DUDLEY, JR r^ r n r 'ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SHOREVIEW OFFICE DAVID W. LARSON ) „- 6. - �t 1 SUITE 2602 SUITE 178 - ARDEN PLAZA PHILIP C. WARNER 3585 NORTH LEXINGTON AVENUE STEVEN C. OPHEIM AMERICAN BANK BUILDING ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 55126 LISA M. AMUNDSON 101 EAST FIFTH STREET ROBERT J. OTTE KATHERINE A. BROWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 BURNSVILLE OFFICE TELEPHONE 612-291-1717 SUITE 301 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK BUILDING RETIRED TELECOPIER 612- 223 -5055 14300 NICOLLET COURT JOSEPH J. DUDLEY G. WILLIAM SMITH BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337 R. E. LOW September 28, 1995 P WOODBURY OFFICE 300E PARKWOOD PLACE HAND DELIVERED 7650 CURRELL BOULEVARD WOODBURY, MINNESOTA 55125 Administrative Law Judge Rita McConnell Office of Administrative Hearings 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700 100 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -2138 Re: Licenses of Jestpama, Inc. d/b /a/ East Side Liquor Store OAH Docket No. 80 -2101- 9808 -6 Our File No. 4288.1 Dear Judge McConnell: Enclosed herewith please find East Side Liquor Store's Responsive Argument, together with the Affidavit of Service, in connection with the above- referenced matter. Very truly yours, DUDLEY AND SMITH, P.A. , • , r. JDJ:kuob Enclosure cc: East Side Liquor _._ 80- 2101 - 9808 -6 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE CITY OF ST. PAUL In the Matter of All Licenses Held by Jestpama, Inc., d/b /a EAST SIDE LIQUOR STORE'S East Side Liquor Store, for the RESPONSIVE ARGUMENT Premises Located at 1362 Maryland Avenue East, St. Paul, Minnesota. INTRODUCTION East Side Liquor Store, for its reply to the City of St. Paul's closing argument, submits the following Responsive Argument. ARGUMENT East Side Liquor reasserts its position that the most important issue in the above - captioned matter is whether or not Mr. Lentsch produced a valid Minnesota drivers' license at the time he purchased alcoholic beer from East Side Liquor Store. This is the central issue because if Mr. Lentsch produced a valid Minnesota drivers' license, showing him to be of legal age to purchase alcoholic beer, then East Side Liquor Store cannot be held responsible for selling to a minor if East Side Liquor reasonably and in good faith relied on the identification produced. The record reflects the fact that an identification was produced showing Mr. Lentsch to be of legal age to purchase beer, and that East Side Liquor's employee, Mike Butler, carefully checked Mr. Lentsch's identification and believed the identification to be valid. As pointed out in the City's closing argument, East Side Liquor does indeed plan to rely on Minn. Stat. § 340A.503, subdivision 6(b). Minn. Stat. § 340A.503, subdivision 6(b) provides In a prosecution under subdivision 2, clause (1), it is a defense for the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant reasonably and in good faith relied upon representations of proof of age authorized in paragraph (a) in selling, bartering, furnishing, or giving the alcoholic beverage. While it may seem, at first blush, that subdivision 6(b) is applicable as an affirmative defense in criminal prosecutions only, the opposite is exactly the case. Minnesota Statutes section 340A.801, subdivision 3a, sets forth the civil liability under the Liquor Act and states that "[t]he defense described in section 340A.503, subdivision 6, applies to actions under this section." Further, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has applied the defense outlined in Minn. Stat. § 340A.503, subd. 6, in a civil case. In Wagner v. Schwegmann's South Town Liquor, 485 N.W.2d 730 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. July 16, 1992), the Court specifically noted that the defense applied to civil actions through Minn. Stat. § 340A.801, subd. 3a. As a result, the City's argument that East Side Liquor has no defense under Minn. Stat. § 340A.503, subd. 6, is clearly erroneous. Arguing that Minn. Stat. § 340A.503, subd. 6, is not available in an administrative hearing, while the same defense is available under both civil and criminal actions, is also clearly wrong. We return full circle, then, to the importance of the events which occurred inside East Side Liquor Store the night of March 3, 1995. To reiterate, the City of St. Paul has 2 no witnesses who can testify to direct knowledge of whether Mr. Lentsch produced proper identification when he purchased the beer. East Side Liquor Store has three eye- witnesses inside the store who all witnessed the sale and the fact that Mr. Lentsch produced a valid Minnesota drivers' license. Mike Butler, the liquor store employee who carded Mr. Lentsch, testified that he carefully scrutinized Mr. Lentsch's identification before making the sale. This testimony went uncontroverted by the City. The City cannot meet its burden of establishing that Mr. Lentsch did not produce a valid identification merely by offering testimony that neither of the two witnessing officers saw Mr. Lentsch throw his fake identification out of a car window. Obviously, Mr. Lentsch had plenty of time from the moment he first saw the police car to the time of the stop to pass off the fake identification to one of the other five passengers, drop the license in the snow, or otherwise hid the fake license somewhere else in the station wagon he was driving that evening. Again, none of the passengers was asked for the license, none of the passengers was searched, the car was not thoroughly searched, and the ground around the area where the car was parked was not searched. In addition, neither officers Paatalo, Miller, or Renteria ever asked Mr. Lentsch or any of the passengers how Mr. Lentsch purchased the beer, what they planned to do with the beer, why Mr. Lentsch was selected from among the six to purchase the beer, where they were going, or whether Mr. Lentsch had a fake identification. The only question asked that had any remote relevance was whether Mr. Lentsch had talked about using a fake identification to purchase the beer - -a very poor question and easily avoided when 3 criminal consequences are on the line. The City is incorrect in stating in its argument that the occupants of the car were asked if they had seen a fake identification or had seen Mr. Lentsch try to hide a fake identification; Officer Renteria never testified to such questions and his report does not reflect any such questions being asked. The City refers to the testimony of its witnesses as "internally consistent." Yet it is still unclear where the police squad car was when it first spotted Mr. Lentsch leaving East Side Liquor Store, who was driving the police car at the time, why the officers waited 6 blocks before stopping Mr. Lentsch, and the extent of the search of Mr. Lentsch's station wagon. In contrast, East Side Liquor Store's three witnesses are clear as to what they witnessed. Each testified without doubt or hesitation regarding the events of March 3, 1995. The City's use of impeachment tactics merely serves to emphasize the strength of East Side Liquor's position. CONCLUSION Because the City of St. Paul cannot meet its burden of proving that Mr. Lentsch did not produce a valid Minnesota drivers' license when he purchased alcoholic beer from East Side Liquor Store, this matter must be resolved in favor of East Side Liquor Store. Because Mr. Lentsch showed proper identification when he purchased the beer, East Side Liquor is entitled to the defense provided in Minn. Stat. § 340A.503, subd. 6(b). 4 Dated: September 1995. Respectfully submitted, DUDLEY AND SMITH, P.A. 1111ek Josep iNi�] e Jr. ( #2.648) Attorney or East Side Liquor Store 2602 American Bank Building 101 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 291 -1717 5 I f ( f I - ' STATE OF MINNESOTA AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE COUNTY OF RAMSEY METRO LEGAL SERVICES, INC. Thanh Tran, being duly sworn, on oath says: that on the 28th day of September, 1995, at 2:00 p.m. (s)he served the attached East Side Liquor Store's Responsive Argument upon Theodore D. Leon, Esquire therein named, personally at 15 W. Kellogg Blvd. #550, St. Paul, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, by handing to and leaving with Joyce Gladieux, secretary, an expressly authorized agent for service for said Theodore D. Leon, Esquire, a true and correct copy thereof. k ‘■,‘ , \ `c• D = NIS B. QUIMBY . � . NOTI „Y PL HC - MINNESOTA • RAMSEY COUNTY My Comm. Expires Jan. 31.2000 Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 28th day of September, 1995. ,, >.--e/' - c--9Q-L--, Notary Public Charge $ ,. a DUDLEY AND SMITH A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION JOSEPH J. DUDLEY, JR. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW SHOREVIEW OFFICE DAVID W. LARSON SUITE 178 - ARDEN PLAZA PHILIP C. WARNER SUITE 2602 3585 NORTH LEXINGTON AVENUE STEVEN C. OPHEIM AMERICAN BANK BUILDING ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 55126 LISA M. AMUNDSON 101 EAST FIFTH STREET ROBERT J. OTTE KATHERINE A. BROWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 BURNSVILLE OFFICE TELEPHONE 612 -291 -1717 SUITE 301 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK BUILDING RETIRED TELECOPIER 612- 223 -5055 14300 NICOLLET COURT JOSEPH J. DUDLEY G. WILLIAM SMITH BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337 R. E. LOW September 21, 1995 P � WOODBURY OFFICE 300E PARKWOOD PLACE HAND DELIVERED 7650 CURRELL BOULEVARD WOODBURY, MINNESOTA 55125 Administrative Law Judge Rita McConnell Office of Administrative Hearings 100 Washington Square,' Suite 1700 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -2138 - "' Re: In the Matter of All Licenses Held by Jestpama, Inc. d/b /a East Side Liquor Store OAH Docket No. 80 -2101- 9808 -6 Our File No. 4288.1 Dear Judge McConnell: Enclosed herewith please find East Side Liquor Store's Memorandum of Law and Closing Argument, together with the Affidavit of Personal Service, m connection with the above - referenced matter. Very truly yours, DUDLEY AND SMITH, P.A. .�,' 41 /Joseph J. Du ey, Jr. JDJ:kuob Enclosure cc: East Side Liquor Store (w /encl.) 80- 2101- 9808 -6 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS I - V i FOR THE CITY OF ST. PAUL In the Matter of All Licenses Held by Jestpama, Inc., d/b /a EAST SIDE LIQUOR STORE'S East Side Liquor Store, for the MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND Premises Located at 1362 CLOSING ARGUMENT Maryland Avenue East, St. Paul, Minnesota. INTRODUCTION On September 7, 1995, the above - entitled matter came on for hearing before Administrative Law Judge Rita McConnell. By agreement of the parties and Judge McConnell, East Side Liquor Store submits this Memorandum of Law and Closing Argument on its behalf. At issue in this case is whether East Side Liquor Store sold off-sale beer to a minor, Michael Lentsch, without asking Mr. Lentsch for identification. East Side Liquor, for its part, maintains through three witnesses, two employees and a "regular" customer, that it did ask Mr. Lentsch for identification and that a valid Minnesota driver's license was produced. The City of St. Paul maintains that because the officers who cited East Side Liquor for selling to Mr. Lentsch never saw Mr. Lentsch discard a fake or altered identification, nor found a fake identification on Mr. Lentsch's person, Mr. Lentsch was not in fact asked for identification inside East Side Liquor because he had no valid identification which showed he was of legal age. The City of St. Paul offered no testimony from any witnesses inside East Side Liquor Store, and neither Mr. Lentsch nor any of the occupants of his car that evening appeared to testify at the hearing. MEMORANDUM OF LAW The general rule in Minnesota governing the use of hearsay in administrative proceedings is f^ 1 d f - � v that in the absence of a special statute, an administrative agency cannot, at least over objection, rest its findings of fact solely upon hearsay evidence which is inadmissible in a judicial proceeding. State ex rel. Independent School Dist. No. 276 v. Department of Ed., 256 N.W.2d 619, 627 (Minn. 1977). This rule is especially important in the present proceedings as the City of St. Paul offered no testimony from any witnesses inside East Side Liquor Store. The City cannot offer direct evidence which controverts the testimony of the three eye - witnesses to the sale. The City must rest its whole • case on the fact that no fake or altered identification was thrown out of Mr. Lentsch's car window as he drove away from East Side Liquor Store. Minnesota Statutes § 340A.503, subdivision 6(b) (1994), provides In a prosecution under subdivision 2, clause (1), it is a defense for the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant reasonably and in good faith relied upon representations of proof of age authorized in paragraph (a) in selling, bartering, furnishing, or giving the alcoholic beverage. See also Wagner v. Schwegmann's South Town Liquor, Inc., 485 N.W.2d 730 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). In the present case, if Mr. Lentsch presented valid identification to the East Side Liquor employees who sold the beer to Mr. Lentsch, East Side Liquor cannot be prosecuted in the present case. The issue of whether Mr. Lentsch presented proper identification, therefore, is the central issue in this matter and likewise the testimony of what exactly occurred inside East Side Liquor Store is the most important testimony that should be considered. CLOSING ARGUMENT On March 3, 1995, at approximately 9:30 p.m., a man subsequently identified as a minor named Michael Lentsch, entered East Side Liquor Store and purchased a case and a half of alcoholic beer. Two employees and a regular customer were present at the checkout counter when Mr. Lentsch made the purchase. The employee making the sale, Mike Butler, testified at the hearing that he was 2 suspicious of Mr. Lentsch, as Mike Butler had never seen Mr. Lentsch in the store before, and asked Mr. Lentsch for identification. Mr. Lentsch responded by reaching into a hip or back pocket of his jeans and pulling out a valid Minnesota driver's license, not in a wallet, which showed Mr. Lentsch to be of legal age to purchase beer. Mike Butler testified that he looks not only at the birth date and picture on the license, but at the height, weight, hair color and eye color as well; and all features of Mr. Lentsch matched the picture and description on the identification offered. A second employee, Shawn Arvin, was situated at the end of the checkout counter and witnessed the sale. Both Shawn Arvin and Mike Butler had been behind the counter when Mr. Lentsch entered the store, and each had agreed that Mr. Lentsch should be carded as neither employee had ever seen Mr. Lentsch before and he looked young. Both Mike Butler and Shawn Arvin testified that it is a strict store policy to card anyone who looks under 30 years of age. The bar itself contains numerous signs warning patrons of the strict identification policy, and only valid Minnesota driver's licenses are allowed. Shawn Arvin testified that when Mike Butler asked Mr. Lentsch for identification, he witnessed Mr. Lentsch produce a red or maroon Minnesota license from his hip or back pocket, not in a wallet, indicating that Mr. Lentsch was not a minor. A customer was also present during the sale to Mr. Lentsch. Jeff Grell, a stucco /plasterer who has been a regular at East Side Liquor for approximately six years and knows some of the employees by sight, was standing behind Mr. Lentsch and alternately talking with Shawn Arvin and watching the sale to Mr. Lentsch. Jeff Grell testified that he could clearly see the license Mr. Lentsch handed to Mike Butler, and that the license provided was red or maroon, which Jeff Grell understands to indicate legal age. Jeff Grell remembers the sale because, as he testified, Mr. Lentsch arrived at East Side Liquor Store in a car filled with "giggly girls." Jeff Grell also remembers the license produced 3 as being red or maroon because Jeff Grell was present when the police officers later returned with Mr. Lentsch and Mr. Lentsch produced a black drivers license, showing Mr. Lentsch to be a minor. The manager of East Side Liquor Store, Robert Dunkel, testified that he is very strict about his store's identification policy. He requires all employees to wear a badge that states "NO I.D. NO SALE NO WAY." Employees who do not follow his identification policy face termination. In addition, numerous signs have been placed throughout the store warning potential customers of the identification policy. Robert Dunkel also testified that both Mike Butler and Shawn Arvin are excellent employees who would never allow a customer as young as Mr. Lentsch to purchase beer without identification. The testimony of Mike Butler, Shawn Arvin, and Jeff Grell was not controverted by the City of St. Paul. The City merely tried to cast doubt on the witnesses by questioning Mike Butler about a $20 bounced check 5 years ago; by questioning Shawn Arvin about a prior underage sale that had taken place at East Side Liquor over a year previous and under circumstances that were such that did not merit his being fired; and by questioning Jeff Grell about his