You are on page 1of 9
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD In the Matter of License Number: 75391 Case Numbers: 13311, 13820, 12826, and 13269) Brookland Restaurant, Ine. va Cardinal’s Nest, Holder of Retailer's Class CT License at premises 3748 10" Street, NE. Washington, D.C. 20017 PESEECHsoseceecnssssenentsssstecnessssssceeeesssts | Order Number: 2009-105 BEFORE: Peter B. Feather, Chairperson Nick Alberti, Member Charles Brodsky, Member Donald Brooks, Member Herman Jones, Member ALSO PRESENT: Andrew Kline, Esquire, on behalf of Respondent Amy Schmidt and Juliane Demarco, Assistant Attorneys General District of Columbia Martha Jenkins, Acting General Counsel Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER On November 21, 2008, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (the Board) served a Notice to Show Cause on Brookland Restaurant, Inc., t/s Cardinal’s Nest (Respondent), holder of a Retailer’s Class CT license at premises 3748 10” Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20017, charging the Respondent with multiple violations. Those charges were as follows 1. Permitting the delivery of an alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age in violation of D.C. Official Code § 25-781(a)(2001), for which the Board may Lake the proposed action pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 25- :23(1}(2001). The date of this alleged violation is August 28, 2008, IL Selling an alcoholic beverage to a patron not for consumption only inside the licensed establishment in violation of D.C. Official Code § 25. 113(a)(2)(A)(2001), for which the Board may take the proposed action pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 25-823(1}(2001). The date of this alleged violation is March 28, 2008, I Permitting the sale of back up drinks in violation of D.C. Official Code § 25- 741(b(2001), for which the Board may take the proposed action pursuant fo D.C. Official Code § 25-823(1)(2001). The date of this alleged violation is August 28, 2008. IV. Failing to comply with the provisions of the Voluntary Agreement that the Respondent is a party to and was approved by the Board in violation of D.C Official Code § 25-446(2001), for which the Board may take the proposed actions pursuant to D.C. Official Code §§ 25-446(e) and 25-823(1)(2001). The dates of these alleged violations are March 28, 2008, May 17, 2008, and June 22, 2008, V. Failing to make the Voluntary Agreement available for review in violation of D.C. Official Code § 25-711(a)(2001), for which the Board may take the proposed action pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 25-823(1)(2001). The date of this alleged violation is March 28, 2008. Vi. Permitting music of such intensity that the noise was heard in a pren than the licensed establishment in violation of D.C. Official Code § 25 725(2001), for which the Board may take the proposed action pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 25-823(1)(2001). The dates of these alleged violations are May 17, 2008, and June 22, 2008 other ‘These matters came before the Board for a Show Cause Hearing on March 25, 2009, in accordance with D.C. Official Code § 25-801(2001). The Board, having considered the evidence, the testimony of witnesses, the arguments of counsel, and the documents comprising the Board’s official file, makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1, The Board issues a Notice to Show Cause, dated November 19, 2008, to the Respondent. (See Shaw Cause Case File Nos. 13311, 13820, 12826, and 13269). The Respondent holds a Retailer's Class CT License and is located at 3748 10” Street, N.E.. Washington, D.C, 20017. (See ABRA Licensing File No. 75391). 2. The Board held a Show Cause Hearing in this matter on March 25, 2009. The Notice to Show Cause, dated November 19, 2008, charges the Respondent with multiple violations enumerated above. (See Show Cause Case File Nos. 13311, 13820, 12826, and 13269) 3. At the beginning of the Hearing, Respondent admitted to certain violations. Based on these admissions, the Board will note facts pertaining thereto only to the extent they are part of the record for deciding the remaining charges and deciding what, if any, civil penalties are appropriate. Respondent admitted that: a. Charge I (above) ~ Delivery of alcohol to a person under 21. Transeript, 3/25/09 (hereinafter “Tr.”) at 8. b. Charge VI (above) ~ Music of such intensity that it could be heard in another premise, Tr. at 8. Charge IV (above) — Respondent concedes that at least one of the violations of the Voluntary Agreement could be proved and that is all that the Government needs, hence, Respondent admits Charge IV. Tr. at 8-9, 4. ABRA Investigator Vincent Parker (“Parker) was the Government's first witness. Parker testified about the charge of permitting the sale of back up drinks. Tr. at 15-24 On Thursday, August 28, 2008, Investigator Parker was directed by his supervisor to report to the Respondent's establishment pursuant to a complaint about underage drinking. Tr. at 16, Investigator Parker made contact with the ABC licensed manag duty and conducted a walk-through of the establishment. id. During the walk-through, he observed underage drinking “numerous times” and then proceeded to observe bartenders delivering drinks to patrons, mostly one drink per patron, but one patron was handed two beers. Tr. at 17. He stated that when he was walking around the establishment, he observed some patrons with two drinks in their hands, Tr, at 18. He further observed these patrons with two drinks in their hands drinking from both cups. Id. Investigator Parker also testified pursuant to questions from the Board that when he arrived, he did not notice any staff monitoring the crowd for drinking, Tr. at 22, Once he advised staff of the violations, he observed that they began walking around and taking drinks from people, although Investigator Parker continued to observe the violation. 2d. Investigator Parker also stated that before he advised staff of the violations, he was taki drinks away from patrons and the staff was just watching. Tr. at 23-24, 5. ABRA Investigator Regina Hollis (“Hollis”) was the Government's second witness. Investigator Hollis testified about the charge of selling an alcoholic beverage to «a patron not for consumption only inside the licensed establishment. Tr. at 25-61. On March 28, 2008, Investigator Hollis saw four patrons leaving the Respondent's establishment with aleoholic beverages. Tr. at 25-26. Investigator Hollis made contact with one of the patrons and he informed her that he got the cup from the Cardinal’s Nest and handed it to her, Tr. at 27. Investigator Hollis took possession of the cup that she observed this patron holding. Tr. at 26-27, see Government's Exhibit 2. Investigator Hollis further testified that she recognized this cup as the type she normally sees in Respondent's establishment. Tr. at 27. She observed that there was beer in the cup that she seized based on the patron’s statement and on her own observations of the liquid inside, Tr. at 27-28 (There was no challenge to the chain of custody or that beer as in the cup that Investigator Hollis seized). Investigator Hollis also took a picture of the cup. See Government's Exhibit 1 6. Investigator Hollis entered the Respondent's establishment subsequent to her observations of patrons exiting with alcoholic beverages. Tr. at 33, She made contact with Desmond Clayton (“Clayton”) who identified himself with his driver’s license and