area resident, Club Lure supporter

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE CITY OF SAINT LOUIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE OF THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN RE THE LIQUOR LICENSE OF: TCF, LLC d/b/a CLUB LURE 1204 Washington Avenue St. Louis, MO This proceeding arises from a citation issued on July 28, 2010 against TCF, LLC d/b/a Club Lure (hereinafter Club Lure). A hearing was called pursuant to Section of the Revised Code of the City of Saint Louis to determine whether Liquor License No should be suspended, cancelled or revoked. The City filed five charges against Club Lure and asserted that continuation of their license would be detrimental to the neighborhood. The undersigned was appointed by the Director of Public Safety to preside over the matter in the stead of Excise Commissioner Robert Kraiberg. FINDINGS OF FACT The detriment hearing was held on September 3, The following persons were present: Hon. Margaret Walsh Municipal Judge, apptd. Hearing Officer Daniel Emerson Assistant City Counselor, for Excise John Bouhasin Attorney for Club Lure Freeman Bosley, Jr. Attorney for Club Lure Aprille Trupiano Licensee Officer Timothy Bockskopf Sgt. Robert Berner Officer Julie Reynolds Officer David Pryor Officer Kathleen Kueck April Ford-Griffin 5 th Ward Alderwoman, witness Earl Westfall Jennifer Gray city resident, witness Jennifer Asher David Goldstick Ollie Green area resident, Club Lure supporter Arsalan Suhail area resident, Club Lure supporter Capt. Kenneth Keigel SLMPD, 4 th District Commander, witness The following exhibits were introduced:

2 Excise Exhibit A: Certified copy of Ordinance No, with amendments Excise Exhibit B: Lure Excise file Excise Exhibit C: Excise Commission Citation 003 and Notice of Hearing Excise Exhibit D: SLMPD Incident Report #CN Excise Exhibit E: SLMPD Incident Report #CN Club Lure Exhibit: SLMPD Leads Report Analysis re Club Lure area Club Lure Exhibit: Letter from Anthony Thompson, Club Lure landlord Relevant ordinance sections are the following: Section LICENSE DETRIMENTAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN MAKING DETERMINATION In determining whether issuance, renewal, or continuation of a retail liquor license would be detrimental to the neighborhood in which the licensed premises is located, the Excise Commissioner shall consider the following factors, giving such weight thereto as he deems appropriate: loitering in the immediate vicinity of the licensed premises by persons frequenting the licensed premises; littering committed by persons frequenting the licensed premises or by the licensee, his agents, servants or employees; drinking in public by persons frequenting the licensed premises; lewd and indecent conduct, including but not limited to public urination, exhibited by persons frequenting the licensed premises or by the licensee, his employees, servants or agents, whether such behavior occurs on the licensed premises or in the immediate vicinity thereof; the commission of crimes upon or in the immediate vicinity of a licensed premises by persons frequenting the licensed premises or by the licensee, his employees, servants, or agents; sale, use or possession of illegal drugs upon or in the immediate vicinity of the licensed premises by persons frequenting the licensed premises or by the licensee, his employees, servants or agents; Harassing or intimidating behavior exhibited by persons frequenting or congregating about the licensed premises toward persons living in the neighborhood in which the licensed premises are located or toward persons passing by the licensed premises; Noise associated with operation of the licensed premises or caused by persons frequenting the licensed premises; with regard to renewal applications and protests against renewal or continuation of a license, the street and sidewalk congestion associated with operation of the licensed premises; Other factors which, due to the character of the neighborhood or of the licensed premises would be relevant to the determination of whether continuation of a license would be detrimental to the neighborhood in which the licensed premises is or would be located. B. The Excise Commissioner may find that continuation of a license would be detrimental to the neighborhood in which a licensed premises is or would be located without finding that such detriment is or would be due to the fault or negligence, or is or would be the responsibility of the licensee. For purposes of this section a person shall be considered to frequent a licensed premises if he patronizes the licensed premises or if he

