One Eleven Wines & Liquors, Inc. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, s. A--8--A--10

• Citation: 235 A.2d 12,50 N.J. 329
• Decision Date: 06 November 1967
• Docket Number: Nos. A--8--A--10,s. A--8--A--10
• Parties: , 27 A.L.R.3d 1242 ONE ELEVEN WINES & LIQUORS, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL and Joseph P. Lordi, Director, etc., Respondents. VAL'S BAR, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL and Joseph P. Lordi, Director, etc., Respondents. MURPHY'S TAVERN, INC., Appellant, v. DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 329

50 N.J. 329

235 A.2d 12, 27 A.L.R.3d 1242

ONE ELEVEN WINES & LIQUORS, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL and Joseph P. Lordi, Director, etc., Respondents.

VAL'S BAR, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL and Joseph P. Lordi, Director, etc., Respondents.

MURPHY'S TAVERN, INC., Appellant, v. DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, Respondent.

Nos. A--8--A--10.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Sept. 11 and 12, 1967.

Decided Nov. 6, 1967.

Theodore Sager Meth, Newark, for appellant One Eleven Wines & Liquors, Inc. (Busch & Busch, New Brunswick, attorneys).

Norman A. Oshtry, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant Val's Bar, Inc. (Jacobson & Silverman, Newark, attorneys).

Louis R. Cerefice, Newark, for appellant Murphy's Tavern, Inc.

Stephen Skillman, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control and Joseph P. Lordi, Director, etc. (Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., attorney, Richard Newman and Michael Rudolph, Deputy Attys. Gen., on the brief).

Avrom J. Gold, Nutley, for F. & A. Corp., and Diamond & Pitman, Newark, for The Mattachine Society, Inc., filed briefs amicus curiae.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

JACOBS, J.

The Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control disciplined the appellants for permitting apparent homosexuals to congregate at their licensed premises. It suspended the licenses of One Eleven Wines & Liquors, Inc. and Val's Bar, Inc. and revoked the license of Murphy's Tavern, Inc. On One Eleven's appeal to the Appellate Division the suspension of its license was sustained under the authority of Paddock Bar, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Div'n, 46 N.J.Super. 405, 134 A.2d 779 (App.Div.1957) and Murphy's Tavern, Inc. v. Davis, 70 N.J.Super. 87, 175 A.2d 1 (App.Div.1961). We granted certification on the licensee's application. 48 N.J. 349, 225 A.2d 361 (1966). We also certified, on our own motion, the appeals which had been duly taken to the Appellate Division by Val's Bar and Murphy's Tavern and were awaiting argument there. R.R. 1:10--1.

The disastrous experiences of national prohibition led to the adoption of the twenty-first amendment and to the return of liquor control to the states in 1933. See Grand Union Co. v. Sills, 43 N.J. 390, 399, 204 A.2d 853 (1964). When our Legislature during that year first created the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, it vested broad regulatory powers in a state commissioner who immediately set about to insure that abuses which had originally contributed so heavily in bringing about national prohibition, would not be permitted to recur. He adopted stringent regulations which he rigidly enforced and which the courts supported with great liaberality. See Franklin Stores Co. v. Burnett, 120 N.J.L. 596, 1 A.2d 25 (Sup.Ct.1938); Gaine v. Burnett, 122 N.J.L. 39, 4 A.2d 37 (Sup.Ct.1939). He concerned himself not alone with matters of lawfulness but also with matters of public sensitivity for he firmly believed that the effectiveness of the new mode of control would turn on the extent of the public's acceptance of the manner in which licensed establishments were conducted. Here again the courts sustained his pertinent regulatory actions with broad sweep. See McFadden's Lounge, Inc. v. Div. of Alcoholic Bev. Control, 33 N.J.Super. 61, 109 A.2d 444 (App.Div.1954); Paddock Bar, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Div'n, supra, 46 N.J.Super. 405, 134 A.2d 779.

Among the commissioner's early regulations were Rules 4 and 5 which were adopted in 1934. Rule 4 provided that no licensee shall allow in the licensed premises 'any known criminals, gangsters, racketeers, pick-pockets, swindlers, confidence men, prostitutes, female impersonators, or other persons of ill repute.' And Rule 5 provided that no licensee shall allow 'any disturbances, brawls, or unnecessary noises' or allow the place of business to be conducted 'in such manner as to become a nuisance.' In 1936 Rule 5 was revised to include an express prohibition of 'lewdness' and 'immoral activities,' and in 1950 it was again revised to include an express prohibition of 'foul, filthy, indecent or obscene language or conduct.' See McFadden's Lounge, Inc. v. Div. of Alcoholic Bev. Control, supra, 33 N.J.Super. at p. 64, 109 A.2d 444; Jeanne's Enterprises, Inc. v. State of N.J., etc., 93 N.J.Super. 230, 225 A.2d 593 (App.Div.), aff'd, 48 N.J. 359, 225 A.2d 569 (1966).

