BEFORE THE LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION OF … · Dr. Feelgood’s Pub. During the meeting, Licensees...

Page 1 of 21 – FINAL ORDER

BEFORE THE LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of the Full ) FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT

On-Premises Sales License Held By: ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

) AND ORDER

Donald Harvey ) OLCC-08-V-052 and OLCC-08-V-074

Rachel Harvey )

dba DR. FEELGOOD’S PUB )

13727 SW Pacific Hwy )

Tigard, OR 97223 )

HISTORY OF THE CASE

On May 22, 2008, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC or Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed License Suspension/Civil Penalty to Donald Harvey and Rachel Harvey, dba Dr. Feelgood’s Pub (Licensees). The Notice alleged that Licensees permitted disorderly activity on the licensed premises and proposed a penalty of a 12-day suspension or a $1,980 civil penalty. Licensees timely requested a hearing, and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings on July 17, 2008 (Case No. 08-V-052). On August 28, 2008, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed License Cancellation to Licensees, alleging that there is a history of serious and persistent problems at the licensed premises under ORS 471.315(1)(c). Licensees timely requested a hearing. The hearing request was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings on September 22, 2008 (Case No. 08-V-074). The cases were consolidated for hearing, and assigned to Administrative Law Judge Alison Greene Webster. The hearing was held in Tualatin, Oregon on February 25 through 27, 2009 before Administrative Law Judge Webster. OLCC was represented by Case Presenter Kelly Routt. Licensees appeared without counsel. OLCC called the following witnesses: Tigard Police Lieutenant Rick Rhodes; Tigard Police Sergeant Neil Charlton; Tigard Police Officers Matt Barbee, Aaron Codino, Michael Davis, Leigh Erickson, Michael Fisher, Esteban Gaytan, Brent Mastrich, Cameron Odam, Kris Quinby, Corey Saffer, Zachary Scott, Jason Tillotson and Ron Wommack; OLCC Inspectors Janice Kindrick, Jesse Enright, Karen Keith, Leslie Kleinkopf, Paul Rosenow, Jason Tallmadge and Kevin Wellman, and Licensees’ former employee, Sarah Preston. The following witnesses testified on Licensees’ behalf: Manager Tracy Tabb, employees Ron Tabb, John Kelly, Benjamin Wardwell and Meg Hatfield, and patrons Jeff Hegstrom and Llewellyn Starks. The record closed on February 27, 2009, following closing arguments.


The Administrative Law Judge considered the record of the hearing and the applicable law and issued a Proposed Order mailed April 13, 2009.

Licensees filed Exceptions to the Proposed Order on April 29, 2009.

On June 18, 2009, the Commission considered the record of the hearing, the applicable law, the Proposed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, Licensees’ Exceptions to the Proposed Order and the Administrative Law Judge=s Response to Licensees’ Exceptions. Based on this review and the preponderance of the evidence, the Commission enters the following:

EVIDENTIARY RULINGS

Pleadings A through E were received. OLCC Exhibits A1 through A32 and Licensees’ Exhibits P1 through P26 were admitted.

ISSUES

1. Whether Licensees permitted disorderly activity in violation of OAR 845-006-0347(2)(a) when, on April 5, 2008, patrons engaged in a physical altercation in the parking lot, an area adjacent to the licensed premises and within Licensees’ control.

2. Whether there is a history of serious and persistent problems at Licensees’ premises,

based upon incidents occurring between May 20, 2007 and June 8, 2008. 3. Whether Licensees have demonstrated a willingness and ability to control the

premises since June 2008. 4. If either or both violations are proven, what is the proper penalty?

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Donald Harvey and Rachel Harvey, doing business as Dr. Feelgood’s Pub, have held a Full On-Premises Sales license for their Tigard, Oregon location since 1992. Since at least December 2002, the Pub has been located at 13727 SW Pacific Highway. The Harveys also operate licensed premises in Aloha, Oregon, and have previously operated a Dr. Feelgood’s Pub in downtown Portland, Oregon. (Ex. A25.) 2. On March 30, 2006, Licensee Donald Harvey and premises manager Tracy Tabb met with OLCC Regional Manager Janice Kindrick and Sgt. Fisher of the Tigard Police Department about reports of disorder at the premises and the high numbers of DUII arrests associated with Dr. Feelgood’s Pub. During the meeting, Licensees agreed to house policies on alcohol service, including the following measures: (1) One bouncer Tuesday through Thursday and three bouncers on Friday and Saturday nights; (2) After 12:00 a.m., no pitchers, Long Island ice teas or like drinks. No doubles, ever; (3) Stop serving at approximately 1:35 a.m., No last call; (4) One shot pour spouts on liquor; and (5) Licensees’ security staff will call the police for all physical disturbances. (Ex. A26; test. of Kindrick.)


3. At approximately 12:35 a.m. on May 20, 2007, Tigard police responded to a report of a fight in the parking lot adjacent to the licensed premises. The caller reported, among other things, that 15 to 20 people were involved in the fight. The caller also reported that some were “very drunk.” By the time the officers arrived, the main suspect involved in the fight had left the area in a red Honda. Licensees’ employee Benjamin Wardwell provided the officers with a description of the vehicle, but officers were unsuccessful in locating it. The suspect patron had been disruptive while inside the premises, and while leaving, started fighting with other patrons in the parking lot outside the premises. As employee Wardwell attempted to break up the fight, the suspect patron bit him in the area of the right arm pit. Tigard police suspended the assault investigation due to lack of leads on the suspect. (Ex. A1; test. of Erickson.) 4. At 12:33 a.m. on June 20, 2007, Tigard officers responded to investigate a reported assault at the licensed premises. Two female patrons assaulted two other female patrons on the dance floor, in what the victims and witnesses described as an unprovoked attack. One of the female victims was hit several times in the face, and sustained a chipped tooth. She was taken to the hospital for medical treatment. By the time the officers arrived, the suspects had left the licensed premises. A witness described the two female patrons who started the fight as “drunk.” Tigard officers later located the two suspects. They admitted being involved in an altercation at the licensed premises, but denied starting it. The two women were arrested and charged with Assault III. (Ex. A2; test. of Wommack; test. of Odam.) 5. At approximately 2:54 a.m. on July 15, 2007, Tigard officers were dispatched to investigate an assault that occurred at the licensed premises. The complainant, DuBois, reported that, while at the licensed premises earlier in the night, another patron, Huaraque, hit him in the face, knocked him down and then kicked him. DuBois sustained injuries to his forehead, cheek and back. When the police went to the premises to investigate, employee Wardwell confirmed that there had been a scuffle between the two men, and that Huaraque had to be pulled off DuBois and escorted from the premises. Officers also contacted Huaraque, who admitted fighting with DuBois at the premises, but blamed DuBois for initiating it. He asserted that DuBois had offended a female patron and one of his friends. Officers cited both DuBois and Huaraque for harassment. (Ex. A3; test. of Saffer.) 6. At approximately 12:18 a.m. on September 7, 2007, Tigard officers were dispatched to a fight at the licensed premises. A patron, Nichols, got into a verbal altercation with a group inside the premises and then “sucker punched” another patron. That patron, Murrieta, sustained a bloody nose as a result. Employee Wardwell tried to detain Nichols outside the premises until the officers arrived, but when he heard the sirens approaching, Nichols broke free and ran off. Officer Tillotson located Nichols a short time later, urinating behind a business in the same complex as the licensed premises. Nichols was obviously intoxicated. He ran off again, and fought with the officers when they caught him and took him into custody. He told Officer Tillotson that he was too intoxicated to understand his Miranda rights. The officers cited Nichols for disorderly conduct. (Ex. A5; test. of Gaytan; test. of Tillotson.) 7. At approximately 1:03 a.m. on September 28, 2007, Tigard officers were dispatched


to a fight at the licensed premises. Two patrons began fighting over a game of pool. When officers arrived, one of the patrons involved in the fight had already left the premises. The other fighter, Sorensen, was still there, bloodied and bruised. He was obviously intoxicated. There was an overturned barstool, a broken pool stick, spilled drinks and broken glass where the men were fighting inside the premises. Sorensen told the officers that the other guy had started the fight and had “sucker punched” him for no reason. Sorensen sustained facial injuries, and was transported via ambulance to the hospital. Officers viewed Licensees’ surveillance video, and although the video did not provide enough detail to determine who started the fight, the footage did show Sorensen going after the other patron. Sorensen was cited for disorderly conduct and criminal mischief for his involvement in the fight. (Ex. A6; test. of Gaytan; test. of Scott.) 8. At approximately 2:12 a.m. on November 23, 2007, officers were dispatched to a disturbance outside the licensed premises. Dispatch reported several subjects outside the location were starting to cause a problem. Officers learned that a patron had struck another patron, Kette, with a bottle. The bottle did not break, but Kette had a small cut on his upper lip. Licensees’ security staff had ejected Kette from the premises about 10 minutes earlier, and the disturbance ensued when Kette came back and was denied reentry. By the time officers arrived, those causing the disturbance in the parking lot had left. Officers did not issue any citations in this incident. (Ex. A7; test. of Erickson.) 9. At approximately 1:05 a.m. on January 1, 2008, Tigard officers went to the licensed premises on a security check. A patron, who had had too much to drink, became angry when Licensees’ staff asked him to leave. Sgt. Fisher arrived to find two males involved in a shoving match in the premises’ parking lot. He directed them to stop fighting and separate. They did so, although only one of the two men continued to cooperate. The other, Carpenter, took a threatening stance with the officer and refused to calm down. Sgt. Fisher sprayed Carpenter in the face with pepper spray, but Carpenter remained belligerent. Other officers arrived and deployed a taser on Carpenter. Carpenter continued to resist, but was eventually taken into custody and charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and a probation violation. Carpenter’s friend advised officers that Carpenter had been served “way too much alcohol.” (Ex. A8; test. of Fisher; test. of Tillotson.) 10. That same date, January 1, 2008, a female patron was injured and knocked to the ground and rendered unconscious during a scuffle on the dance floor. While the woman was dancing with a friend, a male patron repeatedly attempted to cut in. She pushed the man away, but then another female patron, a friend of the man’s, became angry and started fighting with her. The woman sustained a concussion. She and Officer Codino later reviewed Licensees’ surveillance videos of the incident, but they were unable to identify the suspects. (Ex. A9; test. of Codino.) 11. At approximately 12:10 a.m. on January 20, 2008, Officer Erickson came upon a highly intoxicated male leaning against a signpost on SW Pacific Highway near SW Park St., approximately a block from the licensed premises. The man’s pants were wet, and he appeared dirty and disheveled. He smelled strongly of alcoholic beverages and spoke with slurred speech. He was unable to stand or walk without assistance. The man had been drinking at the licensed


premises earlier in the night and had been cut off. Officer Erickson took the man to Hooper Detoxification Center (detox). (Ex. A10; test. of Erickson.) 12. About 30 minutes later on that same date, January 20, 2008, Officer Gaytan was dispatched to the licensed premises on a report of an alleged overdose. When the officer arrived, paramedics were already attending to the woman on the grass just outside the entrance to the premises. The woman’s husband and a friend were standing nearby. The husband reported that his wife started feeling ill while they were inside the bar, so they stepped outside for some fresh air. There, she began vomiting, fell down and passed out. The woman, her husband and the friend were all obviously intoxicated. They admitted that they had been drinking at the licensed premises for the last several hours. Paramedics transported the woman to the hospital for observation. (Ex. A11; test. of Gaytan.) 13. At about 12:45 a.m. on January 20, 2008, the Tigard police contacted OLCC about visibly intoxicated patrons leaving the licensed premises. Inspectors Keith and Tawney responded. When they entered the licensed premises, they saw three patrons showing signs of visible intoxication who had just been served an alcoholic beverage. Inspector Keith advised the bartender and manager on duty that these patrons were showing signs of intoxication. (Ex. A12; test. of Keith.) 14. On February 14, 2008, OLCC issued Licensees two warning notices, one to server Sarah Preston and the other to then-manager Pasha Nazari, for serving alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person or, alternatively, allowing a visibly intoxicated person to continue to consume alcohol. The warning notices arose out of Inspector Keith’s observations during her January 20, 2008 visit to the licensed premises, as well as the officers’ reports regarding the visible intoxication of the woman who passed out, her husband and their friend. (Ex. A12; test. of Keith.) 15. At approximately 2:14 a.m. on March 7, 2008, Tigard officers were dispatched to a fight and criminal mischief occurring at the licensed premises. Dispatch reported that an intoxicated patron had just broken the glass in the premises’ front door. When the officers arrived, they contacted two individuals, a brother and sister, standing outside the premises. Both were visibly intoxicated. They had the odor of alcoholic beverages on their breath and spoke with slurred speech. They admitted to being involved in a fight with other patrons inside the licensed premises. The brother denied that he had broken the glass door. But, when the officers reviewed the surveillance video, it showed the siblings fighting with others inside the premises and then going for the door. It also showed Licensees’ employees and other patrons trying to impede their way by blocking and locking the door. It also showed the sister hitting the door and her brother punching and kicking at the door until the glass shattered. Officers arrested the siblings for disorderly conduct. During the transport to jail, the brother said that he and his sister had been drinking at the licensed premises for three or four hours that night, and that after paying for three or four beers, the bouncer, a friend of his sister’s boyfriend, began bringing free beers to their table. (Ex. A13; test. of Gaytan.) 16. On March 8, 2008, OLCC Inspectors Rosenow and Caballero visited the premises.


They discovered that one of the employees who performed security duties at the premises did not have a certification from the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST) to perform such services. Inspector Rosenow issued Licensees a Notice of Warning for permitting unlawful activity based on this employee’s lack of DPSST certification. (Ex. A14; test. of Rosenow.) 17. Shortly before 2:00 a.m. on April 5, 2008, officers were dispatched to a fight occurring in the parking lot of the licensed premises. Around closing time, three male patrons, Green, Martin and Stoller, became rowdy and obnoxious while inside the premises. When asked to leave, they began arguing with Licensees’ security staff and other patrons. The altercation started inside, but spilled outside. Licensees’ security staff shoved the involved patrons outside the premises and locked the front doors. Despite knowing that the altercation had escalated into a physical fight outside the premises, Licensees’ employees did not call the police. A patron who witnessed the fighting called to report the disturbance. The disturbance continued until the police arrived. (Exs. A15 and A16; test. of Gaytan; test. of Rosenow.) 18. Officer Davis was the first officer to arrive on scene. A group of persons standing on the sidewalk in front of the premises directed him to patron Green, who was walking away from the group across the parking lot. Green was bleeding in the area of his nose and mouth. Officer Davis identified himself and ordered Green to stop. Green did not comply. Officer Davis deployed his taser, but the probes stuck in Green’s coat and were ineffective. Officer Davis again ordered Green to stop. This time, Green stopped, turned and charged toward Officer Davis, knocking the officer backwards several feet into the back side of a parked van. Officer Davis used his baton on Green and the two men continued to tussle until bystanders assisted Officer Davis in restraining Green. Green was transported to the hospital for treatment. Officer Davis sustained minor injuries to his elbows, hands, knees and forehead. At the hospital, Officer Davis arrested Green for assaulting a police officer and criminal mischief. Green along with Martin and Stoller were also charged with disorderly conduct for fighting at the premises. (Ex. A15; test. of Davis; test. of Gaytan; test. of Charlton.) 19. On that same date and time, OLCC Regional Manager Janice Kindrick was traveling along Highway 99W near the licensed premises when she saw patrol cars responding to the location. She arrived in the premises parking lot to see people fighting and Officer Davis scuffling with Green. She was among the bystanders who pulled Green away from Davis. (Ex. A16; test. of Kindrick). 20. OLCC Inspector Rosenow investigated the April 5, 2008 incident at the licensed premises. He interviewed the employees and witnesses to the fighting. He also viewed the surveillance videos of the incident. He determined that, after Licensees’ employees removed the fighting patrons from the premises, they locked the door and did not make further attempts to intervene in the matter. Rosenow also determined that Licensees’ employees did not call the police for assistance despite knowing that patrons were continuing to fight in the parking lot. The caller, a patron and former bouncer at the premises, sustained a foot injury trying to break up the fighters. On April 16, 2008, OLCC issued Licensees a Notice of Violation Ticket for permitting disorderly activities at the licensed premises on April 5, 2008. (Ex. A16; test. of


Rosenow.) 21. On April 17, 2008, Licensee Harvey and employee Ron Tabb,1 met with Kindrick and Rosenow of OLCC and Sgt. Charlton of the Tigard Police Department to discuss the recent problems occurring at the licensed premises. As part of that meeting, Licensees entered into a Compliance Plan to prevent the recurrence of such incidents. Licensees agreed, among other things, to the following: (1) No free pouring of distilled spirits at any time; (2) No serving pitchers of beer; (3) Stop serving alcohol at 1:00 a.m.; (4) Stop serving double drinks, Long Island ice teas or similar drinks at 12:00 a.m.; (5) No serving of drop shots (shots of distilled spirits mixed with beer or Red Bull); and (6) No re-entry to patrons after 12:00 a.m. and no entry allowed after 1:00 a.m. (Ex. A18; test. of Rosenow; test. of Kindrick.) 22. At approximately 10:29 p.m. on April 22, 2008, an officer was dispatched to the licensed premises about a disorderly female. The woman, who had been harassing other patrons, was extremely intoxicated. She smelled strongly of alcoholic beverages and was unable to stand on her own. She could not articulate her address, but she stated she had been drinking at three other bars in the Tigard area before coming to Dr. Feelgood’s Pub. She had been served a beer at the licensed premises, before she was cut off by Licensees’ staff. Officer Wommack took the woman to detox. (Ex. A19; test. of Wommack; test. of T. Tabb.) 23. At approximately 1:53 a.m. on May 16, 2008, Tigard Lt. Rhodes came upon a visibly intoxicated male in the premises parking lot. Lt. Rhodes knew the male, Beckham, from prior contacts. Beckham was unsteady on his feet and spoke with slurred speech. It was Beckham’s 21st birthday, and he and his friend had been drinking at several bars in the area before coming to the licensed premises. At the licensed premises, Beckham had been served an “AMF,” a drink containing several shots of distilled spirits and a Stout Ale. The friend, who was also intoxicated, had been served three drinks at the licensed premises. Lt. Rhodes was concerned that Licensees were continuing to serve visibly intoxicated patrons and were serving multiple shot drinks in violation of the Compliance Plan, so he notified Sgt. Charlton, who notified the OLCC. (Ex. A20; test. of Rhodes.) 24. At approximately 1:36 a.m. on May 31, 2008, on the request of Licensees’ staff, Officer Mastrich patrolled the premises parking lot. About that same time, dispatch advised that a patron had called to report he had been assaulted by a bouncer at the licensed premises. Officer Mastrich found a group of five people standing near a car parked close to the entrance. Two other people were standing nearby. Officer Mastrich contacted Buchanan, who said he had been hit in the face by a bouncer inside the premises. Buchanan also claimed the he had been hit by another patron, an Asian male. Officer Mastrich saw no evidence of injury to indicate that Buchanan had been assaulted. Buchanan was very intoxicated. He smelled of alcoholic beverages and had difficulty maintaining his balance. He provided a confusing explanation of

