Calla Cali's, LLC v. Ill. Liquor Control Comm'n
| Decision Date | 24 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | NO. 5-14-0358,5-14-0358 |
| Citation | 2015 IL App (5th) 140358 -U |
| Parties | CALLA CALI'S, LLC, d/b/a Callihan's/Cali's, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
Decision filed 03/24/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same.
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County.
¶ 1 Held: The administrative decision finding that the appellant violated section 6-16(a) of the Liquor Control Act is not against the manifest weight of the evidence and is affirmed; however, the evidence presented in support of the appellant's citation pursuant to section 6-28(b)(1) was not sufficient to support the administrative decision and is reversed.
¶ 2 The appellant, Calla Cali's, LLC, (appellant) is a holder of a license issued by the Illinois Liquor Control Commission (ILCC or Commission). Based on events that occurred on January 26, 2013, the appellant was cited for violating section 6-16(a) of the Liquor Control Act of 1934 (the Act) (235 ILCS 5/6-16(a) (West 2012)) for selling an alcoholic drink to a person under 21 years of age; the appellant was also cited forviolating section 6-28(b)(1) of the Act (235 ILCS 5/6-28(b)(1) (West 2012) ("Happy Hour" law)) for serving two or more alcoholic drinks to one person for consumption by that one person. A hearing was held before the ILCC, and the appellant was found guilty of both citations. The ILCC issued an order imposing a $500 fine and 21-day suspension of liquor sales for violating section 6-16(a) and a $500 fine for violating section 6-28(b)(1). The appellant filed a petition for rehearing with the ILCC, which was denied. The appellant subsequently made an administrative appeal to the circuit court of Jackson County, which upheld the ILCC's decision. For the following reasons, we affirm the Commission's determination regarding the appellant's violation of section 6-16(a) of the Act, but reverse the Commission's citation pursuant to section 6-28(b)(1) of the Act.
¶ 3 On January 26, 2013, the appellant, along with multiple other Carbondale establishments, was participating in an event known as the Polar Bear festival. That day, an ILCC agent, along with two undercover participants employed by the ILCC, visited the establishment to conduct compliance checks. The events that occurred during this check resulted in the appellant's citation pursuant to section 6-16(a) of the Act. Later in the day, another ILCC officer entered the premises to conduct compliance checks with the "Happy Hour" laws. The observations of the officer during this check resulted in the citation pursuant to section 6-28(b)(1) of the Act.
¶ 4 At an April 11, 2013, hearing, evidence regarding both citations was presented to the commissioners. Evidence adduced from various witness testimony indicates that the building that houses the establishment is separated into two areas, one of which is referred to as Cali's, and the other is referred to as Callahan's. Each has a separateexterior entrance, and a door connects the areas on the inside. Cali's has two wet bars, while Callahan's has one. Upon entering Cali's front door, a bar is directly on the right-hand side. There are four bartender stations within that bar. Moving towards the rear of Cali's, there is another bar on the left-hand side, which also has four bartender stations.
¶ 5 The following evidence was adduced regarding the underage-sale violation. The State produced three witnesses regarding this charge: ILCC underage participants Jordan Pratt and Reymund Ervy, 19-year-old African-American students at Southern Illinois University, and ILCC Agent Travis Ruffino. Pratt and Ervy both testified that on January 26, 2013, they paid a cover charge to enter Cali's after an employee checked their identification and stamped their hands to indicate that they were underage; they then proceeded to the far end of the bar located on the right-hand side. They each noted that the lighting was dim inside the establishment.
