Judge dismisses 32 charges against
Joe's
Remaining charges deal with brewery
manager's knowledge of Aug. 20 incident
A judge on Monday dismissed most of the
47 charges the city brought against Joe's Brewery, in a hearing that
called into question the wording and the spirit of some Champaign
liquor laws.
The bar's attorney, J. Steven Beckett, argued mainly that the bar
cannot be held liable if its employees violate company policy, contrary
to the city's complaint.
Retired judge Harold Jensen, who sat as the hearing officer, sympathized
with Beckett's argument.
"I don't believe that you can seek to hold the licensee responsible
through a second person," he said.
That led to the dismissal of 32 charges that tried to hold five bar
employees accountable for allowing each other to drink after closing
time. Seven other charges, which held the bar liable for the individual
employees drinking, were dismissed early in the hearing.
Upon learning why some of the charges were dropped, Schweighart, who
did not attend the hearing, said: "That could hurt."
The remaining charges deal with whether Joe's manager Mark Shell knew
whether employees had been drinking when police entered the bar Aug.
20 after noticing that people were still inside the bar more than
an hour after closing time.
Jensen has a week to submit a written summary to Champaign Mayor Jerry
Schweighart, who will decide what actions to take if the remaining
counts stand.
During the hearing, Beckett argued that the city code, which prohibits
the possession of alcohol by "any person" in a bar after 1:30 a.m.,
applies only to the general public, not to the bar's staff. Documents
that Beckett filed with the city also cite previous comments from
Schweighart that he has "no problem" with employees having a drink
after closing time.
"The question that the motion raised is, what did the City Council
have in mind when it enacted these ordinances?" Beckett said, adding
that if an employee did something illegal — regardless of whether
the bar knew it — the bar could be held accountable. "All they have
to prove is that an employee consumed a beverage ... and the licensee
is absolutely guilty."
Jensen ruled the "any person" argument invalid; Assistant City Attorney
Joe Hooker said the wording "is very clear. Any person means just
that — any person."
Under questioning by Hooker, Shell testified that he was unaware of
any wrongdoing while he was on duty. He said he saw Joe's employee
William Brennan, who is over 21, consuming what police said was a
mix of whiskey and Coca-Cola, but said "I don't know where he got
that."
Shell also said Joe's allows employees over 21 to drink one domestic
draft beer after working. Using printouts from Joe's time clock, Beckett
showed that all the employees were off duty when police arrived.
Beckett tried repeatedly to put the officers' credibility in doubt,
asking detailed questions about what the bar employees were wearing,
and whether they knew for sure that the employees were drinking alcoholic
beverages. Several times, Beckett questioned the officers' ability
to tell the difference between alcoholic and non-alcoholic beer, or
the difference between a mixed drink and a plain soda.
Police testified that they had reason to believe the five employees
they ticketed had been drinking after the bar was closed. Two of the
employees — Michael Raddatz and Brad Capadona — denied the charges.
They said they offered to take a Breathalyzer test but were not allowed
to do that.
Capadona, 19, was the first employee who police spoke to that night.
He said he was leaving to go home and was throwing away a plastic
cup he picked up inside the bar. Police construed that to be beer,
and said further that Capadona smelled of beer when they spoke to
him.
Capadona explained, saying that earlier that night he was sprayed
with beer while trying to tap a keg. He said also that when he began
his shift that night, which was his first night working at Joe's,
a supervisor told him he would probably be fired if he were caught
drinking on the job.
Clearly the victor after Monday's hearing, Beckett said Hooker's efforts
were commendable.
"Well, obviously, the judge's rulings addressing the multiple count
complaints basically vindicate the position we've been taking," he
said. "Giving Joe Hooker some credit, he had to deal with a liquor
code that is sort of ambiguous.
"It's unfortunate that the licensee has to go through this sort of
| |
Adobe.Premiere.v7.0