1 Ron Tabb is the husband of Tracy Tabb, the premises’ general manager. Mr. Tabb worked part time at the licensed premises for many years and became a full time employee in June 2008, after retiring from other employment. Ron Tabb works mostly Sundays, Mondays and Tuesdays. He manages the premises, supervises employees and has the authority to hire and fire staff. (Test. of R. Tabb.)


what had occurred inside the premises. Officer Mastrich interviewed others, and determined that there had been an altercation inside the premises involving Buchanan and an Asian male. Both patrons were asked to leave. When security staff asked Buchanan to leave, he became angry and aggressive. Licensees’ bouncer admitted pushing Buchanan to the ground, but denied punching him. Mastrich determined that no crime had occurred. (Ex. A21; test. of Mastrich.) 25. On that same date and time, while Officer Mastrich was talking with Buchanan, Officer Odam contacted employees Tabb and Kelly inside the premises. They confirmed that there had been a physical altercation between Buchanan and the Asian male. Kelly added that, as the Asian male was being escorted from the premises, he threatened to return with a gun. Officer Odam asked why, when Tabb or Kelly called the police and asked for a drive through of the premises parking lot, they did not mention the altercation or that a patron ejected from the premises had threatened to return with a gun. The officers were very concerned that Licensees’ employees did not recognize the potential risks to officer safety when they called and requested a casual drive through and omitted to mention the patron’s threat to return with a firearm. (Ex. A21; test. of Odam.) 26. The next day, June 1, 2008, Officer Mastrich returned to the licensed premises and spoke with Ron Tabb and Licensee Donald Harvey. Officer Mastrich expressed his concern about the way in which Licensees’ employees, including Tabb, had handled the assault occurring inside the premises the previous night. Tabb maintained that they had handled the matter appropriately. Officer Mastrich advised that anytime the police are being called to the premises where there has been a threat of a firearm, the police should be notified of the threat. (Ex. A21.) 27. At approximately 12:36 a.m. on June 8, 2008, Officer Happala of the King City Police Department was called to a residence in King City to investigate a cold assault. The victim, a 25 year old female who was visibly intoxicated, told the officer that sometime between 11:30 p.m. and midnight, her ex-boyfriend pushed her to the ground while they were walking home from Dr. Feelgood’s Pub. The victim explained that earlier in the night, they had been drinking at McKenzie Pub in Sherwood and J.B. O’Brien’s before going to the licensed premises. She said that her ex-boyfriend had been “cut off” at J.B. O’Brien’s, so they went to Dr. Feelgood’s Pub. Both were served drinks at the licensed premises, but when the ex-boyfriend began arguing with another patron, bouncers escorted him out of the premises. She came out to join him, and he started yelling at her. She started walking home, they continued to argue. He pushed her to the ground when she said she wanted walk home by herself. The victim described her ex-boyfriend as being very intoxicated. After talking with the officer, she elected not to press charges. (Ex. A22.) 28. At approximately 1:03 a.m. on June 8, 2008, Officer Mastrich did another security check at the licensed premises. While leaving, he saw a man run behind the Crowbar, another business in the same complex. Officer Mastrich contacted the man as he walked back towards the premises. The man was extremely intoxicated. He admitted that he had gone behind the building to urinate in the bushes. Officer Mastrich also spoke with the man’s friend, who was also intoxicated. The friend advised that they had been drinking at J.B. O’Brien’s and then Dr. Feelgood’s Pub. He also said that he had just called for a cab because they were too intoxicated


to drive home. (Ex. A23; test. Of Mastrich.) 29. At approximately 11:03 p.m. on June 13, 2008, OLCC Inspector Rosenow and Regional Manager Kindrick visited the premises. They saw bartenders and servers free pouring distilled spirits. They interviewed the bar manager, Goulding, who confirmed that, for the most part, servers were free pouring alcohol. He also said that customers may have up to two “Long Island” drinks per day and that if a person comes in after 1:00 a.m. and is not too intoxicated, he or she may be served alcohol. He added that the premises generally stops serving at 1:00 a.m., but if the crowd is good, the bar may stay open until 1:30 a.m. The inspectors also tried to speak with Ron Tabb, but he claimed that he was not the manager on duty that night and he did not want to talk with them. (Ex. A24; test. of Rosenow; test. of Kindrick.) 30. At approximately 11:37 p.m. on June 23, 2008, a Tigard police officer stopped Michael Feldman after seeing him drive out of the premises parking lot. Feldman exhibited signs and symptoms of intoxication. He told the officer that he had had six beers at the licensed premises in the prior two hours. The officer arrested Feldman for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). Feldman submitted to a breath test following his arrest. The breath test disclosed a blood alcohol content of .23 percent. (Ex. A27; test. of Enright.) 31. On June 26, 2008, the Commission issued Licensees a Notice of Violation, charging Licensees with a violation of ORS 471.315(1)(c), alleging a history of serious and persistent problems at Dr. Feelgood’s Pub in Tigard from May 20, 2007 to June 17, 2008. (Ex. A24.) 32. At approximately 12:52 a.m. on September 3, 2008, Tigard police were called to the licensed premises on a reported fight. Officer Wommack responded and detained a patron, Huaraque, who had been fighting with another patron and Licensees’ security staff inside the premises. Huaraque was visibly intoxicated, based upon his slow and slurred speech and the strong odor of alcoholic beverages on his person. Officer Wommack arrested Huaraque for disorderly conduct and harassment, and transported him to the Washington County Jail. At the jail, Officer Wommack administered a breath test to Huaraque. The test disclosed a blood alcohol content of .119 percent. (Ex. A28; test. of Wommack.) 33. As part of the Tigard Police Department’s investigation into the fight at the licensed premises on September 3, 2008, Sgt. Fisher contacted the on duty manager to request a copy of Licensees’ surveillance video of the incident. Ron Tabb advised Sgt. Fisher that Licensees would not provide the video until after Licensees had the chance to review it with their attorney. Sgt. Fisher believed Licensees were not willing to cooperate with this assault investigation. (Ex. A28; test. of Fisher.) Ron Tabb believed that Sgt. Fisher did not deal with him in a reasonable or professional manner, so he did not want to turn over the video. (Test. of R. Tabb.) 34. On September 13, 2008, OLCC Inspectors Kleinkopf and Hyun visited the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Three minutes after midnight, Inspector Kleinkopf ordered a Long Island ice tea drink. Licensees’ server mixed the drink in a pint glass and served it, charging the inspector $7.00. At 12:50 a.m., OLCC Inspector Hyun ordered a Long Island ice tea. The server advised that she could not make the drink in a tall pint glass, but she could serve


him the drink in a short rocks glass and only charge him $5.00. The inspectors also saw Licensees’ bartenders “free pouring” drinks. (Ex. A31; test. of Kleinkopf.) 35. On February 21, 2009, OLCC Inspectors Wellman, Caballero and Smith visited the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Inspector Wellman ordered a Long Island ice tea drink. Licensees’ server advised she could not serve that drink after midnight. The inspectors again saw Licensees’ bartenders “free pouring” drinks. The inspectors also saw that Licensees’ bartenders continued to take orders and serve alcoholic drinks after 1:00 a.m. At approximately 1:10 a.m., an employee turned on the flood lights above the bar. At 1:15 a.m., the bartenders stopped all sale and service of alcohol and began closing out the patrons’ bar tabs. (Ex. A32; test. of Wellman.) 36. Licensees have several patrons who frequent the premises and consider it a great place to eat, drink and meet friends. Jeff Hegstrom, an investment broker, has been a regular customer of the licensed premises for several years. He meets friends there after work two or three times a week. Hegstrom usually patronizes the premises during the afternoon or early evening, and is rarely there past 6:00 p.m. Llewellyn Starks, a marketing representative for Nike, has been a regular customer for the past five years. He often brings clients with him when he patronizes the premises. He is often there on Friday or Saturday nights. (Test. of Hegstrom; test. of Starks.) 37. Licensees require all of their employees to read and review the house policies and the standards set out in the Compliance Plan. There has been a large turnover of employees in the past year, because Licensees have terminated employees who do not comply with the house policies and Compliance Plan. (Test. of T. Tabb.)

CONCLUSIONS

1. Licensees permitted disorderly activity in violation of OAR 845-006-0347(2)(a) when, on April 5, 2008, patrons engaged in a physical altercation in the parking lot, an area adjacent to the licensed premises and within Licensees’ control.

2. There is a history of serious and persistent problems at Licensees’ premises, based

upon incidents occurring between May 20, 2007 and June 8, 2008. 3. Licensees have not demonstrated a willingness and ability to control the premises

since June 2008. 4. The proper penalty for the established violations is cancellation of the license.

OPINION

1. Permitting Disorderly Activity

OLCC asserts that Licensees permitted disorderly activity in violation of OAR 845-006-


0347(2) on April 5, 2008 when Licensees’ employees permitted patrons to engage in a physical altercation in the parking lot, an area adjacent to the licensed premises and within Licensees’ control. As the proponent of this position, the Commission bears the burden of proof. ORS 183.450(2).

Pursuant to OAR 845-006-0347(2), “No licensee or permittee will permit noisy or disorderly activities on licensed premises or in areas the licensee controls that are adjacent to or outside the premises.” By rule, the Commission has defined the term “disorderly activities” to mean “those that harass, threaten or physically harm another person.” OAR 845-006-0347(1). To prove a violation of this provision, “it must be proved that disorderly activities occurred, Licensee had knowledge of the conditions that resulted in the disorderly activities, and that Licensee did not take reasonable steps to prevent the disorderly activities.” Corral Pastime

(OLCC, Final Order, 89-V-165, May 1991), citing Tacoma Cafe (OLCC, Final Order, 86-V-036, August 1987).

In this case, the record establishes that, shortly before 2:00 a.m. on April 5, 2008, three

male patrons began arguing with Licensees’ security staff and other patrons. The physical altercation started as Licensees’ security staff were evicting these patrons from the premises, and continued outside in the premises parking lot after security staff closed and locked the front doors. Licensees’ employees did not call the police for assistance, despite knowing that the evicted patrons were continuing to fight with other patrons in the premises parking lot. After pushing the patrons out the door, Licensees’ employees did not intervene in the matter until after the police arrived, and after Officer Davis was assaulted by one of the patrons.

OLCC has established that disorderly activities occurred. Patrons and Officer Davis were injured in the incident. The Commission has also shown that Licensees’ employees had knowledge of the conditions that resulted in the disorderly activities and that Licensees’ employees failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the disorderly activities. The violation of OAR 845-006-0347(2) has been proven.

2. History of Serious and Persistent Problems

OLCC has also charged Licensees with a history of serious and persistent problems at the

Licensees’ premises pursuant to ORS 471.315(1)(c).2 OLCC cites to a series of problems at, or

2 ORS 471.315(1)(c) states in relevant part:

(1) The Oregon Liquor Control Commission may cancel or suspend any license * * * if it finds or has reasonable ground to believe any of the following to be true:

* * * (c) That there is a history of serious and persistent problems involving

disturbances, lewd or unlawful activities or noise either in the premises proposed to be licensed or involving patrons of the establishment in the immediate vicinity of the premises if the activities in the immediate vicinity of the premises are related to the sale or service of alcohol under the exercise of the license privilege. Behavior which is grounds for cancellation or suspension of a license under this section, where so related to


in the immediate vicinity of, the licensed premises over a 13 month period, from May 20, 2007 through June 8, 2008.

ORS 471.315(1)(c) requires that the serious and persistent problems be related to the sale

or service of alcohol. The problems may include fights, altercations, harassment, and public drunkenness, among other things. Licensees may overcome the history by showing that the problems are not serious or persistent or by demonstrating a willingness and ability to adequately control the premises and patrons' behavior.

In interpreting ORS 471.315(1)(c), the Commission has found that a history of serious

and persistent problems is based on the nature and circumstances of the incidents in each case. Incidents inside the licensed premises count, whether related to sale of alcohol or not. Incidents outside do not count unless the incident is related to the licensee's sale or service of alcohol. The Commission gives significant weight to severe crimes, such as those involving drugs, violence or the threat of violence to a patron or licensee, unless the incident was isolated and happenstance. Less severe crimes, such as shoplifting, will be given little weight, unless the crime is shown to be related to alcohol. Handy Food Mart (OLCC, Amended Final Order, 91-L-020, March 1994).

