2006_0410_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

approved liquor training policy on file with the Chief of Police, a$500 ��a.e and a one-day license suspension was in�posed The exact language of the Code is as follows: 302.1.�(f3;i��;�.'� For on-sale license 1lolders who do not participate in optional manager and server training: a. For a�rst violation, the mandatory minimum penalty �":�rj] be a five hundred dollar ($500.00) fine and a one-day suspension. [Emphasis added. ] This penalty is "mandatory." It "shall" be iniposed. Hence, the first reason I cannot relieve the Outback Steakhouse from the penalty in��osed is that the Roseville City Council has tnade the penalty mandatory. The Council has exercised its discretion and required a mandatory minimum penalty. In this case, the mandatory minimum penalty of a$500 fine a�1d a one-day suspension has l�eex� imposed. The Chief of Police did not impose a penalty higher than the mandatory minimum. I interpret the Council's use of the words "mandatory" and "shall" as giving the Claief — and me n o option to impose a lesser penalty. If the Chief or I were to impose a penalty smaller than the one imposed, we would be in violation of the Council's ordinance establishing a mandatory minimum penalty. If the Chief had imposed a larger penalty than the mandatory minimum, then I would have some room to review the Chiefs discretion. But, in this case, the Chief imposed the mandatory zninimui�i penalty required by law. Thus, given the language of the Code, I cannot direct that the City impose a lesser penalty than the mandatory minimum established by the Roseville City Council. If the Outback were to inquire about the purpose of an appeal under these circumstances, my response is that the Council must have intended the appeal of a mandatory ini��i�u��. penalty not to deal with the penalty. The Council has prescribed the mandatory z�izlimt�an penalty. The Council must have intended the hearing and appeal under these circumstances to focus on whether the process by which the liquor compliance check was perfonned was a fair and appropriate process. In this case, the Outback has not contested the process by which the violation was observed and noted. Even if I had authority to reduce the imposed penalty in this case, below the mandatory minimum, I would not do sa My review of the circumstances suggests to me that the Chief took into account the appropriate circumstances a�ad made the necessary decision. It is clear Fro��. the Cou��.cil consideration of penalties for underage drinl�ing that the Council perceives this as a serious public issue. It is so serious that the Council has created mandatory minimum penalties. It is so serious that the Council has created liability on the part of the liquor license holder, in this case the Outback Steal�iouse, for the acts of their employees. The liquor licensee is liable for the acts of its employees notwithstanding the fact that there is no showing that the licensee, or its manager, has been negligent or reca��ess in some way. In other words, licensees and their managers are strictly liable for the actions of their employees in choosing whom to serve alcoholic beverages to. To establish a violation of the City's Liquor Code, the Police need not �