Hausner, In re
| Citation | 293 A.2d 161,61 N.J. 70 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings against S. Edward HAUSNER, t/a Skyline Lounge. |
| Decision Date | 22 June 1972 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
James J. Shrager, Newark, for appellant S. Edward Hausner, t/a Skyline Lounge (Hannoch, Weisman, Stern & Besser, Newark, attorneys).
David S. Piltzer, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (George F. Kugler, Jr., Atty. Gen., attorney).
The Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control suspended the license of S. Edward Hausner, t/a Skyline Lounge, for possession of contraceptive devices and obscene literature in violation of Rules 9 and 17 of State Regulation 20. The Appellate Division affirmed (116 N.J.Super. 206, 281 A.2d 536 (1971)) and we granted certification (59 N.J. 526, 284 A.2d 351 (1971)).
Hausner operates a substantial restaurant with thirty employees at 789 Dowd Avenue, Elizabeth. His premises include rooms where food and liquor are served, a coffee shop, and a small office. The office, which has an entry door bearing a 'private' sign, contains a couch, safe, desk, filing cabinet and lavatory facilities. Hausner was separated from his wife and used his office as living quarters, keeping his clothes there. He testified that he always kept the entry door to his office locked and kept the keys in his pocket.
During the afternoon of August 27, 1969 an ABC agent, in the company of several law enforcement officers, entered Hausner's restaurant to investigate a report that there was stolen liquor on the premises. They found no stolen property and at the conclusion of their search of the remainder of the premises they asked to be taken to his office. He unlocked the entry door and they looked around. The ABC agent then directed Hausner to open the safe, filing cabinet and desk, all of which were locked, and he did so with his keys. In the filing cabinet the agent found three books which the ABC Director later determined to be not obscene. In the desk he found three catalogs which the Director later determined to be obscene within the meaning of Rule 17 of State Regulation 20 which prohibits a licensee from having in his possession on the licensed premises any 'obscene, indecent, filthy, lewd, lascivious or disgusting recording printing, writing, picture or other matter.' In the safe he found three male contraceptives along with a partially used tube of Ortho Vaginal Jelly and an Ortho diaphragm, which the Director later determined were possessed in violation of Rule 9 of State Regulation 20 which provides that no licensee shall possess 'any contraceptive or contraceptive device' on the licensed premises. See 116 N.J.Super. at 208, 281 A.2d 536.
Hausner testified that the male contraceptives had been given to him for his own use and that the jelly and diaphragm belonged to his wife. He testified further that he received the catalogs unsolicited in the mail and was holding them at the request of a municipal councilman who was conducting a local anti-smut campaign. Although the Director did not express any opinion as to Hausner's testimony he did not suggest that there was anything to indicate a connection between the materials taken from Hausner's office and the operation of the restaurant or the sale of alcoholic beverages. To the contrary, the record leaves little room for doubt that the materials were strictly for Hausner's private use.
The Director's holding was that the mere presence of the materials within the technical outer borders of the licensed premises constituted regulatory violations warranting a substantial suspension of the license regardless of the undisputed indications that they were possessed by the licensee strictly for his private use under objective physical arrangements which more than adequately evidenced the strictly private nature of the possession. The Director's conclusions dealt only summarily with the private aspect of the possession; he said that he did not consider it any defense that the obscene material 'was merely retained after it was received in the mail without solicitation' and that all licensees must see to it that no prohibited materials are ever 'found on their licensed premises.'
Some question has been raised as to whether the office was technically part of the licensed premises. We assume, for present purposes, that on August 27, 1969 it was part of such premises although shortly thereafter the licensee's application was amended to exclude it. We assume, further, that if the catalogs or contraceptives were displayed or used or were available for display or use in connection with the operation of the restaurant or the sale of alcoholic beverages their presence on the licensed premises would violate lawful regulatory provisions. See Jeanne's Enterprises, Inc. v. State of N.J., etc., 93 N.J.Super. 230, 225 A.2d 593 (App.Div.), aff'd o.b., 48 N.J. 359, 225 A.2d 569 (1966); Mazza v. Cavicchia, 15 N.J. 498, 105 A.2d 545 (1954); In re Club 'D' Lane, Inc., 112 N.J.Super. 577, 272 A.2d 302 (App.Div.1971); Davis v. New Town Tavern, 37 N.J.Super. 376, 117 A.2d 415 (App.Div.1955). These assumptions lead us to the points which Hausner has advanced in support of his appeal, only the first of which we need deal with here. He urges in his first point that 'the enforcement of an absolute prohibition against possession of the articles in question upon the facts presented is unwarranted, unreasonable and unconstitutional.' See One Eleven Wines & Liquors, Inc. v. Div. Alcoholic Bev. Cont., 50 N.J. 329, 235 A.2d 12 (1967); Gallagher v. City of Bayonne, 106 N.J.Super. 401, 256 A.2d 61 (App.Div.), aff'd o.b., 55 N.J. 159, 259 A.2d 912 (1969); Paterson Tav. & Grill Owners Ass'n v. Borough of Hawthorne, 57 N.J. 180, 270 A.2d 628 (1970); Cf. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972); State v. Baird, 50 N.J. 376, 235 A.2d 673 (1967).
In One Eleven we passed on a departmental regulation which imposed a flat prohibition on the congregation of apparent homosexuals in licensed premises. The regulation was an early one which was continued by the department in its absolute terms despite growing public tolerance and deeper public understanding of the subject. We pointed out that the department's concern with improper conduct at licensed premises could readily be...
To continue reading
Request your trial