Caroline County board finds record-keeping and transfer violations, fines two retailers

The Caroline County Board of License Commissioners on Oct. 16 found that two retail licensees violated county alcohol regulations after a July compliance inspection and an anonymous tip, and assessed fines for the violations.

The board determined that both establishments had transferred alcoholic product between licensed premises and failed to keep accurate transaction records as required by county rules. The county alcoholic beverage inspector testified that surveillance and review of invoices and inventory showed transfers between the two stores; a sworn respondent said the transfers were arranged to meet customer demand after distributor shortages over the July 4 holiday and that he had documentation of deliveries.

Why it matters: The board’s decision underscores that local license rules require licensees to maintain two years of sale and invoice records and not to keep licensed product off the licensed premises, and that admissions plus corroborating records can support enforcement even when there is no direct eyewitness.

Inspector’s account and respondent explanation The county inspector told the board an anonymous tip prompted surveillance of both businesses, after which he inspected records and inventories at each site and concluded the ledgers and stock supported the transfers. The respondent, who was sworn, said he had called the wholesaler after running low on certain items and that customers preferred particular products at one location; he said, “I called them on Friday … they said we made a mistake” and described arranging to bring small numbers of cases from one store to the other to satisfy customers.

Legal debate and board’s reasoning Defense counsel argued the county regulations are phrased differently than state statutes and that there was no evidence of a purchase-for-resale transaction. Counsel for the board (legal advisor) cautioned the commissioners they are the trier of fact and that a reasonable factfinder could infer a sale from the evidence — saying, in effect, “if it smells like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.” Commissioners divided on whether the transfer constituted a purchase under regulation 2.34 but agreed the record-keeping violation (reg. 2.36) and the local rule prohibiting off-premises storage/borrowing (reg. 2.04) were proven.

Board actions and penalties The board voted to find one licensee in violation of reg. 2.04 (borrowing/loaning between licensees) and reg. 2.36 (failure to maintain required records) and assessed a combined fine of $1,000 plus administrative fees for that business. For the second licensee the board also found violations of 2.04 and 2.36 and set a combined fine of $1,500 plus administrative fees. The board found insufficient evidence to conclude a purchase-for-resale under reg. 2.34 and voted not guilty on that specific charge for both licensees.

What the board required next The board recorded the fines and administrative fees and closed the adjudicatory record for these charges. Commissioners noted the respondent’s admission and prior compliance history as mitigating factors when setting penalties.

The board’s next steps and enforcement context Board staff and the inspector told commissioners they will continue routine inspections, particularly through the busy fall event season, and that admissions combined with documentary evidence (invoices, inventory logs) routinely form the basis of administrative enforcement. The board emphasized that licensees must keep complete records and that local rules authorize enforcement even when state-law language differs in form.

The board moved on to other business after recording the fines; no criminal charges were discussed. The board adjourned at about 12:15 p.m.