For example, in DiMarco’s Restaurant (OLCC, Final Order, 04-V-043/04-V-062, October 2005), the Commission found that 11 instances of excessive noise over the course of 10 months, nine disturbances involving violence or threat of violence over the course of 13 months and three other instances of unlawful activity (i.e., public drunkenness linked to the licensee’s establishment) constituted a history of serious and persistent problems.

In La Brisa (OLCC, Final Order, 91-L-037, December 1992), the Commission found that

incidents involving persons intending to go into the licensed premises are related to the exercise of the license privilege and count regardless of whether the persons consumed alcoholic liquor on the premises. In that case, OLCC found that the language "related to the sale or service of alcohol" does not require a showing that the patron involved purchased, was served or consumed alcohol in the licensed premises. The OLCC presumed that the persons are coming to the premises because the licensee has a license and for the purpose of consuming alcoholic liquor. Id.

In Headless Horseman (OLCC, Final Order, 92-L-016, June 1993), the Commission

found that the licensed premises had a history of serious and persistent problems where the number of incidents was not large, but most of the incidents involved fights. There, the licensed premises had a history of seven problems over 13 months: three assaults or fights outside the premises involving patrons of the premises, two instances of public urination, one instance of a

the sale or service of alcohol, includes, but is not limited to obtrusive or excessive noise, music or sound vibrations; public drunkenness; fights; altercations; harassment or unlawful drug sales; alcohol or related litter; trespassing on private property; and public urination. Mitigating factors include a showing by licensee that the problems are not serious or persistent or that licensee has demonstrated a willingness and ability to control adequately the licensed premises and patrons' behavior in the immediate vicinity of the premises which is related to licensee's sale or service of alcohol under licensee's exercise of the license privilege.


patron damaging shrubbery, and one instance where a patron removed from the licensed premises returned and assaulted a bartender.

Similarly, in Balzer's Pub & Grill (OLCC, Final Order, 99-V-019, March 2001), the Commission found a history of serious and persistent problems where there were five serious incidents within six months: two fights outside the premises, an assault on a security guard, the display of a gun by a patron who was denied entry to the premises, an assault and robbery upon a waitress by patrons inside the premises, and a very intoxicated person on the street outside the premises.

Furthermore, in The Hydrant (OLCC, Amended Final Order, 00-L-006, October 2001),

the Commission held that incidents resulting from a licensee's appropriate steps to deal with problem persons by refusing service and/or by removing them from the premises shall be counted among those comprising a history of serious and persistent problems. Although in cases such as La Linda's (OLCC, Final Order, OLCC-95-L-021ES, June 1996), the Commission had previously held that such instances should not count against the licensee, the Commission expressly overruled that approach in The Hydrant. It explained:

Accordingly, in the future, all such problem incidents will be counted among those compromising a history of serious and persistent problems. Each incident will be weighed according to its seriousness, as determined by the presence or absence of violence or the threat of violence directed toward persons (serious) or property (less serious). These security efforts will be considered in evaluating willingness and ability to control the problems associated with the licensed premises.

The Hydrant, Amended Final Order at 41.

In this case, over the course of 13 months (from May 20, 2007 through June 2008) there

were at least 11 disturbances involving violence or threat of violence and involving patrons of the licensed premises inside, or in the immediate vicinity of the premises:

(1) May 20, 2007: Several patrons physically fought in the parking lot

adjacent to the licensed premises after leaving the premises. Licensees’ employee was bitten in the armpit while breaking up the fight.

(2) June 20, 2007: Two female patrons assaulted other patrons on the

dance floor. One of the victims was hit several times in the face and sustained a chipped tooth. Officers arrested two patrons for Assault III.

(3) July 15, 2007: Two male patrons were involved in a physical

altercation inside the premises. Officers cited both for harassment. (4) September 7, 2007: Two male patrons were involved in a physical

altercation inside the premises. One patron punched another patron, causing a bloody nose. The suspect patron left the premises before police arrived, but an


officer him found a short time later urinating behind a business in the same complex. The suspect claimed he was too intoxicated to understand his Miranda

rights. (5) September 28, 2007: Two male patrons began fighting over a game of

pool. One suspect left before the police arrived. The other, who remained at the premises, was obviously intoxicated. He sustained facial injuries and required medical attention. He was cited for disorderly conduct and criminal mischief, because Licensees’ property was also damaged during the fight.

(6) November 23, 2007: About 10 minutes after being ejected from the

premises, a patron returned and created a disturbance outside the premises when he was denied reentry. During the disturbance, another patron threw a bottle at him, striking him on the upper lip.

(7) January 1, 2008: A scuffle erupted on the dance floor. A female patron

was assaulted, knocked to the ground and rendered unconscious. (8) January 1, 2008: Officers were called to the location for a security

check. A patron got angry when asked to leave. An officer arrived to find two males engaged in a shoving match in the premises parking lot. When the officer tried to break up the fight, one of the combatants took an aggressive stance and refused to calm down. The patron was eventually taken into custody for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and a probation violation.

(9) March 7, 2008: Patrons were fighting inside the premises. When

Licensees’ staff tried to eject the two patrons who started the fight, they hit and kicked at the front door, causing the glass to shatter. Both of these patrons were intoxicated. Officers arrested them for disorderly conduct.

(10) April 5, 2008: Around closing time, three male patrons became

rowdy and obnoxious. An altercation ensued when they were asked to leave. Licensees’ staff pushed the fighting patrons outside and locked the door. The fighting continued. Licensees’ staff did not intervene. Officers responded to break up the fight. An officer was assaulted and injured by an angry, intoxicated patron. That patron, who was also injured in the fighting, was arrested for assaulting a police officer, criminal mischief and disorderly conduct. Two other patrons were charged with disorderly conduct.

(11) May 31, 2008: Two males were involved in a physical altercation

inside the premises. One patron left, threatening to come back with a gun. The other refused to leave and became angry and aggressive with Licensees’ staff. The bouncer had to use physical force to remove him from the premises. That patron, who was visibly intoxicated, called the police to report he had been assaulted.

Fights, altercations and harassment are specific examples of "serious" problems set out in


ORS 471.315(1)(c). Incidents 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 11 described above involved fights, altercations or harassment inside the premises. Incidents 1, 6, 8 and 10 involved fights, altercations and/or the threat of violence against persons in the parking lot outside the premises, but the record establishes that each of these incidents was related to Licensees’ sale or service of alcohol. Each involved patrons who, after being ejected from the premises for being disruptive, became angry and started fighting with security staff and/or other patrons outside the premises. Pursuant to DiMarco’s Restaurant, Headless Horseman, The Hydrant and other cases discussed above, this constitutes a history of serious and persistent problems. In addition, over the same time period, there were at least six other instances of visibly intoxicated patrons, public drunkenness and/or public urination related to Licensees’ sale or service of alcohol:

(1) January 20, 2008: Officers came upon a highly intoxicated man on SW Pacific Highway, about a block from the licensed premises. The man had been drinking at the licensed premises before being cut off. Officers took him to detox. (2) January 20, 2008: A female patron became ill after drinking at the premises for several hours. She passed out outside the premises and required medical attention. (3) April 22, 2008: Officers had to remove a disorderly patron from the premises and take her to detox. (4) May 16, 2008: Officers came upon two visibly intoxicated males in the premises parking lot who said they had been drinking at several other bars in the area before going to, and being served more alcoholic beverages at, the licensed premises. (5) June 8, 2008: A visibly intoxicated female patron claimed she had been assaulted by her drunken ex-boyfriend as they were walking home from the licensed premises. (6) June 8, 2008: An officer caught one person urinating in the bushes behind a neighboring business. Both this person and his friend were very intoxicated. They said they had been drinking at J.B. O’Brien’s and then Dr. Feelgood’s Pub.

In light of this history, the Commission has proven that the licensed premises had a history of serious and persistent problems between May 20, 2007 and June 8, 2007. See Balzer's

Pub & Grill (five serious incidents within six months constitutes a history of serious and persistent problems); Rastafarian Private Club (OLCC, Final Order, 90-V-059, April 1991) (eight serious incidents during a one year period); Headless Horseman (seven serious incidents within 13 months); New Copper Penny Restaurant (OLCC, Final Order, 04-V-040, October 2005) (eight incidents involving violence or threat of violence in less than seven months).


3. Willingness and Ability to Control the Premises

Having found that Licensees have a history of serious and persistent problems, the next

issue is whether Licensees have demonstrated willingness and ability to control the premises. As noted above, the willingness and ability to control the licensed premises and patrons’ behavior in the immediate vicinity of the premises is a mitigating factor in assessing a history of serious and persistent problems. Licensees have the burden of establishing a willingness and ability to control the premises. ORS 183.450(2); Cisco & Pancho’s (OLCC, Final Order, 99-080ES, September 2000).

Licensees’ on-duty security personnel were involved in several of the disturbances at

issue. And, although security staff may have acted appropriately in seeking to eject disruptive patrons from the licensed premises on some occasions, they did not act appropriately to keep the disputes from escalating in several instances, placing patrons, bystanders, victims and police in greater jeopardy. When the fight broke out inside the premises on March 7, 2008, surveillance video showed Licensees’ employees and patrons trying to impede egress of the two aggressors by blocking and locking the door. This caused the episode to escalate, putting all parties at greater risk. Surveillance video of the incident occurring on April 5, 2008, revealed that, after Licensees’ employees removed the arguing patrons from the premises, employees locked the front doors and did not make further attempts to intervene in the matter. Despite knowing that the altercation had escalated into a physical fight in the parking lot, employees neither intervened directly nor called the police for assistance. A patron called police. Patrons were injured and a police officer was assaulted in the parking lot melee. On May 31, 2008, police were called to the premises for a casual drive through of the premises parking lot. When the police were called, Licensees’ employees did not mention that a fight had occurred or that a patron ejected from the premises had threatened to return with a gun. This put officers, patrons and bystanders at risk. These examples show that the actions of Licensees’ security staff tended to escalate or ignore problematic situations, rather than diffuse them. They do not demonstrate an ability to control problems during the time period in issue.

Even prior to the incidents discussed above in the History of Serious and Persistent

Problems section of this Final Order, Licensees had a record of disturbances and disorder at the premises. That record prompted the March 30, 2006 meeting between Licensees and OLCC staff, during which Licensees agreed to implement certain house policies on alcohol service. Those measures were not, however, effective, because the serious problems persisted. Further, Licensees’ staff did not consistently adhere to the house policies, including the policy requiring staff to call the police for all physical disturbances at the premises. As noted above, it was a patron, and not Licensees’ security staff, that called to report the fighting and disorder on April 5, 2008.

On April 17, 2008, following the April 5, 2008 incident in which patrons were injured

and Officer Davis was assaulted, Licensees again met with OLCC staff. During that meeting, Licensees agreed to additional measures as part of a Compliance Plan. Licensees agreed, among other things, not to free pour distilled spirits at any time, to stop serving doubles, Long Island ice teas or similar drinks at 12:00 a.m. and to stop serving all alcohol at 1:00 a.m. Notwithstanding the April 2008 Compliance Plan, however, serious problems continued to occur at the licensed premises. There were two more fights: May 31, 2008, in which one of the patrons involved in


the altercation left and threatened to return with a gun, and the other, who was obviously intoxicated, fought with security staff when he was asked to leave, and then September 3, 2008, when an obviously intoxicated patron fought with another patron and security staff inside the premises. There were also several instances of “over service” where patrons were served alcoholic beverages to the point or after they showed signs of visible intoxication.3

In addition, Licensees’ employees did not consistently adhere to the Compliance Plan’s

requirements. On three occasions, June 13, 2008, September 13, 2008 and most recently in February 2009, undercover OLCC investigators saw Licensees’ bartenders free pouring distilled spirits. On at least one occasion (September 13, 2008), Licensees’ server served Long Island ice teas after midnight. In addition, Licensees did not always stop alcohol service at 1:00 a.m. In June 2008, Licensees’ then-manager acknowledged that if the crowd was good, they may continue serving until 1:30 a.m. And, in February 2009, undercover inspectors saw servers continuing to take orders and serve after 1:00 a.m.

Licensees contend that the reduction in the number of problems at the premises since

June 2008 is evidence of their willingness and ability to control the premises. Furthermore, Licensees require all of their employees to read and review the house policies and the standards set out in the Compliance Plan. If an employee fails to comply with the house policies and Compliance Plan measures, the employee will be terminated. Licensees note that, because of this practice, they have had a large employee turnover in the past year.

