They are ABLE!

[Conan71]

My observations:

How did the legislature muck this up so bad that there was still a way for ABLE to mis-interpret the intent of the bill?

Why does by the glass sales create an issue for ABLE when high point beer can be consumed on premises at any number of restaurants and bars across the state?

[cannon_fodder]

LOCAL has issued a statement too:
http://www.localok.org/#!URGENT-ACTION/b1y8m/57b6370d0cf2075995bbe920

Here is the pertinent language. The bill basically inserted language into the existing law, the new language is underlined (sorry it cuts and pastes poorly, but I'm not going to reformat):

A. A brewer license shall authorize the holder
thereof: To manufacture, bottle, package, and store beer on
licensed premises; to sell beer in this state to holders of Class B
wholesaler licenses and retail licenses and to sell beer out of this
state to qualified persons; to sell beer produced by the licensee to
consumers twenty-one (21) years of age or older on the premises of
the brewery; and to serve free samples of beer produced by the
licensee to visitors twenty-one (21) years of age or older.

Note, neither the samples nor sales specifically say "for on premises consumption." So the AG is interpreting that as meaning samples are for on premises consumption, but sales are not. Using the exact same words in the same clause to derive two separate meanings. Why not assume the "samples" are for off premises consumption also?

Samples and sales may only be distributed
or consumed between 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Samples and sales of
beer made or served by a brewery under this section shall not be
considered a "sale" of beer within the meaning of Article XXVIII of
the Oklahoma Constitution or Section 506 of this title; however,
such samples and sales of beer shall be considered beer removed or
withdrawn from the brewery for "use or consumption" within the
meaning of Section 542 of this title for excise tax determination
and reporting requirements.

Sample and Sale treated the same again. Recall the 9PM curfew was meant to appease bars as well as neighbors of breweries, in addition to liquor stores.

The whole bill is here:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16%20ENR/SB/SB424%20ENR.PDF

[DTowner]

While I think ABLE is overreaching to assert its power, the problem is SB424 is silent on the issue of on-premises consumption.  Other statutes in this area often specifically state whether sales are for on or off premises consumption.  For example, 37 O.S. 521, which sets out what acts the holders of various licenses can do, it provides:

"A package store license shall authorize the holder thereof: To purchase alcohol, spirits, beer, and wine in retail containers from the holder of a brewer, wholesaler or Class B wholesaler license and to purchase wine from a winemaker who is permitted and has elected to self-distribute as provided in Section 3 of Article XXVIII of the Oklahoma Constitution and to sell same on the licensed premises in such containers to consumers for off-premises consumption only and not for resale...."

A mixed beverage license holder may:

"purchase alcohol, spirits, beer or wine in retail containers from the holder of a wholesaler or Class B wholesaler license or as specifically provided by law and to sell, offer for sale and possess mixed beverages for on-premises consumption only. . . ."

SB 424 is unusual in that it was intended to allow sales by a licensee for both off and on-premises consumption.  The drafters used silence on the consumption issue to convey that intent.  They should have removed all doubt and specifically said sales could be for on-premises and off-premises consumption - particularly given how ABLE always seems to muck things up.

[davideinstein]

Why are we so anti-business in this state?

[AquaMan]

Our anti-business attitude is category specific and religious based: Liquor, sex, marijuana. Otherwise we welcome and encourage businesses that exploit.

[patric]

A lawsuit to be filed Tuesday will allege that two state agencies illegally adopted emergency rules in response to the Oklahoma Supreme Court's upholding of a ruling that resulted in the inadmissibility of DUI breath tests as evidence.

Edge Law Firm of Tulsa and Hunsucker Legal Group of Oklahoma City announced they plan to file the suit in Oklahoma County. Named as defendants are the Department of Public Safety and the state Board of Tests for Alcohol and Drug Influence, which oversees the breath-testing process.

The two firms in recent years have brought multiple actions against DPS regarding the administration of DUI breath tests. In September, the state Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that the machine used in these tests was not a properly approved device.

The decision resulted in all breath tests conducted in Oklahoma being inadmissible.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/lawsuit-will-allege-dps-violated-procedures-regarding-inadmissibility-of-breath/article_5e224127-b61a-5529-94f8-ee092df6aaa6.html

[Vashta Nerada]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/dui-attorneys-criticize-bill-that-would-criminalize-breath-test-refusals/article_8205e238-ee26-58ca-b080-d785f1c2e9bf.html

[patric]

Several police associations have begun pushing the "no notice" approach since about 2010. The goal, of course, is public safety. But police certainly will see how much of the 4th Amendment they can maneuver around while trying to do their job.  So far, Courts have said that the checkpoints have to be announced, but as the police will point out the Courts have not said they have to tell you where the checkpoint will be ("Well, we announced it, just like they said we have to.").

