BARTENDER THEFT: Gave Free Drink to the Liquor Agent, Bar Theft, Bad Service, and Liquor Liability Issues.

Bartender Summary:

• Xxxxx:  Xxxxx male with dark brown spiked hair.  He wore the xxxxx male bartender xxx.

The agent and associate found an open spot at the bar and sat down.  Xxxxx quickly approached us and gave us a greeting.  He offered us a drink and the agent and associate each ordered a beverage.  Xxxxx did not ask for ID before preparing and delivering the beverages.  Upon delivery of the beverages, Xxxxx asked whether we wanted to order food.  The agent declined, and Xxxxx politely introduced himself and told us to let him know if we needed anything else.  He entered our order into the POS, but did not quote a price or ask for a credit card to hold the tab.

The bar was relatively slow during the period of this observation, and Xxxxx appeared to be very lax as a result.  He spent a fair amount of time eating food at a corner table of the room.  During these breaks, he would generally have the MOD stand in for him at the bar.  Furthermore, there was one female, Xxxxx with brown hair and glasses, who appeared to be an employee but was not in uniform, and was going behind the bar to give Xxxxx hugs and joke around with him.  She was also observed standing at the end of the bar eating food.

Xxxxx was somewhat inconsistent in his approach to using the POS.  On most occasions he would enter orders into the POS immediately; however, the agent observed two occasions in which he did not do so. 

• At approximately 9:22pm, Xxxxx was observed serving a beverage to a customer without entering anything into the POS. 

• Furthermore, for the agent’s final round, Xxxxx did not enter the beverage into the POS. 

Although this was only two occasions during the observation, it represented a significant percentage of observed transactions given the volume of business.  This style of bartending can easily lead to mistakes and/or the giving away of free beverages.  Ultimately, the agent’s rogue beverage never made it onto the final itemized bill. If the bartender is delivering free drinks to a bar theft detection Agent, then management can interpolate there are some serious integrity issues present.

The agent was also concerned with Xxxxx’s adherence to liquor laws.  Xxxxx was not observed checking any customers for identification, the agent and associate included.  Furthermore, Xxxxx appeared to be indifferent about the level of intoxication of his customers.  The agent observed two individuals that were visibly intoxicated during the evaluation. 

Xxxxx continued to deliver beers to the customers, even after they began exhibiting signs of intoxication.  The agent observed one of the men dropping his phone as he tried to complete a call.  When he was finally able to complete the call, the content of his conversation was overheard and focused on how him and his friend were heavily drunk and that they needed whomever to come pick them up.

AZ 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.

At approximately 9:48 pm, the agent observed Xxxxx pouring about a 5 count of Bushmills into a highball glass.  As he balanced the beverage with cola, he added a short additional tail of Bushmills for good 6+ count measure and delivered it to a customer (4 count = 1 ½ oz).

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

Bartender Summary

1. Bartender 1:  Xxxxxx, 6’3”, Xxxxxxxx, in his early twenties, with very short hair or a shaved head, wearing a black cap.  He wore a greenish-brown tee shirt and jeans and had tattoos up both arms.
2. Bartender 2:  Xxxxxx, 5’9”, Xxxxxxxx, in his early twenties, lean build, with very short hair, wearing a backwards cap.  He wore a black tee shirt and jeans.
3. Bartender 3:  Xxxxxx, 5’10”, Xxxxxxxx, in his early twenties, medium athletic build, with short hair or a shaved head, wearing a black backwards cap.  He wore a gray tee shirt, jeans, and a leather bracelet and had tattoos up his left arm.
4. Bartender 4:  Xxxxxx, 5’9”, Xxxxxxxx, in his early twenties, with short dark hair and a goatee.  He wore a red tee shirt and jeans.
5. Bartender 5:  Xxxxxx, 6’2”, Xxxxxxxx, in his early twenties, with short dark hair and a goatee.  He wore a black polo shirt and jeans.
6. Barback:  Xxxxxx, 5’6”, Xxxxxxxx, in his early twenties, thin build, with short dark hair, wearing a black backwards cap.  He wore a gray tee shirt and jeans.

Bartender 1 approached within thirty seconds of sitting at the bar.  He asked what the agent would like to drink.  The agent ordered drinks, and Bartender 1 had an opportunity to ask for a liquor preference, but did not.  Bartender 1 placed napkins on the bar, went to pour the drinks, and served them.  Bartender 1 did not ask for identification; the agent appears to be in his late twenties or early thirties.  He asked if the agent would like to start a tab, collected the credit card, recorded the order and placed a playing card on the bar in front of the agent saying, “This is for you.”  A couple minutes later, Bartender 1 quickly asked, as a side note, if the agent would like a menu.  The agent declined.

