Senate Bill 378—The Proposed Demise of Due Process for Alcohol Licensees

By: John Edwards & John Hinman

This blog post concerns a very significant piece of legislation (Senate Bill 378) currently being considered by the California Legislature.  For over 60 years, licensees have had the right to challenge ABC license suspensions before they go into effect; SB 378 takes away that right. SB 378 removes existing and basic due process rights of all types of alcohol beverage licensees to challenge potentially arbitrary and capricious ABC action in a neutral forum – actions that are often undertaken at the behest of local authorities or neighbors with an axe to grind against the licensee involved.

The tension between local authorities, neighbors and licensed establishments has never been higher and can be seen in licensing and enforcement decisions involving wineries, distilleries, breweries, retail stores and nightclubs throughout the state.  If the basic rules of engagement in place since the 1955 adoption of the ABC Act are going to be significantly changed then at the very least the licensees of this state should be adequately informed of the reasons for basically doing away with the Appeals Board by stripping away the Board’s power to do pre-penalty review.

Historical Background: the ABC Act and the Appeals Board

The ABC Act was adopted in 1955 to create a clear interface between the power of the state to regulate alcohol and the rights of California alcohol licensees to operate their businesses free of discriminatory, arbitrary and unfair enforcement.  This followed a period where establishments (particularly gay bars in San Francisco in the infamous 1950’s era “Black Cat” cases) had been singled out by law enforcement for special undercover State Board of Equalization (then the alcohol licensing and enforcement authority) investigations aimed at wiping out the perceived “immorality” that had started to blossom in the San Francisco entertainment community, and in other places throughout the state.

The history of alcohol enforcement up until that time had been marked by the indiscriminate, and often arbitrary, use of the state police power to punish those whose activities were deemed “immoral,” a phrase that covered a lot of activities, including personal sexual preferences. The result after reform was Article XX, Section 22 of the California State Constitution. This article created an independent agency (the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control or “ABC”), which itself was to be checked by an oversight board called the “Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board,” which was made up of three members appointed by the Governor, who serve at the Governor’s pleasure. The purpose of the Appeals Board was to establish limited review as a matter of right of ABC decisions in cases assessing punishment where the decision was alleged to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious. The following constitutional standard now applies to Appeals Board review:

Review by the board of a decision of the department shall be limited to the questions whether the department has proceeded without or in excess of its jurisdiction, whether the department has proceeded in the manner required by law, whether the decision is supported by the findings, and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record. In appeals where the board finds that there is relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or which was improperly excluded at the hearing before the department it may enter an order remanding the matter to the department for reconsideration in the light of such evidence. In all other appeals the board shall enter an order either affirming or reversing the decision of the department.” Article XX, Section 22, California Constitution.

This articulation of the ABC Appeals Board review power is as basic a description of “due process” rights as one can imagine. Who can argue with requiring findings, or substantial evidence, or prohibiting punishment based on evidence improperly excluded? Without this level of available review the ABC could proceed in an arbitrary and capricious manner, could punish licensees based upon the whim of whoever was in power at the time or, even worse, based on false allegations from disgruntled local neighbors and authorities.  Testing allegations of misconduct before punishment is imposed in a fairly conducted judicial hearing is a fundamental right.

The system has worked well for the last 60+ years, but not without occasional tension between the ABC and the Appeals Board. Even though the ABC probably prevails in 95%+ of the appeals that are filed, the ABC still does not like being overruled by the Appeals Board. In recent years, the ABC has made clear on many occasions its displeasure with Appeals Board decisions requiring that the ABC observe basic legal rights (including its own regulations). In fact, as explained below, the ABC currently takes the position that the Appeals Board decisions cannot be relied upon by licensees seeking guidance as to what is and is not lawful in an increasingly complex world.  That itself is a serious issue.

What Does Senate Bill 378 Do?

This brings us to State Senator Anthony Portantino’s Senate Bill 378. This bill threatens the livelihoods and due process rights of alcoholic beverage licensees throughout California.  Senate Bill 378:

●      Empowers the ABC to issue “temporary” restraining orders suspending licenses;

●      Provides that the “temporary” restraining orders can last up to 22 days (or even longer) before a hearing is held by the Department (which itself has just issued the order) on whether to expand that order to a preliminary injunction, which, in turn, would last until a hearing on the merits, which is scheduled at the discretion of the ABC (which in our experience, usually takes three to four months to calendar);

●      Strips the Appeals Board of its constitutionally-created power to review “temporary” restraining orders of the ABC and, instead, relegates licensees to petitioning a Court of Appeal to issue a discretionary writ of review;

●      Allows “temporary” restraining orders to be issued at the behest of the Department or a city attorney; and

●      Allows the ABC to issue the “temporary” restraining order on the strength of an affidavit signed under oath by a police chief, county sheriff or mayor/city manager.

