Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

St. Mary’s Alcohol Board finds violations at Butler’s Place, orders suspensions after June 28–29 incidents

February 01, 2025 | St. Mary's County, Maryland


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

St. Mary’s Alcohol Board finds violations at Butler’s Place, orders suspensions after June 28–29 incidents
The St. Mary’s County Alcohol Beverage Board on Thursday found that two late‑June incidents at Butler’s Place threatened the peace and safety of the community and voted to suspend the bar’s liquor license: a three‑day suspension for the June 28 incident and a concurrent 30‑day suspension for the June 29 incident.

The board’s action followed a formal hearing in which multiple St. Mary’s County sheriff’s deputies described large, disorderly crowds, objects hurled at officers and a shooting that sent a man to St. Mary’s Hospital. Deputy First Class James Stone, the sheriff’s office alcohol enforcement coordinator, testified that he considers Butler’s Place a “threat, danger, or harm to promoting the peace or safety of the community.”

The hearing focused on two separate allegations: a disorderly crowd and physical altercation in the parking lot on June 28, 2009, and a disorderly crowd and a shooting in the parking lot on June 29, 2009. The sheriff’s witnesses said the June 28 arrest of Sheila Juanita Somerville prompted a crowd that surrounded officers, hurled rocks and bottles and required officers to deploy OC (pepper) spray.

Corporal Handy (St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office) told the board he was “surrounded” by about 10–12 people near him and estimated that the overall parking lot crowd later grew to “probably a hundred plus people.” He described being concerned for his safety as he tried to place Somerville into a patrol vehicle and said officers were pelted with bottles and rocks.

Deputy First Class Tiffany Moritz testified she helped extract the arrestee to the patrol car, that the crowd pressed to within about 10 feet of deputies and that an elderly woman apparently knocked down in the commotion needed help getting to her vehicle. Moritz also said Butler was present outside but, in her account, did not deploy security or otherwise control the crowd after officers asked him to shut the bar down.

Corroborating the accounts, DFC James Stone and other patrol officers described recovering shell casings in the parking lot after the June 29 call. Deputy Melissa Green, who responded to St. Mary’s Hospital, testified the shooting victim arrived by private vehicle and had a single gunshot wound; she told the board she believed the round was a .45 caliber.

Owner Rufus Butler testified he has run Butler’s Place for decades, said he installed cameras and at one time hired security but later relied on trusted friends and volunteers to help manage the premises. “I installed cameras inside and out,” Butler told the board, and said a prior short‑lived security contract ended because some hires “were just as bad as the people” they were meant to control.

Joseph Taylor and Curtis L. Taylor — a friend who said he volunteers as an informal parking‑lot monitor — told the board they patrol the lot and assist Butler. Taylor said his role is voluntary and that he helps direct traffic, keep aisles clear for emergency access and ask noisy groups to quiet down.

Board members also heard that Butler had previously appeared before the board and at times told the board he would employ additional security and install cameras. The board attorney introduced meeting minutes from earlier inquiries documenting those representations; the board allowed the minutes to be entered for the limited purpose of recording past representations about security commitments.

After testimony, the board voted to find that both alleged violations — the June 28 and June 29 incidents — did occur. On penalties, the board approved a three‑day suspension tied to the June 28 incident (the board referenced a suspension to run Friday–Sunday in September) and a 30‑day suspension for the June 29 incident to run concurrently and take effect immediately. The board recorded the penalties as subject to the licensee’s right to appeal within 30 days.

The board’s decision signals heightened enforcement focus on premises the sheriff’s office identifies as recurrent locations for fights, drug calls and weapons incidents. The sheriff’s witnesses repeatedly told the board they have made numerous arrests at Butler’s Place over several years for a range of offenses — including narcotics distribution, weapons violations and assaults — and said the lack of consistent on‑site security has contributed to repeated calls to law enforcement.

Butler said he will consider the board’s decision and noted he had already taken steps to add volunteer security and surveillance. He also said he is prepared to pursue any administrative appeal available under county rules.

Votes at a glance

- Finding: June 28, 2009 — board finding that violation occurred: approved (board vote; tally not individually recorded).

- Finding: June 29, 2009 — board finding that violation occurred: approved (board vote; tally not individually recorded).

- Penalty: June 28 finding — motion to suspend Butler’s Place for three days (Friday–Sunday in September): approved (motion carried, recorded as a 3–1 split by the board).

- Penalty: June 29 finding — motion to suspend Butler’s Place for 30 days, effective immediately and to run concurrently with the three‑day suspension: approved (motion carried, recorded 3–1).

What’s next

Butler may file an administrative appeal of the board’s penalty within 30 days, the board said. The county and the sheriff’s office did not announce immediate plans to seek additional administrative remedies beyond the board action.

Context

The hearing illustrated the county enforcement process for licensed establishments: law enforcement presents incident testimony, the licensee may present witnesses and documentation, and the board decides whether violations occurred and what sanctions to impose. The board repeatedly emphasized its statutory charge to promote public peace and safety in deciding penalties.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Maryland articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI