Rojas v. Board of Liquor License Commissioners
148 A.3d 108
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2016Background
- Amigos Bar (Class D liquor license) in Baltimore was observed open at 1:23 a.m. on Nov. 2, 2014, while Daylight Saving Time (EDT) was still in effect; police and a liquor inspector saw patrons with drinks and two people dancing.
- License prohibited sales from 1:00 a.m. until 6:00 a.m.; the Certificate of Occupancy allowed a tavern without live entertainment.
- Liquor Board charged appellants with violating Rule 4.05(a) (prohibited hours) and Rule 4.18 (illegal conduct / live entertainment); Board found both violations and imposed a four-day suspension, a $3,000 fine, and a $125 administrative fee.
- Appellants argued they were compliant because clocks revert at 2:00 a.m. and thus must close by the second 1:00 a.m. (1:00 a.m. EST), and that patron dancing is not "live entertainment."
- The circuit court affirmed the Board; on appeal, this court affirmed the Rule 4.05(a) finding, accepted the Board’s concession that Rule 4.18 was wrongly applied (patron dancing not live entertainment), and remanded for reassessment of sanctions limited to the single Rule 4.05(a) violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant violated prohibited-hours rule when open at 1:23 a.m. on the day DST ended | Amigos Bar: closing must occur by the "second" 1:00 a.m. (1:00 a.m. EST); therefore not in violation | Liquor Board: statutory/regulated "standard time" in effect was EDT, so sales were prohibited from 1:00 a.m. EDT and being open at 1:23 a.m. violated Rule 4.05(a) | Held: Violation affirmed; standard time is governed by federal law and EDT remained in effect at 1:23 a.m. |
| Whether patron dancing constituted "live entertainment" under Rule 4.18 | Amigos Bar: patron dancing is not "live entertainment" or a dance performance | Liquor Board: initially treated dancing as live entertainment and zoning issue | Held: Reversed; Liquor Board conceded patron dancing is not within definition of live entertainment |
| Whether reviewing community letters ex parte denied a fair hearing | Amigos Bar: Board’s consideration of letters (not provided in advance) biased hearing and invited political pressure | Liquor Board: permitted to receive and consider community complaints; letters were offered to counsel and appellants did not request continuance | Held: No denial of fair hearing; Board may consider community input and appellants did not seek adjournment or otherwise preserve bias objection |
| Whether the imposed sanctions were biased or excessive due to political pressure | Amigos Bar: sanctions influenced by councilmen/community letters seeking maximum penalty | Liquor Board: did not impose maximum sanction and followed statutory authority | Held: No bias shown; remand for reassessment of sanctions limited to the one sustained violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackburn v. Bd. of Liquor License Comm’rs for Baltimore City, 130 Md. App. 614 (agency-review standard and deference to board)
- Matthews v. Hous. Auth. of Baltimore City, 216 Md. App. 572 (substantial-evidence test for administrative findings)
- Young v. Anne Arundel Cnty., 146 Md. App. 526 (deference to agency interpretation of its own regulations)
- Bd. of Liquor License Comm’rs for Baltimore City v. Hollywood Prods., Inc., 344 Md. 2 (Liquor Board's prosecutorial and investigatory authority)
- Macke Co. v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 302 Md. 18 (when statutory language is clear, courts give no weight to agency interpretation)
- State v. Badolati, 6 N.W.2d 220 (time-zone/standard-time construction supporting reliance on legal standard time)