TIL you can be charged in court for a crime that occurred without your knowledge 1000s of miles away

[Ruken]

@cochrane

I believe that the statement, “If you own the business, you’re ultimately liable for the conduct of your employees and anything else that happens in the business,” reflects reality, especially when it comes to the liquor business. As has been mentioned, state liquor boards hold licensees to a very strict standard of liability. People can and do leave drinking establishments in a state of impairment and get into accidents which injure and kill other people. It is up to the licensee to hire and train his staff to prevent this from happening, and to be sure his managers are competent enough to make sure no one is served illegally in his absence.

I’ll bet a large proportion of people saying the owner bears no liability have never worked in liquor sales or had dealings with a state liquor control board.

I bet a large proportion of posters don’t read carefully. Do you? The quote in question is from a post about slipping on floors. He’s wrong.

[SlackerInc]

Who says the 17 year old was doing what s/he was instructed or trained to do?

[doreen]

But if they didn’t follow the rule and just rang it up anyway, how would the owner be at fault? If you’re saying a supermarket or pizza joint should simply not hire employees who are under 21, I’d say that’s not realistic and it’s certainly not standard industry practice (if this were the expectation, it ought to be right there in the liquor laws).

Except that so far, the information is not that the 17 year old didn’t follow the rule and just served it/rang it up himself. According to this article there was a coworker present who was also too young to sell alcohol and the article seems to suggest that there was no one present at the time who could legally sell alcohol. There’s also a bit of confusion whether it was the manager or the server who was newly hired and had not gone through the mandatory alcohol training -which for a 17 year old, probably consists of “you can’t sell it or serve it”

I don’t find it onerous to expect the license holder ( because remember, he’s not being held responsible as the owner, he is being held responsible as a license holder) to ensure that there is never a shift comprised entirely of people to young to sell alcohol and to ensure that no 17 year old works a single shift without having been told that he or she cannot serve alcohol.

[wolfpup]

@running_coach

TIL I learned what TLA means.

EMFBI, but AFAIC, TIL and TLA are both 2MFM, but BWTHDIK. #YOLO. B4N.

Not that I would in any way presume to imply that the English language is, like, deteriorating. Yo! **//

[Typo_Negative]

@Sailboat

I keep seeing this not happen. Here’s a random cite:

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: “None of the charges against individuals resulted in any prison time, and no charges were levied against upper level executives.”

Or the Volkswagen Emissions Scandal

In January 2017, Volkswagen agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and signed up to an agreed Statement of Facts, which drew on the results of an investigation it had itself commissioned from US lawyers Jones Day. The statement set out how engineers had developed the defeat devices, because diesel models could not pass US emissions tests without them, and deliberately sought to conceal their use.

The company pled guilty. No individuals faced any charges at all.

[Kiwi_Fruit]

@SlackerInc

Maybe. Or maybe one teenage kid just freelanced, regardless of whatever training s/he may have had.

In response to the “if you don’t want this liability, don’t apply for a liquor license” retort: I get that, 100%. I think it’s unfortunate, though, and I doubt it works that way in other countries that are less uptight.

NZ Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 Sections 239, 241, 242 and 243 deal with sales to underage persons (under 18 years in NZ) and sales by underage persons.

Generally, the licensee is liable for a fine of up to $20,000, the manager up to $10,000 and the individual who sold the alcohol up to $2000 for supplying alcohol to an underage person.
The licensee is also liable for a fine of up to $2000 for employing an underage person to serve alcohol.

The premises can also be barred from selling alcohol for up to 7 days. Three strikes in 3 years for certain offences may result in the licensee being barred from holding a licence for up to 5 years.
Generally speaking, the NZ attitude seems more laid back, but if you want to be a licensee here, be prepared to get all your ducks in a row, or suffer consequences.

These are not civil penalties, but criminal offences and are dealt with in a criminal court.

[Pantastic]

@SlackerInc

You’re assuming this would require a “setup”, and that Kalil was even the one “setting up” his business (as opposed to just letting managers do so).

He accepted responsibility for setting up his business when he signed up for the liquor license. If he didn’t want to be responsible for handling liquor, someone else’s name should have been on the license. If he couldn’t find someone who’s name could legally go on the license, then he shouldn’t run a business selling alcohol. You don’t get to formally sign papers saying that you’re responsible for handling alcohol according to the law, then have someone else actually do the setup, and try to push the buck down to them.