What Could Go Wrong?

The bill would make possible the following scenario:  A city official reacts to a local resident who complains about an establishment by filing an affidavit accusing the licensee of violating the ABC laws.  The Department issues a “temporary” restraining order suspending the license, and the first opportunity that the license may challenge that order does not occur for 22 days, during which its business is shut down.  The Department can then issue a preliminary injunction continuing the shut-down until a hearing on the merits, which will be scheduled at the Department’s discretion—could be a month, could be a year.  Even if the charges are ultimately proven to be false at the hearing on the merits, few licensed businesses are likely to survive the prolonged shut-down.  A licensee’s only avenue of redress is to seek review from a Court of Appeal, which may or may not grant the petition, and certainly not until the damage from the shut-down has already happened.

Good luck to the investors in that business.

Even aside from the substantial question of whether Senate Bill 378 violates the California Constitution, it would make dangerous and unnecessary changes to California law for the following reasons:

1.      The ABC already has the power to act quickly to forestall violations by filing accusations and scheduling prompt hearings.  There is no need to empower it unilaterally to issue suspension orders on the say-so of city officials operating in a political arena.  There are many cases on the books in which the Appeals Board or the courts have rejected the allegations of complaining local officials after they had been tested under oath in a contested hearing, or discovered a lack of evidence to prove a local resident or ex-employee’s allegation. 

2.      As noted above, the Appeals Board has a constitutionally-created role of appellate jurisdiction over actions of the Department.  The drafters of the California Constitution wisely decided that some direct oversight of the enormous discretion vested in the ABC was necessary.  That judgment has been vindicated by many years of practice.  The advantages of Appeals Board review are that appeals can be taken as a right, the process takes far less time than a typical appeal to the busy Courts of Appeal and the members of the Appeals Board are well-versed in industry practice and ABC law.

The Courts of Appeal are already busy and often reject appeals from the ABC Appeals Board as it is.  Senate Bill 378 would require licensees whose licenses have been suspended by a “temporary” order to seek review in a Court of Appeal, with the Court having the discretion to grant or deny such review.  The Courts of Appeal have general appellate jurisdiction over all civil and criminal appeals, and their dockets are crowded. 

How likely are the Courts to put aside appeals from murder convictions and multi-million dollar civil cases to give expedited treatment to the “temporary” suspension of an ABC license, even though the consequences to the licensee’s livelihood may be devastating?  To ask that question is to answer it.

What, Then, Is the Motivation Behind This Bill? 

SB 378 appears to be a continuation of the ABC’s ongoing effort to free itself from appellate oversight by the Appeals Board.  Last year, the ABC took the position that decisions of the Appeals Board are not “precedent” and that referring to prior decisions is illegal and unethical.  The Appeals Board rejected that fatuous argument in a lengthy opinion, noting that:

[T]he only potential beneficiary in a world where prior decisions of the Board must be ignored and the Department has issued no precedential decisions itself, is the Department….  ‘If no one can cite or rely upon decisions of the Board, the Department is free to disregard them and create its own “shadow world” of unrestrained discretion—precisely what the Legislature sought to eliminate’….[1]

Senate Bill 378 appears to be yet another attempt by the ABC to achieve unrestrained and effectively unreviewable discretion.  This attempt is as unmeritorious and dangerous as the prior one.

How significant is this? As the first section of the ABC Act provides:

Section 23001 . . . It is hereby declared that the subject matter of this division involves in the highest degree the economic, social, and moral well-being and the safety of the State and of all its people. All provisions of this division shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of these purposes.

You can’t get much more important than that.

Licensees should not have their livelihoods put at risk on the unchallenged say-so of municipal officials usually operating based on local political beefs, without any means of redress for at least 22 days and, more likely, much longer, and without any guarantee of the timely appellate review that has been a hallmark of ABC practice for many years.  Senate Bill 378 would put the entire alcoholic beverage industry at the mercy of municipal officials, angry neighbors and the unrestrained discretion of the ABC.  Licensees and their trade associations should make every effort to ensure that it does not become law. 

What Can You Do about This? 

Call or write State Senator Anthony Portantino and share your view on the merits (or lack thereof) of SB 378 and then call your trade association leaders and let them know your views.  Here’s a likely incomplete list of some of the alcohol industry trade groups we have supported in the past to get you started.

[1] BMGV, LLC v. Dept. of Alcoholic Bev. Control (Appeals Board 11/17/16) AB-9568, p. 25.  The ABC, represented by the Attorney General, has petitioned for a writ of review of portions of the Appeals Board’s decision, excluding the portion addressing the issue of the Board’s prior decisions as precedent.