associations with the store employees and manager - -first name basis only, no socializing together - -and the fact that Jeff Grell had drank three beers prior to entering the store. Jeff Grell testified that three beers had no effect on his sense of perception. Mr. Lentsch did not testify at the hearing. There was no opportunity for East Side Liquor to cross - examine Mr. Lentsch, or otherwise assess Mr. Lentsch's demeanor and credibility. Mr. Lentsch is the only witness who can testify to the alleged fact that he was never asked for identification. All statements Mr. Lentsch gave to the police constitute hearsay, and cannot be relied upon as the sole basis for this court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. The City of St. Paul would like to focus on the events which occurred after the purchase of 4 l beer by Mr. Lentsch. The City offers the testimony of Officer Paatalo and his partner in training that evening, David Miller, and the investigating officer, Officer Renteria. Officer Paatalo testified that he was driving west on what David Miller testified was "busy" Maryland Avenue when he witnessed a young looking person, Mr. Lentsch, emerge from East Side Liquor Store carrying packages of beer, and that Officer Paatalo slowed down and stopped his cruiser in the right lane of Maryland Avenue to watch Mr. Lentsch put the beer into the front seat of his station wagon. The station wagon contained five other individuals, one in the front seat and four in the back. Officer Paatalo testified that Mr. Lentsch looked up and spotted the police car, whereupon he reached back into the car, retrieved the beer, and proceeded to go to the rear of his station wagon to put the beer in the far back hatch. The investigating officer, Officer Renteria, testified that he later interviewed two passengers in Mr. Lentsch's station wagon. Officer Renteria testified that one of the passengers, Nathan Johnson, had noticed a police car drive by the liquor store and had warned Mr. Lentsch that the police had just driven by. Mr. Lentsch then removed the beer from the front seat into the back of the station wagon. The police car would then have had to turn around to return to the liquor store to follow Mr. Lentsch, giving Mr. Lentsch more time in which to hide or discard the fake identification. These facts are more probable than Officer Paatalo's testimony that he stopped the police car in a busy traffic lane of Maryland Avenue, or David Miller's testimony that the police car was parked 200 -300 feet away in the liquor store parking lot as they watched Mr. Lentsch leave the liquor store. Mr. Lentsch's car then left the parking lot, turned onto Maryland Avenue and proceeded approximately six blocks before being stopped by Officer Paatalo and David Miller. Upon stopping the car, Officer Paatalo asked the driver his age, which he was told was eighteen. Officer Paatalo also asked to see the driver's license, which the driver stated was in his wallet in the glove compartment. Officer Paatalo did not ask the driver to get his license at that time. Instead, Officer Paatalo had Mr. 5 Lentsch put the beer into the police squad car and followed Mr. Lentsch back to the liquor store. Both Officer Paatalo and David Miller testified that they saw nothing get thrown from the window of the station wagon and saw no "furtive movements" inside the car. Upon returning to the liquor store, Mr. Lentsch produced his driver's license out of his wallet, not out of his hip or back pocket as he had when he first purchased the beer. David Miller testified that it was not until Officer Paatalo searched the glove box that Mr. Lentsch's identification was produced. Mike Butler and Shawn Arvin both testified that the fake identification had come out of the hip or back pocket, and was not in a wallet. A consensual search of Mr. Lentsch revealed no fake or altered identification. Although kept under surveillance by David Miller, and asked to provide identification, none of the five occupants of Mr. Lentsch's car was searched for the missing fake identification. In fact, oddly enough, neither officer testified that they even asked the other five occupants if they had the fake identification. Nor did either officer ask where the group was going or how they got the beer. Both Officer Paatalo and David Miller testified that they did not search the area where Mr. Lentsch's car had initially been, which included snow on the ground and a snowbank in front of the liquor store's entrance -- despite the fact that both officers and one passenger, Nathan Johnson, testified that Mr. Lentsch knew the police were present, and would have had ample time to discard the fake identification. Testimony further reveals that the back of Mr. Lentsch's station wagon was never searched, nor was the back seat searched -- Officer Paatalo is the only witness who testified he searched the back seat, contrary to his police report, but none of the four occupants of the back seat was ever asked to get out of the car. Robert Dunkel, Shawn Arvin, David Miller, and Officer Renteria all testified that Officer Paatalo searched no further than the glove compartment of Mr. Lentsch's car. The investigating officer, Officer Renteria, never asked Mr. Lentsch how he purchased the 6 . r beer, where he was planning to go with the beer, etc.. Further, Officer Renteria asked the two witnesses he contacted only if Mr. Lentsch had talked about using a fake identification to purchase the beer, and whether Mr. Lentsch had gone to the glove box when he got in the car. Both witnesses said no to both. Officer Renteria, like Officer Paatalo and David Miller, never asked Mr. Lentsch or any of the passengers how they got the beer, how they paid for it, what they planned on doing with the beer, where they were going -- typical, and obvious, police officer questions. As is apparent, Mr. Lentsch could have easily disposed of his fake identification at any time. When Mr. Lentsch was first told that a police car had driven by, there was ample opportunity to slip the fake identification to one of the other occupants of the car or into a snowbank. None of the occupants was asked if they had the fake identification. Mr. Lentsch could very easily have dropped the license in the snow, under the car, inside the window sills of the car, under the rear floorboard- - all with a mere flick of his hand. Both Officer Paatalo and David Miller testified that they did not look for the license anywhere but on Mr. Lentsch's person and in the front seat/glove box area. Further, despite Officer Paatalo and David Miller's testimony to the contrary, it does not take much effort to effectively pass off a fake driver's license to another occupant of a car when you know you are being watched closely from behind. Finally, the stop of Mr. Lentsch's car is problematic. Why did the officers wait six blocks to pull over Mr. Lentsch's car? They had reasonable suspicion of an underage sale, and Mr. Lentsch had not left the parking lot of the liquor store while under the officers' surveillance. Instead, the officers waited until Mr. Lentsch was on a busy, four lane street with no parking area. It makes no sense, especially when the officers both knew that Mr. Lentsch was fully aware that the police car was tailing him and his friends. Of course, the best explanation for this is Nathan Johnson's statement to the police where he stated that he witnessed the police car drive by, had warned Mr. 7 Lentsch, and by the time the police car had turned around to follow Mr. Lentsch, Mr. Lentsch was already on Maryland Avenue heading west. Although the testimony of Shawn Arvin and Mike Butler remained uncontroverted, the City chose to attack the credibility of Jeff Grell. Jeff Grell testified that he was in the liquor store when Mr. Lentsch made his purchase, then Jeff Grell left the store and returned to his brother's apartment across the street. Upon learning that he had forgotten to purchase pop, Jeff Grell returned to the liquor store in time to witness the return by the police of Mr. Lentsch. Jeff Grell remained behind the group consisting of two police officers, Robert Dunkel, Mr. Lentsch, and Shawn Arvin. Jeff Grell testified that he saw Mr. Lentsch produce a different identification from his wallet, not his hip or back pocket. Jeff Grell testified that the difference between the two identifications was that the second driver's license was black and not maroon or red. Jeff Grell left the liquor store without talking with Robert Dunkel or the police officers. Shawn Arvin, recalling that Jeff Grell was present in the store during the purchase, informed Robert Dunkel of that fact later the same night. The next day, Robert Dunkel called Jeff Grell, discussed the incident with him, and had Jeff Grell come down to the store to talk with him sometime after that. Following his conversations with Jeff Grell, Robert Dunkel typed up an affidavit for Jeff Grell to sign. Jeff Grell testified that the affidavit was not prepared by him but that the affidavit was true to the extent of the facts contained in the affidavit. Jeff Grell also testified that the affidavit was not entirely complete, and testified under oath to further facts remembered. Despite the City's great attempts, Jeff Grell's testimony remained uncontroverted. Jeff Grell is an honest, hard working man, not intelligent enough to create and adhere to an intricate lie. Jeff Grell testified to what he saw inside East Side Liquor Store, and his testimony, along with that of Mike Butler and Shawn Arvin, is the only first -hand testimony as to what occurred inside the liquor 8 store that night with Mr. Lentsch. Further, Jeff Grell was interviewed by Officer Renteria. Jeff Grell's interview statement aligns completely with his hearing testimony. The City's witnesses, on the other hand, are a different story. Officer Paatalo at one point had confused the entire evening with another arrest on another date and location. Officer Paatalo could not remember who was driving the police squad car. Officer Paatalo and David Miller testified that they saw nothing discarded from Mr. Lentsch's station wagon. Yet David Miller also testified that there were times when Mr. Lentsch was not in full view from the police car. Also, David Miller testified that when Mr. Lentsch's car was going around corners, the occupants could have discarded something out of the blind side window. By the officers' own testimony, they would have followed Mr. Lentsch around nine corners on the route from the liquor store and returning. The officers testified that they did not search Mr. Lentsch's station wagon at the time of the stop. Again, this allows ample time for the occupants of the car to hide the fake identification or otherwise develop a common plan. By their own testimony, the officers both admitted that if Mr. Lentsch feared getting pulled over by the police, he would have dropped or concealed his license well before the stop actually occurred. David Miller testified that the police car was parked in the liquor store parking lot, 200 -300 feet from the liquor store entrance. Officer Paatalo testified that they were in the street cruising by when Mr. Lentsch was spotted coming out of the liquor store. Nathan Johnson, in his statement, stated he saw the police car drive past the liquor store. Both officers cannot remember the amount or type of beer seized as evidence, and both officers' testimony conflicted with the property record filled out later that night when the beer was placed in the evidence locker. Finally, the beer was not present at the hearing for evidentiary purposes. The fact that Mr. Lentsch claims he purchased a case of canned beer and a twelve -pack of bottled beer, Officer Paatalo's report states two cases of beer, and 9 the police property record shows only one case of beer, leads one to wonder what happened to the rest of the beer. The fact that the beer disappeared and was not presented at the hearing as evidence goes directly to the credibility of Officer Paatalo and David Miller. The City also did not see fit to call any of the five passengers of Mr. Lentsch's station wagon that night as witnesses. Mr. Lentsch's statement to the police that he was never asked for identification is the only hook upon which the City of St. Paul seeks to hang its hat. That is not enough in the present case. CONCLUSION Because the City can only rely on hearsay evidence regarding what happened inside the East Side Liquor Store, basing its fight solely on the assertion to Officer Paatalo by Mr. Lentsch that he was not asked for identification, the City cannot meet its burden to revoke the license of East Side Liquor in this matter. Dated: September /7, 1995. Respectfully submitted, DUDLEY AND SMITH, P.A. Jos: IR Dudley, Jr. ( #24648) A orne, s for East Side Liquor Store 261 American Bank Building 101 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 291 -1717 10 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) PERSONAL SERVICE R. Raymond Peterson, being duly sworn, on oath says: that on the 21st day of September, 1995, he served the attached East Side Liquor Memorandum of Law and Closing Argument upon Theodore Leon therein named, personally, at Office of the City Attorney, Assistant City Attorney, Civil Division, 400 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, by handing to and leaving with Joyce Gladieux a true and correct copy thereof. Ra�;� .nd Peters Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2 . st day of September, 1995. 1 ° tary Public • KRISTINE U. OBRIEN 0 ' 'f% NOTARY PUBLIC — MINNESOTA RAMSEY COUNTY My Comm. Expires Jan. 31, 2000 ' (- OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEAiiiid.11 FOR THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL OAH Docket No. 8- 2101 - 9790 -6 In re the Licenses of Jestpama, Inc. d /b /a East Side Liquor Store 1361 East Maryland Avenue CITY OF ST. PAUL'S FINAL ARGUMENT The City of St. Paul initiated the above captioned hearing against Jestpama, Inc. d /b /a East Side Liquor Store (hereafter the Licensee) for adverse action as a result of an alleged sale of intoxicating beverages to a minor. More specifically, the City of St. Paul (hereafter the City) alleges that on March 3, 1995, the licensee violated both St. Paul Ordinance §409.08 and Minn. Stat. § 340A.503, by selling alcohol to Mr. Michael Lentsch, a minor who was then age 18. A finding, by this court, of a violation of either law is sufficient to support adverse action against the licensee and support the penalty proposed by Licensing, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP), which is a one day suspension of all licenses held by Licensee. At the outset, it is critical to recognize that the City's case in chief, established beyond a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the Licensee did, in fact, furnish alcohol to a minor on March 3, 1995. The evidence presented by the City consisted of the testimony of Officer's Paatalo and Miller, that they observed Mr. Lentsch walking out of the Licensee's establishment with two cases of beer in his hands. Eventually, rt. - ' they established that Mr. Lentsch was a minor. This non - hearsay testimony was also bolstered and corroborated by Mr. Lentsch's hearsay statements, contained in the police reports submitted into evidence, in which he admitted purchasing the alcohol from the Licensee's establishment. This evidence was unrebutted by the Licensee. In fact, it is critical to recognize that Licensee's witnesses all admitted that the minor was furnished alcohol at Licensee's establishment. No evidence was submitted contradicting the evidence that Mr. Lentsch was a minor and that he purchased alcohol at Licensee's establishment. Recall also that the Licensee stipulated to the notice and hearing requirements mandated ordinance and statute. The above stated evidence compels a finding that the licensee furnished alcohol to a minor as prohibited by Minn. Stat. §340A.503 and St. Paul Ordinance 409.08. One question then remains: Is an affirmative defense available to the Licensee, and if so, has it met its burden of proof with respect to that defense? It is presumed by the City that Licensee will assert that it has available to it an affirmative defense that Mr. Lentsch tendered a valid Minnesota driver's license, and that this proof of age by Lentsch acts to bar the liability otherwise incurring to Licensee under §340A.503 and St. Paul Ordinance §409.08. The Licensee will presumably rely on the language of Minn. Stat. §340A.503, subd. 6(b) which states: In a prosecution under subdivision 2, clause (1) [furnishing alcohol to a minor], it is a defense for the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant reasonably and in good faith relied upon representations of 2 proof of age... in selling , bartering, furnishing, or giving the alcoholic beverage. (emphasis added). While it may seem, at first blush, that subdivision 6(b) provides a basis for an affirmative defense in this case, a careful look at the language emphasized above makes clear that the defense applies only to criminal prosecutions under that statute. Hence, the reference to a prosecution and to a defendant having the defense available to him or her. This language clearly applies only to criminal cases. This allowance of an affirmative defense, in criminal proceedings, is provided because