[Alley_Dweller]

More news articles.

This article from KARE 11 says that he was charged for using underage servers.

This article from CBS Minnesota says that all the employees on the premises at the time were underage. Most articles agree that the manager was not on the premises at the time of the sale. The manager had to be contacted by phone.
The articles disagree on who was new at the restaurant and had not undergone the mandatory compliance training. Some say the manager, some say the server. But it seems strange to me that an underage minor would need to undergo compliance training other than be told “don’t touch the booze.”
t

[Little_Nemo]

@SlackerInc

This is a strawman, or you are not reading carefully. That is not my position at all–see above.

It’s in the thread title and the first line of your OP.

@SlackerInc

Whoa, let’s be careful here with throwing around “bar owners”. It’s a pizza joint that sells beer to wash down the pizza. I don’t believe they have an actual physical bar or sell liquor, mixed drinks, etc. If it were that kind of place and he had a 17 year old bartending, that would obviously be messed up.

It is that kind of place. It’s a commercial business that serves alcohol. And when you do that, you have to comply with the laws for that.

Why do you think so many pizza places choose to not sell beer and wine? It’s because they don’t want to have to deal with the laws concerning serving alcohol.

Kalil could have made that same choice for his business. But he apparently instead chose to go ahead and have his business serve alcohol and ignore the laws regarding that. No surprise he’s facing criminal charges now.

[Alley_Dweller]

I found it!!!

Here is the actual complaint against Kalil, written by the police officer.

Interesting facts:

They were conducting a compliance check at the time. The 19-year old (who bought the beer) was working with the police. She was never asked for an ID.

The other employee (not the one who sold the beer) on the premises was 16 years old.

The manager was not on the premises.

The manager (not the server) was new and had not undergone alcohol licensing training with the City of Maple Grove.

Charge: Liquor - Minors prohibited from serving/selling liquor in retail intoxicating liquor establishment
Minnesota Statute: 340A.412.10 Maximum Sentence: 0-90 days imprisonment and/or 0-$1000 fine Offense Level: Misdemeanor

[Locrian]

It’s a shame it happens. This happened at a Friday’s I worked in South Jersey in 1993.

Girl had her sister’s license, two years apart. Spitting image with a little makeup. She had drinks somewhere else, was carded at our bar. The bartender (we’ll call him Mike) served her one drink. She was pulled over for DUI.

Mother and police returned to the restaurant later. Mike confirmed he served her on the ID she showed him. He was fired. He was head bar manager for 9 years, caught dozens of fakes, and this gets him fired.

He was also arrested. (!) Providing minors with alcohol. Was released and only paid a fine, but try finding a new bar job with that on your record.

Laws there have changed since then. But they still don’t make a lot of sense. If I purposely paid for a fake or stole a real ID, why doesn’t the responsibility end with me?

[Locrian]

Now that I read the arrest report posted, the police informant was never asked for ID. Seems like they were testing to see exactly WHO was being carded. I’m sure the 19-year-old girl looked like she should be carded. Not carding her at all is the problem.

[cochrane]

@Ruken

I bet a large proportion of posters don’t read carefully. Do you? The quote in question is from a post about slipping on floors. He’s wrong.

Doesn’t matter. This isn’t about someone slipping on a wet floor. It’s about an underage employee selling beer to an underage undercover officer. A criminal offense as opposed to a civil offense.

[cochrane]

@Locrian

Now that I read the arrest report posted, the police informant was never asked for ID. Seems like they were testing to see exactly WHO was being carded. I’m sure the 19-year-old girl looked like she should be carded. Not carding her at all is the problem.

Well, yes, that is relevant. She should have been carded, no matter what. But the actual charge is that of an underage employee selling an alcoholic drink. Even if she had done everything legally, she was still too young to serve the beer.

[Locrian]

@cochrane

Well, yes, that is relevant. She should have been carded, no matter what. But the actual charge is that of an underage employee selling an alcoholic drink. Even if she had done everything legally, she was still too young to serve the beer.

Poor kid. She’s all, “Hi! I’m new. Here’s a beer!”. Dumb-ass manager not on premises.

[Alley_Dweller]

@Locrian

Poor kid. She’s all, “Hi! I’m new. Here’s a beer!”.

