Los Angeles Daily Journal
Thursday, March 17, 2005
vol.118 NO.52
Panel Tosses Liquor Control Department Action
By Dan Evans
Daily Journal Staff Writer
An Appellate court has junked enforcement actions by the
state liquor-control department, ruling that its
proceedings violate licensee's due-process rights.
The court faulted the department for allowing its staff
attorney's, when they seek liquor-license suspensions or
revocations, to present secret reports to the agency's
chief counsel, who ultimately decides the questions. The
holders of the liquor licenses are not entitled to see the
reports.
Ralph Saltsman represented three license holders who
won back their licenses in the unanimous, published
decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeal. But Saltsman
said the panel's ruling could apply in hundreds of nearly
identical cases.
Saltsman, with the Playa del Rey firm of Solomon,
Saltsman & Jamieson, said he represents 70 clients in
almost identical situations. Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals
Board, 2005 DJDAR 3115 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. March 15,
2005).
"We agree the Department's failure to separate the
prosecutorial function created an unacceptable risk of
bias and unfairness which violated the accused's due
process rights," Justice Earl Johnson Jr. wrote for
the court.
Saltsman said that, when the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Department wants to suspend someone's license, evidence is
presented first to an administrative law judge.
Department attorneys then prepare a report, unseen by
the defendant, and submit it to the chief counsel, the
department's decision maker.
"And we wont get that report," Saltsman said.
"Never."
The attorney said the appellate court demanded to see
the documents, called a Report of Hearing, for the three
petitioners. The department refused to turn it over, he
said.
"But the court decided that they didn't need to see
them to make a decision," Saltsman said. "The
fact they exist is enough to make the hearing
unfair."
Between May and August 2002, the department accused two
retailers, Richard Leun Kim and KV Mart Co., and a bar
owner, Daniel Becerril Quintanar, of violating state
liquor laws.
Clerks working for Kim and KV Mart allegedly sold
alcohol to a 19-year-old decoy, and a bartender working
for Quintanar supposedly sold beer to an obviously
intoxicated customer.
The administrative law judge in each case proposed that
the charges be dismissed. But after receiving the secret
report, the department's chief counsel rejected the
recommendation and suspended the licenses of Kim,
Quintanar and KV Mart for 15, 20 and 25 days,
respectively.
The three filed appeals with the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Appeals Board, which reversed the decisions,
finding a written decision that the department's methods
violated the accused's right to a fair trial.
Saltsman said he believes this is the first time the
Court of Appeal has ever affirmed the appeals board.
"They only take the case if they want to reverse the
decision, whether it's brought by me or the [state]
attorney general," he said. "In this case,
though, I think they wanted to teach everyone the
law."
Saltsman said his firm works with 60 percent of the
state's liquor licensees.
Deputy Attorney General Graeme Sharpe, who represented
the appeals board, did not return calls requesting
comment.
E-mail: dan_evans@dailyjournal.com
|
