After scouring everything related to the issue under title 37, it appears ABLE was created to uphold the laws of the State regarding intoxicating beverages, it was not created or given the power to make laws. An issue that has been argued and upheld in appeals, etc.... This case here
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=42469 is a good read, it refers to a package store that sold to a minor, the state agreed ABLE over stepped its boundaries, you can read the specifics to that case there. While it doesn't directly pertain to the issue we are talking about, it shows that ABLE is not infallible.... it is actually a very good read, I couldn't stop smiling while reading it.
After going through all the sections of Title 37 it can only be assumed the spirit of the laws were intended to keep alcohol from minors, not as much as splitting hairs about how that age was determined.
The part of the law about not selling to minors was quoted above, so I won't re-quote that again. But under Section 537 - Unlawful Acts it says...
A. No person shall:
1. Knowingly sell, deliver, or furnish alcoholic beverages to any person under twenty-one (21) years of age;
Later when reading more case laws and interpretations on the subject you realize KNOWINGLY becomes a big issue. Nothing ever mentioned it being
illegal or unlawful to knowingly sell alcohol to someone who is over 21....Pulling a few points listed in the case I listed above I found...
¶14 Responsibility rests on the licensee to determine the age of the customer, but there must be some reasonable standard of diligence to bound his inquiry. Trader Jon, Inc. v. State Beverage Department, 119 So.2d 735 (Fla.App. 1960).
¶15 Although a licensee is not an insurer against minors acquiring alcoholic beverages through fraud and misrepresentation, he may not ignore the obvious and in an ostrich-like manner repudiate his responsibility.
¶16 The reasonable man rule must be applied. See 5501 Hollywood v. Department of Alcoholic Bev. Con., 155 Cal. App.2d 748, 318 P.2d 820, 824 (1957). There may be instances where the carelessness, imprudence, or failure to make due inquiry are of such a nature that licensee will be charged with notice and knowledge that the customer is a minor. Licensee should avoid the appearance of impropriety. Where the facts, circumstances, or appearance offer the
slightest indicia of suspicion, the licensee should be alerted to question the customer, and make a deliberate effort to ascertain the age of his customer before any sale is consummated. If there is any doubt, the sale of alcoholic beverages must be refused.
That, to me, just seems like a fancy legal way of saying USE SOME DAMN COMMON SENSE. 16 says if there is any bit of suspicion that the sale should be refused.... Come on, would anyone with have a brain not agree that even though a drivers license might be expired in all reality the person probably did not some how become magically younger? If the ID looks unaltered and matches the person I would not have the
"slightest indicia of suspicion" that the person might not be 21.
It does mention a drivers license can be used to prove that age, but it never mentioned anything about it being expired or anything like that.... Is expired milk not still milk? It may not be suitable for drinking, but it's still milk. An expired drivers license is still a drivers license, it may not be suitable for driving, but the word drivers license did not magically erase from the surface, and the way the oklahoma laws are written it still appears to be a valid means of verifying age.
And one more time pointing to the part that says
1. The individual who purchased or received the low-point beer presented what a reasonable person would have believed was a driver license or other government-issued photo identification purporting to establish that the individual was twenty-one (21) years of age or older; or
2. The person cited for the violation confirmed the validity of the driver license or other government-issued photo identification presented by the individual by performing a transaction scan by means of a transaction scan device.
Again that says what a reasonable person would believe to establish the person was 21 years of age or older... A reasonable person could argue that an expired drivers license is invalid for driving... but could
ANY REASONABLE PERSON believe that the persons age magically changed because the card expired? If you say yes to that, I have some news for you.... you are not reasonable.
In summary the Spirit and intention of the Oklahoma laws, that ABLE was created to uphold, appear intent on keeping alcohol away from minors.... The law clearly says No person shall:
1. Knowingly sell, deliver, or furnish alcoholic beverages to any person under twenty-one (21) years of age; But I can't find anywhere that says No person shall Unknowingly sell, deliver, or furnish alcoholic beverages to any person under twenty-one (21) years of age.