When the agent’s drink was a little more than one-third full, Bartender 1 asked if the agent would like another drink.  The agent declined.  Later when the drink was completely empty, Bartender 1 asked again.  The agent asked about the drinks on the menu.  Bartender brought the flip cards and pointed out the specialty drink menu.  Agent ordered a drink.  Bartender 1 asked Bartender 2 if they had a certain ingredient before preparing the drink.  Bartender 1 informed the agent that they were out of one of the ingredients, but did not offer an alternative.  The agent ordered a different drink.  Bartender 1 immediately prepared and served this drink.  He recorded the drink in the register.

Bartender 1 was polite but only somewhat attentive.  At times he was seen checking diligently on patrons, and at times he was very inattentive to the customers while he was distracted by other employees or certain customers who looked to be friends.  Bartender 1 was polite to all customers, but only friendly to a few.  His friendliness appeared to correlate with the amount of drinks ordered and/or his relationship with the customer, i.e. whether the customer was a friend, a regular or someone new.  He was very friendly when speaking to two patrons about the incentives they would get when purchasing gift cards.  He specifically talked to them about the times he would be working so they could buy the gift cards from him.

Bartender 1 was seen mixing a drink in the blender.  At approximately 8:13 PM, he poured some or all of it into a solo cup and placed it on the bar away from any patrons.  The cup stayed on the bar for at least twenty or thirty minutes, seemingly untouched, before it suddenly disappeared.  The agent does not know what happened to it, or who/what it was for.

Bartender 1 was heard asking whether two patrons wanted a refill of their wine.  When they declined, he asked “What if I buy them?”  Then he told them to let him know when they were ready for the refills at around 8:27 PM.  The agent wonders whether his offer had anything to do with the bottle of wine almost being empty.  About a minute later, Bartender 1 opened another bottle and poured the offered drinks.  The agent did not see Bartender 1 record the drinks anywhere.

At around 8:40 PM, a patron, whom Bartender 1 referred to as “Xxxxxx,” approached the bar.  Bartender 1 served Xxxxxx a bottle of beer and a dark liquid shot.  After a few minutes Bartender 1 appeared to enter these drinks into the register for a tab located in the very top row of the playing card slots on the wall.  Bartender 2 was seen chatting with Xxxxxx a few times, as well.

Bartender 1 became especially inattentive to the agent later towards the end of the visit, and passed by several times without checking in.  The agent tried to catch his eye to cash out, but could not.

Bartender 1 was seen drinking out of a capped solo cup most of the time; however, he was also seen drinking a dark liquid out of a bottle from the opposite side of the bar once around 9:02 PM.  The agent believes this bottle was capped and placed either under the bar or in an ice bucket after Bartender 1 drank from it.  It was unclear what type of drink was in the bottle; however, it would be easy to use it for an alcoholic beverage.

Bartender 1 was also seen throwing various items at the wait staff, other bartenders and the barback to engage in horseplay at different times throughout the evening.

Bartender 2 asked the agent if he would like another drink a couple times.  He commented positively on the agent’s drink choice, the one time he filled a drink order.  He also checked back on the drink after a few minutes to ask how it tasted.  Bartender 2 was attentive when he was present on the agent’s side of the bar.  He was also consistently attentive and friendly with all customers.

Bartender 2 was seen checking a cell phone, one that resembled a Blackberry that was placed between the two registers on the west side of the bar.  He did not pick it up, but checked it once after the agent heard a message-like beep, and again a couple times later.  The agent knew he had checked the phone because the screen was lit up after he passed the registers.  Bartender 2 was also seen placing an open beer bottle under the bar; the agent saw the beer become frothy after opening it, so the beer was unsuitable to serve.

Bartender 3 was working the outside bar, but came in a few times to pour draft beer.  He was always in a hurry and never spent more than a couple minutes inside.  At approximately 8:14 PM Bartender 3 was pouring a beer while he took a shot of dark liquid out of a translucent plastic throw-away cup.  It was unclear whether this was liquor; however, it seemed unlikely, due to the color and consistency of the liquid, that it was soda.

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.

Bartender 4 began working behind the bar ten to fifteen minutes before the agent left for the night.  Bartender 4 appeared to get settled and jump right in asking if patrons needed anything.  He asked if the agent needed another drink a couple times when he passed.  On Bartender 4’s second pass, he closed out the agent’s tab when asked.  He asked whether the agent wanted to use the credit card that was securing the tab.  The tab was itemized and quickly presented.  Bartender 4 was very accommodating and pleasant.

Bartender 5 began working the bar just after Bartender 4 did.  He also settled in quickly and started making the rounds.  He asked the agent once for another drink order.  He was seen interacting with the guests pleasantly and appeared to be friendly.

