Laserfiche WebLink
DATE <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />RE: <br /> <br />November 13, 1995 <br /> <br />Chief Michael Auspos <br /> <br />Thomas M. Fitzpatrick <br /> <br />Serving Alcohol to Minors/Lighthouse Grill and Bar <br /> <br />Under M.S. 348.503 it is unlawful for any retail intoxicating <br />liquor or non-intoxicating tiq~m~r licensee or bottle club <br />holder to permit any person under the age of 21 years to <br />consttme alcohol beverages on the licensed premises. However, <br />there are defenses to this violation. Specifically, case law <br />developed under State V Neiscen 4~5 NW ~nd 326 ~M/~ Supreme <br />Court)_ establishes that so called "carding" defenses are still <br />valid under the statute. Specifically, if a vendor can show <br />that he or she has attempted or had implemented reasonable <br />procedures to determine a purchasers age pursuant to <br />examination of drivers license or identification cards, such <br />procedures would be a defense where a minor did in fact <br />purchase or consume alcohol within a.~ ndors establishment. <br /> <br />Upon reviewing the various statements it appears that there <br />were "carding" procedures in place at the Lighthouse Grill and <br />Bar. I note specifically that Dana Docken who apparently <br />accompanied Scott Martinson to the bar states that there was <br />an individual at the interest who was attempting to card <br />people as they came in. Fact, Docken states that he actually <br />was carded and that Martinson apparently "snuck by" the <br />carder° 'Additionally, there appears to be evidence that <br />individuals were being carded as they Sat at specific tables <br />consuming alcohol. Finally, there appears to be at least some <br />indication that Scott Martinson may have possessed a fake <br />identification. <br /> <br />It is my opinion that the State would not be able to overcome <br />the defenses of the Lighthouse Grill and Bar that would be <br />presented in light of what appears to be reasonable attempts <br />at "carding" to determine ages. While the actions of the <br />vendor on October 6, 1995 may have been negligent I do not <br />believe we could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the <br />actions of the vendor or any specific person associated with <br />the vendor were criminal, <br /> <br /> <br />