criminal violations require some scienter requirement. However, that is not the nature of the present action. Rather, the City brings this administrative hearing, seeking to impose non - criminal sanctions on the Licensee. Consequently, subd. 6(b), which clearly applies only to criminal cases, is simply inapplicable. This interpretation of the Minnesota statute, distinguishing between civil and criminal consequences for furnishing to a minor, is bolstered by comparing it with the non - criminal ordinance contained in the §409.08. The ordinance, follows closely, the language of Minn. Stat. §340A.503. In fact, the ordinance includes language that is identical to subd 6(a): Proof of age for purposes of consuming purchasing or possessing an alcoholic beverage... may only be established by a valid drivers license or a Minnesota Identification Cad... §409.08(2)d. What is obviously missing is any language equivalent to Minn. Stat. §340A.503 subd. 6(b) regarding proof of age as being a defense. This is precisely so because the ordinance only 3 f 1 _ '` provides for non - criminal consequences if it is violated. Therefore, there is no need to allow for the defense and consequently the defense is not provided for in the ordinance. Simply put, the statute, by its language, provides for a proof of age defense, only in criminal prosecutions. The St. Paul Ordinance provides for no such defense because there is no criminal prosecution available under the ordinance. The City proved its case in chief by a fair preponderance of the evidence. Indeed, Licensee's witnesses all admitted to the violation of both the statute and the ordinance. Because the proof of age defense is not applicable in this administrative proceeding the City is entitled to a conclusion, on the part of this court, that it has prevailed. Assuming, arguendo, that the Court concludes that the proof of age defense is applicable in this administrative hearing, the City still contends that the Licensee has failed to meet its burden of proof. The Licensee has failed to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Lentsch presented a valid Minnesota driver's license or I.D. card and that the Licensee's employees, Messr.s Arvin and Butler reasonably and in good faith relied upon the I.D.. As the court is well aware, the burden on this issue, rests with the Licensee. Consequently, it is important to review the testimony offered by licensee on this issue. Licensee offered the testimony of three persons who were allegedly present and with an opportunity to observe Mr. Lentsch 4 provide proof of age. Of those three, two witnesses placed themselves in a position, with relation to Mr. Lentsch, that would absolutely preclude them from seeing the I.D. that Mr. Lentsch supposedly produced. Recall that Mr. Arvin testified he was at the end of the counter, approximately nine feet from the exact location where the transaction occurred. Furthermore, a review of the photograph of the counter, entered into evidence, shows that there was a post with materials hung upon it which would obscure any view by Mr. Arvin of the counter space where the transaction occurred. Finally, Mr. Arvin admitted that during the transaction he was engaged in a conversation with Mr. Grell, who was standing across from him. All of these facts, testified to by Mr. Arvin and corroborated by Mr. Butler, compel the conclusion that Mr. Arvin could not have observed the alleged I.D. card closely enough to determine whether it was a valid I.D. under the statute. The credibility of Mr. Arvin must also be questioned by virtue of his demeanor and testimony. It seems improbable that an employee, approximately nine feet from the location of a purchase, and engaged in conversation with another person, would have any reason to closely scrutinize a routine transaction occurring between another employee and a customer. The same kind of transaction that occurs with numbing frequency at the licensee's premises. Mr. Arvin also has a distinct interest in the outcome of this proceeding. He admitted to being arrested on a prior occasion for 5 sale to a minor which resulted in his termination. He was then, according to Mr. Dunkel, rehired after his parents intervened. All Licensee's witnesses testified as to the strict policy against selling to minors and the severe consequences they faced if they violated the policy. In fact, Mr. Dunkel stated that he could not say whether or not Mr. Arvin or Mr. Butler would be fired if it were determined they made another underage sale. It is just this very threat of termination, along with Mr. Arvin's five year affiliation with the Licensee's business, that illustrate his interest in the outcome and suggest a motivation for his being less than honest in his testimony. Mr. Grell was the second witness who allegedly observed the sale. Yet his vantage point was nearly identical to that of Mr. Arvin. Approximately nine feet away from the point of sale. Again, he testified that he was, at the time of the sale, engaged in a conversation with Mr. Arvin. Mr. Arvin also testified that he was aware, when the officers came back with Mr. Lentsch, that an allegation of an illegal sale was taking place. Yet Mr. Grell never made his knowledge known to the officers at the scene. Furthermore, his alleged witnessing was not brought to the attention of the police until four days after the event when Mr. Dunkel called police to explain that there was another witness. Mr. Grell's testimony should be entirely discounted by this court. He admitted to having drunk at least three or four beers prior to entering the store. He admitted to purchasing alcohol at the store for his own consumption, presumably later that night. 6 These facts, alone, cast doubt on the accuracy of his recollection of the events. Furthermore, Mr. Grell has a distinct bias in favor of licensee. Mr. Grell admitted to living next door to the licensee's business and being a "regular" customer there. Grell also testified that he was friends with the manager Mr. Robert Dunkel, whom he referred to as Bob. Indeed the manager and Mr. Grell were on such close terms that Mr. Dunkel was allegedly able to call Mr. Grell, at his residence, the very next day to inquire into Mr. Grell's recollection of the events. While Mr. Grell's testimony, that he saw the transaction and sought to bring it to Dunkel's or the officer's attention, alone might be fairly compelling testimony, when compared to the testimony of all the other witnesses, that story is meritless. Remember that both Mr. Arvin and Mr. Butler testified they new Mr. Grell witnessed the transaction and let that be known to Mr. Dunkel. Still, none of licensee's witnesses ever attempted to bring this new witness to the attention of Officers Paatalo and Miller who remained at the scene at least 1/2 hour after Mr. Grell left, issuing a citation to Lentsch and searching the minor's vehicle. Indeed, Mr. Dunkel waited a full four days before notifying the City of the new witness. Finally, there was the testimony of Mr. Butler. Mr. Butler was the only witness to actually observe the alleged I.D. of Lentsch's closely enough to determine whether it was valid. Yet, Mr. Butler's testimony, taken in its entirety, is incredible. Mr. 7 Butler would have the court believe that he so carefully reviewed the fake I.D. that he recalled, some six and 1/2 months later the exact year of birth on that I.D.. Curiously, Mr. Butler was unable to recall, on cross - examination, the date of birth on any other I.D. card that was presented to him that day. In fact he couldn't remember the clothing or other specific physical attributes of Mr. Lentsch at all. Assuming that he so carefully reviewed the I.D. and that his powers of recollection are so acute, it seems likely that he would have determined the I.D. to have been altered in some fashion or contain a photograph that did not match the face of Mr. Lentsch. Furthermore, one would expect that he could recall other minor details regarding the sale. Furthermore, Mr. Butler was examined, at length by licensee's attorney, regarding the "strict" policy of the store in requiring identification prior to service and his strict adherence to this policy. Yet, on cross - examination, Mr. Butler admitted that he had, less than one year prior, violated the allegedly "strict" policy of the store and sold alcohol to a minor without receiving any proof of age. This testimony is clearly admissible and directly impeached Mr. Butler's testimony on his careful adherence to the store policy. This evidence is also admissible and relevant and weakens the suggestion that the sale occurred due to Mr. Butler's mistaken reliance on a "fake" I.D. (See Minn.R.Evid. 404 (b) (evidence of another wrong admissible as proof of absence of mistake.)) Additionally, Mr. Butler's credibility is further weakened by 8 his admission that he was convicted of a bad checks charge in 1990, a crime of dishonesty, and his admission, in response to licensee's questioning, that he has had other trouble remaining law - abiding. Finally, Mr. Butler's interest in the outcome is obvious and weakens his credibility. He is an employee of licensee, with one strike against him, who could well be fired if this matter is resolved against the Licensee. By comparison, those witnesses testifying on behalf of the City told an internally consistent story of the stop of Mr. Lentsch's car and the resulting discussions and actions at the Licensee's premises. The officers have no interest in the outcome and no demonstrable bias against the Licensee. In fact, after the initial incident, the only person who was issued a citation was Mr. Lentsch. No one from the store was ever charged with any crime. Furthermore, the officers wrote reports shortly after the incident, while it was still fresh in their minds. They had no motive not to vigorously search for a "fake" I.D. used by Mr. Lentsch as such an I.D. would serve as the basis for an additional charge against Mr. Lentsch. Finally, the hearsay statements from two of the other passengers in the car with Mr. Lentsch and made to Officer Renteria, who testified before the court, were that Mr. Lentsch never spoke of a "fake" I.D., that the passengers never saw an I.D. and never saw Lentsch try to hide any I.D. in the car. Mr. Lentsch's own hearsay statements were completely consistent throughout. From the moment he was initially approached by the 9 police he stated that he had not produced any form of I.D. when he went into the store. There was also testimony that the car was searched by Officer Paatalo and that Paatalo, Officer Miller and even Mr. Dunkel searched Mr. Lentsch for a "fake" I.D. with negative results. Licensee had the burden of proving, by the preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Lentsch produced a valid I.D. when he made the purchase. Yet no I.D. was ever found despite searches of Mr. Lentsch's person and his car. The other persons in the car stated that Mr. Lentsch had no I.D.. Mr. Lentsch himself, stated he had no I.D.. The licensee's witnesses' testimony to the contrary is insufficient to meet licensee's burden. Consequently, licensee has failed to establish the defense pursuant to Minn. Stat. §340A.503 subd. 6 (b) . In conclusion, it is undisputed that the City proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Lentsch, a minor, purchased alcohol from licensee on March 3, 1995. The licensee, in this administrative action does not have available to it the defense that the minor presented a valid I.D.. Assuming that the defense were available to licensee he failed to meet his burden on this issue. As a result the City should prevail. The City respectfully requests that this Court find that a violation occurred. Respectfully sub itted, T heodore D. Leon Asst. City Attorney 10 7111111 s LICENSES § 409.08 , '� , yt ., j :,% 1 ' . /. ent shall provide Class C en- to where the bridge crosses over Warner Road, ' ; itent' during the hours of extended Warner Road to Shepard Road, Shepard Road to ,`; `hereunder. Chestnut Street. '-,�; The council may further condi (C.F. No. 94 -1658, § 1, 12- 28 -94) { + extended service license issued { ,t' i +er, which conditions may include, Sec. 409.08. Regulations generally. of limited to, by reason of this spec ' s °: All licensees hereunder are hereby required to 1 t ; .'' Y ` ' observe the following regulations; provided, how- ` ' :Om �'tations on the time of the extend- ever that any such regulation which specifically service hours, and/or the days of the refers to an on -sale licensee shall not bind an off - on which such extended service sale licensee nor shall an regulation which s e- . may be held; y p ;;, . cifically refers to an off -sale licensee bind an on- 1 !' ements concerning staffing or se- sale licensee: f '' ty levels and/or the provision of se - r .., ty during extended service hours; (1) Aublicles shall be made in full view of the ,, ► +ditions relating to security, light- p 4' ti ,noise, litter, parking or traffic con (2) A "minor," as used herein, is any person under the age of twenty -one (21) years. :i ` 1 �; •and , + • r conditions enumerated in sec- a. No licensee, or agent or employee there - � ' • 310.06(c) of the Legislative Code. of, shall serve or dispense upon the li- censed premises any intoxicating h- . ditions may be imposed on, re- quor to any minor; nor shall such h "41 f added to any extended service li- licensee, agent or employee permit any . `1; any time, without compliance with minor to be furnished with or to con- ' `,.•al contested case hearing proce- sume any such liquor on the licensed r' `— in section 310.05 of the Legislative premises; nor shall such licensee, agent t ''} • e licensee or applicant shall be giv- or employee permit any minor to be de- t:pportunity to be heard before the livered any such liquor. I " ° 1 ,en such conditions. b. No minor shall misrepresent his or her age for the purpose of obtaining intox- ` n business district. Applicants for icating liquor nor shall he or she enter 9. +,'ee license located in the downtown any premises licensed for the retail sale et shall not have to comply with the of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of and consent requirements in sec- 1 l; for either the license itself or the purchasing or having served or deliv- Bred to him or her for consumption of ` entertainment under an existing en- any such intoxicating liquor or beer nor ,_ during the extended service shall any such person purchase, at- j ' entertainment cannot be provided tempt to purchase, consume, or have of extended service hereunder. another person purchase for him or her of this section, the downtown any intoxicating liquor or beer. shall be and include all that por F of Saint Paul lying within and c. No minor shall induce any person to =following streets: Beginning at purchase, procure or obtain intoxicat- of Shepard Road with Chestnut ing liquor for him or her. t Street to Pleasant Avenue, Pleas- d. Proof of age for purposes of consuming, N; `'Kellogg Street, Kellogg Street to purchasing or possessing an alcoholic We, Summit Avenue to Tenth Street, beverage, the consumption, sale or pos- oInterstate Freeway 94, Interstate session of which is regulated by age, 'Lafayette Bridge, Lafayette Bridge may only be established by a valid driv- F. 2181 ' Y 1 -£ r ' y ti — _ ( 1 ,+ ' • LICENSES " '; eta . § 409.15 E wa shall be is € p,, I: 'ding any other provision of law , 4 e liable to all the penalties provided for the a , ithe addition of one (1) or more violation of same equally with the clerk' defined in section 409.05 of h ,barkeep- ' as de ; �) er, agent, servant, or employee. 1 t Code as partners, officers or share - , '' intoxicating liquor by a clerk, 0 ership or corporation holding a (b) Any sale of intoxii b this chapter deemed q ! 1 t 4 ' ' a r , ` P ter shall not be deemd t barkeeper, agent, servant or employee made in or I ' .