Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-22-21 RamblinMINUTES FOR LIQUOR AUTHORITY MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 West 29th Avenue, Municipal Building April 22, 2021 This meeting was held virtually with no board members or staff present in person, in the city council chambers. Chair DiTullio called the Liquor Authority Meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Liquor Authority Members present: Rocco Germano, Cynthia Shaw, Lenny Ortiz, Jerry DiTullio, Juanita Stites, Edward Volk, Michael Betterton Absent: Also present: City Clerk, Steve Kirkpatrick; Deputy City Clerk, Robin Eaton; Assistant City Attorney, Joe Rivera; WRPD Detective Charles Hemming; Booze Brothers LLC, member Martin Majors being represented by Scott Drusch of Brown Dunning Walker Fein PC APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF March 11, 2021 Motion by Member Volk to approve the minutes of March 11, 2021; seconded by Member Shaw, motion carried 7-0. Item 1. Chair DiTullio asked that all present have agreed to the meeting to be held virtually on zoom which all agreed to. Introduced by Chair DiTullio Administrative Show Cause Hearing on alleged Liquor Code Violations for Booze Brothers LLC dba Rambling Rose (Licensee) 10080 West 44th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 In opening statements, Mr. Rivera (Joe) gave a brief summary of the alleged charges and for the board to determine if the bar, its owners manager or staff, was an actor for violating CCR Regulation 47-900 (A) most specifically the conduct of an establishment and did the licensee “permit rowdiness, undue noise, or other disturbances or activity offensive to the senses of the average citizen, or to the residents of the neighborhood in which the licensed establishment is located.” Mr. Drusch, (Scott) legal counsel for Mr. Majors (Marty) introduced himself and gave statements to the actions that occurred the night in question. These to include: • There is no basis that the bar violated any points of the law • No law was violated by the bar for what happened in the parking lot • The bar did nothing outside of the rules for conduct of the establishment • The bar was not involved in creating a problem for the community Afterwards Joe called WRPD Detective K. Boesel as a witness who then gave testimony as to the bar location, what he saw and found at the scene when he arrived to the Ramblin Rose. He stated that when they arrived on the scene there was a victim, found by the bartender, laying on the ground in the parking lot with several stab wounds who was later pronounced dead at the hospital. Joe entered into the case, exhibit one, which was an aerial picture of the Ramblin Rose. Scott asked Detective Boesel to describe the surrounding areas layout, adjacent to the bar’s premises, if the bar was open when he arrived and if there were any disturbances inside of the bar between any persons involved in the parking lot actions. Boesel described the scene, bar entrances, layout and fencing and responded that there was not any reported disturbances inside of the bar that he knew of. The person(s)s were in fact sworn in. Joe asked the board for questions of Det. Boesel. Board questions by Mr. Germano, Mr. Betterton, Mr. Volk, Ms. Stites and Chair DiTullio included: • What time the bartender left the establishment? Around 11:10 p.m. • What time was the bar supposed to close? 11 p.m. • What time did the people involved leave the bar? 11p.m. • Do you have a BAC report from the deceased or were drugs involved? Not at this time • Were there other patrons around the incident. No • Who called the police? The manager Joe asked a final question to confirm that Det. Boesel testimony was consistent before and after he took the oath. It was confirmed by the Detective, who was then released. Joe called WRPD Detective Shaul where Chair DiTullio swore him in. He then was asked and described where he was dispatched to at the Ramblin Rose bar and who he spoke with. Also later on, when they met, he described speaking with the manager on duty who explained that there was nothing wrong between the two patrons in the bar and that they were the last ones to leave, approximately at 11 p.m. Scott asked Det. Shaul about surveillance video to help determine when the suspect and victim were spotted in the parking lot. Det, Shaul responded that he can’t speak for everything on the video, as it is not a good video and there is an on-going investigation into the death. Other questions included: • Did anyone hear shouting or a disturbance from the parking lot? No • Was the Bartender cooperative? Yes • Was Marty called on the night of the incident? Unsure • Did the manager indicate any fighting or arguing between the two inside the bar? No Joe asked the board for questions of Det. Shaul. Board questions by Mr. Volk, and Mr. Germano included: • How man drinks did they have at the bar? Undetermined • Has Ramblin Rose had previous violations? Joe says that this might be made available at a later time that would be more appropriate • Was there any other patrons interviewed? None personally • Was it the bartender who found the body? Yes Joe asked a final question of how long were they the only two patrons left inside the bar? Det. Shaul responded that it was around one-half hour, according to the manager. No recross by the defendant and the city rested, releasing Det. Shaul. Scott asks Marty to speak to the board about his ownership of the bar to give insight of the establishment. Marty spoke in detail about his relationship with the bar, his background along with his extensive family and personal history, living in the City of Wheat Ridge. Joe asks Marty to describe the property, its outer fence, ingress and egress of customers, and if the manager is still employed. Where Marty replied that the manager had worked there for only four to five months, but after this incident he quit. Joe asked the board for questions of Marty. Board questions by Ms. Stites, Mr. Betterton, Mr. Volk, and Mr. Germano included: • Were you contacted by the Manager of the incident? Indirectly yes as he told the police officers where to find me, across the street, working in the cleaners. • Was it cold that night? Unsure but thinks it was a nice evening. • What type of clientele is it, young, old, men or women? Mostly older crowd with some young customers who walk over. It’s a neighborhood bar. • Do you serve food? Yes Joe makes final comments directing the board to make a determination on the conduct of the establishment and did the licensee, its employees or agents do or not do to contribute to this incident. Scott makes his rebuttal that the evidence, or lack of it, is insufficient to show that his establishment contributed to the incident and that nothing shows the premises is not “conducted in a decent and orderly and respectable manner.” The Ramblin Rose did not permit anything that occurred in the parking lot and does not cause a problem for the neighborhood with complaints and police calls. He believes it is a criminal manner between the persons involved and in fact is making its way through the criminal justice system. Chair DiTullio asks for a motion by the board on whether a violation was found or not. Motion by Member Betterton that based on the facts presented at this Show Cause