BAR THEFT.com
How Bartenders Steal & How We Catch Them
Home

BARTENDER THEFT: Resort bartender laundering stolen money through the tip jar

April 10, 2014 19:25 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

 

Bartender Summary

·       Lobby Bar Bartender – Xxxxxx; Caucasian female, early 20s, petite and slender, medium length blond hair, wearing a light blue button down dress shirt, dark blue slacks, sash belt, and name tag.

The agent was greeted by Xxxxxx upon taking a seat at the bar.  

She said “Hi, what can I get you”. She seemed nice and friendly however she did not introduce herself by name.

Xxxxxx placed a napkin on the bar while the agent placed an order.  She turned and immediately prepared the beverage.

The agent did not receive a receipt for any of the drinks ordered, nor did Xxxxxx ask for a credit card or room number to start a tab.

Drinks served to patrons at the bar were not always immediately entered into the POS and therefore it is difficult to discern whether or not all beverages served were accounted for.  However, the agents tab was correct. Agent strongly suggests that managemtn instruct all bartenders to follow a make a drink – ring a drink policy.

Beyond the first beverage ordered, additional cocktail napkins were not placed down for other beverages.

The agent observed Xxxxxx prepare several liquor based mixed drinks. Each time she was consistent with using the blue plastic ice scoop and lacing it back into the holder in the ice bin.  

Plastic glasses were scooped directly into the ice

Mixed drinks were prepared with a consistent four count pour measurement. The bottles were not fitted with posi pour tops.

A menu was provided upon request, and Xxxxxx followed up with asking for a food order. She seemed knowledgeable about the menu items regarding how they were prepared and portion size.  She described items in an appetizing way and positive manner.

Xxxxxx was observed preparing a drink for a patron who placed cash on the bar as a method of payment when Xxxxxx quoted the amount due. She was observed moving to the POS ringing in the order and returning change to the patron. Later, the agent observed Xxxxxx cashing out a ticket at the POS and was making change directly from the tip jar which seemed very suspicious. Agent strongly suggests follow shops on this bartender.

TIP JAR PROCEDURESThe bartenders’ tip jar should be situated well away from the operation’s cash register or POS. If the tip jar is located right next to the register, it is far too easy for bartenders to divert stolen funds away from the register and into the tip jar. In addition, bartenders should be prohibited from making change out of their tip jar or taking currency from the tip jar and exchanging it for larger denominations out of the cash drawer. If the bartenders are stealing from the business and using the cash drawer for the stolen funds, they can easily retrieve the money from the register under the pretense of making change. For example, a bartender could take 20 one-dollar bills out of the tip jar, deposit the currency into the register, but instead of taking out a $20 bill in exchange, he or she could remove four $20 bills, withdrawing $60 of stolen funds.

The bar and bar area got a little busy with Xxxxxx handling 4 – 5 tables as well as a fairly full bar, and during this time the agent sat with an empty drink for almost 15 minutes. Xxxxxx was overheard apologizing to patrons for taking so long to get to them and saying things such as “I'm sorry have you been waiting.”

A male manager was observed helping serve tables, clear glasses etc. in an attempt to pitch in and help out, although he did not notice the empty drinks on the bar.

The agent placed an order for something to eat at the bar. Xxxxxx was accommodating and helpful with placing the order asking the appropriate questions to ensure the order was prepared accurately.  She made a few suggestions and spoke highly about all the items.

About 10 minutes or so later, Xxxxxx dropped off silverware and salt-and-pepper shakers.

The food was served by another employee who asked if  anything else was needed, and Xxxxxx checked back about 5 minutes or so later asking if everything was okay and if the agent needed anything else.

Another female server with very short hair was observed behind the bar making drinks for one of her own orders that was taken into the dining room.  

The agent cannot confirm whether all of these drinks were on a ticket.  The agent recommends that the only other person allowed behind the bar preparing drinks would be a manager.

Draft beers were served in cold pint-size glasses with the appropriate size foam head.  Wine was served in clean and polished stemmed glasses.

Wine was poured directly into the wine glass without any sort of measurement.  Additional wine served to the same patron was measured out into a small glass carafe. The agent recommends using the carafe every time for accuracy and consistency.

When Xxxxxx was not busy she was observed preparing garnishes, stocking the bar, drinking from a white foam cup, and putting on lipstick.

The agent thought Xxxxxx did a fairly good job following up and offering additional drinks, except for a period of about 45 minutes when she was busy serving tables in the bar area.  During this time, the agent noticed several patrons with empty drinks.

Upon request, the itemized receipt was presented.  After method of payment was placed out, it took about 10 minutes for Xxxxxx to pick it up process it and return the receipt which seemed a little long.

She thanked the agent and was pleasant.

 

Michael Zenner - CEO      

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.

eyespyspotter.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-1919

Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2014


BARTENDER THEFT:Free Drinks, Stolen money into tip jar, Service to Minors

March 11, 2014 23:22 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:Free Drinks, Stolen money into tip jar, Service to Minors


Bartender Summary                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

  • BAR 1/XXXXX – Caucasian male with short, dark hair. Tattoos on forearms. Observed wearing a yellow ASU t-shirt and grey pants. Overheard saying to a guest his name was XXXXX.

  • BAR 2 – Caucasian male with black hair and a patch of red hair on the top. Observed wearing a black work t-shirt over a grey long sleeve shirt.

Upon sitting down we were quickly approached and greeted by BAR 1/XXXXX. He took our drink order and then made it at a 4 pour count (~1.5 ounces). He placed the drinks in front of us and secured our tab with a credit card (See Food & Beverage Summary for details).

No napkins were given and it appeared that the majority of patrons sitting at the bar did not have napkins either.

XXXXX and BAR 2 appeared to be working together throughout the evening to take care of any and all of the guests at the bar. They seemed to be sociable with one another and worked well as a team.

XXXXX and BAR 2 were on several occasions observed cleaning the bar; mopping the floor and wiping down the bar top. The Agent found this to be an excellent display with respect to maintaining a clean atmosphere and work environment.

XXXXX was observed pouring numerous liquor based drinks for guests. During these observations he was consistent in his pour (4 count ~ 1.5 ounces), not a 3 count pour (~1.25 ounces). XXXXX appeared to be very knowledgeable about drink mixes, as several different/atypical drinks were ordered by various guests throughout the evaluation.

Upon closing out our tab, XXXXX presented the Agent’s credit card and two credit card slips on the bar top with a pen. No itemized check was given.

Upon our departure XXXXX was observed to wish us a friendly/polite good night.

Several questionable instances were observed while sitting at the bar:

At approximately 11:38 PM, XXXXX had appeared to have lost a guests credit card and spent several minutes looking for it. Upon finding it, XXXXX gave this guest, his two friends, and two other guests a round of shots that he said were on him for the inconvenience of waiting. XXXXX prepared and served these shots but never made a move towards the computer screen to ring these in. Agent scores this as a theft occurrence as he did not record these drinks. This is also an ADLLC Violation as employees are not allowed do give away alcohol. Only owner/managers  or on a managers command.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-242. Sale of liquor on credit prohibited; exceptions

It is unlawful for a licensee, or an employee or agent of a licensee, to sell or offer to sell, directly or indirectly, or to sanction the sale on credit of spirituous liquor, or to give, lend or advance money or anything of value for the purpose of purchasing or bartering for spirituous liquor, except that sales of spirituous liquor consumed on the licensed premises may be included on bills rendered to registered guests in hotels and motels, and spirituous liquor sales for on or off premises consumption may be made with credit cards approved by the director, and sales of spirituous liquor consumed on the premises of private clubs may be included on bills rendered to bona fide members.

At approximately 11:49 PM, XXXXX was observed preparing three vodka and energy drinks (energy drinks being the assumption as it came from the soda gun and not a can and was gold in color). XXXXX prepared these drinks at an over pour of about a 5/6 count pour and made them in clear plastic Solo cups. Upon serving these girls their drinks they went out the front door and were no longer observed. The Agent was unable to determine if they had departed from the establishment or gone to some area of the patio where they could not be observed. These three girls were not seen again in the establishment throughout the remainder of the evaluation.

At approximately 11:54 PM, XXXXX was observed checking his cell phone, which was placed near his computer terminal. Cell phones should not be observed by the guests, XXXXX should have gone somewhere in the back of the establishment to use his phone. Moreover, cell phones are the new abacus system in which bartenders track stolen money. Agent isn't inferring this, just bringing it to management attention.

At approximately 11:57 PM, BAR 2 was observed to give two guests a round of Three Olives Cola shots. They had asked for a taste, but received almost two full shot glasses of this liquor. BAR 2 did not make a move towards either computer screen to ring these drinks up under a comp sheet.