Drunk driving is a problem. But I disagree with the Supreme Court that drunk driving is such a problem that it overrides the 4th Amendment, which is essentially the current rule. I think the government should intrude on a person's life as little as possible, random governmental checkpoints doesn't seem to fit that line.

Consider this: recent DUI checkpoints in Tulsa have a "success rate" of about 3%. Meaning the vast majority of people stopped and searched by the government with no suspicion have not done the thing they have been stopped for. Of the 3-4% that are arrested, only some will actually be convicted of drunk driving. And nationwide this is considered an amazing success rate - many areas have a 1% success rate or less. Yes, they do catch criminals - but so would warrantless door to door searches. Some success does not end the debate.

What DUI checkpoints are fairly good at is generating tickets and conducting warrantless searches for other things. Though the May checkpoint only generated 8 arrests for DUI, it fined 134 citizens for other offenses and caught a few outstanding warrants (they also saw an SUV turn to avoid the checkpoint and chased it down... which seems dubious to me unless the SUV broke traffic laws to avoid the checkpoint). But writing tickets and warrant checks are not a justification to ignore the 4th Amendment, so we have to pretend our real concern is drunk driving. Tellingly, many advocates point to the "return on investment" of DUI checkpoints, which they have to, because...

DUI checkpoints are expensive. They take how many officers hours and hours, often on overtime? Several sources have indicated that the total cost of a DUI checkpoint is $10k. Hard to believe, but with a $101mil budget supporting 750 officers - taking a good number of them away for hours costs money. Every officer sitting at a DUI checkpoint waiting to find a drunk driver is an officer that isn't doing other things.

Roving drunk driver patrols have been shown in studies to be much more effective than checkpoints at actually catching drunk drivers. The roving patrols stopped far fewer people, but caught drunk drivers at a rate that was 35 times higher than government checkpoints. While the arrest rate is much, much higher - the "return on investment" is lower.

12 States ban DUI checkpoints as an unnecessary governmental intrusion. While I can believe that a governmental checkpoint is the most effective way of catching criminals, it doesn't seem American to me. Officer: "Pull over, show your papers."  Citizen: "What did I do wrong?" Officer: "I don't know, you tell me." Citizen: "Am I being detained?" Officer: "Show your papers. If you just comply you can go."

Anyone know the officer's opinion on DUI checkpoints?

April DUI checkpoint results:
http://www.newson6.com/story/31802022/tulsa-brookside-dui-checkpoint-nets-8-arrests

May DUI checkpoint results:
http://www.newson6.com/story/31977785/tulsa-police-arrest-10-in-dui-checkpoint

...and yet they seem to be immune from the budget cuts that OHP and DPS have been whining about for months.  
3% success rate? Lets do it again and again the same way and unrealistically expect some sort of success.  If the goal is revenue collection maybe, but even Smoot went on record as saying "we know we dont make a difference" in accomplishing their stated goal of "ending DUI" so why are they still blowing tax dollars driving around the Winnebago-billboard?

Today's Whirled:  (DPS) will conduct the checkpoint from 10 p.m. Saturday to 3 a.m. Sunday at an undisclosed downtown location...to raise awareness about the dangers caused by alcohol and drug-impaired drivers.

Some of that awareness may have been true when they were more aligned with the courts orders to publicize the location.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/downtown-tulsa-to-feature-dui-checkpoint-this-saturday/article_3c0f76a6-05f9-5fc8-8f0c-52201a7a8c2d.html

[patric]

DPS announced a DUI roadblock "south of East 11th Street and west of South Sheridan Road" which is the entire Riverside precinct.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/tulsa-police-to-set-up-dui-checkpoint-for-memorial-day/article_66892fb4-2cfa-595f-b7b5-349c448e1fec.html
but actually had it in the middle of Brookside at 41st & Peoria.  Im guessing this agency was involved:

Affidavit: Tulsa County deputy shows up for work intoxicated
http://ktul.com/news/local/affidavit-tulsa-county-deputy-shows-up-for-work-intoxicated

Probably not what they were expecting from the "let them come to you" tact.


So far the only Memorial Day weekend DUI fatality I have read was an innocent motorist killed as the result of a head-on crash during a police chase.

[patric]

"Charity Games"?

The mission of the ABLE Commission is to protect the public welfare and interest in the enforcement of the laws pertaining to alcoholic beverages, charity games and youth access to tobacco.

https://ktul.com/news/local/tulsa-police-deputy-chief-named-state-able-commissioner

[swake]

"Charity Games"?