  1. Pernicious Practices (stuff we see that will get folks in trouble!) Today’s Rant – Bill & Hold
  2. CBD: An Exciting New Fall Schedule… or Not?
  3. MISSISSIPPI RISING - A VICTORY FOR LEGAL RETAILER TO CONSUMER SALES, AND PASSAGE OF TITLE UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
  4. California ABC's Cannabis Advisory - Not Just for Stoners
  5. NEW CALIFORNIA WARNINGS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND CANNABIS PRODUCTS TAKE EFFECT AUGUST 30, 2018, NOW INCLUDING ADDENDUM REGARDING 2014 CONSENT AGREEMENT PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
  6. National Conference of State Liquor Administrators – The Alcohol Industry gathers in Hawaii to figure out how to enforce the US “Highly Archaic Regulatory Scheme.”
  7. Founder John Hinman Honored with the Raphael House Community Impact Award
  8. ROUTE TO MARKET AND MARKETING RESTRICTIONS - NAVIGATING REGULATORY SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS
  9. Alcohol and Cannabis Ventures: Top 5 Legal Considerations
  10. ATF and TTB: Is Another Divorce on the Horizon? What’s Going on with the Agency?
  11. STRIKE 3 - YOU REALLY ARE OUT! THE ABC'S STRICT APPLICATION OF PENALTIES FOR SALES TO MINORS
  12. TTB Temporarily Fixes Problem with Fulfillment Warehouse Tax Credits - an “Alternate Procedure” for Paying Taxes & Reporting
  13. CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE HAD ONE TOO MANY - THE FREE TRANSPORTATION DILEMMA
  14. The Renaissance of Federal Unfair Trade Practices - Current Issues and Strategies
  15. ‘Twas the week before New Year’s and the ABC is out in Force – Alerts for the Last Week of 2017, including the Limits on Free Rides
  16. Big Bottles, Caviar and a CA Wine Strong Silent Auction for the Holidays!
  17. The FDA and the Wine and Spirits Industry – Surprise inspections anyone?
  18. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: UPDATED REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE
  19. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: REGULATORY AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF RESOURCES AT A GLANCE
  20. Soon to come to your Local Supermarket– Instant Redeemable Coupons of the digital age!
  21. The License Piggyback Dilemma – If it Sounds Too Good to be True, it Probably is
  22. A timely message from our Florida colleagues on the tied house laws, the three-tier system and the need for reform
  23. ABC Declaratory Rulings – A Modest Proposal Whose Time has Come
  24. More on FDA Inspections - Breweries, Distilleries and Questions
  25. WHY THE FDA IS INSPECTING WINERIES
  26. Senate Bill 378—The Proposed Demise of Due Process for Alcohol Licensees
  27. ABC Enforcement - Trends and Predictions
  28. The Corruption Chronicles – Volume One: A New Hope
  29. New Alcohol Delivery Oversight on the Horizon
  30. Michigan: Canary in the DtC Coal Mine?
  31. California ABC and Federal Credit Laws – Active Enforcement and Lots of Questions!
  32. Big Bottles For The Holidays - The Highest Calling Of The Winemaker's Art
  33. FINAL COMMENTS TO TTB NOTICE 160 DUE ON WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 7TH – WE ARE ASKING THE TTB TO EXTEND THE COMMENT PERIOD AGAIN TO ALLOW FOR INDUSTRY NEGOTIATION AND ALIGNMENT OF INTERESTS
  34. SONOMA COUNTY WINERY USE PERMITS, EVENT RESTICTIONS AND DTC
  35. New TTB Labeling Requirement Regulations: Out-of-State Bottling Is Not Created Equal and Consumers Right to Know Where the Grapes in their Wine Come from is Compromised
  36. Isn't A Written Agreement With A Distributor Worthless In A Franchise State?
  37. Crowd Funding for Alcohol Producers and Retailers – Down the Rabbit Hole with the Tied House laws
  38. Everything you ever wanted to know about the BPA Warning Statement but were afraid to ask
  39. AB 2082 - A Hunting License for Police and a Lethal Weapon for Politicians that Deprives Licensees of Currently Available Due Process Rights
  40. “Better Late Than Never”-- Judge in Illinois Dismisses 201 Sales Tax Cases against Retailers
  41. The Day the Music Almost Died: The Story of the BottleRock ABC Accusations, the ABC Appeals Board and a Victory for a Common Sense Interpretation of the Tied House Laws
  42. The Arsenic in Wine Class Action Dismissal – what it means
  43. Counterfeit or Artisanal Mexican Spirits? Pick your Poison, or your lime wedge