� ,. the license or to require the sub- from any place duly licensed to sell nonintoxicat- , original application for a license so ' 1,- 1 ,. t ing malt liquor but not duly licensed to sell intox- b additional family members comply icating liquor shall be deemed the act of the em- �' � ons of section 409.05(j). � ; ployer and licensee, as well as that of the person ¢*308.16; Ord. No 17172, 10 -23 -84 actually making the sale, and every such employ - 73, 10- 23 -84; Ord. No. 17177, 10 -23- er and licensee of h 1 th ?651, § 5, 4- 19 -88; Ord. No. 17657, place shall be liable to all I l the penalties provided in this chapter for such ' y. such sha Ord. No. 17918, § 2, 3-31-92; C.F. No. ' x'$7.9 -92; C.F. No. 95 -478, § 5, 5- 31 -95) sale, equally with the person actually making the sale. ` (Code 1956, §§ 308.24, 308.25) a Revocation; suspension; fine. ,4 '` or permit under this chapter may Sec. 409.15. On -sale wine licens ded for up to sixty (60) days or , G i civil fine imposed not to exceed two 1 1 es. , f t f `� 's (a) Definitions. The following definitions shall ($2,000.00) for each violation on apply to this section: I ;I the counc that the license or permit (1) Restaurant shall mean an establishment un- ' ,ailed to comply with an applicable stat- der the control of a single proprietor or 1 V 1 " ' >, dinance relating to alcoholic bever- '' :ion, revocation or fine shall take ager, having appropriate facilities for serv- ing meals and for seating not fewer than �� —v. 1 the license or permit holder has been „Opportunity for a hearing under sec- twenty -five (25) guests at one (1) time and ;: k, 1 • of this Code. where, in consideration of payment there - for, meals are regularly served at tables to `.x,308.14; Ord. No. 17522, § 1, 12 -24- the general public, and which employs an a „]7551, § 6, 4- 19 -88; Ord. No. 17574, adequate staff to provide the usual and suit- able service to its guests. i 'Inspector's duties. ( On -sale wine license shall mean a license : - . I ' '_:` authorizing the sale of wine not exceeding " , y made the duty of the inspector to fourteen (14) percent alcohol by volume, for consumption on the licensed premises only . i s made t for any license hereunder ate such business until the license in conjunction with the sale of food. been issued to such applicant so to do •r. (b) Issuance of license; fee; conditions. On- sale' x 308.21) wine licenses may be issued, subject to the ap- proval of the liquor control commissioner, to the ` { 4 '' proprietor of any restaurant qa . Owner's responsibility. an as defined in this sec - i i , .. � 3 t ion and without regard to section 409.03 limita -` by any clerk, barkeeper, tions. The license fee shall be eight hundred sev- P er a g ent ser- enty -five dollars ($875.00) payable in two (2) equal + n ployee of any licensee , i this chapter, shall be deemed amounts, the first to be paid before the license is VI issued or renewed, the second Ayer and licensee of such place as well the n on payment to be made 1 within six (6) months from the date of issuance or ch clerk, barkeeper, agent, servant or renewal. The licenses shall be valid on all days of ` ` ' and every such employer and licensee the week consistent with the hours of sale provid- J 3. 3 4 ' i 218? , A 1 lir it LICENSES § 409.085 ''':',- , I : ! = issued to said licensee shall be I '' , conspicuous place in that or- (15) Each on -sale licensee shall have the respon- P sibility of taking reasonable and adequate p: the premises for which the license steps to prevent persons from leaving issued. 1y licensed premises with a bottle, can or glass t € i , a , • shall remain in or loiter in the containing any alcoholic beverage, and the i , • lot of an on -sale licensee after the failure to do so may subject such licensee to closing hour. r adverse action against his or her license. � 1 a licensee is notified by the police i ;� � � ent that a parade will be held with- (16) No person, group or association applying for or holding a license under this chapter , ` ± i 1 (1) block of the licensee's establish- shall restrict membership in its club or or- `'',8ll beer and all intoxicating liquor or ,. ' of any Y t ganization, or restrict access to the licensed type sold during the entire s premises or any facilities of such person, m '` :said parade shall be sold only in plas- group or association, on the basis of race, � m ,t. 1 7paper containers. In addition, upon creed, religion, sex, national origin or an- �) ' g such notice, the licensee shall place test I +� % .n tus assistance. This at each entrance and each exit of �'� age, disability, marital status or sta- f � I , � with respect to public i k ptablishment at least one (1) hour r n t ` P provision shall not apply to any religious , l, ■ i- {t the time of parade, and the licensee corporation, association or society with re- }` equire a person to remain at those until one (1) hour after the spect to membership or access based on re- ill ` .' P ligion, where religion is a bona fide quali- ! +1 a _ 1- R 'RO ensure that patrons do not enter or wi th beer or intoxicating liquor. fication for membership or access. A violation ), of the foregoing shall constitute sufficient a an existing building is converted to grounds for adverse action against the < ` intoxicating liquor purposes, exist- h * { application, including re- , I t . � tense or license app , -street parking facilities which serve vocation or denial of the license. 1,, ' ' ing shall be provided with a visual (Code 1956, § 308.23(1 _ , 23 -84; Ord. No. 17321, § 2, 12- 31 -85; Ord. No. s Where the parking facility adjoins or 83; Ord. No. 17043, 8-9-83; Ord. No. 173 , 10- across an alley any residential use or 2-24-87; i k ti al zoning district. The screen shall een four and one -half (4 17368, § 1, 6- 24 -86; Ord. No. 17436, § 1, 1 /2) and six � , Ord. No. 17460, § 1, 5 28 -87; Ord. No. 17473, §§ 1, ' . . half (6 feet in height and of suf- 2, 7 -7-87; Ord. No. 17657, §§ 8, 12, 6 -8 89; Ord. )`'" , density to visually separate the park § T. � ' No. 17676, 3, 8- 24 -89; Ord. No. 17705, § 2, 1 -16- „ J ya . 17901, § 9, 1- 14 -92; C.F. No. 93 -1324 ' � A 'tyfrom the adjacent residential use 90; O N , ii'1 The screen may consist of various § 1 , 11- 23 -93) ` ' :materials, earth berms, plant mate- tlr combination thereof. Access by Sec. 409.085. Safety in on -sale establish - �� . • to the parking facility from an ad- merits. r alley should generally be prohibited. This section applies to on sale licenses ' shall give sell, procure or pur- sale of intoxicating liquor. for the x ' toxicating liquor to or for any per - ' whom the sale of intoxicating liquor (a) Notice to chief o f police. The licensee shall, g , l. 'dden by law, within thirty (30) days following November 4, 1994, prepare intoxicating notify the chief of police in writing if any firearms $ .n shall mix or F, ,:for consumption, or consume it, in as defined in section 225.01 of the Legislative Code are kept on or within the licensed premises. Such public place not licensed in accordance notice shall include a description of each this Code and the State of Minnesota. ch firearm " toxicating liquor shall be sold or con- and the location where it is kept on the licensed premises. Thereafter, the licensee shall notify the on a public highway or in an auto- chief of police if there are any additional firearm F or firearms, or changes in the location, number or ■ t is � ; 2183 ) h: 4 i '3' 409:25 LEGISLATIVE CODE n ,-- " i7 r f a ,9! t ; :l,1 Sec. 409.25. Temporary wine and liquor li- (3) Consent of the owner or:,m:I tenses. premises or person or group {; (a) Wine licenses. Notwithstanding any other sponsibility for the premises. ov of this chter, a c or charitable, re- (4) Evidence that the manager or d ligious or other nonprofit organization in exist- received alcohol awareness train ,,,° 1' ence pr for ision at least three ap (3) y or a political tom- ed by a bona fide instructor or E� ; mittee registered under M innesota Statutes, y. .!l Section 10A.14, may obta an on -sale license to (d) Application o f other provisions o j' �:' sell wine and strong beer not exceeding fourteen ter. N o other provis of this chapte to licenses granted under this section, eig (14) percent alcohol by volume for consumption on tions 409.06, 409.07, 409.08 (except , E the licensed premises only. The fee for such li- s cense shall be established by ordinance as provid- and (12)), and sections 409.09 through ed in section 310.09(b) of the Legislative Code, (e) Class II license. Notwithstand . 4 and licenses shall be issued for periods not to ex- provision of law to the contrary, the' teed three (3) consecutive days. No organization wine and liquor licenses provided in'.,. or political committee shall be granted more than shall be administered as a Class II three (3) licenses within a twelve -month period. subject to the provisions of these cha s No more than three (3) such licenses may be grant- ing Class II licenses. The inspector shall , ed for any one (1) location within the city. referrals as provided by section 310.1+ ' ; � ` g any re (b) Liquor licenses. Notwithstanding any other director may require the inspector to ;1 , license before receiving : , / provision of this chapter, a club or charitable, re- necessary ligious or other nonprofit organization in exist- the application thereof if sary to l: ence for at least three (3) years may obtain on- r. license on a timely basis. 1 . sale license to sell intoxicating liquor for (Ord. No. 17459, § 1, 5- 28 -87; Ord. No. t ;, ` " I consumption on the licensed premises only and in 1 561, Ord. -1 17853, § 1, 7-18-91; C. z connection with a social event within the city spon- 1561, § 2, 11- 16 -94) ; sored by the licensee. The license may provide .'' t hat the licensee may contract for intoxicating li- Sec 409.26. Intoxicating liquor; ' £ catiiig malt liquor; p ' ' quor catering services with the holder of a full 0 year on -sale intoxicating liquor license issued by penalties. i f A the city. The fee for such license shall be forty-one (a) Pur Purpose. The y p purpose of this 1 dollars ($41.00) per day and shall be issued for establish a standard by which the city , not more than three (3) consecutive days. No or- termines the length of license suspe . ` ' ` ganization shall be granted more than five (5) such the propriety of revocations, and shall licenses per calendar year. on -sale and off -sale licensed premises for ', X' toxicating liquor under this chapter and ,- (c) Application. Application for such temporary u licenses shall be made on forms provided by the toxicating liquor under Chapter 410. '' .i alties are presumed to be appropriate i inspector and shall contain such information as case; however the council may deviate ,. ' . , specified by the inspector, including the following: in an individual case where the council (1) The name, address and purpose of the or- determines that there exist substantial i ganization, together with the names and pelling reasons making it more appro F addresses of its officers, and evidence of non- so. When deviating from these stand: . profit status or of its status as a club under cil shall provide written reasons that section 409.02 above. the penalty selected was more appro s' (2) The purpose for which the temporary li- (b) Presumptive penalties for vi — a cense is sought, together with the place, verse penalties for convictions or vio _ dates and hours during which wine or in- be presumed as follows (unless s ,'w i' z toxicating liquor will be sold. below indicate consecutive days' i, ". Supp. No. 28 2194.4 s . Yw +dKb ' a 1 i : 4 I ` 1 1. « ' § 310.05 '' C. % LEGISLATIVE CODE � amount as - forcement � ■ propriate, having the council in m ind deems the regulato reasonable P (3) The license was issued in violation of an j, u r3' and and e n- purposes embodied in the particular li- the provisions of the Zoning Code, a 4 1. N , tensing ordinance. A fine may be in addition to or in lieu Premises which are licensed or which of other adverse action in the sole discre- be licensed do not comply with a � 1 tion of the council Tb ti PPli d . the extent any other prove- health, housing, g, fire, zoning and buildui Sion of the Legislative Code provides for the im- codes and regulations. (4) The license or permit was issued in y together to the extent possible er, that in the case of any conflict or inconsistency, howev- tion of law, without authority, or dera position of a fine, both provisions shall be read y the other provision shall be controlling nsistency, material mistake of fact. under a { ; (Code 1956, § 510.05; Ord. No. 17551, 2 ( The licensee or applicant has failed to comr, ' ' Ord. No. 17559, , § , 4-19 -88; with any condition set forth in the !i §§ 1, 2, 5- 17 -88; Ord. No. 17659, ten , § 1, 6-13-89; Ord. No. 17911, tense, or set forth in the resolution , § 1, 3- 10 -92; C.F. No. ' 94 -46, § 7, 2 -2 -94; C.F. No. 94-898, gran §§ 2, 3, 7- 13 -94; ing or renewing the license. ' mx C.F. No. 94-1340, § 2, 10- 19 -94; C.F. ,, No. 95 -473, § ( a. The licensee or a �- 4, 5- 31 -95) applicant (or any pc ` N 9 son whose conduct may by law be im 4 Sec. 310.06. puted to the licensee or applicant) h .' Revocation; suspension; adverse violated, or c actions; imposition of condi- Performed any act which '' tions. a violation of, any of the provisions o these chapters or of any statute, o (a) Council may take adverse action. nance or regulation reasonably related: #. authorized to taven, as defined in sec o ized o take against ve any or n all licensed to e r licensed l c have oil is hor tke adverse action, or e . whether criminal charges have or hav' e or permits, licensee or applicant for a license, in and by these chapters. Adverse ac- not been brought in connection there- se, as ` with; r 1 tions against entertainment licenses issued under Chapter 411 of the Legislative Code may be initi- b. The licensee or applicant has been con a! provided I ated for the reasons set forth in subsection (b) vetted of a crime that may disqualify said applicant from holding the license 1, below, ; below, ted to the license holder n are tom- in question under the standards and ''' or upon any lawful s which the hearing before the council. Such actions shall procedures in Minnesota Statutes be initiated and carried out in accordance with the procedures outline in section 310.05; proved - c. The Chapter i licensee or i t .r, ? ' ed, however, that the formal notice of hearing shall be used to initiate the adverse action without the PPliay by (or any per- son whose conduct may applicant) law b a ' engaged d the or t o a patter nor' T 3 use of prior procedural steps. "� engaged in or permitted a pattern or (b) Basis for action. Such adverse action Practice of conduct of failure to comply be based on one (1) or more of the adverse actrea- with laws reasonably related to the li- ion may censed activity or from which an infer - sons, which are in addition to any following a ence be of fitness or good character ` y other reason o specifically provided by law or in these chapters: (7) The activities of the licensee in the licensed may be drawn. ' (1) The license or permit was procured by mis- representation of material facts, fraud, de- activity created or have created a serious ,: 9t ceit or bad faith. danger to the public health, safety or wel- '. � (2) The applicant or one (1) acting in his or her fare, or the licensee performs or has per- ,'_' formed his or her work or activity in an misrepresentations unsafe manner. j presentations of material facts in .% or accompanying the application. (8) The licensed business, or the way in wha , or behalf ma de oral or written misstatements • such business is operated, maintains or p • ., , , , i . ; ., ;, ,,,,,, Supp. No 30 r ` 2030 > .' i , F r Lic ID 18084 STAT AC Business Name JESTPAMA INC Address 1361 MARYLAND AVE E Zip 55106 Doing Business As EAST SIDE LIQUOR STORE License Name LIQUOR - OFF SALE • ORIGINAL CONTAINER Exp Date 04/30/96 Insurance Carrier ST PAUL FIRE & MARINE Ins. Policy Number RB006609982 Insurance Effective Date 04/27/95 Ins. Expiration Date 04/30/96 NOTE AREA INSP CHANGE FROM 01 TO 02 ON 4/09/92 • 12097 . 112988 PH ON APPN TO TRFR OFF SALE LIQ & ORIG. CON . T. LIC FROM GAYLORD MARCUS ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA M . ARCUS PHALEN LIQUOR STORE TO JESTPAMA, INC. DBA EA . ST SIDE LIQUOR STORE AT THE SAME ADDRESS APP'D C.F . . 88 -1888 . 013191 C.F. 91 -174 SUSPENDED ALL LICENSES FOR THRE . E CONSECUTIVE DAYS (021891- 022091) . 6/24/93 RENEW APP'D - MAILED 7/13/93 . 5- 16- 95- -JOANN D DUNKEL ADDED TO THE LICENSE Tax Id 2340835 Worker Comp Exp Date 01/01/95 Telephone 774 -3731 5/19/95 I hereby certify that this is a true and exact copy of the records of the LIEP Office of the City of St. Paul for Jestpama Inc. DBA East Side Liquor Store at 1361 E Maryland Avenue. CJA.A.,01A /211-k.,./ 4t4 ) ?(( C ena , N--- /` Christine Rozek oor.ry Public License Manager mmwmAnAmmAmmomovANAmmovoms "!, LINDA KAY KORAN ' : , NOTARY PUBLIC- MINNEBOU My Commission Expires Jan. 31. 2000 w wv.. • 110 milliPPINNIFIRMORMIPIIIP ■ d /b /a East Side Liquor Store _ City's Exh. No. 3 OFFTC THE CIT ATTORNEY Tunothy E. arX Ciry Attorney SAINT P A U L CITY OF SAINT PAUL Civil Division Norm Coleman, Mayor 400 City Hall Telephone: 612 266-8710 15 West Keno.; Blvd Facsimile: 612 298 -5619 AAAA Saint Patt4 Minnesota 55102 March 27, 1995 Robert W. Dunkel Jestpama, Inc. dba East Side Liquor Store 1361 Maryland Avenue East Saint Paul, Minnesota 55106 Re: Licenses of Jestpama, Inc. dba East Side Liquor Store License ID No. 18084 Dear Mr. Dunkel: I am in receipt of information that could lead to adverse action against all the licenses of North End Liquor, Inc. The basis for adverse action is: On March 3, 1995, at or about 9:30 p.m., a minor purchased a 24 -pack and 2 12 -packs of beer on the licensed premises without being asked for identification as to age. The minor stated that he had purchased alcohol before at that establishment and was not carded. The sale to the minor was a violation of Section 409.08 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, as well as of state law, Minn. Stat. § 340A.503 (1994). If you do not dispute that the above sale took place, this matter will be scheduled before the City Council for a hearing on what penalty, if any, to impose. You will be allowed to speak on your behalf at that hearing. I will need to have a letter from you saying that you do not dispute the facts if we are going to follow that path. On the other hand, if you dispute the above facts, I will schedule the evidentiary hearing on the facts before an Administrative Law Judge. In that event, you will receive a notice of hearing so you will know when and where to appear, and what the basis for the hearing will be. d /b /a East Side Liquor Store City's Exh. No. 7 III • (- i In either case, you should contact me within ten days from the date of this letter. If I do not hear from you, I will schedule the hearing, and you may be responsible for the costs of the hearing if you do not then appear and contest the facts. Please call me or have your attorney call me at 266 -8710. Very truly yours,. 444 g Philip B . Byrn Assistant City Attorney cc: Robert Kessler Director, LIEP Kris Van Horn, LIEP Sgt. Per Tredal, SIU v STATE OF MINNESOTA } } ss. COUNTY OF RAMSEY } AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY U. S. MAIL Joanne Rettner, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 27th day of March, 199, j, at the City of St. Paul, county and state aforementioned, (s)he served the attached Letter by depositing in the United States mail at said City of St. Paul, a true and correct copy thereof, properly enveloped, with first class postage prepaid, and addressed to the following individual. Robert W. Dunkel Jestpama, Inc. d /b /a East Side Liquor Store 1361 Maryland Avenue East Saint Paul, MN 55106 6 90a/n.-~--- Ze-64 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of March, 1995. 9 • AAAA.MAAAWAAAu J. FLOYD NOTARY PUNIC - MINNESOTA TA COUNTY COMM. ExpNss Jan. 31.2000 • Ws P .. A1P , "..0,Lik"..... • " • •,4 avff.tri VAATOO .7 • tar,: Y3814.4tAR , 4 entlio0 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Timothy E. Marx City Attorney SAINT a•. .W, 4111 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Civil Division 14 Norm Coleman, Mayor 400 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd Telephone: 612 266-8710 Facsimile: 612 298 -5619 I A A A A Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 August 31, 1995 Joseph J. Dudley, Jr. Dudley and Smith, P.A. Attorneys and Counselors at Law American National Bank Building, Suite 2602 101 East Fifth Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1896 RE: All Licenses Held by Jestpama, INC. d /b /a East Side Liquor Store OAH Docket No.: 2 -2101- 9808 -6 Our File No.: G95 -0144 Dear Mr. Dudley: The following is the City of St. Paul, Division of License, Inspections & Environmental Protection's response to your discovery requests of June 28, 1995, as well as the City's discovery requests to Jestpama, INC. d /b /a East Side Liquor Store. First, below please find the City's response to OPBM's request for witnesses and documents: 1. WITNESSES The following individuals will be called to testify on behalf of the license office: Kris Schweinler, Senior License Inspector, Department of License, Inspections & Environmental Protection, Room 300, Lowry Professional building, 350 St. Peter St., St. Paul, MN 55102. Officer William Paatalo, St. Paul Police Dept., 100 East llth Street, St. Paul, MN 55102. David Miller, 322 West Morton Street, St. Paul, MN 55107. Michael J. Lentsch, 2305 Grange, Oakdale, MN 55128 • d /b /a East Side Liquor Store City's Exh. No. 4 t I ) 2. DOCUMENTS Attached please find the following documents which the City intends to offer into evidence at the time of the hearing: Police Report CN 95- 027 -296, dated March 3, 1995; Supplemental Police Report CN 95- 027 -296, dated March 7, 1995; • Supplemental Police Report CN 95- 027 -296, dated March 21, 1995, and attached March 17, 1995 letter from Robert Dunkel forwarding March 3, 1995 Statement of Jeffery Alan Grell; Jestpama Inc. license information, certified May 19, 1995; City's letter of complaint, dated March 27, 1995; Notice of Hearing, dated June 15, 1995; Notice of Rescheduled Hearing, dated July 19, 1995; 3. The City is not in possession of any written or other recordings of statements, summaries of statements, or other reports made by witnesses or Jestpama, Inc. representatives, beyond those written statements contained in attached reports. With regards to the City's discovery requests, at this time, pursuant to the Rules of Administrative Hearings, specifically Minnesota Rules §1400.6700, the City request the following: 1. The names and addresses of all witnesses Jestpama, Inc. intends to call at the hearing, along with a brief statement of each witness' testimony. 2. Copies of any and all written and /or recorded statements or summaries of statements made by any of the witnesses Jestpama, Inc. intends to call, and all written and /or recorded statements or summaries of statements made by other parties or witnesses. 3. Copies of any other document or thing Jestpama, Inc. may introduce at the hearing including any books, papers, Discovery - Page 2 t correspondence, documents, photographs, notes or other tangible or relevant evidence, not privileged, that Jestpama, Inc., has obtained, whether or not intended to be used at the hearing on this matter. We would appreciate your prompt attention to these request. If you have any questions, or have additional requests, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, • Theodore Leon Assistant City Attorney Discovery - Page 3 ` - • ST. PAUL POLICE DEPARTMENT ' Pam) / of GENERAL REPORT ---- e--7 _ `7 6 / pay Month Date Year Time: Squad: Team: Offense: lv MRR 3 95 _ ?/3‘1 _ 373 E4— .1 nA I-o iieosa:' hs /u44A. Class: Location of Call: Location of Crime Scene: Time of Arrest Q 3 S re, v 7- vR / 3‘ / E. r NC I NA--- Time & Date of Occurrence: 2 G Bus. Phone: Home Phone: Occurred At ❑ Between: p2 I J 3 ' hrs. on - 3 - 7c _ and hrs. on Complai n s Name (Last, First, Middle): Address: 3 u d aim /oa / /,4 s�. Articles ? 'covered: p // Disposition: ❑ Records ❑ Crime Lab Locker ay Pac,K ‘ miller( be�4✓MG Ono/ h (u &r a l 2 - ic2":0cKs 4. du4,Nki / 1 Gall gfAtiC ❑ Crime Lab ropertyReim k+ >..:E .:#.'lrk "a ONc:s. NGskr EM g Arrest Number Last Name First Middle Address DOB Age Sex Race 6 - S0's23 Lenisc4 , /lido./ 074. -,40 23o , oe ,fit F -i- 76, /e, 07, id 373 D. m 1ilex i., , 0) .c ovi /2o4.4- e .He. z1 a/ - S i O / fl Chiet4/ i de...Ito , 4 XX/ //i CE4 V-c_ 1 I . J_22 jN co-e. W.A.A a --c.v ' G a y ,4 c.. , 07-e sf4 -, circa ,ill.a/t .,r_.,‘ . , , . a' . l �.e 414e, ..rte ediovevel a" :6 " /� � u ✓4� �aco / 4e it / - a.a . y i .a .ile mc rjc tit ce,4�..., � ",4- -- 4,2"ac,rr di- "aus� 4 i "). 7:::,-e 44 Gw . owl 4 a A..al, C /a ,41. 4.....e. - " 100 A ic ,l yc-S7 X' w,.-sql . , 4, / .are,kos; ,c„p av ',-6 .,d ..��eo -, /.e 4 0 1- - __ -:?‘ e-Y- 04d - --. itie - - -,,dz. L a.-rtsi -.4032 - 4 - 4 / .4r ci.r4 i / �f vim. • ` 1 e ..ter ( mv •�a .L c R � e z ,.. . MA) Z 1"OL ao 2enhc�t, Nliclrae/ J,4.1 �g -76 ,230.5 z�, t G' d ,..2■, 0::://A>d CO./ a-fri /e....e2•a .Z 1 (11- ..7 U\ , a<cC 1 Ssia 2 e j Y d ✓ r ' '4 4 i . G G i c e -,L e . / al ,moo. d (4ict ..I ,6!/Go .lily. \A ' 6,41 /1 - �,� cie4 . Zen I �// r ,e.. �..d .4000 \ /f y oA- • i../4 a� .r/ Z .�hs�, «(/// --AA/ c� O• s en s_14 1 ,0en ,, o � .4, ,, C-s-,. a'..•,/ .oau0 No s' . ,Le 4 �J -/ G r � / s .1 0. ut rGr aO 4 K ..[r� .G2 ' ca AS S. i e ,4 ,Ci Ass' ling Offiy�r Emp. No.: Reporti r. / von ✓x� Emp. No.: Repo Reviewed By: Emp. No.: O.T.: Typist R. Code: Name Entry: ❑Yes( No c �� I! ❑ Hom ❑ Rob ❑ Juv ❑ Coord ❑ ID ❑ Lab Rec A Tema' n It D/C ❑ Burg ❑ Theft ❑ Prop ❑ CAU ❑ F &F ❑ Auto DAO �-�' . d /b /a E ast Side Liquor Store _a City's Exb. No. 1 CONTINUE NARRATIVE HERE - - /eel -4,4 44u.d, Nb. lt!.c adil /=/",te C'-, ti . 3/ Yo4 -. Lk /sue ", I % 2( , art � s -(iCGL . /4 .dei 447 L 7 ,7„-a-ea../Z-e-K-44) (6e° ivP4 0740 ( C .0K , A/ / 4 5t , -- /� -7� 3M E. ,z4aie.. ' Sa e arc , $ 4 ech ec,J, !uh 1K35 #`z 114-1/1 / S 4g J -ec �►, - 3 0 X , / /o /I 444d€460 Alces flei.Jti 3 Zoe e N , F.2 -0 904 3 CAR vim(, 544 n 14)(4o , 5 - 4�- 77 ? 5--�0 ..ac4rsol/ 61•, Il������ 7f 3 /5 . CD-611450m, -I-6_( airs / /-3o -7s; /603 AQ /(s oh 4 k/ , s,L • , N - 7?/ -97ss S 6e—J'Y t eL4a., 1 -71?, /4? S/ C•( -77y -7.23 dakevefri 4 /4 RV , 5/441,V/ ,P4///, F-X , X39 9 Zc/ J # 77 8 - co, ,3v a Lcrt, tT t6 4 Ai (, V-447 1 ,2/ / k/AVLo i /7l- 739 - /033, C) - 7? - 373/ 3 Du N Ked , k/ , S7 Yom, (MA4,cn,) f /x 2 4 Co - /l -r /•e4/ E, -779-373, ,4 u> i ovi 6)„//et //sue �.<•O G dz. - ,LG�.�s .mO "Go ,o!- ! s, 6..arza viny, ‘f 0 0. ki k.O•e- r Po Ala( / • Zen/se-4 .0r(. .1 a uti' eve nelitie �a.6c i £'onle/( t. ate 6-e.„Zf /4 .2it _ tip P,.!/P.n -tion e- '64 Gay.C4- y0 V N 6' ✓ C.=/1 e c/ '/ cji --� ,/ A La, .,ti:. Cam. s up tr:eA. i.I add �,... a &e..fe /e,;t1 ,z/z-0 &&4 ry s. / � ✓.� Z y t�t / z,s4c.4 - /SS. of zaLco 4 4- , (14.6/1. • P "°° - w Z. ST. PAUL POLICE DF ARTMENT O. SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT CONTINUATION OF: ORIGINAL REPORT ❑ SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Date & lime of Report: Offense/Incide t Team: lime of Arrest: 3 - 3 9s 2Z30 N f 7 L cc .Se , /e/((e. r � Arrest Number Last Name First Middle Address DOB Age Sex Race ' At- 4 ; 4 ti (NM ■/ s� � .- r % I vus4/ / 41s P(A-c -c._ T.[�te pti 4 444.es. 442{ a ci? /e ku4.. %ev‹..4 m{ Ivrt. Z42, erc Ld �� aws ,I4 /ley C - y t / ec•es2 / oe ✓en. L i415c61 , d , ce;ii Cetc.(• ?Aril /� .�. �b r/, `ad Nor E - 77% X;/, Zivid ,e1,410 .7teesr% a-7404 / CA47-0(4L- '' 64L-#644 , e /e""‘i "41 4ao.e.s. " gacv;i,a ,av A Sta S� Z e H c r 0 Assisti Ofr•. Emp. No.: Report r. Emp. No.: �� 40 Z CTS _ ,5'7f Report Reviewed By/Unit Commander. Emp. No.: O.T.: Typist: R.O.: Code: ❑ v , ,Y ❑ CHF ❑ Horn ❑ Rob ❑ Juv ❑ Coord ❑ ID ❑ Lab ❑ Rec ❑ Team ❑ Sex ❑ Rptr ❑ Other ❑ D/C ❑ Burg ❑ Theft ❑ Prop ❑ CAU ❑ F &F ❑ Auto ❑ DAO ❑ CO ❑ HumSero I ❑ T I PM 622 -93R CONTINUE NARRATIVE HERE • P • age / OF / PROPER I Y RECORD 2. C.N. CITY OF ST. PAUL DEPT. OF POLICE ��a �� 3. D•y Mo. Dote Year 4. Time ` 5. District 6. S•uad 7. Offense 8. Full Disposition Made i dr i/ cJ7 [/C�itJS� j Date By ' • 'roperty Of Comp • Suspect n Other • Address Res. Telephone Bus. 10, Nam perty Held: /l �� "� /C EL �$ Item No. � 309A.66 ___/ rO � I te ��� Item No. l Item No. I As Eviden / ? , Property Recovered l For Owner I Other 11. I em 12. Article & Description (Brand- Serial - Model - Color, Etc.) 13. Where Recovered 14. Turned Into: 15. Property 16. Lab. No. Ouon. / „ eI G- Location Clerk Exam 4FivaiMF FT -x491' 4661 s 4� / / 5 9 PL • 3 I f 17. Reporting O�cer, , Emp. No. Report' 1Offiii Emp. No. 0 1 ',"r. WI.” X19,∎ /2 Z; / / _ /- . 18. Property Disposition: Item Dote Time Reason: Token By: (Signature) Returned To Property Unit Location Lob Exam No. Out Out (To Court, Etc.) Date Time ' Received By Abbreviations: Abbreviations: CLL+ - Crime Lob Locker FP - Fingerprints PO - Property Locker CS - Controlled Substance . PR - Property Room CL - Crime Lab FA - Firearms CC - Comm. Center BA - Blood Alcohol • Item To Be: I If T.O.T. owner, Indicate Owner's Authority Of Signature of Authorized Disposition No. Date (Sold, etc .0 Name, Telephone No., Date Notified Signature Unit Person Receiving Items Date Clerk _i , s • Prop / Lab Rec Other ( (� �— flq I Typist I I Supv. Code Clerk Prop. Clerk v R I INSPECTION DATE RESULT • PROPERTY LOCATION PM269 -R87 OFFICE OF THE Ull Y Al ivxiv>; • Timothy E. City Attorney SAINT PAUL CITY OF SAINT PAUL Civil Division Norm Coleman, Mayor 400 City Hall Telephone: 612 266 -8710 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Facsimile: 612 298 -5619 Saint Pain Minnesota 55102 AAAA July 19, 1995 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED HEARING Joseph J. Dudley, Jr. Dudley and Smith Attorneys and Counselors at Law American National Bank Building, Suite 2602 101 East 5th Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 RE: All licenses held by Jestpama, Inc. dba East Side Liquor Store for premises located at 1362 Maryland Avenue East, St. Paul OAH Docket Number: 2 -2101- 9808 -6 Our File Number: G95 -0144 Dear Mr. Dudley: Please take notice that the administrative hearing for the above referenced matter which was rescheduled to July 31, 1995, has now been rescheduled to the following: Date: Thursday September 7, 1995 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: Room 1503 City Hall Annex 25 W. 4th Street Saint Paul, MN. 55102 As before, the hearing will be presided over by Judge Bruce Campbell from the State of Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings, located at 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700, Minneapolis, MN. 55401. His telephone number is 341 -7602. Very truly yours, (— PLA4-4w■4..— Theodore Leon Assistant City Attorney cc: Nancy Anderson, Assistant Council Secretary Robert Kessler, Director, LIEP Frank Staffenson, Deputy Director, LIEP Nancy Thomas, Office of Administrative Hearings, 100 Washington Square, Mpls, MN 55401 Tim Dornfeld, Community Organizer, District 2 Community Council, 2169 Stillwater Ave., St. Paul, MN 55119 d /b /a East Side Liquor Store City's Exh. No. 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) JOANNE G. CLEMENTS, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on July 20, 1995, she served the attached NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED HEARING on the following named attorney by placing a true and correct copy thereof in an envelope addressed as follows: Joseph J. Dudley, Jr. Dudley and Smith Suite 2602 American Natl. Bank Bldg. 101 E. 5th Street St. Paul, MN. 55101 (which is the last known address of said attorney) and depositing the same, with postage prepaid, in the ited States mails at St. Paul, Minnesota. 0 1911 4441114 I biA /LAW JOAN " G. CL 'ENTS Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of July, 1995. CL NotaPy Publi • OD OEI.VA J. FLOYD MOTI MYNilLIC - EMM IS OTA RA MO/ COMITY rr Omml.s d.n. 31.2000 • • OFFIC THE CITY ATTORNEY Timothy E. am; City Attorney SAINT I' A I1 I CITY OF SAINT PAUL Civil Division 044, Norm Coleman, Mayor 400 City Hall Telephone 612 2668710 15 West Kellogg Blvd Facsimile: 612 298 -5619 AAA* Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 June 15, 1995 NOTICB OF HEARING Robert W. Dunkel Jestpama, Inc. dba East Side Liquor Store 1362 Maryland Avenue East Saint Paul, Minnesota 55106 RE: All licenses held by Jestpama, Inc. dba East Side Liquor Store for premises located at 1362 Maryland Avenue East, St. Paul Our File Number: G95 -0144 Dear Mr. Dunkel: Please take notice that a hearing will be held at the following time, date and place concerning all licenses for the premises stated above: Date: Friday July 14, 1995 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: Room 41 Bt. Paul City Hall 15 W. Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN. 55102 The hearing will be presided over by an Administrative Law Judge from the State of Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings: Name: Bruce Campbell Office of Administrative Hearings 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN. 55401 Telephone: 341 -7602 The Council of the City of Saint Paul has the authority to provide for hearings concerning licensed premises and for adverse action against such licenses, under Chapter 310, including sections 310.05 and 310.06, of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. In the case of licenses for intoxicating and non - intoxicating liquor, authority is MWIlliMilllifilliWill ■ d /b /a East Side Liquor Store City's Exh. No. 6 • • c also conveyed by Minnesota Statutes section 340A.415. Adverse action may include revocation, suspension, fines and other penalties or conditions. Evidence will be presented to the judge which may lead to adverse action against all the licenses you hold at the above premises as follows: "That on March 3, 1995, at or about 9:30 p.m., a minor purchased a 24 -pack and 2 12 -packs of beer on the licensed premises without being asked for identification as to age. The minor stated that he had purchased alcohol before at that establishment and was not carded. The sale to the minor was a violation of Section 409.08 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, as well as of state law, Minn. Stat. § 340A.503 (1994)." You have the right to be represented by an attorney before and during the hearing or you can represent yourself. You may also have a person of your choice represent you, to the extent not prohibited as unauthorized practice of law. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes sections 14.57 to 14.62 and such parts of the procedures under section 310.05 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code as may be applicable. At the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge will have all parties identify themselves for the record. The City will then present its witnesses and evidence, each of whom the licensee or attorney may cross - examine. The licensee may then offer in rebuttal any witnesses or evidence it may wish to present, each of whom the City's attorney may cross - examine. The Administrative Law Judge may in addition hear relevant and material testimony from persons not presented as witnesses by either party who have a substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding; for example, the owners or occupants of property located in close proximity to the licensed premises may have substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Concluding arguments may be made by the parties. Following the hearing, the Judge will prepare Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a specific recommendation for action to be taken by the City Council. You should bring to the hearing all documents, records and witnesses you will or may need to support your position. Subpoenas may be available to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents in conformity with Minnesota Rules, part 1400.7000. If you think that this matter can be resolved or settled without a formal hearing, please contact or have your attorney contact the undersigned. If a stipulation or agreement can be reached as to Notice of Hearing - Page 2 4 . • the facts, that stipulation will be presented to the Administrative Law Judge for incorporation into his or her recommendation for Council action. If you fail to appear at the hearing, your ability to challenge the allegations will be forfeited and the allegations against you which have been stated earlier in this notice may be taken as true. If non - public data is received into evidence at the hearing, it may become public unless objection is made and relief requested under Minnesota Statutes, Section 14.60, subdivision 2. Very truly yours, Theodore Leon Assistant City Attorney cc: Nancy Anderson, Assistant Council Secretary Robert Kessler, Director, LIEP Frank Staffenson, Deputy Director, LIEP Nancy Thomas, Office of Administrative Hearings, 100 Washington Square, Mpls, MN 55401 Tim Dornfeld, Community Organizer, District 2 Community Council, 2169 Stillwater Ave., St. Paul, MN 55119 Officer William Paatalo, Police Dept. Notice of Hearing - Page 3 i • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) JOANNE G. CLEMENTS, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on June 15, 1995, she served the attached NOTICE OF HEARING on the following named person by placing a true and correct copy thereof in an envelope addressed as follows: Robert W. Dunkel Jestpama, Inc. dba East Side Liquor Store 1362 Maryland Avenue East St. Paul, MN. 55106 (which is the last known address of said person) and depositing the same, with postage prepaid, in the United States mails at St. Paul, Minnesota. Sly 0 1111■A Alt/ COA -. . ../ .4 i i 4. ' AlW JO. . CLEMENTS Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of June, 1995. A-d 1 4/—it. Notary P blic 41-9 p 1, IMANIMANIMMANNAANNAAAMAAmmg .VA J. FLOYD wow NII. -MMIIESOTA RAMSEY COUNTY *Comm Expires Jan. 31, 2000 • 09/06/1955 15:12 20 ST PAUL POLICE DEPT PAGE 02 ST. PAUL POLICE DEPARTMENT '.J n aUPPLEMENTAL REPORT [l CONTINUATION OF: ❑ ORIGINAL REPORT ❑ SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Dale 1 Tilne of Report: - 7f+fun: , Time of Most: - 9J / �i .t c e .,or .4 .w J. f4r i`:y':ii ii !<'8: : `tY '::! 1!3's: °'� "Y!`.:�. �3+k:i � '%iasj�:1: ; ; ..3 ; ! ...4 €s;. m';•� � . w.:: ; ;. • :: • ...,• : n t , . �. €.. b „'' .... ....<..!`: `.r.PF ,..,. v....�� NARRAiINI~ .. , ,<.....: �:,:,�!� �.. Arrest Number Mist Name Mat Middle Address DOB r Age SON Race On 3 -22 -95 spoke to Nathan Johnson regarding an incident that occurred on 3 -3 -95 at the East Side Liquor Store 1341 E. Maryland where a minor was charged with Poss of Alcohol after purchasing the beer at this liquor store. Nathan stated that he was sitting in a veh with some other people, and he was sitting in the rear sit of the station wagon, while the driver of this veh a Michael Lentsch went into the store to buy some beer. The veh was parked in the parking lot of the store. Nathan stated while he was in the car he noticed a police car drive by, and when Lentsch came out of the store to the veh he told him the police just drove by. This is when Lentsch put the beer at the rear of the car. Nathan stated the reason he told Lentsch about the police that there were too many people in the car, and everyone wasn't wearing a seat belt. Nathan stated after leaving the parking lot a short distance they were stopped by the police. Asked Nathan when Lentsch returned to the veh from the store did you see him reach toward the glove compartment of the veh? He - stated that he never saw him go into the glove compartment of the car. Asked him did Lentsch say anything to the effect that he was going to use a false id in order to buy the beer? He stated Lentsch never said anything about having a false id to buy the beer. Asked him if he had any knowledge if Lentsch had bought beer at this store before? He stated that he didn't know if he had or not. Concluded the interview with him at this time. On 3 -22 -95 contacted a Sarah Hallmark regarding an incident that occurred at the East Side Liquor Store 1341 E Maryland Av on 3 -3- 95. She stated that she was sitting in the rear seat of the veh, while a Michael Lentsch went into the liquor store to buy beer. After Lentsch left the store he put the beer at the rear of the o car, he was driving the veh. He drove away from the parking lot didn't go too far when the cops pulled us over. Asked her if Michael Lentsch talked about using a false id to buy the beer? She ' stated no. Asked her when Lentsch got into the veh after leaving ►� the store did you see him take anything out of or put anything into O the glove compartment? She stated no. Asked her did Lentsch mentioned that he had previously bought beer there before? She stated that he didn't say anything about buying beer there before, and she doesn't know if he has. Stating that she has known him 4 only for a short time. &.1 At this time ended the interview with her. ""`'^^” f =r 1 . , nder. Emp. No.: O_T.: T Fl .0.: Code: Entry: ©Y..6No O CHF 0 Hone 0 Rob ❑ Jw 0 t:oord 0 ID 0 Lab 01 .c 0 teem 0 Sex 0 Rptr ❑ other (] D!C ❑ Burg ❑ Then 0 Prop 0 CAU 0 F3F 0 Auto 0 DAO 0 CO 0 HUi $.ry [Cl TO. j PM 822.23R • d /b /a East Side Liquor Store City's Exh. No. 2 09/06/1995 15:12 20 ST PAUL POLICE DEPT PAGE 03 / r ST. PAUL POLICE DEPARTMENT ' 5 J [] SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ❑ CONTINUATION OF: ❑ ORIGINAL R EPORT ❑ SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Date & Time of Report: pnensafInddenb I T 'time of Arrest 3 -3u -95 17)0 Info to License Inspector ;f.,Fc,ls i sr: ?e:. <:z ,, kr,, Y::1::1'< 3b..E„ .�"• ='��,, `fP. "s'• :N-::t :: :: <•ns:;x.i:b,�'i:' >.a:' > °�.:' •:o ,. .. .e::: w;; ... .. '!r -.. _.. �:... -K.... ei; a.. :.: •,.�'„ `:j:i k�EYy:..�A n r' °ii.'S.. s.. U . e ., w .. ...v •�K';C L asi Name irsl Middle Address DO8 • Race On 3 -23 -95 Sgt Tredal showed me a letter that he had received from a Mr Robert Dunkel from East Side Liquor Store dated 3 -22 -95 the letter stated that employees from the store had confiscated a D.L., and Ident Card from two customers that were attempting to purchase alcohol beverages. The age on the id cards did not match the age for the customers who were presumably underage. The D.L. is from Tennessee in the name of Scott Faulkner Evans d.o.b. (6- 4 -70), and an id card in the name of Carlos Jameslacort Casanova d.o.b. (10- 4-72) . Checking with the Records Div unable_to find anything for Evans for Casanova found an address of 137 Edgerton St hip 774-1626. Contacted Carlos regarding his id card he stated that when he lived at 298 Ruth St #10 he either lost his wallet or it was stolen from his apt that was two years ago. The id card was inside the wallet. Asked him if he had made a police report? He stated no. Asked him if he had any idea who may have used his id card? He stated no. He mentioned that he would like his id card returned when this investigation is completed he also gave me his pager # 980 -6174. The two id cards will be tagged, and turned into the Property Room. On 3 -27 -95 contacted Michael Lentsch h/p 770 -4113 regarding the incident that occurred on 3 -3 -95. He related the following:He _ stated that he got out of his veh that was parked in the parking lot of the liquor store, which is the East Side Liquor Store; went. �- into the store, and bought some beer. He stated that their were some people sitting inside of his car when he went into the liquor I store he didn't notice or see any police around. When he came back CI to the car from the store he stated someone in the car stated the U cops are looking at us. Michael stated he walked to the rear of i his car, and put the beer there then got into the car, and drove A away. He stated that he probably just drove about two blocks down i on Maryland, which would have been west; when he was stopped by the EN. police. Michael stated the police stopped him, and asked hits for his D.L. He stated that his D.L. was in his wallet, and told them Asslstlnp oomc r . piny ` ¢ �y l yL .' ^-t Fb.: vport Reviewed B Emp. N .: 0.7: ?typist: Oode: Namee Entry DYIN DNo1 1 R.O.: [Code: ❑ CHF 0 Han ❑ Rob D Juv pp 000rd d 10 0 Lab 0 Flee 0 Team ❑ sex D Rptr D Other ❑ D� 0 Burg 0 Then © Prop ❑ CAU ❑ F&F p Auto D DAO [ 00 0 HumSerr r l 0 Type I PM 4322 -93R 09/06/1995 15:12 20 ST PAUL POLICE DEPT PAGE 04 CONTINUE NARRATIVE HERE r. that he didn't have his D.L. on him that it was in the glove compartment. He stated that he doesn't like to carry his wallet in his pocket, because its too bulky this is the reason he always leaves his wallet in the glove compartment. He stated that he carries loose bills in his pocket. He stated that be told the police that he had bought the beer without being asked for an id. Michael stated that there were two people working in the store, and the younger guy with dark hair is the person that sold him the beer. Stating further that after the police returned him to the store he was accused of using a false id, and he gave police permission to search the car for the false id. He stated that he did not use a false id to buy the beer. Stating that he gave the officers permission to search the car for the alleged false id. Asked him was ths the first time you bought beer from this liquor store? He stated no a few times maybe three or four times. Asked him how long ago was the first time you bought beer there? He stated the first time was probably about six months ago. Asked him did you use a false id to buy the beer? He stated I didn't use a false id every time I bought beer there nobody asked me for an id. He then added friends told me that you could buy-beer there without being id. It should be noted that Sgt Tredal wrote a report under this CN on 3 -21 -95 when he was contacted by Robert Dunkel that he had a witness to the incident under investigation, and the witness is a Jeffrey Alan Grell. Dunkel told Sgt Tredal that he had a written statement by Grell, and Sgt Tredal advised Dunkel to mail it to him, the statement would be part of the file. On 3 -29 -95 1600 hrs stopped at the East Side Liquor Store to interview Robert Dunkel id myself as a police officer with a picture id. Robert Dunkel stated that he is the manager of the store, that he was in the store at the time the sale took place, but did not actually witness it. He identified an employee by the name of Michael Butler as the person that sold the beer to Michael Lentsch, also he stated that Butler carded Lentsch. Dunkel stated that they had never seen Lentsch before. Then asked Robert Dunkel about the written statement that the witness id as Jeffrey Greil had provided. Dunkel stated that he typed the statement for Grell, and that Grell told him what to type, that when he had finished typing the statement Grell read the statement stating it was okay or alright. Showed him the picture id cards that had been confiscated, he stated the one with Evans's 09/06/1995 15:12 20 ST PAUL POLICE DEPT PAGE 05 Page ST. PAUL POLICE DEPARTMENT _.. ❑ SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ❑ CONTINUATION OF: ❑ ORIGINAL REPORT ❑ SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Dale & Time of Report: Offense/incident Team: Time of Arrest • ..::: ...... • - ::;-•:.; : •:....s �:,, .,.� '•�:; ::, NARK �:3�:; >;. .,,,.; ;:: x .... >: :.....: '• ? : Race AniniNumber it thArpersorAth too ydltrfor the d. o. b. on Dunkel stated that person was in the store for the first time, and never came back. The other id card with the male trying to pass himself off as Casanova the man didn't quite look like the photo on the card, and appeared to be too young. This was the reason the card was confiscated. Dunkel stated after the card was confiscated they got a call from a male who claimed that his brother had used the card without his permission, and that he would be coming to the store. Dunkel stated the caller never showed up. He stated the reason they don't call the police when a card is confiscated or they suspect someone of using a false id the police can't be there that soon. An employee could be injured if they would attempt_to detain the subj usually when they confiscate the false id card the subj will just walk out of the store. Terminated the interview with Dunkel at this time. On 3 -30 -95 at 1550 hrs interviewed Jeffrey Alan Grell in one of the interview rooms on the third floor of the Public Safety Bldg. Informed him that I was doing a follow up relative to an incident that occurred on 3 -3 -95 at the East Side Liquor Store. He stated he was aware of this. Asked him if he recalled beiny in the ::tore that evening? He stated yes that he was standing in line by the counter, and there was a young man standing just ahead of him to one side. Jeffrey stated that he saw this man show an id to the cashier it looked like it was red. Then he pulled some money out of his left rear pocket, and paid for the beer. After paying for the beer he put the id card into his pocket. Asked him do you know the cashier? He stated i don.:t.know his name I just know him by sight. While still in the store the man who had left the store : returned with a police officer. Asked him how long was he gone? `�'� He stated about 15 or 20 minutes. Jeffrey stated I was standing about 10 feet away from the man, and the police officer. They 11 called for Bob who was in the back. Asked him who is Bob? He stated Robert Dunkel. The police officer, and Robert Dunkel were talking then he saw the man pull out from his pant's pocket an id card stating but it didn't look like the same id as before it was NZ, a different color. Then they went outside to the man's car there were two girls in the backseat. Asked him could you tell me what - _- • • • • - •. - • .:, - — Favor! Reviewed By/Unit Ournmandon - . r ! m p, No.: 0 7. 7ypise: R 0 Gods: Nam En . ay, QYee Q No D CHF ❑ Ham ❑ Rob ,► 0 Cod 0 It) ❑ Lab Rae Team 0 sex 0 Rptr 0 st 1 DIG ❑ Burp Q p.Cowl heft 0 Prop ❑ CAU ❑ P&P D Auto (l m OAO 0 CO CD Q HumSon [Q 7ype ( PM 1322 -93R 09/66/1995 15:12 20 ST PAUL POLICE DEPT PAGE 06 J . CONTINUE NARRATIVE MERE too much attention to the car it was too dark. Jeffrey stated the man, and Robert Dunkel, and the police officer were all talking in the paYking lot walked past them, and said goodbye, and left. I got a call from Bob, referring to Robert Dunkel; either on the 3- 7-95 or 3 -8 -95 he told me I would probably be getting a phone call from the police that z was a witness. He never mentioned anything about the typed letter. Jeffrey stated I went down there on 3 -16- 95, referring to the liquor store; and read the letter. Asked him did you dictate the letter? He stated no it was already typed out. He then stated I read the letter, and I thought the letter was alright. I showed him the typed statement, and pointed out to him the Notary Publics Stamp on the statement has it stamped 15 -95. Asked him is this date right? He stated yes I remember Ii;lidn't go on 3 -16 -95 I went on 3 -14 -95 to the store, because the next day I took the letter to the Notary Public, and that would have been on 3- 15 -95. Asked him how long have you known Bob? He stated about six years I lived across the street from the store in the apts. Asked him did anyone give you the idea about this typed statement? He stated no one put me up to this I'm doing this voluntarily. Asked him Jeffrey everything you are telling me today is the truth? He stated yes. At this time the interview was terminated. 09/06/1995 15:12 20 ST PAUL POLICE DEPT PAGE 07 F r +, r u _ LJ � J > i% m 4 Y iG 1 L5 I • 1 t 1 8 N J N �a _. ._ .,, . —2I a s 3 °a s Y wE U '►1[ LL - 3 y, 3 V . w Y E E3 oo a o e t ! to 4 os A > • 1 1 1 , Y Y "NMI - N 0 U O "' ■ !S 6 \ at > -. W 3 E l > Q P k 2 o e ?� ]t . � D f4 Q o a `Y a 1,1 a `o g o. • °` d� ` V —_ V � � 4t ` -a a ( \� O� i R W V • u ° , «� • y� e i = a J o, x i to �''' Z O. rz ■ s 4 g p - y E m 1� Y S 1 4;), i 1 t V Y $•-. 1 1 1 - Y W p a • Y . .F 7 - . . - - i q i A s a 4 O r L + E k W - � � W �—� I � ■ ! a. e 40 E 0. i 1 09/06/1995 15:12 20 ST PAUL POLICE DEPT PAGE 08 P'°' " ST. PAUL POLICE DEPARTMENT 'SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 1 CONTINUATION OF: ❑ ORIGINAL REPORT 0 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Data & Time of Report Otteneefinddant: Time of Arrest 6 -14 -95 1110 Info to License Ins• -ctor EMBED fit'l If"- a;t Arrest Number Last Nam. First Middle ss :. - . Qe ex Raab Assist City Attar P. Miller reviewed the complaint, and declined to prosecute, because of insufficient evidence. Stating that he could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Michael Lentach 18 you did not buy beer with a false id at the East Liquor Store. The proprietor of the store claims that one of his employees carded Lentsch before selling him the beer this is when Lentsch allegedly produced the false id that was never found. 0 z 1 1 V NO VN- Assisting Officer. _ kmp. No. Report . No.: -- r eg ©a Report Reviewed DyNUntt Commander. Emp. Noy O.T. 7yp[st 1 Cod.: f None Entry: Mae No 0 CHF 0 Horn ID Rob 0 Juv 0 Coord 0 ID 0 Lab ❑ Rao 0 Team 0 Sex 1] Aptr 0 Other 0 D'C Q Burg 0 Thai 0 Prop I] CAU 0 F &F ❑ Auto ❑ DAO 0 CO 0 HumSery PM 822 -92R OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Timothy E. Marx, Ciry Attorney - t v (^ r.„ " SAINT " _ l' A U L CITY OF SAINT PAUL _ - Civil Division 4 Norm Coleman, Mayor C' C ^' t5 t 71-$i l " • r ' , _ ay r l 400 City Hall Telephone: 612 266 -8710 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Facsimile: 612 298 -5619 AAAA Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 September 12, 1995 Judge Rita McConnell Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 -2138 Dear Judge McConnell: Enclosed please find the City of St. Paul's final argument in the form of a written memoranda, submitted at the request of the court and pursuant to Minnesota Rules §1400.7800 (H). I apologize for the length of the proceeding on September 7, 1995, and thank you for your patient and careful attention to this matter. Sincerely, Theodore D. Leon Asst. City Attorney STATE OF MINNESOTA ": OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 5 ' ' ` �= 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700 J ,7; 100 Washington Avenue South ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -2138 July 19, 1995 Theodore Leon Joseph Dudley Assistant City Attorney Dudley & Smith Office of the City Attorney Attorneys at Law Civil Division, 400 City Hall 2602 American National Bank Bldg. 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55101 St. Paul, MN 55102 RE: East Side Liquor Store; OAH Docket No. 2- 2101 - 9808 -6 Dear Counsel: Pursuant to an agreement amongst counsel, the hearing in the above- captioned matter currently scheduled to be held on July 31, 1995, will be held on September 7, 1995, commencing at 9:30 a.m. in Room 1503 of the City Hall Annex, 25 West Fourth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102. If there are any questions about this rescheduling, please contact me at the number indicated below. Yours very truly, D e BRUCE D. CAMPBELL Administrative Law Judge Telephone: 612/341 -7602 BDC:Ir cc: Nanci Thomas, Docket Clerk Providing Impartial Hearings for Government and Citizens An Equal Opportunity Employer Administrative Law Section & Administrative Services (612) 341 -7600 • TDD No. (612) 341 -7346 • Fax No. (612) 349 -2665 • STATE OF MINNESOTA "= OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS k.` � `t > 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700 100 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -2138 c f July 11, 1995 Theodore Leon Joseph Dudley Assistant City Attorney Dudley & Smith Office of the City Attorney Attorneys at Law Civil Division, 400 City Hall 2602 American National Bank Bldg. 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55101 St. Paul, MN 55102 RE: East Side Liquor Store; OAH Docket No. 2- 2101 - 9808 -6 Dear Counsel: Pursuant to an agreement amongst counsel, the hearing in the above - captioned matter currently scheduled to be held on July 14, 1995, will be held on July 31, 1995, commencing at 9:30 a.m. in Room 41 of the St. Paul City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota. Yours very truly, 6 ..A. . 4 . 4 . ex _e..c.t C BRUCE D. CAMPBELL Administrative Law Judge Telephone: 612 /341 -7602 BDC:Ir cc: Nanci Thomas, Docket Clerk Providing Impartial Hearings for Government and Citizens An Equal Opportunity Employer Administrative Law Section & Administrative Services (612) 341 -7600 • TDD No. (612) 341 -7346 • Fax No. (612) 349 -2665 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Timothy E. Mar; City Auorney SAINT P A U L CITY OF SAINT PAUL Civil Division ti004, Norm Coleman, Mayor - 400 City Hall Telephone 612 2668710 15 West Kellogg Blvd Facsimile: 612 298-5619 AAAA 95 JUL 2 1 '_' °' Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 rw� July 19, 1995 Ic!i NOTICE OF R HEARING Joseph J. Dudley, Jr. Dudley and Smith Attorneys and Counselors at Law American National Bank Building, Suite 2602 101 East 5th Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 RE: All licenses held by Jestpama, Inc. dba East Side Liquor Store for premises located at 1362 Maryland Avenue East, St. Paul OAH Docket Number: 2- 2101 - 9808 -6 Our File Number: G95 -0144 Dear Mr. Dudley: Please take notice that the administrative hearing for the above referenced matter which was rescheduled to July 31, 1995, has now been rescheduled to the following: Date: Thursday September 7, 1995 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: Room 1503 City Hall Annex 25 W. 4th Street Saint Paul, MN. 55102 As before, the hearing will be presided over by Judge Bruce Campbell from the State of Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings, located at 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700, Minneapolis, MN. 55401. His telephone number is 341 -7602. Very truly yours, C- I\A- 441 "‘ — Theodore Leon Assistant City Attorney cc: Nancy Anderson, Assistant Council Secretary Robert Kessler, Director, LIEP Frank Staffenson, Deputy Director, LIEP Nancy Thomas, Office of Administrative Hearings, 100 Washington Square, Mpls, MN 55401 Tim Dornfeld, Community Organizer, District 2 Community Council, 2169 Stillwater Ave., St. Paul, MN 55119 e J OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Timothy E. Mara City Attorney 5 ' h T CITY OF SAINT PAUL r Civil Division 11 Norm Coleman, Mayor JUN 16 t 10b Hall ") Telephone 612 2668710 0101014f 15 ;Vest Kellogg Blvd Facsimile: 612 298 -5619 A A A A j Saint P Minnesota 55102 �i f ;41 June 15, 1995 NOTICE OF HEARING Robert W. Dunkel Jestpama, Inc. dba East Side Liquor Store 1362 Maryland Avenue East Saint Paul, Minnesota 55106 RE: All licenses held by Jestpama, Inc. dba East Side Liquor Store for premises located at 1362 Maryland Avenue East, St. Paul Our File Number: G95 -0144 Dear Mr. Dunkel: Please take notice that a hearing will be held at the following time, date and place concerning all licenses for the premises stated above: Date: Friday July 14, 1995 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: Room 41 St. Paul City Hall 15 W. Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN. 55102 The hearing will be presided over by an Administrative Law Judge from the State of Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings: Name: Bruce Campbell Office of Administrative Hearings 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN. 55401 Telephone: 341 -7602 The Council of the City of Saint Paul has the authority to provide for hearings concerning licensed premises and for adverse action against such licenses, under Chapter 310, including sections 310.05 and 310.06, of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. In the case of licenses for intoxicating and non - intoxicating liquor, authority is also conveyed by Minnesota Statutes section 340A.415. Adverse action may include revocation, suspension, fines and other penalties or conditions. Evidence will be presented to the judge which may lead to adverse action against all the licenses you hold at the above premises as follows: ' , That on March 3, 1995, at or about 9:30 p.m., a minor purchased a 24 -pack and 2 12 -packs of beer on the licensed premises without being asked for identification as to age. The minor stated that he had purchased alcohol before at that establishment and was not carded. The sale to the minor was a violation of Section 409.08 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, as well as of state law, Minn. Stat. § 340A.503 (1994)." You have the right to be represented by an attorney before and during the hearing or you can represent yourself. You may also have a person of your choice represent you, to the extent not prohibited as unauthorized practice of law. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes sections 14.57 to 14.62 and such parts of the procedures under section 310.05 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code as may be applicable. At the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge will have all parties identify themselves for the record. The City will then present its witnesses and evidence, each of whom the licensee or attorney may cross - examine. The licensee may then offer in rebuttal any witnesses or evidence it may wish to present, each of whom the City's attorney may cross - examine. The Administrative Law Judge may in addition hear relevant and material testimony from persons not presented as witnesses by either party who have a substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding; for example, the owners or occupants of property located in close proximity to the licensed premises may have substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Concluding arguments may be made by the parties. Following the hearing, the Judge will prepare Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a specific recommendation for action to be taken by the City Council. You should bring to the hearing all documents, records and witnesses you will or may need to support your position. Subpoenas may be available to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents in conformity with Minnesota Rules, part 1400.7000. If you think that this matter can be resolved or settled without a formal hearing, please contact or have your attorney contact the undersigned. If a stipulation or agreement can be reached as to Notice of Hearing - Page 2 ■ the facts, that stipulation will be presented to the Administrative Law Judge for incorporation into his or her recommendation for Council action. If you fail to appear at the hearing, your ability to challenge the allegations will be forfeited and the allegations against you which have been stated earlier in this notice may be taken as true. If non - public data is received into evidence at the hearing, it may become public unless objection is made and relief requested under Minnesota Statutes, Section 14.60, subdivision 2. Very truly yours, Theodore Leon Assistant City Attorney cc: Nancy Anderson, Assistant Council Secretary Robert Kessler, Director, LIEP Frank Staffenson, Deputy Director, LIEP Nancy Thomas, Office of Administrative Hearings, 100 Washington Square, Mpls, MN 55401 Tim Dornfeld, Community Organizer, District 2 Community Council, 2169 Stillwater Ave., St. Paul, MN 55119 Officer William Paatalo, Police Dept. Notice of Hearing - Page 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA R. " ;� , OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS JLI HEARING SUBPOENA TO: Jeffrey Alan Grell 557 East Maryland Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to lay aside all your business and excuses and to appear before Administrative Law Judge Rita McConnell of the Office of Administrative Hearings of the State of Minnesota, at the City Hall Annex, Room 1503, 25 W. 4th Street, in the city of St. Paul, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, on the 7th day of September, 1995, at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon, to appear as a witness in the Matter of East Side Liquor Store v. City of St. Paul; OAH Docket No. 80- 2101- 9808 -6. Pursuant to the authority granted at Minn. Stat. § 14.51, Witness, the Honorable Kevin E. Johnson, Chief Administrative Law Judge, at Minneapolis, Minnesota this 6th day of September, 1995 j t^ y� KEVIN E. JOHNSON Chief Administrative Law Judge 44 d" 4,Y3 612/341 -7600 Subpoena requested by Joseph J. Dudley, Jr. Telephone: (612) 291 -1717 r . 4r. STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS Y HEARING SUBPOENA TO: Michael P. Butler 2190 Waukon Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55119 GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to lay aside all your business and excuses and to appear before Administrative Law Judge Rita McConnell of the Office of Administrative Hearings of the State of Minnesota, at the City Hall Annex, Room 1503, 25 W. 4th Street, in the city of St. Paul, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, on the 7th day of September, 1995, at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon, to appear as a witness in the Matter of East Side Liquor Store v. City of St. Paul; OAH Docket No. 80- 2101 - 9808 -6. Pursuant to the authority granted at Minn. Stat. § 14.51, Witness, the Honorable Kevin E. Johnson, Chief Administrative Law Judge, at Minneapolis, Minnesota this 6th day of September, 1995 E KEVIN E. JOHNSON Chief Administrative Law Judge y 612/341 -7600 Subpoena requested by Joseph J. Dudley, Jr. Telephone: (612) 291 -1717 (.9.•05 95 14:28 $612 223 5055 DUDLEY & SMITH [A111:12 w12 DUDLEY AND SMITH A Gee OPf SSIONAL A5$OCIAYIjN JOSE■ J- DUDLEY. A-TORNEYS AND COUNSE LGRS AT _AW S,OREvEVY OFF:rE DAVID W. LARSO'N SUIT 2602 SU - E I ARUEN PLAZA PHILI? C. WARNER 3585 NORTH LEXINGTON AvENUE STEVEN C. OPHEIM AMERICAN BANK 9UILD,NG ARDEN - I -L5. M NNE5 Ti. .5=_ SA M. AMUNp$ON 101 EAST FIFTH STREET RO$ERTJ OTTE KATHERWE A. GROWN ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA SS101 -1896 SJRNSvILLE c TELEPHONE 612 -291 1717 S ITE 301 MI"JwAY NAT:C , NAL LiANK 61.I'_C;ING RETIRES 1 ELECOPIER 6:2 JOSEPH DUbLEY I a3U0 ;'COL SET COJrT' G. VJ:LLIAM $MI� SURN°.vILLE, M'NNESOTA 552 R. E. L OW September 5, 1995 z WOODeuRY OFFICE 300E PARKWO 'LACE 7 G50 CURRE-L ROJLEvARJ WO:)DR.'..R" N'Ir.IV 5E125 FAX ONLY Judge Rita McConnell Office of Administrative Hearings Attn: Louise 100 Washington Square Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 -2138 Re: In the Matter of East Side Liquor Store v. City of St. Paul; OAH Docket No.: 80- 2101- 9808 -6 Dear Judge McConnell: Please be advised that our office requests two subpoenas for witnesses for a hearing scheduled for Thursday, September 7, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. The hearing is to be held at Room 1503, City Hall Annex, 25 W. 4th Street, St. Paul, MN 55102, The witnesses names and addresses are as follows: Jeffrey Alan Grell Michael P. Butler 557 East Maryland Avenue 2190 Waukon Avenue St. Paul, MN 55101 St. Paul, MN 55119 If possible, we would like to have someone from our office pick up the subpoenas this afternoon, Please contact Katherine Brown at my office, if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DUDLEY & SMITH, P. A_ � D Joseph . Dudley, Jr, kab 09 14:27 $612 223 5055 DUDLEY & SMITH 19001. 002 DUDLEY AND SivIXTII: 4,R C'FC$'. pC CflCrnYr(`rl F- '•T' JGSEC h� J f;LIGLL 'r' J1= ` r I / l \ A,oRwEv hwD COUr� = .ELORS .4 LAW ^ EvIEVrrr \ , OnvlD r: nrvyory ' r '� P F;IUP C wp. lv= 1a SL Tc c aUIrE 17e "ADEN G•; - a[n 1 STEVEN OP EIir :.YE K1�'hrJ fV i� - i5 /35 NORTH 1_LAINGTON AvirKuC TONAL Br. " JK BU '__. ^.1 [, ARflr ,. ul1 l5 MIN Ncf:,Q; °6 ;nu; iAEL C LISA M nv•J I'JCSQ'+ 1 0 , EA r.FTW :=TR'_E T �- T.nrHnE! pLE, 1T PAUL. M'r;r:E5OTA ,IL) • 1ELECC PI[:Z 4:7,;,12 OLDL; , FAX ` �, nu! 1 FAX CO COVER )IL le 5I 1k:)✓I ts TO: JU1)6�: C _O O NN r1 -- DATE 91SIG OFF I e. - A E1 t i I\i' 1 sr)2A7 - LJ OUR. FILE NO 11 s Mt- p 5 JAK) – NO PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE 2 -- FROM: ,)0 S el l�� f 61_1 . J Q-- FAX # SENT FROM: 612/223 -5055 • RE: EAST C( E 0000 _ V. ST. Pf 11 I_ FAX SENT TO• 3 L-1-1 =. -co(N ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW BY MAIL: YES — NO IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL TIDE PAGES INDICATED ABOVE, PLEASE CALL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE THANK. YOU MESSAGE PLOb E LEI MF___1 QW ( - Vv • tj PI (,P The 6P0c�/1 s ThAA HOJ -- - la_m_tv) Vi THE EN FORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIUDAL OR h'4 1 NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. < TRANSACTION REPORT > 09- 05- 1995(TUE) 14:29 r'; ? .. i / C RE=CE= I %./EE 7 NO. DATE TIME DESTINATION STATION PG. DURATION MODE RESULT 9379 9 -05 14:28 612 223 5055 2 0 °01'03" NORM.E OK 2 0 °01'03" ' "� ' - STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 100 Washington _� ;s,`,o� -.•,% g Square, Suite 1700 - 100 Washington Avenue South ��-' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -2138 August 28, 1995 Peter P. Pangborn Office of the City Attorney 400 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: In Re the Licenses of Jestpama, Inc., d/b /a East Side Liquor Store; OAH Docket No. 80- 2101- 9808 -6. Dear Mr. Pangborn: Per your letter of August 25, 1995, enclosed find the three subpoenas you requested. Sincerely, LOUISE COOPER Legal Secretary Telephone: 612/349 -2682 LC:1c enclosure Providing Impartial Hearings for Government and Citizens An Equal Opportunity Employer Administrative Law Section & Administrative Services (612) 341 -7600 • TDD No. (612) 341 -7346 • Fax No. (612) 349 -2665 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Timothy E. Mara City Attorney SAINT A U 1_ CITY OF SAINT PAUL =. ' ' Civil Division 4 Norm Coleman, Mayor F , l': 400 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd Telephone 612 266-8710 � � n Facsimile: 612 298-5619 AAA* Saint Paul Minnesota 55102 ,,ut -iir rJ 1;id HEA August 25, 1995 "I'�t / VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL Judge Rita McConnell Office of Administrative Hearings 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -2138 RE: In re The Licenses of Jestpama, INC. dba East Side Liquor Store OAH Docket No.: 80- 2101 - 9808 -6 n License ID No. 18084 `. Our File Number: G95 -0144 _ Dear Judge McConnell: -ry The purpose of this letter is to request subpoenas pursuant to Minnesota Rules,; park 1400.7000 relating to the above - mentioned contested case hearing that is scheduledlto be heard before you on Thursday, September 7, 1995. This request is made of behalf of Mr. Theodore Leon, the attorney in our office assigned to this matter. The City of St. Paul License Division will be calling these witnesses to testify regarding the incident which serves as a basis for the action against the licenses of Jestpama, INC. dba East Side Liquor Store. In order to ensure these individuals will be in attendance to testify, the City of St. Paul requests from the State Office of Administrative Hearings subpoenas for the following individuals: 1.) Officer William J. Paatalo 2.) David Miller St. Paul Police Department 322 West Morton Street 100 E. 11th Street St. Paul, MN 55107 St. Paul, MN 55101 3.) Michael J. Lentsch 2305 Grange Oakdale, MN 55128 If you need additional information or have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at 266 -8776. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sinc: ely, Peter P. Pangbor s Paralegal STATE OF MINNESOTA , : r OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS HEARING SUBPOENA TO: David Miller 322 West Morton Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to lay aside all your business and excuses and to appear before Administrative Law Judge Rita McConnell of the Office of Administrative Hearings of the State of Minnesota, at the City Hall Annex, Room 1503, 25 West 4th Street, in the city of St. Paul, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, on the 7th day of September, 1995, at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon, to appear as a witness in re the Licenses of Jestpama, Inc., d/b /a East Side Liquor Store; OAH Docket No.80- 2101 - 9808 -6. Pursuant to the authority granted at Minn. Stat. § 14.51, Witness, the Honorable Kevin E. Johnson, Chief Administrative Law Judge, at Minneapolis, Minnesota this 28th day of August, 1995 -isri t .i► KE E. JO e`+ ON " • Chief Admini ; . tive Law Judge 612/341 -7600 Subpoena requested by Peter Pangbom Telephone: (612) 266 -8710 STATE OF MINNESOTA r: 11! ,;,, :,; : OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS HEARING SUBPOENA TO: Officer William J. Paatalo St. Paul Police Department 100 E. 11th Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to lay aside all your business and excuses and to appear before Administrative Law Judge Rita McConnell of the Office of Administrative Hearings of the State of Minnesota, at the City Hall Annex, Room 1503, 25 West 4th Street, in the city of St. Paul, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, on the 7th day of September, 1995, at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon, to appear as a witness in re the Licenses of Jestpama, Inc., d/b /a East Side Liquor Store; OAH Docket No.80- 2101- 9808 -6. Pursuant to the authority granted at Minn. Stat. § 14.51, Witness, the Honorable Kevin E. Johnson, Chief Administrative Law Judge, at Minneapolis, Minnesota this 28th day of August, 1995 KEVIN E. JO 14 ON Chief Administrative Law Judge 612/341 -7600 Subpoena requested by Peter Pangborn Telephone: (612) 266 -8710 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS HEARING SUBPOENA (7 Z f TO: Michael J. Lentsch 2305 Grange Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to lay aside all your business and excuses and to appear before Administrative Law Judge Rita McConnell of the Office of Administrative Hearings of the State of Minnesota, at the City Hall Annex, Room 1503, 25 West 4th Street, in the city of St. Paul, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, on the 7th day of September, 1995, at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon, to appear as a witness in re the Licenses of Jestpama, Inc., d/b /a East Side Liquor Store; OAH Docket No.80- 2101 - 9808 -6. Pursuant to the authority granted at Minn. Stat. § 14.51, Witness, the Honorable Kevin E. Johnson, Chief Administrative Law Judge, at Minneapolis, Minnesota this 28th day of August, 1995 KEVIN E. JOHNS Chief Administrative Law Judge 612/341 -7600 Subpoena requested by Peter Pangbom Telephone: (612) 266 -8710 '0'd TH101 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 'Timothy E. Marx, City Attorney sntni1 0 h u L CITY OF SAINT PAUL CMl Diwsion A Nom Coleman, Mayor 400 City Hall Telephone: 612 ?6ti 8710 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Facsimile: 612 298.5619 1 14001111, Saint Pau{ Minnesota 55702 August 25, 1995 VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL Judge Rita McConnell r� z — Office of Administrative Hearings 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -2138 RE: In re The Licenses of Jestpama, INC. dba East Side Liquor Store OAH Docket No.: 80- 2101 - 9808 -6 License Ill No. 18084 Our File Number: G95 -0144 Dear Judge McConnell: The purpose of this letter is to request subpoenas pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1400.7000 relating to the above- mentioned contested case hearing that is scheduled to be heard before you on Thursday, September 7, 1995. This request is made of behalf of Mr. Theodore Leon, the attorney in our office assigned to this matter. The City of St. Paul License Division will be calling these witnesses to testify regarding the incident which serves as a basis for the action against the licenses of Jestpama, INC. dba East Side Liquor Store. In order to ensure these individuals will be in attendance to testify, the City of St. Paul requests from the State Office of Administrative Hearings subpoenas for the following individuals: 1.) Officer William J. Paatalo 2.) David Miller St. Paul Police Department 322 West Morton Street 1(X) F. 11th Street St. Paul, MN 55107 St. Paul, MN 55101 3.) Michael J. Lentsch 2305 Grange Oakdale, MN 55128 If you need additional information or have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at 266 -8776. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sine= ely, , .I 0�'�+�7'' / , ____,,. jr/ Peter P. Pangborp, vim~ ` -St* � , Paralegal 'fv , J rr =l_t r i � 01 3:=i 133Li '=,.!.3h1J0119 ;!..1I Hci.jj T : T SC_,T ELI ki < TRANSACTION REPORT > 08- 25- 1995(FRI) 12:24 F2ECE I \JE ] NO. DATE TIME DESTINATION STATION PG. DURATION MODE RESULT 9305 8 -25 12:23 612 298 5619 2 0 °00'58" NORM.E OK 2 0 °00'58" OFFICE OF THE Cl'1'Y ATTORNEY Timothy E. Marx, City At coney sefW7 PAUL CITY OF SAINT PAUL Civil Division Norm Coleman, Mayor 400 City Hall Telephone: 612 2664710 IS West Kellogg Blvd.. Facsimile: 612 295 -5619 Allah Saint Pnu{ Minnesota SS102 FAX TRANSMISSION DATE: August 25, 1995 TO: Judge Rita McConnell FAX No.: 349-2665 Office of Administrative Hearings NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover page): 2 FROM: Peter Pangborn FAX No.: 298 -5619 Paralegal St. Paul City Attorney's Office 400 City Hall it you do not receive all paces of this transmission, please contact: Peter Pangborn Telephone No. 266-8776 d t_. 01 3=? 1 ddc .3 ldC11H :'.l i J HOdd LT : ,T T S66 T - -`_ii Ill STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700 • 100 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -2138 June 29, 1995 C Peter P. Pangborn, Paralegal Office of the City Attorney 400 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: Licenses of Jestpama, Inc., d/b /a East Side Liquor Store OAH Docket No. 2- 2101 - 9808 -3 Your File No. G95 -0144 Dear Mr. Pangborn: As requested in your letter of June 27, 1995, enclosed are subpoenas requiring the attendance of certain witnesses at the hearing in the above - referenced matter on July 14. Yours very truly, - BRUCE D. CAMPBELL /t Administrative Law Judge Telephone: 612/341 -7602 sh Enc. Providing Impartial Hearings for Government and Citizens An Equal Opportunity Employer Administrative Law Section & Administrative Services (612) 341 -7600 • TDD No. (612) 341 -7346 • Fax No. (612) 349 -2665 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ' ` HEARING SUBPOENA TO: Officer William J. Paatalo, St. Paul Police Department, 100 E. 11th Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to lay aside all your business and excuses and to appear before Bruce D. Campbell, Administrative Law Judge, of the Office of Administrative Hearings of the State of Minnesota, at St. Paul City Hall, Room 41, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, in the City of St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota, on Friday the 14th day of July, 1995 at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon, to appear as a witness in the matter of All Licenses Held by Jestpama. Inc...d/b /a East Side Liquor Store for the Premises Located at 1362 Maryland Avenue East. St. Paul. Minnesota. YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to bring and have with you, to be used as evidence in the hearing, if required, the following: Pursuant to the authority granted at Minn. Stat. § 14.51, Witness, the Honorable Kevin E. Johnson, Chief Administrative Law Judge, at Minneapolis, Minnesota this 29 of June, 1995. 4y. KEVIN E. JO T SON ( z---N Chief Administrative Law Judge 612/341 -7600 Subpoena requested by: Theodore Leon, Assistant City Attorney, Telephone: 612/266 -8710 STATE OF MINNESOTA p . " OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS .. HEARING SUBPOENA TO: David Miller, 322 West Morton Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to lay aside all your business and excuses and to appear before Bruce D. Campbell, Administrative Law Judge, of the Office of Administrative Hearings of the State of Minnesota, at St. Paul City Hall, Room 41, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, in the City of St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota, on Friday the 14th day of July, 1995 at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon, to appear as a witness in the matter of All Licenses Held by Jestpama. Inc.. d/b /a East Side Liquor Store for the Premises Located at 1362 Maryland Avenue East. St. Paul. Minnesota. YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to bring and have with you, to be used as evidence in the hearing, if required, the following: Pursuant to the authority granted at Minn. Stat. § 14.51, Witness, the Honorable Kevin E. Johnson, Chief Administrative Law Judge, at Minneapolis, Minnesota this 2= of June, 1995. C-/-4 KEVIN E. JO w SON Chief Administrative Law Judge 612/341 -7600 Subpoena requested by: Theodore Leon, Assistant City Attorney, Telephone: 612/266 -8710 4.! :.''''''' STATE OF MINNESOTA • ; `i. _ : , ' : = OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS y- ` ' NEARING SUBPOENA TO: Michael J. Lentsch, 2305 Grange, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to lay aside all your business and excuses and to appear before Bruce D. Campbell, Administrative Law Judge, of the Office of Administrative Hearings of the State of Minnesota, at St. Paul City Hall, Room 41, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, in the City of St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota, on Friday the 14th day of July, 1995 at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon, to appear as a witness in the matter of All Licenses Held by Jestpama. Inc.. d/b /a East Side Liquor Store for the Premises Located at 1362 Maryland Avenue East, St. Paul. Minnesota. YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to bring and have with you, to be used as evidence in the hearing, if required, the following: Pursuant to the authority granted at Minn. Stat. § 14.51, Witness, the Honorable Kevin E. Johnson, Chief Administrative Law Judge, at Minneapolis, Minnesota this 29 1 of June, 1995. s--/A ...e.....0 i - 4 ' / 7,— KEVIN E. JOH ; g. ON Chief Administrative Law Judge 612/341 -7600 Subpoena requested by: Theodore Leon, Assistant City Attorney, Telephone: 612/266 -8710 — - - - }` O�CE OF THE C:rry FAINT CITY OF SAINT PAUL 0 Hall Di MOM L Mayo 4 r 400 City Hall Telephone 612 266-3710 1 S West Kellogg Blvd Telephone: 012 298-5619 Lite Saint Pain Minnesota 55102 June 27, 1995 <` VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL Judge Bruce Campbell Office of Administrative Hearings 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -2138 RE: In re The Licenses of Jestpama, INC. dba East Side Liquor Store License ID No. 18084 Our File Number: G95 -0144 Dear Judge Campbell: The purpose of this letter is to request subpoenas pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1400.7000 relating to the above - mentioned contested case hearing that is scheduled to be heard before you on Friday, July 14, 1995. This request is made of behalf of Mr. Theodore Leon, the attorney in our office assigned to this matter. The City of St. Paul License Division will be calling these witnesses to testify regarding the incident which serves as a basis for the action against the licenses of Jestpama, INC. dba East Side Liquor Store. In order to ensure these individuals will be in attendance to testify, the City of St. Paul requests from the State Office of Administrative Hearings subpoenas for the following individuals: 1.) Officer William J. Paatalo 2.) David Miller St. Paul Police Department 322 West Morton Street 100 E. 11th Street. St. Paul, MN 55107 St. Paul, MN 55101. 3.) Michael J. Lentsch 2305 Grange Oakdale, MN 55128 If you need additional information or have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact nee at 266 -8776. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sinceply, :.• ...� Peter P. Pangbony Paralegal i) ' d ; 9' ?::7r.t- 01 "' 1 330 = ;:!..3J:do11H LIAD ; ..IA woad : : t' T .; ,6 T - -NI Il OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Timothy E. Mom; City Attorney rami 'PAUL CFUY OF SAINT PAUL ctvti Division Norm Colauan, Mayor 400 City Hall Telephone: 612 266 -8710 75 West Kellogg Irwd. Facsimile: 61' 7985419 teem Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 FAX TRANSMISSION • DATE: June 15, 1995 TO: Judge Bruce Campbell FAX No.: 349 -2665 Office of Administrative Hearings NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover page): 2 FROM: Peter Pangborn FAX No.: 298 -5619 Paralegal St. Paul City Attorney's Office 400 City Hall 1! you do not receive all pages of this transmission, please contact: Peter Pangborn Telephone No. 286 -3776 11i',i +'ti_rt'`t Ol 3 =11 ±J0 =,.'.31 d011H.+ :'.11= 1iCd3 BS:tT SE -11111 < TRANSACTION REPORT > 06- 27- 1995(TUE) 15:06 RECEIVE ] -- NO. DATE TIME DESTINATION STATION PG. DURATION MODE RESULT 8537 6 -27 15:05 612 298 5619 2 0 °00'58" NORM.E OK 2 0 °00'58" OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Timothy E. Mar.K City Attorney SAINT r- ` �. I `: r P A U L CITY OF SAINT PAUL Civil Division 0144‘ Norm Coleman, Mayor 93 jtj.1 , D n 400 City Hall Telephone: 612 266 -8710 ` c ° ! 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Facsimile: 612 298 -5619 A A A A Saint Pau4 Minnesota 55102 J'i tt A r l r -�v June 27, 1995 ( 1. r ' VIA FAX AND U.S.'MAIL Judge Bruce Campbell Office of Administrative Hearings 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -2138 RE: In re The Licenses of Jestpama, INC. dba East Side Liquor Store License ID No. 18084 Our File Number: G95 -0144 Dear Judge Campbell: The purpose of this letter is to request subpoenas pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1400.7000 relating to the above - mentioned contested case hearing that is scheduled to be heard before you on Friday, July 14, 1995. This request is made of behalf of Mr. Theodore Leon, the attorney in our office assigned to this matter. The City of St. Paul License Division will be calling these witnesses to testify regarding the incident which serves as a basis for the action against the licenses of Jestpama, INC. dba East Side Liquor Store. In order to ensure these individuals will be in attendance to testify, the City of St. Paul requests from the State Office of Administrative Hearings subpoenas for the following individuals: 1.) Officer William J. Paatalo 2.) David Miller St. Paul Police Department 322 West Morton Street 100 E. 11th Street St. Paul, MN 55107 St. Paul, MN 55101 3.) Michael J. Lentsch 2305 Grange Oakdale, MN 55128 If you need additional information or have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at 266 -8776. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Since y, . , . , Peter P. Pangbor Paralegal '``-• STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS w :`o t..�a% ;. = 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700 ✓ 100 Washington Avenue South ,• �. .. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -2138 r' - August 19, 1995 Theodore Leon Assistant City Attorney Office of the City Attorney Civil Division, 400 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Joseph Dudley Dudley & Smith Attorneys at Law • 2602 American National Bank Bldg. St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: In the Matter of East Side Liquor Store v. City of St. Paul; OAH Docket No. 80- 2101- 9808 -6 Dear Counsel: Due to unforeseen circumstances the above - entitled matter has been assigned to Administrative Law Judge Rita McConnell. Please direct all further matters regarding this case to Judge McConnell at 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -2138; Telephone, 341 -7615. The matter remains scheduled for hearing on September 7, 1995. Yours very truly, N NCY Iql. THOMAS Docket Clerk Telephone: 612/341 -7615 NT Providing Impartial Hearings for Government and Citizens An Equal Opportunity Employer Administrative Law Section & Administrative Services (612) 341 -7600 • TDD No. (612) 341 -7346 • Fax No. (612) 349 -2665