Verizon Theater GP - Pending

[mloamiller]

My wife attend a Christian women's conference at the Verizon today. There were no 30.06/30.07 signs, but there was the red 51% sign, and security was wanding people and checking purses. She opted not to carry so as to not cause a scene at the entrance, but it does raise an interesting question - is the 51% sign valid for an event where they are not selling alcohol?

[Dragonfighter]

I don't think it's valid when they are selling alcohol.

[srothstein]

My wife attend a Christian women's conference at the Verizon today. There were no 30.06/30.07 signs, but there was the red 51% sign, and security was wanding people and checking purses. She opted not to carry so as to not cause a scene at the entrance, but it does raise an interesting question - is the 51% sign valid for an event where they are not selling alcohol?

Yes, it is valid if the location was determined by TABC to be a 51% location. Please note that, like schools, for 51% sign the law reads on the premises of a location". It does not say while holding classes, serving alcoholic beverages, etc. The status of the location is the determining factor.

[ScottDLS]

My wife attend a Christian women's conference at the Verizon today. There were no 30.06/30.07 signs, but there was the red 51% sign, and security was wanding people and checking purses. She opted not to carry so as to not cause a scene at the entrance, but it does raise an interesting question - is the 51% sign valid for an event where they are not selling alcohol?

Yes, it is valid if the location was determined by TABC to be a 51% location. Please note that, like schools, for 51% sign the law reads on the premises of a location". It does not say while holding classes, serving alcoholic beverages, etc. The status of the location is the determining factor.

However the "premises" as defined by 46.035 is:

(3) “Premises” means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

So an argument can be made that the "portion of a building"....WHERE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ARE SOLD (for on premises consumption) means the area of the building reserved for that activity (i.e. the cart, window, dispensing area, etc.). I know the argument will be made that the 51% liquor license refers to the entirety of the area where they can be consumed...however, the 46.035 premises definition is controlling for the offense. I'm not going to recommend anyone be the "test case". But if you take the AG definition of "premises" for Court Offices, you'll note that he argues that the whole court building is not off limits, only the portion "utilized by the court". The portion "utilized" by the RED 51% licensee is not the entirety of the venue...For further discussion, what if there are both "blue" and "red" licensees with licenses covering the entire venue?

[mloamiller]

My wife attend a Christian women's conference at the Verizon today. There were no 30.06/30.07 signs, but there was the red 51% sign, and security was wanding people and checking purses. She opted not to carry so as to not cause a scene at the entrance, but it does raise an interesting question - is the 51% sign valid for an event where they are not selling alcohol?

Yes, it is valid if the location was determined by TABC to be a 51% location. Please note that, like schools, for 51% sign the law reads on the premises of a location". It does not say while holding classes, serving alcoholic beverages, etc. The status of the location is the determining factor.

However the "premises" as defined by 46.035 is:

(3) “Premises” means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

So an argument can be made that the "portion of a building"....WHERE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ARE SOLD (for on premises consumption) means the area of the building reserved for that activity (i.e. the cart, window, dispensing area, etc.). I know the argument will be made that the 51% liquor license refers to the entirety of the area where they can be consumed...however, the 46.035 premises definition is controlling for the offense. I'm not going to recommend anyone be the "test case". But if you take the AG definition of "premises" for Court Offices, you'll note that he argues that the whole court building is not off limits, only the portion "utilized by the court". The portion "utilized" by the RED 51% licensee is not the entirety of the venue...For further discussion, what if there are both "blue" and "red" licensees with licenses covering the entire venue?

Which makes this question even more interesting - what if they are not selling alcohol for that specific event? By the logic highlighted above - which makes sense to me - the 51% sign would be N/A for that event, and carry would not be restricted.

[srothstein]

While you could make the argument, TABC has defined which portions of the building are covered in their license. It is not where the drinks are being sold, but anywhere they can be sold or taken to drink. The law does not allow you to take alcoholic beverages out of the licensed portion, if any part of the building is marked off as not covered on the license application.

I do not think you would win the case. There is a lot of case law on it where the courts have recognized the building unless marked off by TABC.

[ScottDLS]

While you could make the argument, TABC has defined which portions of the building are covered in their license. It is not where the drinks are being sold, but anywhere they can be sold or taken to drink. The law does not allow you to take alcoholic beverages out of the licensed portion, if any part of the building is marked off as not covered on the license application.

I do not think you would win the case. There is a lot of case law on it where the courts have recognized the building unless marked off by TABC.

This is why I would not test the point, merely a theoretical discussion. But the TABC definition of "premises" is not relevant to the 46.02 or 46.035 offenses any more since the statutes being charged contain specific language defining premises. Especially in the case of a very large venue with multiple buildings and outdoor areas that could all be covered under the TABC license(s). Additionally which liquor license controls for the offense in the case that there are both RED and BLUE licensees in the building? The usual default in criminal law is to the least restrictive interpretation.

The best solution is to get rid of 46.035.