OK, I got a good chuckle out of that one. Thanks.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@SlackerInc

I don’t understand why it’s not just a standard fine against the business when this is caught. Make them cough up a thousand bucks or whatever for each violation. Why does an owner have to be actually arraigned in court?

Because that was tried, in previous Minnesota liquor laws, and it didn’t work. The business just figured the rare fines as a cost of doing business, and didn’t bother to change their behavior. They made a lot of money from being known as a place “where they don’t card you”. That word spreads fast among underage drinkers.

That the police were there doing a ‘compliance check’ in the first place indicates that this business already had a reputation for underage sales. (These are a low priority for police, and there are far too many liquor sellers to check all of them.)

There were lots of things wrong about this business:

1. The 17-year-old seller was actually the oldest worker, others were even younger.
2. No worker in the place was legally allowed to sell alcohol. Yet it was still being sold.
3. The seller made no effort at all to card the buyer. And she was clearly underage-looking – the police make sure of that when doing compliance checks.
4. The manager had not taken the required training for alcohol sellers.
5. The alcohol was kept in a open cooler, available to the public.

All this indicates to me a business that was paying fast & loose with the liquor laws, and deliberately so.

[allotrope]

I haven’t read the whole thread but it’s possible the cops were doing the bar a favor. If the state has a dram shop law making them strictly liable for any injuries resulting from an obviously intoxicated patron, then it’s better to encourage them to tighten up their game before they indirectly kill someone.

“Dram shops” were originally establishments that sold gin in 18th-century England. Dram shop laws make a business or person strictly liable to a plaintiff if the business or person sold or gave alcoholic beverages to someone who was obviously intoxicated or close to being intoxicated, and the drunk patron caused injuries to the plaintiff. This means that an injured plaintiff can sue the bar, alcohol retailer, or private citizen who served the drunk driver.

Dram Shop Laws and Liability for Drunk Driving Accidents

[SlackerInc]

After seeing more information come in, it does look like the whole setup of the business was highly suspect. But I still think that should be dealt with as a regulatory matter, via fines. If $1,000 isn’t enough deterrent, make it $5K, $10K, whatever. You can’t tell me there’s no amount of fine that would make it an unprofitable business practice.

Or simply yank the liquor license, maybe after one or two strikes. Problem solved.

@Little_Nemo

It’s in the thread title and the first line of your OP.

Uh, no it’s not. But let’s back up, and recap for clarity. You said:

Your position seems to be that the owner of a business should have legal immunity for the actions of his business.

I responded:

This is a strawman, or you are not reading carefully. That is not my position at all–see above.

And now you’re saying, in response to that:

It’s in the thread title and the first line of your OP.

My thread title:

TIL you can be charged in court for a crime that occurred without your knowledge 1000s of miles away.

Nothing there that can even remotely be read as “the owner of a business should have legal immunity for the actions of his business”. Furthermore, there is no opinion of any kind in my thread title. It is a simple statement of fact: that was something I learned that day that I previously had not known.

The first line of my OP:

I could see civil liability, but criminal?

There’s an implied opinion there, at least. But it is not the opinion “the owner of a business should have legal immunity for the actions of his business”. If I believed that, then in fact I would *not *be able to see civil liability. And of course, I never foreclosed the idea of criminal liability as well in cases where the owner participated in, encouraged, or purposely turned a blind eye to criminal wrongdoing. That’s why I also said in my OP:

Obviously I would feel differently if there were any evidence that Kalil had told his workers to look the other way so they could make money from underage sales.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@SlackerInc

After seeing more information come in, it does look like the whole setup of the business was highly suspect. But I still think that should be dealt with as a regulatory matter, via fines. If $1,000 isn’t enough deterrent, make it $5K, $10K, whatever. You can’t tell me there’s no amount of fine that would make it an unprofitable business practice.

The fines are just deducted from their taxes as a cost of doing business.

And even the current $1,000 is seldom paid. Business owners come into court and say it was all the fault of that one employee, who I’ve fired, and that heavy fines like this would make the business unprofitable, and I’ll have to close down, and put all my employees out of work… And so Judges suspend most of the fine provided they don’t get caught again within the year.

@SlackerInc

Obviously I would feel differently if there were any evidence that Kalil had told his workers to look the other way so they could make money from underage sales.

How naive you are!
Such instructions are never put down in writing that could be evidence. They are seldom even “told” to employees verbally – new employees learn what is expected by seeing how the business is actually conducted.