At approximately 12:03 AM, a group of individuals who appeared to be in their late teens early 20’s were observed to sit down at the bar. XXXXX appeared to know at least one or two of them based on their greeting exchange. He did not appear to know all of them as they were observed to be introduced to him at this time. Although the true age of these individuals was unknown, no attempts at identifying their ages had been observed. The Agent would have without a doubt carded these individuals as they looked extremely young, and this bar is in close proximity to a college campus.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-241. Selling or giving liquor to underage person; illegally obtaining liquor by underage person; violation; classification

A. A licensee, an employee or any other person who questions or has reason to question whether or not a person ordering, purchasing, attempting to purchase or otherwise procuring or attempting to procure the serving or delivery of spirituous liquor is under the legal drinking age shall require the person to exhibit a written instrument of identification and may require the person on a card to be retained by the licensee to sign the person's name, the date, and the number of such identification. An off-sale retail licensee or employee of an off-sale retail licensee shall require an instrument of identification from any customer who appears to be under twenty-seven years of age and who is using a drive-through or other physical feature of the licensed premises that allows a customer to purchase spirituous liquor without leaving the customer's vehicle. The following written instruments are the only acceptable types of identification:

At approximately 12:06 AM, XXXXX was observed pouring two Jack and Cokes for a guest. XXXXX took the money for these drinks but then without ringing anything in, placed the money he received for these drinks on top of the cash register, not in the drawer. The money did not go into any tip jar and the Agent did not understand why the money would not then go into the cash drawer. The money remained singled out, sitting on top of the cash register for 15 minutes and then was opbserved to be dropped into the tip jar.

At approximately 12:08 AM, XXXXX was observed to make four shots of a deep blue colored liquor (presumably Blue Curacao). He then poured a little from each of them to make a fifth. These five drinks were served to a group of people playing beer pong next to the bar. No move was made towards the computer to ring these drinks up.

At approximately 12:09 AM, XXXXX was observed to pour a drink of well tequila and a yellow liquid (presumably a sour mix or a citrus mix). The drink was given to a female customer. No move was made towards the computer to ring these drinks up.

At approximately 12:11 AM, XXXXX was observed to pour two draft beers for a guest described as a Caucasian male with a red and black flannel print shirt. XXXXX then poured a third draft beer for this individual who then relocated to resume playing beer pong. No move was made towards the computer to ring these drinks up.

 

Food and Beverage Summary                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Upon our arrival there was no one standing at the downstairs podium to this establishment. However, upon reaching the top of the escalator SERVER 1/XXXXX was observed standing waiting for customers. She greeted us very warmly and walked with us inside. As we walked she rattled off some of the features that were offered that evening, namely beer pong. Furthermore she talked briefly about the menu, stating that this establishment had good food especially the Chicken Parmesan Sliders. There was another female server, however it had appeared she was cut for the evening and about to leave.

XXXXX sat us in the main dining room area and asked us what we wanted to drink. Several items had been attempted to be ordered but the establishment was out of them, initially the Sonoran White Chocolate Ale which the Agent tried to order. XXXXX knew they were out of this and was very polite. A Four Peaks Kiltlifter was instead ordered by the Agent and delivered to the table as a 20 ounce beer, no size was specified when placing the order. The Associate tried to order a Guinness draft, which  they were out of, then tried to order a Newcastle, which they were also out of. BAR 1/XXXXX came over and sat down at our table and had a better idea of what this establishment had or didn’t have and a Blue Moon Winter Ale was suggested and then ordered, which also came to the table in a 20 ounce glass. Both drinks were served in clean, chip free glassware, both were chilled to the right temperature.

At approximately 10:23 PM, the food items were ordered; initially a New York Style Pretzel was placed, but politely shot down by XXXXX as they were out of this item as well. Wisconsin White Cheese Curds were then suggested and then ordered. The Chicken Parmesan sliders and the Buffalo Chicken wrap were ordered as entrees at the same time the appetizer was placed. The Agent, at the time, found that XXXXX did not write down any of the items ordered but repeated them back to us and clarified sides being ordered.

At 10:31 PM, the Cheese curds arrived, they were served with a side of Ancho Chili Ranch Dressing that complemented the perfectly fried cheese curds. Overall this item was very tasty, appropriately priced as well as portioned, and a good start to a meal.

At 10:47 PM, XXXXX stopped by to check on us and grabbed our finished appetizer plate.

At 10:50 PM, XXXXX delivered the entrees to the table. The Chicken Parmesan Sliders were aesthetically displayed on the platter in between a modest portion of sweet potato fries. They were presumably finished in the oven or Salamander as the cheese on top was nicely melted into the marinara sauce. The sweet potato fries were cooked to a golden brown and were an excellent accompaniment to the small sandwiches. The Associates Buffalo Chicken Wrap was ordered with coleslaw, however fries were delivered on the plate. XXXXX was quickly made aware of this, apologized, and returned from the kitchen with coleslaw but also left he fries on the table incase we wanted them. It is presumed that XXXXX had this item comped as neither the fries nor the coleslaw were itemized on the bill. According to the Associate the Buffalo Chicken Wrap and coleslaw were both delicious. Our beer glasses were near empty and another round of drinks were offered and ordered at this time.

At 10:57 PM, XXXXX dropped our 2nd round of beers; 1 Kiltlifter and 1 Blue Moon Winter Ale. Both drinks were served in clean, chip free glassware, both were chilled to the right temperature. The restaurant appeared to mostly clear by this time, and XXXXX had asked us if it would be ok if she played a quick round of beer pong with other guests, which we were ok with. It appeared as though all of her side work was done and no guests were in need of her services. Furthermore, the Agent felt this was a nice gesture to not only us by asking, but that she went above her expected work duties to engage other patrons in playing this game. While XXXXX was playing this game she was not observed to consume any alcoholic beverages, although she was playing with guests who were drinking.

At 11:16 PM, we had finished with our plates of food. Empty plates and glassware were cleared and XXXXX was observed to ask us if we wanted/needed anything else. We said no to anything else and she quickly returned with a correctly itemized bill. The bill was closed out shortly after the Agent placed a credit card in the check presenter.

At 11:33 PM, Upon departure from the table XXXXX was observed to thank us at this time for coming in. As we walked out the front door she also said goodbye.

The Agent and Associate stood outside for a minute or two before returning inside to now sit at the bar. This gesture was done to not raise suspicion of our evaluation purposes in an establishment with such an open floor plan.

At 11:35 PM, we sat down at the bar. Within moments, XXXXX was observed to greet us and take our drink order. A Jack and Coke and a vodka tonic were ordered. XXXXX did not ask for preference, but made both of these drinks in tall glasses. A 4 count pour (~1.5 ounces) of liquor was observed as he made both of these drinks. He quoted the well vodka at $2 and the Jack Daniels at $4. When the bill later arrived this quote was accurate with what we paid.

For discretionary reasons in the Bartender Summary to this report, this section stated that at 11:38 PM, two guests were given Kamikaze shots. The Agent and Associate were these two guests.

For discretionary reasons in the Bartender Summary to this report, this section stated that at 11:57 PM, two guests were each given a Three Olives Cola shot by BAR 2. The Agent and Associate were these two guests.

At 12:17 AM, We departed from the establishment. Upon our departure XXXXX wished us a polite good night.

Of note: Three beers and one food item were selected that were out of stock. It is understandable that after St. Patty’s Day and during ASU’s spring break that items that would normally be stocked would be depleted or absent. Aside from these mitigating circumstances, four randomly selected items is a bit excessive and compromises the Agent’s belief that should they ever return to this establishment or tell friends to go here that things won’t be missing from the food and drink menus again.

 

Michael Zenner - CEO      

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.

eyespyspotter.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-1919

Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2014


Connected Kegs Help Keep Your Favorite Beers Flowing

March 11, 2014 23:19 by administrator

 Connected Kegs Help Keep Your Favorite Beers Flowing

 The iKeg automated inventory system may be a godsend for bar owners.

 

Here’s a refreshing idea for bar owners: An Indiana startup called SteadyServ is hoping to make the process of ordering and monitoring beer kegs smarter and more efficient.

 

Through a mix of hardware and software, SteadyServ’s iKeg system provides realtime inventory data, and syncs with distributors to streamline the delivery process. The idea is to make the process of maintaining tap lines more efficient, and to allow owners to anticipate demand.

 

Bar workers and managers often rely on an imprecise system of guesswork, literally shaking kegs to determine how much beer they have left. Often, they don’t know when a keg is finished until the tap itself sputters to a halt. Even if a bar employs some crackerjack weight guesser, it's still forced to leave one foot in the "beer cage" and the other on the restaurant floor.

 

SteadyServ offers a solution in the form of mobile-based live inventory management. Through the iKeg iOS or Android app, users can oversee their entire ordering process, and make decisions based on realtime keg data. The app can suggest profitable beer purchases based on regional trends, track shipments, automate social media messages, and catalog special events. Pretty soon, SteadyServ assured Reviewed.com in an email, users will be able to monitor bottle inventories.

 

Over time, all this data can provide an accurate depiction of customer demand.

 

So how does it work?

The service requires an initial 1-3 hour installation process that equips each keg in a given bar with an iKeg ring. These sensors, which are a touch smaller than the bottom of a standard keg, are then paired with the kegs using a proprietary RFID (radio-frequency identification) tag. A cellular uplink then begins transmitting weight and pressure data to the cloud; this informs users how much beer is left in each keg.