During the years prior to 1954 the department instituted proceedings under Rule 4 on the basis of evidence that apparent homosexuals had been permitted to congregate at the licensed premises. Apparently the department considered that the effeminate manifestations of the patrons brought them within the prohibition of 'female impersonators' although that term relates more properly to transvestites who are, for the most part said to be non-homosexuals. In Re M. Potter, Inc., A.B.C. Bulletin 474, Item 1 (August 7, 1941) the investigators had observed a group of male patrons, 'whose voices, gestures and actions were effeminate,' dancing and kissing among themselves. Although there was an express finding that 'no actual acts of immorality' were committed at the licensed premises, the license was nonetheless suspended. In the course of his formal opinion, the acting commissioner said that the mere 'presence of female impersonators in and upon licensed premises presents a definite social problem'; and in line with the then widespread intolerance and limited public understanding of the subject, he made reference to 'the deep-rooted personal contempt felt by a normal red-blooded man' and to the notion that 'the mere thought of such perverts is repugnant to the normal person.'

Since 1954 and despite increasing public tolerance and understanding, departmental proceedings aimed at the congregation of apparent homosexuals have continued apace but have been brought under Rule 5 rather than Rule 4. They have not been based on any specific and individualized charges of lewd or immoral conduct but rather on general charges that by permitting the apparent homosexuals to congregate, the licensees had allowed their places of business to be conducted in such manner 'as to become a nuisance' within the contemplation of Rule 5. In Re Polka Club, Inc., A.B.C. Bulletin 1045, Item 6 (December 27, 1954) the then director, in suspending a license on a charge of violation of Rule 5, said that he would not permit licensed premises to become 'havens for deviates.' In Re Kaczka and Trobiano A.B.C. Bulletin 1063, Item 1 (April 21, 1955) the licensee introduced expert testimony that homosexuality is not contagious and that seeing groups of homosexuals would not affect normal people but the license was nonetheless suspended. As illustrated in many of his rulings, including Re Louise G. Mack, A.B.C. Bulletin 1088, Item 2 (November 2, 1955), the director entertained the view that since exposure to homosexuals might be harmful to 'sime members of the public' the congregating of homosexuals must be prohibited as a 'threat to the safety and morals of the public.' See Paddock Bar, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Div'n, supra, 46 N.J.Super. at p. 408, 134 A.2d 779.

In the very cases before us the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control made it clear that it has not in anywise moderated its long standing position that permitting the congregation of apparent homosexuals, without more, is violative of Rule 5. The evidence against Murphy's Tavern disclosed many individual acts which could have been the basis of specified and individualized charges of lewd or immoral conduct at the licensed premises. But no such charges were preferred and when, during the course of cross-examination, one of the division's investigators was asked whether he had observed any lewdness at Murphy's Tavern, the prosecuting attorney pointed out that the division had not alleged 'any immoral activity or lewdness itself' but had simply alleged that the licensee had 'permitted the licensed place of business to become a nuisance' in that it had allowed 'these persons to come in and congregate upon the premises.'

In the One Eleven proceeding there was no charge and no substantial evidence that lewd or immoral conduct was permitted at the licensed premises. There was a charge and sufficient evidence that the licensee had permitted apparent homosexuals to congregate there. Investigators had visited the premises on several occasions and had observed the patrons; the testimony included the following partial account of their behavior They were conversing and some of them in a lisping tone of voice, and during certain parts of their conversations they used limp-wrist movements to each other. One man would stick his tongue out at another and they would laugh and they would giggle. They were very, very chummy and close. When they drank their drinks, they extended their pinkies in a very dainty manner. They took short sips from their straws; took them quite a long time to finish their drinks. * * *

They were very, very endearing to one another, very very delicate to each other. * * *

They looked in each other's eyes when they conversed. They spoke in low tones like an effeminate male. When walking, getting up from the stools, they very politely excused each other, hold on to the arm and swish and sway down to the other end of the bar and come back. * * *

Their actions and mannerisms and demeanor appeared to me to be males impersonating females, they appeared to be homosexuals commonly known as queers, fags, fruits and other names.

Similarly in the proceeding against Val's Bar there was no charge nor any substantial evidence at the hearing before the director that lewd or immoral conduct was permitted at the licensed premises. Investigators had visited the premises on several occasions and testified in detail as to the behavioral characteristics which led them to the permissible...