Business owner was helpless to alcohol stings

I remember the day well. It was early in the morning and the phone rang. The voice on the other end belonged to one of our employees; she called to tell us that the night before, our swing-shift man failed an alcohol sting. Both of us (my wife and I) felt the bottom fall out from under us. Good God, no — not another failed sting. We had already had three, and we knew this one would be bad. We could hardly believe it.

How can I explain it? The law is clear — regardless of the circumstances, the license-holder is at fault. We had done everything we could think of to prevent a violation from happening. This failure was particularly upsetting. Just that day we had an electronic device installed to verify a customer’s age using their driver’s license. It’s simple: Put the license in and press the blue button and presto, within a couple of seconds, the person’s age appears in numbers two inches tall.

I personally showed the employee how to operate the machine using my driver’s license and one other belonging to another employee. After he demonstrated his understanding of it and my often-repeated explanation why it was important, I left for home confident that we had taken another step forward to avoid selling alcohol to people underage. Within an hour of my departure, he failed a sting.

What can be made of this? Reviewing our security system’s image recorder, it was obvious to me that he never looked at an ID, let alone attempted to verify the age of the stinger. He failed us at every level.

The electronic gizmo was but one of several firewalls we had erected to ensure compliance. Each new employee was given a copy of our policy manual to review and all of its provisions were gone over one by one. The first provision clearly stated that you were to verify a customer’s age before selling a controlled product.

The computer screen at each till brought up the minimum date of birth a person would have to be to buy that product. In other words, a person born after the date showing could not legally purchase that product. An additional key stroke was required to consummate the sale.

At each till, there was a prominent sign directly beneath each computer screen that said three things: “Pass a tobacco sting and get $25, Pass an alcohol sting and get $100, Fail either and get a fine.”

To add to this mix, there was a sign on the window, clearly visible, showing the date of birth required to purchase beer and wine. In addition, all employees attended alcohol-training classes at our expense whenever they were offered. Unfortunately, that was not very often.

All these provisions were taken as a result of our own thoughts as well as from suggestions we had received from the state’s compliance officer, Jason Wood. None suffice when the employee on the line just doesn’t care. I am fairly certain that anyone involved with law enforcement or the judicial system would agree.

The law as it was enacted by the legislature was to prevent minors from purchasing controlled products. A laudable goal, but we should look at the numbers to see just how well it is working. On Nov. 3 of this year, our paper carried a story about the most recent compliance test — eight businesses were tested, six failed. That’s a 75 percent failure rate. Some months ago, it was reported that of 10 businesses checked, eight failed. That gives us an 80 percent failure rate.

While these two examples represent the extreme, most reports show a failure rate of about 50 percent. Any way you look at it, failures ranging from 50 to 80 percent don’t point to a workable program. Despite all the favorable publicity, failures are too high to claim success. There must be a better way.

Fines assessed against the license holder are from $250 to $1,500 for each infraction. In addition, the clerk also pays a fine. The money goes into the general fund, and business continues as usual. Wouldn’t it make more sense for those funds to be used to make alcohol-compliance training classes available on a routine basis?

Upon completion of the class, the trainee would be issued a certificate allowing them to be employed anywhere alcohol is sold or served. A database should be established to track any failures. An employer would have a means to check whether a potential employee had failed a sting. Repeated offenses should result in a suspension of the certificate or its revocation. At least we would know that the problem isn’t simply being shoved off to the guy down the street to deal with again.

I’m not suggesting that the dealer should be off the hook. Some penalties must apply, but they would be tempered by reason. Currently, no credit is given for the things a license holder does right. No one comes out to see what measures have been taken to curb illegal sales, and no credit is given for passing a sting. Even a convicted felon is given credit for being a model prisoner by the parole board. Shouldn’t a license holder be given the same benefit of doubt?

The law as it is written allows no defense. For the license holder, it is demoralizing and results in cynicism. Consequently, an unhealthy relationship develops between the state and its agents. One reason my wife and I decided to get out of the business was because we could not find a way to control the situation. Additional training and technology cannot overcome attitudes commonly shared amongst those that were available for us to hire.

We were held accountable for something we couldn’t address. I was fined and my license to sell beer and wine was suspended for three days. That license was an irreplaceable element allowing us to make a living. Our next failure would result in a 20-day suspension and fine. After that, we faced the prospect of revocation.

Are there bad dealers? I suppose there are, but they must be extremely rare. What would be their incentive to break the law? Gross profits ranging from a few cents to a couple of bucks are not worth the risks of huge fines and the possible loss of a license to anyone. On those rare occasions when a license holder is proven to deliberately break the law, they should be dealt with harshly, but don’t destroy those doing their best to do it right — help them.

Left as it is, sting operations will continue this practice of gotcha enforcement. Its effect on a healthy relationship between license holders and law enforcement is pernicious and needs to be changed. Let’s face it — the numbers aren’t getting better, despite all the fines and citations.

As one that has failed stings, I can tell you that the feelings left are fear, angst and humiliation. Others have voiced the same reaction, seasoned with a large sprinkling of anger. These are wedge sentiments that do nothing to curb the sale of alcohol to minors; rather, the feelings are that it’s us vs. them and they aren’t offering any help.

 “It’s the law” is the reply a licensee gets when he calls authorities to see what can be done. The implication is to blame the legislature for its short-sighted action, leaving hostility in its wake. I have heard stories about merchants seizing a stinger’s ID and locking it in the safe in retribution. Just this past month in the crime report appearing in the Daily Inter Lake, an angry licensee called the police to report that sting operatives had left without paying for their drinks.

Robert Harris is a resident of Whitefish and is the former owner of Tri City Quick Stop near Kalispell.