Home | BaltimoreBrew.com

Community Law Center notes on Voltage Nightclub hearings before the Baltimore Liquor Board

 

Witt attended three previous hearings on alleged violations by the licensee for 5625 O’Donnell Street, the Voltage Nightclub. Here are her notes:

1.) From the Booze News post reporting on the 3/6/14 Liquor Board meeting in which the commissioners heard four hours of testimony on numerous violations at Voltage, including one in which police officers testified about a fight in the parking lot involving more than 100 people and the licensee himself, Louis Principio spraying pepper spray at belligerent patrons, patrons who appeared to be cooperative and even in a police detective’s face.

Applicant: Louis Principio, Dudley Taylor, & Martin Manescu

Business Name: Whiskey Jacks, LLC

Trading As: Voltage Nightclub

Address: 5625 O’Donnell Street

Type of License: Class “BD7″ Beer, Wine & Liquor License

Reason for Hearing:

Numerous violations of Rule 3.12, “Licensees shall operate their establishments in such a manner as to avoid disturbing the peace, safety, health, quiet and general welfare of the community;” Rule 4.18, “No licensee shall commit or allow the commission on his premises of any act which shall be contrary to any federal, state or local statute, law or ordinance or against the public peace, safety, health, welfare, quiet of morals;” Article 2B Section 12-108(d), “No licensee, proprietor, or operator of any establishment dispensing alcoholic beverages shall permit the consumption or possession of any alcoholic beverages by a person under the age of twenty-one years upon said premises no matter by whom such alcoholic beverages shall have been purchased or from whom obtained…;” and Rule 4.01(a), “No licensee shall sell or furnish alcoholic beverages to any person under twenty-one years of age or to any person with the knowledge that such person is purchasing or acquiring such beverages for consumption by any person under twenty-one years of age” on November 1, 8, 14, and 22, 2013 and December 2, 2013.

Hearing notes:

Licensee Louis Principio appeared, represented by three attorneys, to respond to various violation charges. Because Commissioner Elizabeth Smith was absent on March 6, Mr. Kodenski, one of the licensee’s attorneys, moved for the case to be postponed for consideration before the full Board. Mr. Prevas, another counsel for the licensee, argued that Maryland Code Article 2B does not specifically require that a full board be present, but he pointed out that it has been the Board’s policy to allow a licensee to request postponement when there were fewer than three commissioners present. Mr. Prevas further argued that, should the Board decide to deviate from this policy, an appeals court could find the decision to do so arbitrary and capricious. Chairman Fogleman conferred privately with Commissioner Jones on this issue. When they returned on the record, Chairman Fogleman denied the licensee’s motion, stating that, in the past, the Board has given permission for postponements on occasions when there is not a full board. In this instance, Chairman Fogleman said that all witnesses were present and ready to testify, the docket had been set aside for the day for this hearing, and a majority decision of a three-member board constitutes two commissioners in agreement. With a two-member board, the decision would require a unanimous vote. Therefore, the licensee was not prejudiced by the incomplete board.

The licensee’s attorneys then presented a motion to dismiss stating that the entire Board must recuse itself from this matter because there was a letter in the file, dated February 12, 2014, from Maryland State Senator Bill Ferguson and Delegates Luke Clippinger and Peter A. Hammen, requesting that the Board revoke the license. Mr. Prevus suggested that, because Mr. Ferguson is in a position to appoint members of the Liquor Board, it is inappropriate for him to communicate with the Board about this matter. Chairman Fogleman said that neither he nor Commissioner Jones had read the letter before the hearing and that community groups and agencies oftern communicate with the Board about particular licenses. Chairman Fogleman also said that there is no new appointment to the Liquor Board pending, so the concern about impartiality is unfounded.

Police officers and Liquor Board Inspectors testified to the circumstances surrounding each violation, and the licensee, Mr. Prinicipio, responded to each allegation. The violations were separated by the date of each incident.

November 1, 2013 evidence:

Detective David Kincaid testified that, on the evening of October 31, 2013 into November 1, 2013, he was asked to respond to the parking lot for crowd control. He saw many intoxicated people getting into cars and driving away. A large fight started in the north part of the parking lot; Detective Kincaid estimated that 100-150 people were involved in the fight. He testified that the licensee approached the commotion on a golf cart and began to spray pepper spray into the crowd. Detective Kincaid said that Mr. Principio then sprayed pepper spray in the detective’s face. Mr. Principio, in the presentation of his case, insisted that he did not mean to mace the police officer. He said that he could not see well because it was a windy day, and he had pepper spray in his own eyes. Detective Kincaid also testified that after the crowd was dispersed, he saw Mr. Principio pepper spraying patrons who appeared to be cooperative. When asked why he did not arrest Mr. Principio, the detective responded that Mr. Principio had made a mistake and had apologized and brought him water.

November 1, 2013 holding:

For November 1, the Board found the licensee guilty of four violations of Rule 3.12 (“Licensees shall operate their establishments in such a manner as to avoid disturbing the peace, safety, health, quiet and general welfare of the community”) for the following situations: (1) Patrons fighting (2) Employees spraying mace into a crowd of patrons (3) Licensee maced a uniformed police officer and (4) Police observed a large crowd of intoxicated patrons exiting the establishment. The Board agreed to dismiss the violation of Rule 4.02 (“No licensee shall sell or furnish alcoholic beverages to any person under the influence of alcohol or narcotic drugs or who is disorderly in manner or to any person known to be a habitual drunkard or user of narcotic drugs.”) because Detective Kincaid did not see the patrons come out of the establishment. The Board also found the licensee guilty of one violation of Rule 4.18 (“No licensee shall commit or allow the commission on his premises of any act which shall be contrary to any federal, state or local statute, law or ordinance or against the public peace, safety, health, welfare, quiet or morals”) regarding the licensee’s pepper spraying the officer.

November 8, 2013 evidence:

Officer Todd Brown testified that, on November 8, 2013, he was working at Voltage in the parking lot. A large fight broke out, and he located a Mr. Balzar in the parking lot, bleeding from the eye and nose. He saw a fight in the parking lot of between 20 and 30 men and women, which he broke up. The patrons appeared drunk: they were stumbling, off balance, and couldn’t walk.

November 8, 2013 holding:

The Board dismissed the Rule 3.12 charge about the assaulted person in the parking lot, because there was no evidence that he was a patron.

November 7, 2013 and November 14, 2013 evidence:

Baltimore City Liquor Board Agent Mark Fosler (former Chairman of the Board) testified that there had been 311 complaints about Voltage and that the Board started a special investigation of the establishment based on those complaints. Liquor Board Agent John Howard inspected the premises on the evening of November 7th, a Thursday, which Voltage advertises as College Night. Inspectors observed three minors possessing alcohol inside the building. Agent Fosler clarified that one of the minors found inside Voltage who had alcohol in hand was under the age of 18. On November 14, 2013, Agent Howard and other inspectors did a second sweep for underage patrons; the inspectors found two, one of whom was 18. Mr. Prevas cross-examined the inspectors on their recollections of the evening: where they found these underage patrons and how they knew there was alcohol in the red cups. According to the inspectors, none of the underage people had fraudulent IDs; they all had legitimate identification that showed them to be under 21. However, none of the inspectors saw the underage patrons actually purchasing the alcohol.

November 7 and 14 holdings:

The Board granted the licensees’ motion to dismiss the Rule 4.01(a) (“No licensee shall sell or furnish alcoholic beverages to any person under twenty-one (21) years of age or to any person with the knowledge that such person is purchasing or acquiring such beverages for consumption by any person under twenty-one (21) years of age”) violations, because the inspectors did not see the underage patrons purchasing the alcohol. However, the Board did find the licensee guilty of breaking Article 2B section 12-108(d), which reads: “No licensee, proprietor, or operator of any establishment dispensing alcoholic beverages shall permit the consumption or possession of any alcoholic beverages by a person under the age of twenty-one years upon said premises no matter by whom such alcoholic beverages shall have been purchased or from whom obtained.”

November 22, 2013 evidence:

Baltimore Police Officer Joseph Petryszak was working overtime at Voltage and observed a large group of women exiting the club. An altercation broke out and escalated within a large group of people. He estimated that over 100 people were involved. The scene was chaotic; one person was on the ground and another person was stomping on his head. Private security guards sprayed mace into the crowd, and the spray got in Officer Petryszak’s eyes. Mr. Kodenski asked the officer whether there was anything that Mr. Principio could have done differently in the situation to stop the fight and the officer replied no. Mr. Kodenski then moved to dismiss the Rule 3.12 violation. The Board denied the motion.