Because of the cellular uplink and installation process, bar owners can expect some significant-but-not-dealbreaking upfront fees. SteadyServ told us the installation fee is $499—plus a monthly data reporting fee, and a service charge each time a keg is depleted.

 

Given this commitment, the service is likely only to appeal to serious beer bars—you know, those watering holes with 50-odd draught lines, rotating cask selections, "tap takeover nights," and an inflated sense of self-importance among the patrons. But you've ever worked behind a bar (as this writer has), you know that something like this would certainly come in handy—especially if you're in charge of deliveries.

 

What about patrons?

If used correctly, it's likely bar patrons wouldn't notice much of a change in service, aside from a subtle decline in the number of times the bar runs out of specific beers. That said, with more accurate inventory data bar managers would presumably stay on top of sales trends and be able to better anticipate demand. Socially savvy bar owners might also use the platform to promote specials or keep patrons abreast of their stock (e.g., a tweet: “Only 14 pints left of special bourbon-aged vanilla reserve porter!”).

The service is still very much in its infancy, but SteadyServ is already looking to sync with point-of-sale systems, which will provide even more accurate sales data and inform owners about which brands or beers are selling best.

 

SteadyServ is part of a larger trend of equipping everyday “dumb” objects with sensors and mobile functionality. As the cost of sensors has dropped significantly in recent years, the simultaneous surge in mobile technology has allowed the Internet of Things to gain a foothold in modern homes and businesses. So far, these applications have served niche demands, but the implications are likely to effect everyone—even barflies.

 

By Tyler Wells Lynch February 24, 2014

 

 

Michael Zenner - CEO      

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.

eyespyspotter.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

Hospitality Checkpoint

hospitalitycheckpoint.com

liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-1919

Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


BARTENDER THEFT: Bar Theft, Palming Stolen Money, Stolen Money to Tip Jar, Underage Drinking, Dram Shop Concerns

March 3, 2014 18:35 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT: Bar Theft, Palming Stolen Money, Stolen Money to Tip Jar, Underage Drinking, Dram Shop Concerns

 

Bartender Summary

The agent observed the following bartenders the evening of June 30th:

-Indoor Bar

·       Xxxxx: Caucasian male, 6’2”, medium build, short dark hair

                                      

·       Xxxxx: Caucasian male, 6’0”, medium build, short dark hair  

-Near Bar

·       Bartender 3: Caucasian male, 6’1”, medium build, short spiked brown hair  

·       Bartender 4: Caucasian male, 6’2”, medium build, short dark hair  



The agent initially approached the nearer of the two outdoor  bars at 7:17.  At that time, all three bartenders were doing their best to keep up with the demand, but from the moment the agent walked in, it was obvious that they were beyond the limit of how much business they could keep up with.  And while both of them were working gamely to do all that they could, it was six minutes before one of them was able to get to a given guest after her arrival.

This was not an isolated incident either, as the experience was typical of the average guest.  Even so, after initially speaking to the agent at 17:23, Bartender 3 was able to present the ordered beverage a mere two minutes later.  Though  it  is worth noting that no beverage napkins were used by either bartender at any point.  Of some additional concern, the agent noted that the bartender never actually rang the order in.  Rather, he approached the POS, and registered a flurry of screen touches that ultimately culminated in a “No sale” screen and the cash being split between the register and tip jar.  Again, this experience was sadly typical.  (see photo below from 8:20).

In addition to multiple “No sale” ring-ins, the agent also witnessed another common practice effective for hiding cash theft:  rather than create and close out each individual order, both Bartenders 3 and 4 had a tendency to leave a tab open at all times, which they would add drinks to and apply cash payments to repeatedly without closing out.  In addition to making the cash sales record a confused jumble, this also gives a readout less than a centimeter in size stating the change due back to the guest. Obviously, in a bar where the nearest guest is ten feet away, this is a serious problem.

Yet two additional methods of outright theft were observed.  At 8:07, Bartender 3 received a drink order and a stack of bills with a suggestion to “keep the change.”  Rather than ring the order in, Bartender 3 held onto it, palmed in one of his hands while going about stocking work, until he eventually dropped it directly in the tip jar.

Similarly, at 8:34, Bartender 4 poured two draft beers for a guest, quoted her a price of $10, then went to the POS, and rang it in for a single draft, pressing the cash button as quickly as possible so that the large “$5.00” display was visible for only a fraction of a second, and then dropped the remainder and tip in the tip jar.

Each of these theft methods relies on quoting a price, waiting for the guest to present cash, and then ringing in something unorthodox to disguise the theft of the overage.

One practice that would go a long way to eliminating these practices would be to insist that bartenders announce the price only after having rung in the items.  This would at least make the practices above more difficult, but the fact that bartenders feel free to just ring in “No sales” and drop in cash means that they are stealing with impunity.  A good way to address this problem would be to have surprise cash drawer changes at random and unannounced times, making it easy for management to prove that some bartenders have impossible overages.  Also, since theft was consistently observed only at the outdoor bars, this would be a way of extending management’s control over the satellite bars that seem to operate with a sense of impunity.

Given the profit motivation the bartenders displayed, it surprised the agent to never see either of them offer food to a guest or even try to upsell to a more expensive brand of liquor, easy ways to increase check and tip averages.

Also, paradoxically, the bartenders were very slow about offering additional drinks to those guests whose had gone empty.  Initially, they were very busy with guests, then with cleaning up and restocking, but after this period, they tended to wait around to be approached rather than offer new drinks to guests sitting there with empties.

The agent also never observed either bartender giving any guest a check for any cash order at any time.  They simply did not do it.  This was even true at the inside bar where rampant theft methods were not observed.

Additionally, other, numerous operating controls seemed to have broken down, especially the system for checking ID.  It is possible that the bartenders were under the impression that IDs were being checked at the door, because no bartender in the establishment or out was ever seen to ask for identification of any guest.  This is obviously a big enough risk for the establishment, but on top of that, much of the crowd that evening was young, including several people that were clearly under 30.  Additionally, by the end of the evening multiple guests made statements both to the bartenders and to fellow patrons to the effect of their being completely intoxicated.  Sure enough, both guests showed all the symptoms of visible intoxication, yet they continued to receive drinks from Bartenders 3 and 4.

Even more worryingly, at 9:27, the agent observed Xxxxx serving a Mojito and a Pomonat to two girls that appeared to the agent to be underage (pictured at left) .  What’s more, Xxxxx not only never carded them, he was also never seen to ring the drink in, meaning that he either delayed the ring-in considerably, or they were given away without being properly comped and accounted for. Agent never observed the drinks to be accounted for.

Obviously, it goes without saying that under New Jersey’s dram shop law, these are massive sources of liability to the establishment, as any damages caused to either any individual or any property by a minor who has been served in a restaurant can be considered the liability of the establishment, and can be recouped by litigation.  In fact, the law is so stringent, that even minors who have not been served on the premises, but have been seen to have been intoxicated on the premises and then go on to cause damages can be a source of liability for the establishment, as the establishment is legally obligated to stop the process.  This is why it is so essential that all guests be identified in terms of age upon entry to the establishment.  Of course, when it comes to intoxicated guests, the liability exists regardless of guests' minor status.

On the other hand, there were minimal problems with correct pouring controls at  both bars.  The only overpour was actually poured by a chef (see “Managers” section for details).

All bartenders appearance was always professional and hygienic, with no cause for concern with respect to their hand washing.  The agent did observe both outdoor bartenders and Xxxxx drinking from plastic cups though.

The outdoor bar farthest from the entrance was closed.

Manager Summary

·       Patio Manager: Caucasian male, 6’0”, short dark hair and goatee , average build, black short-sleeved collared shirt labeled “Baia,”  and black slacks (pictured at right)

·       Chef: Caucasian male, 6’0”, short light brown hair in a baseball cap, glasses, wearing a black chef’s uniform monogrammed with a name beginning “Sch”

For the most part, the agent only observed the Patio Manager.  He was generally busy and effective though.  He was first seen in conversation with the hostess outside the patio bar at 8:16, then was seen circulating around the patio, in one case talking to a guest.

Next, at several times between 8:50 and 9:28, he was seen preparing bar drinks and taking them outside, presumably to help the swamped bartenders.

The only negative finding about the Patio Manager is that he was just five feet away when Xxxxx was seen presenting the alcohol to the seemingly underage guests.

Finally, the Chef described above was briefly observed at 9:20 when he stepped behind the indoor bar, grabbed a goblet, poured himself an eight-count (>3 oz) of Grey Goose, emptied a can of Red Bull over it, and then walked back into the kitchen, taking a large gulp of the drink as he walked. It was not observed to be comped in the POS.

While the Patio Manager was doing a laudable job of assisting his staff, in the agent’s opinion, his time might have been better spent by inspiring a bit of fear of authority in his bar staff.

There were no guest problems at any point that required manager intervention.


