PSP, BLCE v. Jet-Set Restaurant, LLC
PSP, BLCE v. Jet-Set Restaurant, LLC - 575 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Jet-Set Restaurant (a licensed bar/restaurant in Reading, PA) was inspected Nov. 1, 2014; officers found four underage (20-year-old) females inside. Three presented IDs to a doorman showing they were underage but were admitted. Two of the females purchased/consumed beer; one had been inside earlier in 2014.
- On Dec. 29, 2014 the Bureau cited Jet-Set for: (Count 1) permitting minors to "frequent" the premises (47 P.S. §4-493(14)) and (Count 2) furnishing alcohol to minors (47 P.S. §4-493(1)).
- An ALJ dismissed Count 1 and sustained Count 2; the Board affirmed the ALJ; the trial court affirmed the Board. The Bureau appealed to this Court.
- Central legal question: whether permitting minors on two occasions (one occasion with four minors, one minor present on a separate earlier occasion) violated the statutory prohibition on permitting minors to "frequent" licensed premises after the 2003 amendment.
- The majority relied on the Supreme Court’s definition of "frequent" in Appeal of Speranza and construed the 2003 amendment as retaining that meaning; therefore two occasions did not establish "frequenting." A dissenting judge argued the 2003 amendments changed legislative intent so that presence on even a single occasion (absent listed exceptions) can violate the statute when licensee actively permits minors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jet-Set violated §493(14) by permitting minors on two occasions in 2014 | Bureau: the 2003 amendment shows minors generally are not permitted; allowing minors (including admission after checking ID) demonstrates unlawful permitting/frequenting | Jet-Set: Speranza definition controls — "frequent" requires more than one or two visits or a course of conduct; two occasions here insufficient | Court: Affirmed — Speranza’s definition applies; two occasions did not establish "frequenting" under §493(14) |
| Whether the 2003 amendment changed the meaning of "frequent" from Speranza | Bureau: the updated statutory framework and enumerated exceptions reflect a stricter, single-occasion conception of unauthorized minor presence | Jet-Set: Legislature used same term; statutory construction presumes prior judicial construction carries forward absent clear contrary intent | Court: The majority presumes the legislature retained Speranza’s meaning; penal statute must be narrowly construed if ambiguous, favoring defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Appeal of Speranza, 206 A.2d 292 (Pa. 1965) (defines "frequent" as visiting often or more than one or two occasions; requires proof of a course of conduct)
- Bateman-Gallagher v. Liquor Control Bd., 540 A.2d 617 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (sustaining frequenting charge in circumstances involving minors admitted and not carded; bears factual similarity to cases with active acquiescence)
- Richards v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 20 A.3d 596 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (ambiguous penal statutes are construed against the government)
- Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Cantina Gloria’s Lounge, Inc., 639 A.2d 14 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (standard of review for liquor enforcement appeals and discussion of evidentiary sufficiency)