Stevens v. State, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
257 P.3d 1154
Alaska2011Background
- Robert Stevens owned Fish Heads Bar & Grill in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and held a biennial liquor license.
- Fish Heads operated outside the Borough’s designated commercial use areas, triggering a requirement for a conditional use permit.
- Neighbors complained of excessive noise; the Borough enacted a noise ordinance restricting amplified noise audible beyond the property boundary.
- Stevens was convicted under the new noise ordinance and challenged on appeal; the Borough also pursued an adult cabaret permit violation, which was later dropped.
- The Borough’s Director of Planning and Land Use protested Stevens’s continued operation under the liquor license; the ABC Board denied continued operation and referred the protest to an adjudicatory process.
- An administrative law judge (ALJ) heard the protest; the ALJ found the protest timely and properly filed, and that it was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; the ABC Board adopted the ALJ’s recommendation.
- The superior court held that the Borough properly delegated protest authority to the Director, and that the protest was valid; Stevens appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, which affirmed the superior court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to protest by Borough via Director | Stevens argues the Borough did not delegate protest authority to the Director. | Borough Code and statutes authorize delegation to a department head. | Borough properly delegated protest authority to the Director. |
| Burden of proof in protest proceedings | AS 04.11.370 and 04.11.480 create conflicting burdens; due process. | Burden-shifting is proper under the APA framework for protests of continued operation. | Burden properly placed on licensee after municipal protest; due process not violated. |
| Collateral challenge to noise ordinance | Stevens cannot collaterally challenge the noise ordinance; issues not preserved. | Proceedings based on valid noise ordinances and convictions; collateral challenges fail. | Stevens’s collateral challenges rejected; convictions sustain protest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stevens v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 146 P.3d 3 (Alaska App. 2006) (prior related challenges to Borough’s ordinances and appeals related to the bar)
- Rollins v. State, Dep't of Revenue, Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 991 P.2d 202 (Alaska 1999) (recognizes liquor license due process considerations)
- Palmer v. Municipality of Anchorage, Police & Fire Ret. Bd., 65 P.3d 832 (Alaska 2003) (burden of persuasion considerations in agency proceedings)
- Alaska Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Nw. Cedar Structures, Inc., 153 P.3d 336 (Alaska 2007) (independent review standard and deference in administrative appeals)
- Squires v. Alaska Bd. of Architects, Eng'rs, & Land Surveyors, 205 P.3d 326 (Alaska 2009) (independent review of agency decisions; standards of review)
- Thorne v. State, Dep't of Pub. Safety, 774 P.2d 1326 (Alaska 1989) (due process requirements in administrative proceedings)