Michael Zenner - CEO      

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.

eyespyspotter.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

Hospitality Checkpoint

hospitalitycheckpoint.com

liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-7056

Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2014


BARTENDER THEFT: Bar Theft, Free Drinks, Employye Alcohol Consumption, ADLLC Violations

March 3, 2014 00:30 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT: Bar Theft, Free Drinks, Employye Alcohol Consumption, ADLLC Violations

Bartender Summary                                                                                                    

·       Bartender 1:  Caucasian male, approximately 6’, athletic build, wearing a black uniform t-shirt, jeans, and a black hat.

·       Bartender 2:  Caucasian male, approximately 5’10, thin build, brown hair worn in a xxxxxx, wearing a black uniform t-shirt, and jeans.

·       Bartender 3:  Caucasian female, approximately 5’3, petite build, with long blonde hair, wearing a female style uniform t-shirt.

Throughout the evaluation Bartender 1, Bartender 2, and Bartender 3 were extremely distracted and barely interacted with those patrons seated at the bar.  Throughout the evaluation Bartender 1, Bartender 2, and Bartender 3 appeared to be more interested in each other, the serving staff, or their cell phones than they were the customers at the bar.  Only on few occasions did Bartender 3 appear to engage in conversation and flirtatious banter with some of the bar patrons.  Otherwise, Bartender 1, Bartender 2, and Bartender 3 were observed walking around the bar, fidgeting with glassware, bottles, or their cell phones.

The more extreme examples of this behavior include:

At 10:26pm Bartender 1 was texting or playing on his cell phone.  He was observed with his head down using his cell phone for over 3 minutes straight.  He glanced up a few times during this period but did not stop texting.

At 10:56pm Bartender 3 was observed using/texting on her cell phone for almost five minutes.  Bartender 3 was also looking down at her cell phone most of the time, glancing around a few times but not moving from the spot in which she stood.

Additionally observations include:

At 11:09pm Bartender 1 was observed aggressively smacking his mouth while chewing gum behind the bar.

At 11:31pm Bartender 1 used his mixing tin to scoop ice from the ice bin for beverages.  While pouring the ice into the glasses Bartender 1 placed his hand over the tin, preventing the ice from falling out and not landing in the glass, guiding the ice with his hand.  As a patron, the agent would have been bothered by this behavior, not wanting Bartender 1’s hands, which had notably not been washed or cleaned for most of the evaluation, all over the ice within the agent’s beverage. This is also an AZ Health Code Violation.

At 10:32pm the agent noted that Bartender 1 was drinking out of a plastic cup behind the bar.  The cup was closed with a lid and Bartender 1 used a straw as per liquor law and health code requirements.  However, the substance within the drink was a light color with a lemon inside the cup.  It is possible that the drink was just Iced Tea, however, the way Bartender 1 sipped the beverage over the course of the evaluation leads the agent to speculate that the beverage may not have been a non-alcoholic beverage and may have been alcohol. This is obviously speculation, but from his mannerisms, I'm fairly certain of it.  If so this is an ADLLC Violation.

At 11:54pm Bartender 3 was observed drinking a redbull directly out of the can, leaving the can by her register when she was not drinking it. ths iis an AZ Health Code Violation.

In addition several beverages were observed being served without being charged for as well as not being accounted for within the POS:

At around 10:20pm a local delivery man from a Mexican restaurant entered the establishment delivering food for Bartender 2.  The delivery was handed to Bartender 1 and then Bartender 2 came by to greet the delivery man.  While Bartender 1 was standing there talking to the delivery man Bartender 2 poured the delivery man two shots of jager in two separate shot glasses.  The delivery man drank one immediately, chatted with Bartender 1 and Bartender 2 for several minutes, took the second shot and left.  Neither of the shots were charged for nor recorded in the POS.

At 11:33pm Bartender 1 was observed serving two Vodka Redbulls to patrons standing at the bar.  These patrons appeared to know the MOD and the staff.  Neither drink was charged for nor accounted for in the POS.

 

Wait Staff Summary                                                                                                     

Server 1:  Named Xxxxx; Caucasian female, approximately 5’4, medium build, with dirty blonde/brown curly hair, wearing a black female uniform t-shirt, a black wool hat, and jeans.

Server 2:  Named Xxxxx; Caucasian female, approximately 5’3, petite build, with long blonde hair, wearing a uniform female t-shirt, and jeans.  Xxxxx was training that evening.

The agent and associate sat at a table and were approached by Xxxxx and Xxxxx after waiting several minutes.  Xxxxx placed beverage napkins onto the table and asked the agent and associate what they wanted to drink.  The agent and associate placed drink orders (Please see Food and Beverage for details).

Over the course of the evaluation only the associate was IDed however both the associate and the agent received alcoholic beverages (Please see Food and Beverage for details).

After viewing the menu the agent and associate placed a food order with Xxxxx and Xxxxx (Please see Food and Beverage for details).  The agent asked a question which neither Xxxxx nor Xxxxx knew the answer to (Please see Food and Beverage for details).

While the agent and associate ate the first course Xxxxx and Xxxxx checked in a few times. During one of these check-ins the associate ordered an additional beverage.  The agent is not sure how long it took for this beverage to be delivered, although it was at least five minutes.  Considering the low volume of business, the agent and associate felt that this wait time was not appropriate.

Regarding the second course the agent asked Xxxxx for something which was immediately provided, which the agent greatly appreciated (please see Food and Beverage for details).

Considering the low level of business again, the agent and associate felt that the wait time for the second course was also longer than appropriate (Please see Food and Beverage for details).

When the food was delivered the agent ordered an additional beverage through Xxxxx.  There was an issue with the beverage that was not Xxxxx’s fault, however, Xxxxx handled this issue very well (Please see Food and Beverage for details).

When the agent and associate were finished with their meal the agent requested the check.  The check was promptly provided and paid for.  There was no customer receipt included with the bill, however, and another item on the bill was very odd (Please see Food and Beverage for details).

As a training server it is expected that Xxxxx would be on her best behavior, which she was.  The agent and associate were surprised, however, at Xxxxx’s performance in comparison to Xxxxx’s, Xxxxx seeming to slack and be less helpful as well as be a bad role model and trainer for Xxxxx considering her lack of knowledge and lack of attention.

Xxxxx was a very friendly and attentive server, on the other hand.  However, throughout the meal the table was not maintained, leaving a clutter of dirty plates and glassware for almost the entire meal.

Security Summary

·       Security 1- Caucasian male, approximately 5’10, with an athletic build and dark short hair, wearing a black t-shirt and jeans.

When the agent and associate approached there was no Security stationed at the door nor did there appear to be security staff within the establishment.  Consequently, no patrons were being IDed upon entering, which, based on the assumption of staff assuming the patrons had been IDed, caused some patrons to not be IDed at all.

About half way through the evaluation there was a single security guard that was noted to have arrived and started working.

Security 1 was observed walking into the establishment only several times during the evaluation, spending most of his time at or near the front entrance.

On the agent and associate’s way out Security 1 wished the agent and associate a good evening.

Although it appeared that only staff and a few friends of staff walked through the back door of the establishment that went into the back parking lot, the agent warns that there was no staff member watching that entrance/exit throughout the evaluation.  The agent notes that this is an easy area for underage individuals to enter the establishment and be assumed as having been IDed by the servers and bartenders.

Overall, the agent is not sure whether or not the security staff was short just for that evening or if only one staff member was scheduled.  The agent also does not assume that Security 1 was necessarily late.  Nonetheless, the agent does warn that the establishment was not being watched over in the way security staff would and should, IDing all patrons at the door and watching all entrances.  Such responsibilities should be handled, therefore, by the rest of the staff watching for incoming patrons through the back entrance and IDing all patrons as they are served, however, this did not appear to be the case either, causing the establishment to have face the risk of serving underage and/or intoxicated patrons.

Food and Beverage Summary

When the agent and associate entered the establishment there was no security working at the door.  The agent and associate were, therefore, not IDed upon initial entry into the facility.

The agent and associate sat at a table and were greeted by Xxxxx and Xxxxx.  Xxxxx placed down beverage napkins and asked the agent and associate what they would like to drink.  The agent ordered a water and the associate ordered a corona.  At this point the associate was IDed, however, the agent was not due to the fact that the agent only ordered water.

In addition the agent asked Xxxxx if the agent and associate could have another menu since there was only one on the table.  Xxxxx did not appear to understand why the agent wanted another menu, and then assumed based on the disheveled appearance of the first menu, that the agent wanted a cleaner menu. Nonetheless, the agent wanted an additional menu for the associate to look at as well.

When Xxxxx returned with the corona the agent and associate ordered nachos as an appetizer and stated that they would continue to browse the menu to look for larger items.

Ten minutes later the nachos arrived, served in a large plastic basket on top of a wax sheet.  There was cheese sauce drizzled over the chips, a handful of sliced jalapenos, a handful of diced tomatoes, and a large dollop of sour cream.  The agent and associate were extremely disappointed with the nachos, however.  The nachos came out barely room temperature and it was obvious that the jalapenos and tomatoes had just been sprinkled onto the chips, instead of having some salsa or pico de gallo on the chips, giving the nachos a more complex flavor.  Instead the nachos were very basic and cold, both the agent and associate feeling they could make better nachos in their homes with basic ingredients.

When the agent was finished with his first beverage Xxxxx returned and asked if the agent and associate were interested in additional beverages.  The associate ordered another Corona.  The associate and agent were also ready to order their food at this point.

The agent asked Xxxxx what the “healthy heart special” was, which she did not know.  Xxxxx asked Xxxxx and Xxxxx was not aware either.  Xxxxx directed Xxxxx to ask the MOD who informed her that it was a pesto chicken meal.

When Xxxxx returned with the information the associate placed an order for the Social Burger with fries and the agent placed an order for the loaded grilled cheese with fries.

Nine minutes later the agent realized that the agent had forgotten to ask for the Grilled cheese without the pesto sauce.  The agent flagged down Xxxxx and apologized, informing her of the modification.  Xxxxx ran upstairs to inform that chef and quickly returned stating that the agent need not worry and that Xxxxx had caught the chef just in time.

16 minutes after the second course was ordered it was delivered by Xxxxx.  Xxxxx asked if the agent or associate needed anything else.  The agent asked for a coke.  Xxxxx left to retrieve the coke but shortly returned stating that the syrup was low and needed to be changed.  Xxxxx stated that the agent would receive her beverage as soon as the coke was changed.  Several minutes later the drink was delivered.

The agent’s food was very good.  The grilled cheese served on soft, thick bread, with hot, thick, gooey cheese in the center.  The fries were hot and crisp with a soft center.  Overall, the agent’s meal was very satisfying.

The associate’s meal was okay but not impressive.  Again the associate felt that the burger was comparable to a burger the associate would make for himself at home.  The meat was good, and cooked as per the associate’s request.  The bun was soft and warm.  There was nothing in particular that was wrong with the meal, however, there was nothing particularly noteworthy either.

When the agent and associate were finished with their meals the agent requested the check.  The bill was presented in a clean check presenter with seemingly accurate charges.  Upon closer examination the agent noted an odd discount on the bill that did not pertain to any problem the agent and associate had.

The agent provided a credit card for the bill, which Xxxxx promptly ran and returned.  At this point the bill was returned with a receipt to sign, however, without a customer copy.

Overall the agent thought that Xxxxx was working very hard to provide the best service with her level of training.  The food, however, was mostly disappointing and the kitchen appeared to be taking an inappropriate amount of time considering the low level of business.

 

Promotional Addendum:

During the evaluation there were three promotional models working to promote Bacardi.  The MOD made two separate mixtures with Bacardi; one with coke, and one with juices.  At this point the coke syrup was already low and, unaware of the issue, the MOD poured the shots with what tasted like watered down coke.  This was evident in the flavor of the shots provided by the models.

Due to the fact that the agent had not ordered an alcoholic beverage and, therefore, had not been IDed, when the agent did receive Bacardi shots from the promotional models the facility ended up serving a patron that had not been verified.  Although the agent is of legal age to drink, the agent warns that such slip-ups run the risk of serious penalties.  The agent feels that all staff should always ID patrons, especially when security is not checking IDs at the door, and, additionally, especially when promotional models are handing out free shots.

MOD Addendum:

MOD-  Caucasian male, approximately 5’7, wearing a black suit, black shirt, and ablack large, wool hat/beanie.

At 10:28pm the MOD poured and served to pink, mixed shots to the Bacardi Promo Girls.  Neither shot was accounted for in the POS.

At 11:15pm the MOD served the promo girls three large shots that appeared to be small glasses of an ADIOS mixture, possibly the equivalent of 2-3 ounces.

At 11:55pm the MOD poured and served 4 more mixed shots, one for himself, and three for the promo girls.

Although in accordance with the expectations of the MOD provided by the business owners, the MOD may have the ability to provide free shots and not have to account for them, the agent still warns that Promotional Contracted Models are still considered patrons regarding alcohol consumption.  After having consumed over 6 ounces of mixed drinks in the form of 3 shots, within an hour and a half, the girls appeared to be comfortably intoxicated, however, if either of them drove from the establishment at midnight when they left, all three of them would have had a high BAC level and thus a dram shop liquor liability issue.

The agent also noted that throughout the evaluation the MOD appeared to be solely concerned with the promo girls and not concerned with the management of the business, in the Agent's opinion.

 

Michael Zenner - CEO      

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.

eyespyspotter.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

Hospitality Checkpoint

hospitalitycheckpoint.com

liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-7056

Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2014


BARTENDER THEFT: Bar Theft, Intoxicated Patrons, Free Drinks for Friends, Bartender Pockets Money

March 3, 2014 00:16 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT: Bar Theft, Intoxicated Patrons, Free Drinks for Friends, Bartender Pockets Money

 

Bartender Summary                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

·       Bartender 1:  Xxxxx, Caucasian fem ale, about 5’5”tall, thin, long blond curled hair, wearing a black bustier, a black jacket and a black skirt. (Pictured)

·       Bartender 2:  Xxxxx, Caucasian female, about 5’4”tall, thin build, long straight blond hair worn up on the sides, wearing a black and gray striped shirt and a black skirt.

·       Bartender 3:  Caucasian male, about 5’7”tall, stocky athletic build, short light brown spiky hair, wearing a black shirt and black pants with  a sweat band and church key on his arm.

·       Bartender 4:  Caucasian male, about 5’9”tall, thin build, short dark hair, wearing black rimmed glasses, a black hoodie with the hood on and black pants.

·       Bartender 5:  Caucasian male, about 5’8”tall, medium build, short dark hair, wearing a black shirt and black pants.

·       Bartender 6:  Caucasian female, about 5’6”tall, long straight brown hair, wearing a black shirt and black skirt.

·       Bartender 7:  Xxxxx, Caucasian male, about 5’11”tall, large build, short dark hair, facial hair, dark rimmed glasses, wearing a dark shirt and pants.

·       Bartender 8:  Caucasian male, about 5’9”tall, medium build, short dark hair, wearing a black shirt and black pants

·       Bartender 9:  Caucasian female, about 5’7”tall, thin build, long dark curled hair, wearing a black bustier and a black skirt.

·       Bartender 10:  African American female, about 5’5”tall, thin build, long dark hair in a ponytail, wearing a black bustier and a black skirt.

In this summary the downstairs Radius bar will be referred to as bar 1, the downstairs Xxxxx bar will be bar 2 and the upstairs Xxxxx bar will be referred to as bar 3.  Bartender 10 was at the upstairs Xxxxx bar which was not evaluated due to the fact agent could not get to the bar as this area was extremely crowded.

Agent approached bartender 1 at bar 1 upon entering the establishment.  She looked over at agent, leaned forward and asked what she could get agent to drink.   Agent placed a drink order and Xxxxx quickly made the drink using the proper recipe.  She poured about a 6 count pour for this drink.  She served it to the agent and gave agent a price.  Agent gave her a card and she went to the POS rang in the drink and processed the payment.  She returned the credit card receipt in a clean black check presenter.

When agent’s drink was empty Xxxxx asked if agent would like another.  Agent said yes and she quickly made the drink and processed the payment in the same fashion as above.

Some observations made while at bar 1:

At 11:56pm Two Caucasian females that appeared to be Xxxxx’s friends approached bar 1 and she excitedly said hello to them.  She then poured each of them a double vodka cranberry tall.  No money was exchanged nor was anything rang up in the POS.

At 12:00am a Caucasian male and female couple approached the bar and the male shouted Xxxxx’s name.  He said he wanted a bottle of champagne and Xxxxx repeated the order.  He said yes and said “give it to me for $40” Xxxxx said she couldn’t do that.  She got the bottle of champagne, opened it and then served it to the couple.  She then took the $100.00 bill from the male patron and went to the POS where she entered an open charge of $45.00.  She then gave the male patron the proper amount of change back.  He tipped her what appeared to be a large sum and she put the cash into the tip jar.

At 12:03pm an African American male patron approached the bar.  Xxxxx happily waved to him and grabbed his hand.  They talked which agent could not over hear.  Agent then saw Xxxxx move to the well and proceed to make 12 double shots in tall glasses.  The shots were made with vodka, triple sec, cranberry juice, additional liquor and other ingredients agent could not recall.  The shots filled each glass 2/3 to ¾ full.  She made these shots in 4 separate batches and as she would make 3 she would handle them to the man and he would hand them back to the crowd standing behind him.  When she served the last shots Xxxxx waived off the man and then went to the POS.  Agent saw the screen display VOID then she tapped a square about 4 times and closed the screen.  Agent is unsure exactly what she put in the POS but it was not 12 double shots.   There was no money transferred, not even a tip that agent saw.

Around 12:08pm Xxxxx served 2 Caucasian females in their early 20’s standing at the bar.  She served them 5 drinks at one time; the drinks sat in front of the 2 girls and agent did not see the drinks distributed to anyone else.  About 3 minutes later Xxxxx served these same 2 girls each a fireball shot.  That is 7 drinks in 3 minutes for these 2 young ladies.  She did ring all these drinks into the POS.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

23. For an on-sale retailer or employee to conduct drinking contests, to sell or deliver to a person an unlimited number of spirituous liquor beverages during any set period of time for a fixed price, to deliver more than thirty-two ounces of beer, one liter of wine or four ounces of distilled spirits in any spirituous liquor drink to one person at one time for that person's consumption or to advertise any practice prohibited by this paragraph.

