During April and May the State Police conducted a sting operation in Kent County that ensnared eight businesses for selling alcohol to 20-year-old cadets from the Maryland State Police Academy.
But the Kent Commissioners let the businesses off with a warning because they were all first time offenders and because the police were not there to testify at the commissioners meeting on Tuesday. The Kent County Commissioners are also the Kent County Liquor Board and have the authority to render a disposition when violations are reported by law enforcement agencies.
Dan Saunders, attorney for one of the accused, said that although hearsay was admissible in an administrative hearing, “this is not normal hearsay, this is almost anonymous hearsay without any live witness to vouch for the facts in the report.”
Commissioner Ron Fithian said that the liquor inspector usually rode along with the police to witness the sting operation.
Kent County Administrator Ernie Crofoot, an attorney, agreed that the rules of evidence in an administrative hearing were more relaxed than a court of law — but he advised the commissioners that they held the discretion to dismiss the complaints “given the lack of a violation history” of the accused.
“Even though it’s an administrative hearing, it is important that anyone who is accused be faced by their accuser,” said Kent Commissioner William Pickrum. “It’s our custom, our tradition, and part of the due process.”
The commissioners excused themselves from the proceedings for three minutes for a private discussion and returned with only a verbal warning to the eight businesses.
“Based on the fact that the people doing the sting operation didn’t think it was serious enough to attend tonight’s meeting, and based on the fact that we have no repeat offenders here tonight…we’re going to give you all a verbal warning,” Fithian said. “We hope we don’t see you back here again [and] try to be more careful.”
Fithian said at the close of the meeting he is not against sting operations.
“I don’t have a problem with the police doing a sting operation,” Fithian said. “I think it keeps people on their toes. It is a good exercise periodically.”
Pickrum closed by pointing out that Kent County had one of the highest rates of teenage binge drinking in the state.
Thomas Myer says
If I understand this, this hearing was for liquor license purposes. I’m sure the police charged someone through state laws for providing alcohol to a person underage. When or if they are convicted in court then I would think that would be your evidence to proceed with liquor license restrictions/suspensions. It seems to me this hearing will be laughed at by business owners.
carol cameron says
Yes. And either the Spy has a factual error here or R. Fithian is a bald-faced liar. Rock Hall Liquors and Galena Liquors, two of the eight named in this sting, were also CAUGHT less than two years ago for the VERY SAME offense. For Fithian to make such a false statement “these are all first offenders”, doesn’t he realize people check up on these things? I believe Bayside Foods has also been cited in the past, am searching for a link for that one right now. In the meantime, check out this from Sept 2011.
https://www.stardem.com/article_ba996b04-a0fc-5c26-9f22-2fc913b48477.html
(Spy, you need to stay on top of these things, don’t let them slip one by you)
Brett Lysinger says
Typical Kent County turn a blind eye to a real issue in the county. Perhaps the new county administrator and commissioners should ride with a deputy or police officer to see first hand the underage drinking problem in the county. Wait till college is back in session you will find more kids under 21 at the bars thAn adults over 21. But hey it’s not important when there are more pressing issues like closed door meetings about things they have no control over like the Conowingo Dam.
joe diamond says
Sometimes you have to pick your battles,
The whole sting idea is right on the edge of entrapment, in my opinion. It also tests the subjective judgment of a store clerk. Then you get to deal with the business owner who already supports the terms of his license.
How about those same officers and liquor board folks setting up outside the stores and carding anyone they suspect of not being of proper age? They might encounter someone who had been drinking and is not safe to continue driving. They could distribute literature on safe driving habits and the effects of alcohol. Should they actually encounter an underage patron they have evidence and a violator. They can go right to the arrest process….then have the same conversation with the store clerk & owner.
Little doubt the attorneys for the store owners would assert a not guilty position without some witness to confront…. why go through the opera?
Joe