The mission of the ABLE Commission is to protect the public welfare and interest in the enforcement of the laws pertaining to alcoholic beverages, charity games and youth access to tobacco.

https://ktul.com/news/local/tulsa-police-deputy-chief-named-state-able-commissioner

The Smoot Olympics...

[Conan71]

The Smoot Olympics...

Darn, I thought maybe Smoot had been caught with a couple of 15 year old male cheerleaders when I saw this thread was active again.

[patric]

Darn, I thought maybe Smoot had been caught with a couple of 15 year old male cheerleaders when I saw this thread was active again.

State law doesn't require ID for alcohol purchase, ABLE says
OKLAHOMA CITY — Odell, a constituent from Oklahoma's 101st District, is 89 years old and would like to be able to buy a beer without having to show his ID. "He'll be 90 in a month," explained Rep. Robert Manger, R-Oklahoma City. "So he's been over 21 for a while now."

Odell came to Manger with his concerns about ID requirements after a restaurant refused to sell him a beer when he didn't have his ID. And so Manger wrote House Bill 3571, titled "Odell's Law," to clarify the rules.

Odell's Law would prohibit the government from requiring the verification of age through ID before serving alcohol. This bill would not prohibit checking ID and restates that it is illegal to sell alcohol to anyone under the age of 21.
"The law is not exactly clear. So I thought, let's make it clear," Manger said.

Lori Carter, assistant director and general counsel for the Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Commission, said this is already how the statute is interpreted.
"ABLE will never cite anyone for failing to get identification from someone who wants to purchase an alcoholic beverage," said Carter. "The ... statutory violation comes when they sell to a minor, someone who's under 21 years of age, so they will get cited for selling to a minor."

Brandon Clabes, director of the ABLE Commission, began the job in October 2022. Clabes and new staff members, including Carter, have been going over the statutes ABLE enforces.
"We've kind of gone back through and looked at the way the agency previously handled some things," said Carter. "We found that some of those practices were not in accordance with our interpretation of the law, but they were allowed to go on."

https://tulsaworld.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/state-law-doesnt-require-id-for-alcohol-purchase-able-says/article_6a4a3bc0-ead3-11ee-9ed7-4f3d16692564.html

Its been a few years, but I was told flat out by ABLE agents doing "bar compliance checks" that only a current Oklahoma Drivers License is valad for the purchase of alcoholic beverages; expired ones arent valid... as if you suddenly got younger when your DL expires.
This, as ABLE and TPD went from one gray-haired person after another demanding ID to prove they had a right to be in a bar.

[Red Arrow]

Its been a few years, but I was told flat out by ABLE agents doing "bar compliance checks" that only a current Oklahoma Drivers License is valad for the purchase of alcoholic beverages; expired ones arent valid

So, if you have an out of state friend/relative they wouldn't meet the requirements.  How sad.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

So, it's been a while since I was a bartender in Tulsa, Bush 41 was prez.

Back then, the two places I worked at, Doolittle's on North Sheridan in 1989 and Speeds Billiards at 49th & Memorial in 1990/1991, and for the most part it was up to our discretion as to who we ID'd. At Doolittle's it was never really an issue, it was strictly 21 and up, and when it did happen they were politely shown the door. I was going to school at Spartan and it was well known that they wouldn't serve under 21.

Speeds was a bit different because we allowed 18 in but they couldn't drink, and if there was any doubt they were ID'd. On Friday and Saturday were different yet because we didn't allow under 21 in after 10 PM and we actually had someone checking at the door. That was company policy. The problems we had on those two days was, in the same parking lot was an 18 and up country bar called Bronco's. They only served beer and we were a full bar so we would have people come over and do shots and then go back and people under 21 would try to sneak in with friends. We actually had a good relationship with the staff there and one of their door people would come over and tell us what stamp was being used to identify under 21 people.

As far as out of state ID's both places had a book with images of all 50 states DL's, Passport identification, military ID, and some foreign DL's. Speeds even had an employee handbook on what to watch for when checking DL's. The main thing then was a lot of states still used laminated DL's and policy was "If the lamination is split we could not accept it, and if we suspected it was fake we were told to keep it and if necessary call the police.

At both places we hated it when the ABLE "storm troopers" showed up for a spot check. I don't remember anyone I worked with getting cited or the business being cited, and I never got cited. They showed up at Doolittle's a couple times because they were told employees were drinking, not straw testing, drinking behind the bar. At Speeds we had a near disaster because they showed up and the boss hadn't posted the new business liquor license, fortunately he and the new license were there and they just said okay and left after everything else checked out.   

The Oklahoma only DL smells like someone at ABLE that is power tripping (not surprised). I got carded at Hard Rock two years ago and Boulder Grill in 2017 no one told me that an Arizona, and Oregon in 2017, license wouldn't be accepted.