At 12:24pm a Caucasian female approached Xxxxx and asked for a vodka cranberry.  Xxxxx poured the female Absolute without asking for a preference.  She then rang up the drink at the premium price.

Agent noticed all bartenders at this bar using cups or tins as ice scoops.  They all appeared to pour a 5-6 count pour per regular shots.

Bartender 4 was at the well facing the dance floor down from Xxxxx and Xxxxx.  Agent was wondering what his actual job was as he was seen standing behind the bar dancing and getting up on the reach in cooler to dance the majority of time agent was at the bar.  Around 12:20am agent finally saw him pour a couple of drinks for patrons.

Agent observed bartender 3 and bartender 5 from afar.  They appeared to ring in every drink and to stay busy.  Agent did not see either one with hands in the tip jar or waiving patrons off.

Agent then moved on to bar 2.  Agent approached the bar and was immediately greeted by bartender 6.  She was very friendly, said hello and asked agent what she could agent get to drink.  Bartender 6 quickly made and served agent’s drink.  She gave agent a price.  Agent gave her a credit card and she went to the POS, rang up the drink and gave agent the receipt to the agent in a clean black check presenter.  She thanked the agent.  Bartender 6 could not find an ingredient for agent’s drink so agent changed the drink.  Bartender 6 quickly adapted and made agent the second choice.

 

Observations made at bar 2.

Agent observed bartender 6 with other patrons and she seemed to serve all other patrons in the same fashion as agent.  Agent also observed bartender 8 from afar.  He appeared to ring in all drinks served.  They both were seen to pour a 4-6 count pour and used cups or tins as ice scoops.

Around 12:40am agent saw Xxxxx walk behind bar 2 and talk with bartender 8 and Xxxxx.

About 12:51am Xxxxx began breaking down his well by the patio entrance.  At around 12:57am 3 patrons walked up; 2 Caucasian males and 1 Caucasian female.  They appeared to know Xxxxx and he told them he was getting out of there.  He then served them 2 shots of Jager and a shot of Fire ball.  He did not move to the register or collect any money.

The patrons stayed at the bar and talked to Xxxxx.  At 1:00am Xxxxx gave each of them a bottle beer.  The blond male then gave Xxxxx money.  Xxxxx looked around and then put the money into his pocket.  Right after a Caucasian male patron walked up to the well and placed an order with Xxxxx.  Xxxxx made and served the drink and went to the POS.

Agent then went onto bar 3 upstairs.  Agent approached the bar and was immediately greeted by bartender 9.  She smiled at agent and asked what she could get agent to drink.  Agent placed an order.  Bartender 9 made the drink incorrectly and served it to agent.  She did not use a cocktail napkin.  Agent gave her a credit card and she rang up the drink and gave agent the credit card receipt in a clean black check presenter.  She said thank you.

Agent observed bartender 9 to ring in every drink she made.  She poured about a 5 count pour.  Her hands were never in the tip jar and she attempted to keep the bar top clean.  Bartender 9 appeared friendly and to do a good job.

Agent left through the Xxxxx side of the establishment when agent left Xxxxx was behind the bar at Xxxxx’s well and appeared to be working that well.

Security Summary

There were several members of security seen inside and outside the establishment; way too many for agent to describe.  They all presented well and were dressed professionally.  Agent personally spoke with the member at the VIP ropes who was a tall male with a bald head wearing a dark suit.  He seemed friendly enough and directed agent to the will-call table.  Upon leaving 2 different security members told agent to have a good night.

There were no problems that agent is aware of.

There were a lot of really drunk patrons noticed by the agent.  Agent witnessed two separate females in the ladies room who could barely stand.  One of them almost fell twice but her friend caught her.  Over serving was quite evident.  With the amount of people in the establishment this could be quite dangerous.           

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

14. For a licensee or other person to serve, sell or furnish spirituous liquor to a disorderly or obviously intoxicated person, or for a licensee or employee of the licensee to allow or permit a disorderly or obviously intoxicated person to come into or remain on or about the premises, except that a licensee or an employee of the licensee may allow an obviously intoxicated person to remain on the premises for a period of time of not to exceed thirty minutes after the state of obvious intoxication is known or should be known to the licensee in order that a nonintoxicated person may transport the obviously intoxicated person from the premises. For purposes of this section, "obviously intoxicated" means inebriated to the extent that a person's physical faculties are substantially impaired and the impairment is shown by significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction that would have been obvious to a reasonable person.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Food and Beverage Summary

At bar 1 agent ordered 2 identical rounds.

A dirty martini and Bud Light bottle.  The martini was made with the well vodka and olive juice from the fruit tray.  The martini glass was chilled and the martini well shaken.  It was served with 2 olives on a skewer.  The martini was cold and tasted fine.  The Bud Lights were served cold and fresh.  Agent was charged $16.00 for each round.

At bar 2 agent ordered a dirty martini.  Bartender 6 could not find any olive juice and had only poured the vodka in the tin.  Agent told her she could just make it a Cosmo.  She asked if agent was sure and agent said yes that it sounded good.  She then made the Cosmo and served it up in a chilled martini glass and garnished with a lime twist.  Agent was charged $6.00 for this drink.

At bar 3 agents ordered another Cosmo.  Bartender 9 filled a short glass with ice, poured well vodka and cranberry juice then put a straw in it and served it to agent.  This was a vodka cranberry and in no way a Cosmo other than sharing the vodka and cranberry in common.  If she did not have martini glasses agent feels she should have said something.  Agent was charged $8.00 for this drink.

There was quite a discrepancy in the difference of prices and at each bar agent was served well vodka, as this might be representative of the bartenders book boosting drinks for more profits.

 

Michael Zenner - CEO      

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.

eyespyspotter.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

Hospitality Checkpoint

hospitalitycheckpoint.com

liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-7056

Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2014


Bartender Theft, Liquor Liabilty Issues, Dram Shop Issues

March 2, 2014 19:26 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT: Strip Club Cabaret, Bar Theft, Liquor Law Violations, Intoxicated Employees

 

Facility Summary   

                                                                                                    

When the agent and associate approached the facility from Xxxxx, the agent and associate wondered for a moment if the facility was even open.  The front doors were closed, there were no items in the front area of the facility to imply it was open, such as a space heater or sign, and although there were few cars in the front and back the facility, overall, it appeared empty and quite.


Through the front doors of the establishment, the host area was dark and vacant as well.  The small desk area had a basket of mints.  To the left of the host desk, a doorway opened up to the main room.


A bar ran along the front left corner of the establishment.  Several stools lined the outside of the bar allowing for patron seating.  There were two POS monitors on either side of the bar, the right of which was being used during the evaluation.  The back area of the bar was messy and full of personal items (Please see Bartender Summary for details).

Along the left wall was an ATM machine, and the restrooms were located in the back left corner of the facility.  No restroom attendant occupied either restroom; however, both restrooms were clean, neat, and fully stocked with paper products and soap.


The DJ booth was located in the left back corner of the facility as well, with a cut-out window at the top of the booth to allow the DJ to look out to the stage and crowd.  Throughout the evaluation, the DJ played a variety of upbeat rock, R&B, and pop music.  The music was played at a comfortable and appropriate level.


The DJ himself was barely audible, however.  His statements sounded very garbled and unintelligible based on the fluctuations in pitch in his “DJ voice” and lack of volume of the microphone.  In addition, a serious integrity issue was observed that was performed by the DJ (Please see Bartender Summary for details).


To the right of the DJ booth and extending from the right back corner of the room was a large VIP area that was separated by large, red, sheer drapes hanging from the ceiling.  In addition, a small VIP area was located in the front right corner of the facility with the same red, sheer drapes creating the walls of the room.  In between the two VIP areas and along the right wall was a line of lap dance chairs facing the crowd.  Behind the chairs was a chair-to-ceiling mirror.


In the center of the room toward the back half of the room was a large rectangular stage with a spinning pole in the center.  The stage was raised on a high platform.  Along the sides of the stage were rectangular VIP tables with “reserved” tents and long bottle service menus standing upright.


A small, circular second stage was located in the front of the room toward the bar.  This stage was low to the ground and surrounded by a padded circular shelf with cup holders built into the base.  This stage was not used during the evaluation.


In between the front of the main stage and the second stage, several small tables were available for additional seating.  Each table had three chairs pushed in and facing the stage.


Overall the facility was relatively well maintained and appeared to have been barely touched after the clean up and organization from the night before.  Based on the exterior appearance of the facility, however, there was nothing welcoming about the facility nor anything that the agent felt would entice passing vehicles to stop by.

 

 

 

Bartender Summary       

                                                                                            

·       Bartender 1: Receipt read “Xxxxx”; Caucasian female, approximately 5’5” tall, thin build, with long brown hair, wearing a dark grey “Xxxxx’s” t-shirt, black leggings, and black sneakers.