¶ 6 Pratt testified that he sat down on a bar stool, and Ervy stood behind him. He estimated that 20 to 25 people were in the bar area at the time, while Ervy noted it was "crowded." Both Pratt and Ervy testified that Pratt ordered a Bud Light, which was served to him by a bartender who had red highlights in her hair and was clothed in a black North Face jacket and black yoga pants. Pratt testified that the bartender did not ask to see his hand stamp, and that he paid $2.50 for the beer and received change. Ervy stated that he did not remember the price of the beer, but noted that Pratt received change. Pratt and Ervy stated that they waited for the bartender to turn around before exiting the establishment, and then went back to Ruffino's car and informed him of the successful purchase of alcohol. Pratt stated that Ruffino then called for an assistant officer from theCarbondale police department. Officer Bales responded, and upon his arrival, Ruffino and Bales went into the establishment to identify the bartender matching the participants' description. Pratt testified that Ruffino then returned to the car and told them that he would bring out the bartender who was identified as the alleged perpetrator of the underage sale, and they were to indicate if she was the correct individual. Pratt testified that the individual who was brought outside, Hilary Hofstra, was the bartender who had served him the beer.
¶ 7 ILCC Agent Travis Ruffino testified that the interior was "very dark" when he and Officer Bales entered the establishment. They approached a female individual who they thought matched the description, but subsequently learned that this individual had been tending the rear bar, and not the front bar where the participants were allegedly served. Ruffino testified that he then gave the alleged seller's description to another employee, who pointed them to Hofstra. Ruffino testified that he advised Hofstra that she had sold alcohol to his underage participants, and that Hofstra responded that "she was on cold medication, that she had served six other persons prior to us-our confrontation, and that none of them were African-Americans." In order to allow Ervy and Pratt to identify Hofstra as the seller, Officer Bales placed Hofstra in the back seat of the squad car and drove her by Ruffino's vehicle, in which Pratt and Ervy were sitting. Ruffino testified that they positively identified Hofstra, and that they were "absolutely sure" that she was the bartender who sold to Pratt.
¶ 8 On cross-examination, Ruffino agreed that he did not witness anyone sell alcoholto Pratt, and he never saw Pratt in possession of alcohol. When asked about the compliance violation report that he wrote that day, he testified that he mistakenly wrote the wrong date of birth for Hofstra, and agreed that other information that he recorded about the sale was also mistaken. Specifically, the report stated that the underage participants bought two beers for $2, not one beer for $2.50 as Pratt had testified. Though Ruffino agreed that the price of beer that day was, in fact, $1 per beer, he nevertheless testified that the information he recorded in the report was "[his] mistake." He also agreed that his report indicated that evidence was destroyed during his investigation because the beer that Pratt had purchased was destroyed by one of the bartenders. In regards to the procedure of compliance checks, Ruffino stated that he did not enter the bar immediately after Pratt made a purchase because "typically we do not do that because we do not want to blow their cover." He also stated that he was "not aware" that the Polar Bear weekend is a thorn in the side of law enforcement, nor was he aware of a lot of police activity that day based on the Polar Bear events. However, when questioned by Chairman Schnorf, Ruffino stated that both his team and another team were conducting underage compliance checks that day; he was also aware of two other ILCC agents conducting happy hour checks. Additionally, he agreed that "this [ILCC activity] was a part of a preplanned effort to monitor this Polar Bear event" in coordination with the Carbondale police department.
¶ 9 Hilary Hofstra testified that she began her shift around 11 a.m. on January 26, 2013. She stated that eight bartenders were working that day, and that she was tending at the bar nearest the entrance, on the right-hand side of the establishment. She was in thefourth bartender station, which is the furthest station from the door. She agreed that she was wearing black pants and a black North Face jacket that day. Hofstra stated that she would describe the premises as brightly lit, as it was daytime and the sunlight was coming in through the door.
¶ 10 Hofstra testified that she was working for approximately one hour when she was approached by a Carbondale police officer and his partner regarding an underage patron. Hofstra noted that the establishment was not busy yet, with perhaps 30 to 40 patrons in what she noted is "a really big space." She stated that she had served six people before being questioned by the officers, two white males and a group of four white females, all of whom ordered mixed drinks. Hofstra testified that she asked the officers to describe the underage patrons she had allegedly served. She noted that she was then shown photocopies of the patrons' licenses, and "had never seen them in [her] life before." She told the officers that she did not serve anyone who fit the description that they provided to her. She agreed that due to...
To continue reading
Request your trial