December 2, 2013 evidence:

Another Baltimore City police officer testified that he was on patrol, sitting in a marked patrol car, when he heard two gun shots. People came running out of the club. One man came out, bleeding, and said that he was shot in the back; he was transported to the hospital and treated for a gunshot wound. The officer then went inside and secured the crime scene. Two more police officers testified that Mr. Principio does have significant security measures, compared to other places. Mr. Principio testified that someone must have slipped the gun in through an emergency exit.

December 2, 2013 holding:

The Board found the licensee guilty of violations of Rule 3.12 and Rule 4.18 based on the December 2 shooting on the dance floor.
Watch two hours of the four-hour hearing on YouTube:

 

Zoning: B-2-2

Neighborhood: Medford

Area Demographics 49% White, 25% Black, 2% Asian; 20% Hispanic ethnicity; 32% households have children under age 18; median household income: $30,864.31; 22% of households living below the poverty line.

Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; Yes

Location of entity’s principal office: Suite 401, 2002 Clipper Park Road, Baltimore, MD

Attorney for licensee: Mr. Melvin Kodenski, Mr. Peter Prevas, and Mr. Isaac Klein

# in support: N/A

Attorney for community: N/A

# of protestants: N/A

# of inspectors: 2 – Agents Mark Fosler and John Howard

Result of hearing: Continued until the following week.

Vote tally: N/A
Portions of state law cited in decision N/A
Other reasons given for decision N/A
Issues raised in audit present in this case N/A

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.) From the Booze News post reporting on the  3/13/14 Liquor Board meeting (a continuation of the previous week’s hearing) in which Voltage has its license revoked:

Applicant Louis Principio, Dudley Taylor, & Martin Manescu

Business Name Whiskey Jacks, LLC

Trading As Voltage Nightclub

Address 5625 O’Donnell Street

Type of License Class “BD7″ Beer, Wine & Liquor License

Reason for Hearing Numerous Violations

Hearing notes

This hearing was a continuation of the previous week’s very long violations hearing on many allegations of violence (including one shooting inside the establishment) and serving minors. You can find a summary of the evidence presented here. The Chairman summarized the evidence heard on March 6 and all of the holdings of the Board. He asked the licensee and his attorneys what they think that the Board should consider in terms of mitigation of the punishment for these violations.

Mr. Kodenski argued that the Voltage licensees were being treated unfairly and differently than other licensees in the past. He listed many other nightclubs in Baltimore’s history with far worse violations who were given small fines or suspensions of their licenses. He noted that Mr. Principio has a history in the business since 1976 and that he employs 90 people and pays his taxes. According to Kodenski, there are more arrests at Ravens Stadium than at Voltage.

Mr. Principio then had a chance to speak: here are some excerpts from his testimony:

“I’ve been working with officers for 40 years. All my friends are officers. There was an officer behind me, but when I saw a young man getting kicked on the ground, I maced the ground. The wind blew it back in my eyes. The officer was far behind me, I didn’t go over to him to mace him. It was totally an accident. I hardly ever use pepper spray, but I do if there is someone on the ground who is defenseless. I have had a police officer on my premises every minute since I’ve been open… Hammerjacks [Principio’s former, rather infamous, club] was way worse than this. This is the best behaved crowd I’ve had. At Hammerjacks, I had hundreds of lawsuits a year. Here, I haven’t been sued yet. I have big, intimidating guys on security. It’s run like a church. You can’t look left or right in there. In the parking lot, it’s one problem, you’re out. One incident, you get kicked out. There’s hell to pay. It’s a private parking lot. People come to my club to meet the opposite sex. That’s the dynamic. My bar sales are very little. It’s dance-driven, but it’s 800-900 people a night. I think the district was in shock about the size of the crowd. The shooting was an anomaly. Anything could have happened. Now I’ve added security. It’s like an airport. But the shooting was like a set-up, or someone smuggled the gun in. Police don’t do well in large crowds. They are intimidated by them. I can walk through a crowd and know instantly what’s going on. I’ve never been hurt. I don’t fuel the violence. There have been instances when the police are very violent. We are talking now about a few old-fashioned bar fights. Guys who didn’t meet a girl and blew off that energy. I had my own police who were trained at Hammerjacks, knew how to handle crowds, knew how to take control of the situation. When the [Baltimore City Police Department] took it over, it went to hell in a handbasket. … Compared to the number of people, there is not a lot of violence. There is a lot of energy. That energy upsets people. There has not been one fight inside since I opened.”