3 loiters about in the immediate vicinity of the licensed premises but would not do so except for the existence of the licensed premises. Section RESPONSIBILITY OF LICENSEES All persons licensed under the provisions of this title are always and at all times responsible for the conduct of their licensed premises and for the conduct of their employees, servants and agents while on their licensed premises. Section DISORDERLY PLACE The term disorderly place shall include, but not be limited to, any licensed premises which are found by the Commissioner to be open to and frequented by persons who so conduct themselves there as to violate the law, create disturbances, fight or otherwise disturb the general peace or the peace of individuals. Section IMPROPER ACTS It shall be the duty of any person licensed under the provisions of this chapter and of his servants, agents, and employees, to prevent or immediately suppress any violent quarrel, disorder, brawl, fight or other improper or unlawful conduct of any person upon the licensed premises. In the event that a licensee, or any of his servants, agents or employees knows or should have known that an illegal or violent act has been committed or is about to be committed on or about the licensed premises, it shall be a violation for them not to immediately report same to the police department, state liquor control department, and the Excise Commissioner. It shall also be a violation for a licensee, his agents, servants or employees not to cooperate with law enforcement authorities and agents of the State Division of Liquor Control and of the excise division during the course of any investigation into such occurrence. Based upon testimony offered, I find the following: Littering, loitering, and excessive noise has occurred on or about the premises of Club Lure, by persons frequenting the licensed premises. Harassing and intimidating behavior has occurred by persons frequenting the licensed premises. Littering has occurred by employees of the licensed premises, upon grounds shared by other tenants of the licensed premises. Fighting, brawling, threats of violence, (including gunshots on more than one occasion), lewd language and behavior, overcrowding, likely use of illegal drugs, and congestion has occurred on or about the licensed premises.

4 I find that substantial and competent evidence was offered to support charges 1,2 and 5 brought by the City and outlined in the Notice of Hearing. The City withdrew consideration of Charge 3. I do not find that substantial and competent evidence was offered to support Charge 4, that is, that Club Lure violated Sections , , or of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis, requiring the submission of criminal record checks of Cub Lure employees. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Current and former area residents, along with police officers (who are either working secondary shifts as security at or around the club, or officers working primary shifts in the district responding to calls in the neighborhood) cited numerous instances of noise, violence (including fighting, assaults, gunshots), loitering, littering, crowding, congestion (foot and vehicular), evidence of illegal drug use, public intoxication, indecent behavior, and incidences of harassment and intimidation. Lure attorneys suggest in cross-examination and argument that the entertainment district as a whole creates the congestion, noise and littering complained of, and that the specific occurrences of fighting and violence cannot be ascribed solely to Club Lure, because there are other clubs in the vicinity. However, there was testimony from residents and police officers that the congestion on Washington Avenue and the nighttime disturbances multiply substantially on the nights Club Lure is open for business. More importantly, from the totality of the evidence offered, it is a plausible conclusion that the violence, intimidation, noise, and disturbances took place in the immediate vicinity of Club Lure or precipitated by its patrons. To conclude otherwise would require me to discard substantial, competent, and repeated evidence of problems attributable to Club Lure and its patrons and employees. This defies reason. Police and residents have observed serious overcrowding inside and outside Lure s location, and noted the distinct odor of marijuana inside the club. Police officers described serious fighting in the immediate vicinity of the club. Area residents described incidents of harassment and improper behavior specifically from Club Lure patrons and, more disturbingly, from the Club s employees. Despite the attempts to deflect the blame to other area club patrons, there was no definitive rebuttal testimony other than the denials asserted by the licensee, Aprille Trupiano, who was not an observer of any of the behaviors or incidents described. I find the testimony of the area residents credible and compelling.

5 ORDER It is, therefore, ORDERED that Liquor License No held by TCF,LLC d/b/a Club Lure, 1204 Washington Avenue, shall be revoked effective October 17 th, Dated: MARGARET J. WALSH