explaining that the preponderance standard is the prevailing standard of proof governing agency findings in most administrative proceedings
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the preponderance standard is the prevailing standard of proof governing agency findings in most administrative proceedings
- explaining that the preponderance standard is the prevailing standard of proof governing the outcome in most administrative proceedings
- holding that civil sanctions may be imposed against license holders even when criminal charges have not resulted in a conviction
- gambling on licensed premises
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
Under the guise of liberally construing the Liquor Code and protecting the “public welfare, health, peace and morals” of the citizens of this Commonwealth, the majority has empowered the Liquor Control Board to independently impose punishment for the presumed commission of crimes not even related to the sale or consumption of alcohol. I must dissent.
The majority correctly states that the Board is authorized by the Liquor Code to impose sanctions for violations of laws relating to liquor or “any other sufficient cause,” 47 P.S. § 4-471 (Supp.1977-78), and that the additional phrase “any other sufficient cause” indicates that the Board’s disciplinary powers are not limited to direct violations of the liquor laws. This does not mean, however, that the Board has unbridled discretion to discipline licensees whenever, in the Board’s view, criminal activity took place on a licensee’s premises. The majority today gives the Board such discretion by interpreting the “other sufficient cause” provision to include a charge of gambling on the premises, even though criminal charges against the licensee were dismissed by a judicial tribunal.
*328 In citing a dazzling array of precedents to support this novel and dangerous rule of law, the majority overlooks Pittaulis Liquor License Case, 444 Pa. 243 , 282 A.2d 388 (1971), where we held the Board without power to refuse a license transfer solely on the basis that the potential licensee’s deed had a restriction prohibiting the sale of liquor on the premises. At that time we said:
“The Liquor Control Board was designed and established to regulate the sale of liquor throughout the Commonwealth, not to adjudicate collateral issues involving rights and interest in real property. Indeed, the members of the Board are not even necessarily trained in the law.” Id., 444 Pa. at 249 , 282 A.2d at 390 .
And yet, the majority is now willing to allow this same Liquor Control Board, composed of individuals untrained in the law, to impose sanctions for criminal charges not related to the consumption of alcohol, charges which, for reasons unknown to the majority, a court of law chose not to pursue.
The majority cites various cases for the proposition that we have previously upheld the Board’s imposition of penalties for conduct not expressly prohibited by the Liquor Code. However, only Tahiti Bar, Inc. Liquor License Case, 395 Pa. 355 , 150 A.2d 112 (1959), was decided by this Court, and contrary to the majority’s assertion, Tahiti Bar involved sanctions imposed by the Board for the violation of section 493(10) of the Liquor Code (prohibiting lewd, immoral or improper entertainment on licensed premises) and for violation of the Board’s Regulation 110 (prohibiting association between licensee’s entertainers and patrons). See also Golden Bar, Inc. v. Liquor License Case No. 1, 193 Pa.Super. 400 , 165 A.2d 285 (1960). Similarly, the Board’s sanctions were upheld in In re Ciro’s Lounge, Inc., 24 Pa.Cmwlth. 589 , 358 A.2d 141 (1976) (noisy and disorderly conduct), Petty Liquor License Case, 216 Pa.Super. 55 , 258 A.2d 874 (1969) (same), and Reiter Liquor License Case, 173 Pa.Super. 552 , 98 A.2d 465 (1953) (same, plus presence of prostitutes) but these involved violations of other sections of the Liquor Code, i. e., § 4-493(1) (sale to visibly intoxicated persons) and § 4- *329 493(14) (permitting criminals or prostitutes to frequent premises). Furthermore, sanctions for such things as conducting a licensed premises in a noisy and disorderly manner is directly connected with the sale and consumption of liquor; it was the serving of alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons which made the establishment noisy and disorderly.
The Liquor Control Board may, of course, impose sanctions for the commission of crimes which do not involve liquor when the licensee has pleaded guilty or been convicted of a collateral crime. Bayer Liquor License Case, 200 Pa.Super. 210 , 188 A.2d 819 (1963); Commonwealth v. Lyons, 142 Pa.Super. 54 , 15 A.2d 851 (1940). It is quite another matter, however, when a judicial proceeding instituted against a licensee ended in acquittal or dismissal of the charges.
The Board should not be permitted to punish citizens unconvicted of criminal charges, such as gambling on the premises, in order to protect the public interest in punishing such conduct; until today, it has been thought that that interest is amply protected by judicial criminal proceedings for violation of the state’s gambling laws. A citizen’s property may not be placed in jeopardy twice.
I would reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court and reinstate the order of the Common Pleas Court vacating the fine.
POMEROY, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.