  44. Warning - CA ABC enforcement teams are on the prowl this weekend!
  45. RELIEF AT LAST! ILLINOIS MOVES TO FIX THE SALES TAX LAWSUITS AGAINST OUT-OF-STATE SELLERS BUT PROPOSES TO PENALIZE WINERIES AND RETAILERS THAT SHIP WITHOUT PERMITS
  46. The TTB Speaks on Category Management or, be Careful What you Ask for Because you might Get it!
  47. Hinman & Carmichael LLP Announces the Addition of Jeremy Siegel to its team of top beverage law lawyers
  48. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part IV
  49. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part III
  50. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part II
  51. 2016 LEGISLATIVE UPDATES: Part I
  52. Hinman & Carmichael LLP is Hiring!
  53. John Hinman Presents NBI Webinar on Basics of Alcohol Beverage Law
  54. ABC DISMISSES SAVE MART GRAPE ESCAPE ACCUSATION BUT REFUSES TO ADOPT JUDGE’S DECISION FINDING NO STRICT LIABILITY FOR ABC VIOLATIONS
  55. Speakeasies are still with us, and proliferating!
  56. The War for the Soul of Sonoma County – the Winery Working Group Battle
  57. Santa Claus isn’t the only one coming to town this Christmas!
  58. Arizona's Direct to Consumer Shipping Rules - An Exercise in Complexity
  59. AB 780 - Social Media and the ABC: The California Legislative “Fix” that Fails
  60. Illinois Finally Offers Certainty and Relief for Victims of Sales Tax Lawsuits, but Prompt Action is Required in Pending Cases
  61. A Modest Proposal – Adopt the federal rule on Tied-House liability in California
  62. The Grapes Escaped - Why the First Amendment Matters
  63. Appellate Court Ruling Strikes Blow Against State’s Arbitrary Beer Label Ban
  64. Illinois Attorney General's Office Announces Intention to Dismiss False Claims Act Against Liquor Retailers
  65. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part III
  66. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part II
  67. Craft Beverages: Social Media Marketing the Effective and Compliant Way
  68. Commercial Speech And Alcoholic Beverages - Part I
  69. A LAYPERSON LOOKS AT ARSENIC IN WINE
  70. The Biggest Retailer in the World vs. the TABC
  71. Rebecca Stamey-White presents Emerging Issues in Wine Law
  72. Top Beverage Alcohol Law Firm Adds and Elevates Partners
  73. Illinois Qui Tam Lawsuits—Private Enforcement Of a State Claim: A Bonanza For A Plaintiff’s Lawyer And A Rip-Off Of Retailers
  74. BOOZE RULES OF SOCIAL MEDIA: The Retailer Right to Pay Exception
  75. LIONS AND TIGERS AND TWEETS, OH MY!
  76. AB 2004: Brewer's Incremental Parity with Wine Makers
  77. Expanding, Proud Of It, and Wanting to Tell the World
  78. DC Weighs in Strongly on Third Party Marketer Delivery Services
  79. “Visual Links” between Beer, Wine and Spirits Labels and Retailers Ruled Unlawful in California — the tied house laws run amok
  80. Hard Cider Legislative Update
  81. New Marketing Model for New York – Lot 18 and the NYSLA
  82. Sweeping Changes in Proposed NYSLA Bill Include Expansion for Craft
  83. Minimum Resale Price Policies - How to Control Price-Cutters
  84. AB 2130 – Gloves Off?
  85. “Gluten-Free” Labels for Wine, Beer and Distilled Spirits. We’re Still Waiting.
  86. AB 1252: Sanitation Overkill?
  87. Growlers: Not Just for Beer Anymore
  88. California Legislative Roundup 2014
  89. Build It and They Will Come: Craft Products Get New Privileges in CA and TX
  90. AB 1128: Veto of the “Serve a Minor” Felony Penalty Bill, or How to Lose a Winery in One Sale
  91. California Grocers Association v. ABC, Part 2: California Appeals Court Vacates ABC’s Adoption of a Trade Advisory That Correctly Guided Licensee Conduct
  92. California Grocers Association v. ABC, Part 1: California Appeals Court Prohibits Alcohol Sales at Self-Check Out Stands
  93. AB 1128: The “Serve a Minor” Felony Penalty Bill, or How to Lose a Winery in One Sale
  94. The New York SLA and Online Wine Sales: A Work in Progress
  95. California SB 635: What the 4am Bill Really Means for California Communities
  96. Electronic Invoices in California: Welcome to the 19th Century
  97. The History of Amazon and Wine: What Has Changed?
  98. Third Party Marketing Checklist
  99. BOOZE RULES – PROMOTIONAL APPEARANCES AND AUTOGRAPHS
  100. Washington State: Down the Rabbit Hole of the Tied-House Laws