Mr. Principio told the Board that there had only been three fights in 14 months, serving 3,000 people a week. He spends $300,000 on security, which he estimates as 25% of his total budget. He’s installed alarms on exit doors to prevent people from smuggling in guns, like they did on December 2.
Zoning M-3
Neighborhood Medford
Area Demographics 49% White, 25% Black, 2% Asian; 20% Hispanic ethnicity; 32% households have children under age 18; median household income: $30,864.31; 22% of households living below the poverty line.
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; Yes
Location of entity’s principal office 1 North Charles Street, Suite 350, Baltimore, MD
Attorney for licensee Mr. Melvin Kodenski, Mr. Peter Prevas, Mr. Isaac Klein
# in support 1 (Louis Principio)
Attorney for community N/A
# of protestants N/A
# of inspectors N/A
Result of hearing License revoked
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision None
Other reasons given for decision

The Board is looking at a time period of between Halloween and December 2, full of violence. The Board doesn’t want to wait for more violence and arrests. There are homes 800 feet away from Voltage. The public safety of Baltimore requires that the license be revoked.

To watch the decision phase of this hearing, see the YouTube video:

Issues raised in audit present in this case
None.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.) From the Booze News post reporting on the 4/10/14 meeting of the Liquor Board on Voltage

Chairman Fogleman and Commissioners Smith and Jones in attendance.

Chairman Fogleman started off the hearing with a brief preamble, in response to last week’s Bill’s Cafe posts on the Baltimore Brew and on Booze News. He noted that Liquor Board violation hearings are different than any other hearings, because they are akin to a criminal trial in the court system. In the last 75 years, the Board has never allowed community testimony in those hearings, because the Board has been told that allowing it would be prejudicial error. “As a courtesy to the public,” the Board has decided publicly to reconsider the Voltage decision.

Former Licensees Louis Principio, Dudley Taylor, & Martin Manescu

Business Name Whiskey Jacks, LLC

Trading As Voltage Nightclub

Address 5625 O’Donnell Street

Type of License Class “BD7″ Beer, Wine & Liquor License

Reason for Hearing Reconsideration of March 13 decision

Hearing notes

Mr. Melvin Kodenski and Mr. Isaac Klein were present on behalf of Whiskey Jacks, LLC and Mr. Principio. Mr. Principio was not at the hearing. Mr. Kodenski presented the offer that the former licensee made to the Board: (1) Mr. Principio will dismiss the appeal of the Liquor Board’s decision currently pending in Circuit Court (2) Operation of the business shall cease on April 7 (the club has already closed) (3) Mr. Principio will have the opportunity to sell the license elsewhere, and (4) Mr. Principio will pay a fine of $3,000.

Commissioner Jones asked, in the resale of the license, will the current owner (Mr. Principio) be a part of that corporate entity that will purchase the license? Mr. Kodenski said that he was not sure and that he could not promise that Mr. Principio would not be involved. Commissioner Jones responded that he would like to see that stipulation as another restriction on the license (that Principio could not be a part of the business when the license is transferred). Mr. Kodenski said, in response, that anything that Mr. Principio would have to do would be subject to a public hearing.

Zoning: M-3

Neighborhood: Medford

Area Demographics: 49% White, 25% Black, 2% Asian; 20% Hispanic ethnicity; 32% households have children under age 18; median household income: $30,864.31; 22% of households living below the poverty line.

Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; Yes

Location of entity’s principal office: 1 North Charles Street, Suite 350, Baltimore, MD

Attorney for licensee: Mr. Kodenski & Mr. Klein

# in support: 0

Attorney for community: N/A

# of protestants: N/A

# of inspectors: N/A

Result of hearing: License returned under four conditions listed above (Commissioner Jones’ suggestion not among them)

Vote tally: 2 in favor (Smith was not present, because she was absent for the evidentiary portion of the hearing on March 6, 2013)

Portions of state law cited in decision: None

Other reasons given for decision: N/A

Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed:

The 2013 Legislative Audit did not mention the Liquor Board’s apparently common practice of privately reconsidering and reversing public decisions. This is probably because the auditors did not know that these private reconsiderations were taking place, given the near-total lack of documentation of the meetings. Finding 17 of the Audit, however, did state: “BLLC had adopted alternatives to the Board hearing process to address licensee violations and infractions. These alternatives were essentially carrying out functions of the Board but were not officially approved by the Board. Furthermore, unlike Board hearings, these alternative processes were not open to the public. The legality of their use is questionable since they were not addressed in State law pertaining to BLLC.” This finding referred to the Board’s former practice of holding private “conferences” with the Executive Secretary, which were not public, but it certainly also would apply to private reconsiderations.