CCMin_75Dec11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 ~. 4 2 Attorney Kenefick read his letter of December 1, 1975, directed FALCON LANES, to Mr. Clement A. Lehnen, Falcon Lanes, Inc., 1550 West Larpenteur BOTTLE CLUB Avenue, regarding apparent violations of state statutes and LICENSE #316 local ordinances in that establishment on November 29, 1975• AND NON- Ramsey County Sheriffs on that date reported the display or INTO%ICATING consumption of liquor at Falcon Lanes, Inc., after 1:00 a.m. MALT LIQUOR LICENSE #18b Attorney Kenefick also read the police report covering the incident. He stated that formal complaints have been issued against three bartenders involved in the incident, who have entered not-guilty pleas. Atrial date has been set for the first week of January, 1976. The attorney indicated that the Council has the power to suspend either or both of the licenses held bT Falcon Lanes temporarily, pending a public hearing for permanent suspension. Attorney Charles Olson, representing Mr. Lehnen, stated that the charges did not include the sale of nonintoxicating malt liquor after 1:00 a.m., but did state the display of liquor after 1:00 a.m . He stated that he felt the display of a pitcher of beer after 1:00 a.m. was not a violation. As for the dis- play of liquor, he felt that this was the first incident of this occurring, and, in his opinion, this did not warrant a suspension. Mr. Lehnen noted that a bowling tournament was taking place at the time of the apparent violation. Councilman Labalestra asked the Attorney's opinion of "on display after 1:00 a.m." Attorney Kenefick said the law stated that in- toxicating liquor could not be sold, consumed, or displayed after the closing hour. (Section 30.119, Minnesota Statutes, pertaining to bottle clubs) Non-intoxicating malt liquor is not covered by this statute. Mr. Lehnen stated he was not on the premises at the time of the alleged violation. Mayor Warkentien noted that the citation was served against the three bartenders, not the establishment, thus he was inclined not to be too severe concerning the incident. Councilman Labalestra felt it was up to the proprietor of an establishment to see that the laws controlling the operation of the business were enforced. He said that, in his opinion, there should be a one months revocation of the bottle club license with signs posted to the effect that the display of intoxicating liquor would cease at 1:00 a.m., and that sales would not take place after, perhaps, 12:l~5 p.m. Councilman Black felt action should not be taken on license revocation until after the Court date. Attorney Olson reiterated that the only charge made was that of liquor being on display after 1:00 a.m.