On this record, although there have been fewer problems at the licensed premises since

June 2008, Licensees have not demonstrated a consistent willingness and ability to control the premises. Indeed, evidence showing that, just weeks prior to the hearing date, Licensees’ employees were not strictly adhering to the Compliance Plan’s measures, militates against a finding that Licensees have the requisite willingness and ability. Furthermore, other than their policy of terminating employees who fail to comply with the Compliance Plan, Licensees did not offer evidence of other policies or measures they have implemented to prevent serious problems from occurring in the future.4 Compare New Copper Penny Restaurant (October 2005) (licensee demonstrated a willingness and ability to control the premises by making changes in its operations, including changing its music format, modifying its hours and adhering to a strict policy of denying entry to visibly intoxicated persons).

3 For example: (1) April 22, 2008: Officers took a female patron to detox after she created a disturbance at the licensed premises. The patron came to the licensed premises after drinking at other bars in the area, but was served one drink before she was cut off; (2) May 16, 2008: Officers came upon two highly intoxicated males, who had been served multiple drinks at the licensed premises after drinking at other bars in the area; (3) June 8, 2008: Officers made contact with three visibly intoxicated people who had been drinking at other locations and then the licensed premises; (4) June 23, 2008: Officers arrested a driver for DUII on his way home from the licensed premises. The driver’s blood alcohol content was .23 percent, nearly three times the legal limit. 4 It should be noted that, with only one exception, all of the serious problems at the licensed premises at issue in this matter occurred after midnight. It may well be that Licensees would have the ability to control the premises if the staff more closely monitored patrons for visible intoxication and closed the premises at midnight.


4. Penalty

Generally, the Commission treats a violation of ORS 471.315(1)(c) as a Category I violation. See Rastafarian Private Club (April 1991). The standard penalty for a first Category I violation is cancellation of the license. OAR 845-006-0500. The Commission also has the discretion to take into account the particular circumstances of each case, and increase or decrease the sanction where there are aggravating or mitigating circumstances. OAR 845-006-0500(7)(c). In this case, citing to the history of fights, altercations and disturbances involving violence or threat of violence and other instances of visibly intoxicated patrons and public urination, the Commission seeks to cancel Licensees' license.5

As noted above, a demonstrated willingness and ability to control the premises provides a basis for mitigation. See, e.g., New Copper Penny Restaurant (October 2005); Schooners (OLCC, Final Order, OLCC-94-V-077, February 1996); 300 Club/A Change of Seasons

Restaurant (OLCC, Final Order, OLCC-99V-060, April 2001). But, where, as here, there is no such showing, mitigation is not warranted. Considering the circumstances of this case, cancellation is appropriate. DiMarco’s Restaurant (October 2005).

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

5 Commission staff also proposes to merge the penalty for permitting disorderly activities into the proposed cancellation based on ORS 471.315(1)(c). Ordinarily, the standard penalty for permitting disorderly activities in violation of OAR 845-006-0347(2), a Category III violation, is a 10-day suspension or a civil penalty of $1,650. OAR 845-006-0500(7), Exhibit 1.


FINAL ORDER

Licensees Donald Harvey and Rachel Harvey, dba Dr. Feelgood’s Pub, 13727 SW Pacific Hwy., Tigard, Oregon, violated ORS 471.315(1)(c) and OAR 845-006-0347(2)(a). The Commission orders that the Full On-Premises Sales License held by Donald Harvey and Rachel Harvey, dba Dr. Feelgood’s Pub, 13727 SW Pacific Hwy., Tigard, Oregon, be CANCELLED.

It is further ordered that notice of this action, including the reasons for it, be given.

Dated this 25th day of June, 2009.

/s/ Stephen A. Pharo Stephen A. Pharo Executive Director OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION

Mailed this 25th day of June, 2009. THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE ON THE DATE MAILED. NOTICE: You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Judicial review may be obtained

by filing a petition for judicial review within 60 days from the service of this Order. Judicial review is pursuant to the provisions of ORS Chapter 183.

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /


LIST OF EXHIBITS CITED

Exhibit Description

A1 Tigard Police Department Report, Case no. 07202727, May 20, 2007 A2 Tigard Police Department Report, Case nos. 07203293 and 07203314, June 20,

2007 A3 Tigard Police Department Report, Case no. 07203788, July 15, 2007. A5 Tigard Police Department Report, Case no. 07204718, September 7, 2007 A6 Tigard Police Department Report, Case no. 07205176 and 07205177, September

27, 2007 A7 Tigard Police Department Report, Case no. 07206294, November 23, 2007 A8 Tigard Police Department Report, Case no. 0800012, January 1, 2008 A9 Tigard Police Department Report, Case no. 0800083, January 1, 2008 A10 Tigard Police Department Report, Case no. 0800363, January 20, 2008 A11 Tigard Police Department Report, Case no. 08200364, January 20, 2008 A12 OLCC Notice of Warning Ticket, issued February 14, 2008 A13 Tigard Police Department Report, Case nos. 082011216, 08201217, 08201218, March 7, 2008 A14 OLCC Notice of Warning Ticket, issued March 8, 2008 A15 Tigard Police Department Report, Case nos. 08201739 and 08201740, April 5,

2008 A16 OLCC Intake/Compliance Action Report, April 16, 2008 A18 Dr. Feelgood’s Pub Compliance Plan, dated April 17, 2008 A19 Tigard Police Department Report, Case no. 08202085, April 22, 2008 A20 Email from Tigard Sgt. Charlton to OLCC, dated April 16, 2008 A21 Tigard Police Department Report, Case no. 08202830, May 31, 2008 A22 King City Police Department Report, Case no. 08270176, June 8, 2008


A23 Tigard Police Department Report, Case no. 08202969, June 8, 2008 A24 OLCC Intake/Compliance Action Report, dated June 28, 2008 A25 License History Results for Donald and Rachel Harvey A27 OLCC Intake/Compliance Action Report, July 9, 2008 A28 Tigard Police Department Report, Case no. 08204608, September 3, 2008 A31 OLCC Supplemental Report, dated September 26, 2008 A32 OLCC Supplemental Report, dated February 20, 2009

Date post:	30-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	duongquynh
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

BEFORE THE LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION OF … · Dr. Feelgood’s Pub. During the meeting, Licensees...

Documents