The agent and associate walked into the bar and stood waiting for their eyes to adjust.  The agent and associate were approached by Bartender 1, who had come out from behind the bar, and told the agent and associate they could sit wherever they pleased and she would come to them to serve them.  The agent and associate took a seat at one of the tables and Bartender 1 walked over to the agent and associate.


Bartender 1 asked us what we would like to drink, and the agent and associate placed drink orders (Please see Food and Beverage Summary for details).  Bartender 1 repeated the order for confirmation and left to pour and retrieve the beverages.


Bartender 1 returned, placing the beverages in front of the agent and associate without beverage napkins.  Bartender 1 stated the price of the beverages.  The agent provided a credit card, and Bartender 1 asked if the agent would like to open or close the tab.  The agent stated that they wanted to open a tab and Bartender 1 asked the agent for an ID in order to hold the card.


Bartender 1 did not ID the associate at all, and although Bartender 1 did take the agent’s ID she did not look at it prior to serving the agent and associate liquor. Furthermore, she did not appear to be concerned with the age of the agent at all, but instead took the ID solely to hold the card.  The agent feels that a cash payment would have prevented Bartender 1 from viewing the agent’s ID entirely.  Neither the agent nor the associate were over 35 and, therefore, should have been ID’d.


Bartender 1 took the card and ID and walked away.  At no point during the evaluation did Bartender 1 formally introduce herself or give the agent and associate her name.

While seated at the table, the agent noted that Bartender 1 decided to sit on the outside of the bar, next to a customer with whom she had been and would be flirting throughout the evaluation.  This patron was a tall African American man with dread locks and a beard, wearing a long-sleeved shirt, sweat pants, and flip flops with socks.  The bartender took a position on the opposite side of the bar at 4:30pm and she returned to this position periodically throughout the evaluation.


Later in the evaluation, the agent and associate approached the bar to order an additional beverage (Please see Food and Beverage summary for details).  Bartender 1 immediately asked if the agent wanted to close the tab.  The agent was surprised, feeling that a more appropriate promotional response would be to ask if the agent wanted another beverage instead of bringing attention to the idea of leaving the establishment.  Instead, an additional beverage was ordered.


Although Bartender 1 quickly provided the associate the beverage, Bartender 1 neglected to place this beverage on the tab and, therefore, the beverage was never paid for.  The agent is sure this was not an unspoken comp’d beverage but, instead, an error of neglect on Bartender 1’s part.

This beverage was served with a beverage napkin.


The agent noted that the back bar area was covered with Bartender 1’s personal bags and possibly some of the DJ’s items.  The agent noted a purse by the register, a large over-sized bag in the center of the back bar area, and a laptop computer bag next to the large bag.

The agent also observed several integrity issues:


At 4:54pm while Bartender 1 was sitting at the bar next to the customer with whom she was flirting, the DJ walked behind the bar and poured three mixed shots, distributing one to Bartender 1, one to the patron with whom she was sitting, and keeping one for himself.  The patron, the DJ, and Bartender 1 took the shots.  None of the beverages were paid for or accounted for on a comp tab.  The agent noted that the DJ and Bartender 1 behaved as if this was common practice. ths is also an ADLLC Violation.


TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

12. For a licensee, when engaged in waiting on or serving customers, to consume spirituous liquor or for a licensee or on-duty employee to be on or about the licensed premises while in an intoxicated or disorderly condition.

At 5:15pm Bartender 1 served herself and the patron with whom she was flirting two large shots of straight Peach Ciroc.  Neither of these shots was paid for nor accounted for on a comp tab.

Bartender 1 was noted to almost immediately pick up her cell phone and text as soon as the patron with whom she was flirting walked away to use the restroom or make a call outside.

While talking to the patron with whom she was flirting, Bartender 1 complained several times that she was “so bored”.

Bartender 1 and the patron were also overheard several times making fun of Xxxxx, making statements such as “crack kills” and “gotta love heroin”.  The agent feels that not only should staff never make fun of other staff as it portrays a negative impression of the establishment, but, more importantly, if Bartender 1 was obviously aware of Xxxxx’s state of intoxication, it is Bartender 1’s responsibility to cut her off and ensure she leaves the property within the allotted and legally required amount of time.

 

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

14. For a licensee or other person to serve, sell or furnish spirituous liquor to a disorderly or obviously intoxicated person, or for a licensee or employee of the licensee to allow or permit a disorderly or obviously intoxicated person to come into or remain on or about the premises, except that a licensee or an employee of the licensee may allow an obviously intoxicated person to remain on the premises for a period of time of not to exceed thirty minutes after the state of obvious intoxication is known or should be known to the licensee in order that a nonintoxicated person may transport the obviously intoxicated person from the premises. For purposes of this section, "obviously intoxicated" means inebriated to the extent that a person's physical faculties are substantially impaired and the impairment is shown by significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction that would have been obvious to a reasonable person.

 

Overall, the agent felt that Bartender 1 completely neglected almost all aspects of her job and its responsibilities.  As a regular patron, the agent would hope that Bartender 1 was not working if the agent ever decided to return.

 

 

Dancer Summary

 

Dancer 1: Possibly Named Xxxxx; African American female, approximately 5’6” tall, thin build, with black hair worn up in a side bun, wearing a black bra, a green lace thong, and black boots.

Dancer 2: Caucasian female, approximately 5’5” tall, medium build, with long brown hair, wearing a matching green and black thong and bra, and black heels.

Dancer 3: Named Xxxxx; Caucasian female, approximately 5’7” tall, thin build, with blonde hair worn up in xxxxxxxxxx  up-do, wearing a black bra, black ruffled underwear, black thigh highs, and clear heels.

Dancer 4: Caucasian female, approximately 5’4” tall, medium build, with blonde hair, wearing a white thong white bra, white heels, and a knee brace.

Throughout the evaluation there were only four dancers working; however, at no point during the evaluation were all four dancers out on the floor at the same time.  Although there were few dancers on shift to begin with, only having two or three out on the floor at a time caused the establishment to be even less appealing.

Overall the dancers were not very friendly or welcoming.

Dancer 2 was observed either off of the floor in the back area or sitting by herself against the right wall in a lap dance chair, watching TV and pouting.  She was not observed talking to any customers or employees and sat with her arms and legs crossed watching TV.  When she was called onstage to perform her set, she did so with minimal enthusiasm and appeared entirely bored.

Dancer 4 was initially observed talking to customers at the bar when the evaluation began.  She performed an enthusiastic set, doing pole tricks and flirting with the few customers in the establishment.  She did not approach the agent and associate however.

Dancer 1 performed her set enthusiastically as well, doing several pole tricks and dancing around the stage for the few patrons seated at the bar.  Dancer 1 was observed exiting the VIP area in the beginning of the evaluation, having just performed a dance, however was not observed talking to any other patrons thereafter and did not approach the agent and associate.

The only dancer that did approach the agent and associate, as well as every other patron in the establishment, was Dancer 3, Xxxxx.  Dancer 3, however, was clearly intoxicated.  Her movements on stage and her physical appearance, including the appearance of her pupils caused the agent to believe Xxxxx was extremely high and possibly drunk as well.

 

 

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

14. For a licensee or other person to serve, sell or furnish spirituous liquor to a disorderly or obviously intoxicated person, or for a licensee or employee of the licensee to allow or permit a disorderly or obviously intoxicated person to come into or remain on or about the premises, except that a licensee or an employee of the licensee may allow an obviously intoxicated person to remain on the premises for a period of time of not to exceed thirty minutes after the state of obvious intoxication is known or should be known to the licensee in order that a nonintoxicated person may transport the obviously intoxicated person from the premises. For purposes of this section, "obviously intoxicated" means inebriated to the extent that a person's physical faculties are substantially impaired and the impairment is shown by significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction that would have been obvious to a reasonable person.

 

 

When Xxxxx finished her set on stage she was observed approaching the bar and ordered a gin and tonic.  Xxxxx walked from the bar with the freshly poured beverage and came directly to the agent and associate who were seated at a table.  Xxxxx introduced herself and unknowingly spilled her beverage all over the associate’s lap.  Xxxxx was slurring her words terribly and barely stood up straight.  The agent was shocked that she was working in such a condition.

 

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

14. For a licensee or other person to serve, sell or furnish spirituous liquor to a disorderly or obviously intoxicated person, or for a licensee or employee of the licensee to allow or permit a disorderly or obviously intoxicated person to come into or remain on or about the premises, except that a licensee or an employee of the licensee may allow an obviously intoxicated person to remain on the premises for a period of time of not to exceed thirty minutes after the state of obvious intoxication is known or should be known to the licensee in order that a nonintoxicated person may transport the obviously intoxicated person from the premises. For purposes of this section, "obviously intoxicated" means inebriated to the extent that a person's physical faculties are substantially impaired and the impairment is shown by significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction that would have been obvious to a reasonable person.

 

Xxxxx asked the agent and associate if they were interested in a dance, which they declined.  Xxxxx then spent much of the evaluation in the DJ booth with the DJ and in the back room.

 

The agent did not observe the dancers perform any lap dances.

 

In addition, there were periods of ten minutes and longer that no dancer was on stage at all.

 

Overall, the agent and associate were very disappointed with the lack of friendliness of the dancers and the sloppy presentation of Xxxxx.  The agent feels that if this is what most day shifts look like, in regard to how many dancers work and how they behave, it is no surprise the establishment was extremely quiet.

 

 

 

Security Summary

There was no Security working during this evaluation.

 

 

 

Food and Beverage Summary                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                            

Spotter Notes:

 

While seated at the bar, the agent and associate struck up a conversation with Bartender 1 twice.  At this point the agent, associate, and a male African American patron with whom Bartender 1 was flirting were the only three customers in the establishment.

 

The agent feels that part of the customer loss was due to the fact that the dancers did not pay the customers much attention and that Bartender 1 was paying all of her attention to the one customer.

 

When talking to Bartender 1, the third patron was in the bathroom.  As soon as the patron returned, Bartender 1 walked away from the agent and associate, in the middle of the agent asking a question.

 

The second conversation occurred while the third patron was outside on the phone. Again, when the third patron returned, Bartender 1 abruptly stopped talking to the agent and associate and returned to paying all of her attention to the third customer.

During the first conversation, the agent asked about the level of business at that time (which was three customers).  Bartender 1 stated that the nights were busy at the establishment but “the days suck”.

 

Bartender 1 continued to state that that particular day was the busiest day the establishment had had in a long time.  Bartender 1 was referring to the six customers that were in the establishment at the beginning of the evaluation.  As a regular patron, this description would cause the agent to believe the establishment was never upbeat and lively during the day and would choose to go elsewhere during the day.

 

In addition, Bartender 1 stated that Hi Liter has the best strip club day shift.  Bartender 1 spent several minutes stating that it was a great day shift with food and happy hour drink specials.  The agent felt that this was a very inappropriate conversation due to the fact that it was promoting a competing establishment and putting down Xxxxx’s Cabaret.

For the first round of beverages, the agent ordered a Red Bull/vodka, which Bartender 1 did not try to up-sell.  Bartender 1 did, however, pour the beverage with accurate pour counts and provided a beverage that was consistent and accurate in flavor.

For his first and second beverage, the associate ordered Coronas.  Both Coronas were fresh and cold.

 

Reserved VIP Tables:

 

The agent asked Bartender 1 about the reserved tables by the stage.  Each table had a large “Reserved” tent on the table as well as an upright bottle service menu.  Bartender 1 explained that these tables were said to be reserved in case a large party came into the establishment and wanted to order bottle service.  Bartender 1 stated that the “reserved” sign enabled the staff to ask those patrons who did not order bottle service to move.

Bartender 1 stated that these tables did not cost extra due to the cost of the bottle service.

Drink Tickets:

 

Bartender 1 was not able to clearly explain the drink tickets, however, did provide a few for the agent.  Bartender 1 explained that the staff gave away the tickets to the patrons.

 

The patrons were required to pay the $10 cover at the door and then were able to use the drink tickets.  The agent asked several questions but did not get further clarification.

 

The tickets were given to the agent as if they could be used at another date, however, the tickets state that they are to be used the same day they are acquired and each ticket is dated, which would imply they are useless and have already been used.

 

Cab Drivers:

 

Bartender 1 made a comment about the amount of cab drivers that come into the establishment during the day shifts.  Bartender 1 then explained that they come in because all cab drivers are given kickbacks from the gentlemen’s clubs in the area.  Bartender 1 explained that the cab drivers get $5 per patron they bring to the establishment when those patrons do not pay cover.  When those patrons do pay cover, the cab drivers receive the entire $10 cover charge per patron.

 

Michael Zenner - CEO      

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.

eyespyspotter.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

Hospitality Checkpoint

hospitalitycheckpoint.com

liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-7056

Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2012


Tucson eatery posts right-to-refuse-lawmakers sign

March 2, 2014 19:17 by administrator

Tucson eatery posts right-to-refuse-lawmakers sign

By Mary Jo Pitzl The Republic | azcentral.com Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:07 PM

“We reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona lawmakers,” says the sign at Rocco’s Little Chicago Pizzeria in Tucson.

But after a week of frenzied pushback against the right-to-refuse-service bill, Senate Bill 1062, Rocco DiGrazia didn’t turn away any lawmakers. In fact, he served two who had the temerity — or maybe the hunger pangs — to show up.

Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, and Rep. Ethan Orr, R-Tucson, stopped by last weekend. Farley said he brought a printout of the Senate vote, showing he voted against SB 1062. Orr’s “no” vote in the House earned him entree to the eatery.

DiGrazia said the positive reaction has been overwhelming. In addition to serving up more pies, people are buying gift certificates and donating them to a Tucson center that serves LGBT youth.
As for the sign? “It’s going to stay up until the election,” he said.


AZ Storytellers Project: In the Kitchen, Behind the Bar II

March 2, 2014 19:09 by administrator

AZ Storytellers Project: In the Kitchen, Behind the Bar II

By Megan Finnerty The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:49 PM

Crazy customers, meaningful meatloafs, pilfered pies, tacky tippers. Chefs and bartenders always have great stories.


But diners usually have to sneak into the kitchen (not always recommended) or stay after hours (not always possible) to hear them.


So on Monday, March 10, The Republic invites you to join us for Arizona Storytellers Project, a night of tales from the kitchen and bar. We’ll gather at Crudo in Phoenix to celebrate some of the Valley’s most creative culinary and bartending talents as they share stories of cooking capers, destroyed dishes and tasty triumphs.


Crudo chef/owner Cullen Campbell will serve the night’s dinner. The menu includes a first course of crudo with housemade vinaigrette; an entree choice of vegetarian risotto or short ribs with olive oil mashed potatoes and root vegetables; and a dessert of crespelle with berry compote and chocolate drizzle.


Guests will hear first-person stories from five tellers: Bar Crudo owner and mixologist Micah Olson; Blue Hound Kitchen & Cocktails chef Stephen Jones; Blue Hound head mixologist Stephanie Teslar; Gadzooks Enchiladas & Soup owner Aaron Pool; and Milagro Grill owner Reed Johnson.


Since June 2011, Arizona Storytellers Project has fostered community through nights of true stories, told by the people who make Arizona such a compelling, fascinating and still-wild state. On these nights, community members share first-person stories on a theme for about five to eight minutes.


Proceeds from the March 10 event will support The Republic’s journalism training and education program.
________________________________________
Arizona Storytellers Project: In the Kitchen, Behind the Bar II
Where: Crudo, 3603 E. Indian School Road, Phoenix.
When: Monday, March 10. Doors open at 6. Storytelling begins at 7 p.m.
Admission: $75 at tickets.azcentral.com. Get a $20 discount by entering promo code “Food 14” at checkout. Ticket covers three-course dinner, tax and tip and serves as your event reservation. There are 65 tickets available on a first-come, first-served basis.
Details: storytellers.azcentral.com, 602-444-8770.


Beer Man: Hops dominate malts in Smuttynose’s barleywine

March 2, 2014 19:05 by administrator

Beer Man: Hops dominate malts in Smuttynose’s barleywine

By Todd Haefer The (Appleton, Wis.) Post-Crescent Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:13 PM

Smuttynose has produced an ale that follows the trend of many United States breweries, with a barleywine that has its fine malt profile somewhat overshadowed by bitterness and piney hops.
This is usually the formula when a beer is called a “barleywine-style ale” as opposed to just calling it a barleywine, which traditionally in England has very different hop flavoring and low bitterness.
Smuttynose’s beer pours an amber color with orange highlights from the caramel malts. There is a hint of caramel in the aroma, along with a rich resinous hop background.

Flavors of raisins, toffee, caramel and vanilla provide the main malt flavors, but the pine, grapefruit and bitterness of the hops kick in and start to dominate. The rest of the sampling experience was similar: Strong malt flavor and sweetness right away, immediately followed by the hop experience.
The body is full and rich, with medium carbonation, temporarily leaving a nice, creamy mouthfeel before the hops provide a dry finish that alleviates any cloying sweetness. Aging this beer might alleviate the hops a bit and allow the malts to be more forward. There were no unpleasant boozy tones from the high 10.6 percent ABV.

The label of the barleywine shows an old-timey English cultivator holding a staff studded with hop cones. That is what the beer is all about: a traditional English malty barleywine matched with strong American hops.

Smuttynose’s regular beer lineup includes Shoals Pale Ale, Old Brown Dog Ale, Finestkind India Pale Ale, Robust Porter and Star Island Single, a Belgian pale style. The barleywine is part of its Big Beer series that, depending on the season, includes a doppelbock, imperial stout, Scotch ale, Belgian quadruple, wheat wine ale and many more. The brewery, like many in the U.S., is continuously growing and is in the process of expanding its facilities.

Many beers are available only regionally. Check the brewer’s website.

Beer Man is a weekly profile of beers from across the country and around the world. This week: Smuttynose Barleywine-Style Ale, Smuttynose Brewing Co., Portsmouth, N.H., www.smuttynose.com.