Barback was seen hustling in and out of the bar area restocking glasses.  At times he joked with other employees, but in a rather loud and sometimes obnoxious way.  He was also seen drinking from a Red Bull can twice, once at approximately 7:52 PM and another time around 8:29 PM, both times from behind the bar.  He was very industrious, performing his duties efficiently.

Overall the bartenders ran the bar efficiently and followed proper procedures and recorded all drinks after serving them with two exceptions noted: the earlier mentioned free wines; and a manager, subsequently referred to as Manager 2, verbally called out an order at approximately 8:18 PM.  The agent did not notice a ticket or any movement to record this order by Bartender 1.

The bartenders pulled tickets and filled those orders almost immediately.  The bartenders poured consistent 4 count, 1 ½ ounce drinks.  Cash transactions appeared to be handled properly, and credit cards were secured for all other transactions.  Unless noted previously, staff drank from capped Solo cups.

The bartenders were friendly, overall, though Bartender 1 seemed to be more friendly and chatty with some patrons than others.  They worked the bar area fairly well together, again with Bartender 1 losing interest at times.  The barback and bartenders also seemed to forget they were working at times and became engaged in their own conversations and horseplay.

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Mobile: 602-622-0875
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

• Bartender:  Female, 5’5”, Caucasian, in her twenties, with an average build and brown hair worn with bangs.  She signed the receipt she gave the agent at the end of the visit, Doori.

Bartender approached and greeted the agent and his associate very quickly after they approached the bar.  She was pleasant and immediately offered beverages. 

She did not require identification—a trend which extended to patrons who appeared even younger than the agent and his associate, who appear in their late twenties or early thirties.

Bartender suggested upsell options that took advantage of a daily special.  She filled the round promptly and gave a verbal total.  When the agent asked to begin a tab, Bartender requested a credit card and immediately began a handwritten tab, which she placed to the right of the register.

Bartender poured in excess for every liquor drink.  She always bobbled the bottle to allow additional liquor to pour beyond the initial, standard pour.  All drinks were at least doubles; some contained three or more ounces of alcohol. This is a liquor liability issue as well as a theft issue.

Bartender immediately rang in and cashed out every cash transaction, or recorded every item immediately on a tab.  Therefore, the losses the establishment is sustaining are likely due to egregious over-pouring—which is also a form of theft.

Of concern was Bartender’s failure to card the agent and his associate, or any other guest.  As most guests appeared to be regulars, it is possible Bartender was previously aware of the legality of all patrons; however, in order to ensure the establishment remains free of any liability, the agent strongly suggests requiring identification from every guest appearing less than forty years of age, every time.

Bartender also served guests with no apparent regard for their consumption or intoxication levels.  She provided additional rounds whenever needed—even as guests consumed one drink every fifteen minutes or less, and showed signs of intoxication such as slurred speech.  This found her in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes, which governs the Arizona Department of Liquor Licensing and Controls.

From 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 the agent requested his tab, Bartender first verified he cared for it on his credit card.  She pulled his written tab and referenced it while ringing in multiple items.  She ran his credit card and provided two credit receipts, with no itemization.  Due to the total charged, the agent believes one item was omitted.  Please refer to the Food and Beverage Summary for details.

Beverage Summary

The agent’s tab was only $15.50.  The agent believes one item—likely the shot—was omitted from the tab, as the two pitchers were $5.00 each, and $5.50 seemed much too little for two pints and a shot, even at the extremely-reasonable prices offered by the establishment.

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Mobile: 602-622-0875
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

• Bartender 1: Caucasian male, approximately 6’2’’, short medium brown hair, wearing a black logo t-shirt and jeans with a yellow towel in his back pocket.
  
• Bartender 2: Caucasian female, approximately 5’8’’, medium length blonde hair with bangs, wearing a black v neck shirt with jeans, identified as Xxxxx.

At 5:53pm, Xxxx served a Miller Lite draft to a patron who proved to be a regular guest.  Xxxx did not ring in the round immediately.  Four minutes later, she was at the register, but again, the agent could not substantiate the ring, as Xxxx performed many other actions in the interim.

At 7:22 pm, Bartender 2 served two shots of Jagermeister and two draft beers to a patron wearing an orange shirt who had previously paid cash for his rounds.  At this turn, however, Bartender 2 accepted no cash and did not ring in anything.

At 7:24 pm, Bartender 2 served a patron wearing a backwards hat who looked less than twenty-five years of age.  Bartender 2 did not require identification and neither accepted payment nor rang in the round.  One minute later, she did move to register, but as she had prepared other drinks in the interim, the agent could not account specifically for the round in question.

The employee later described as manager Xxxx went behind the bar and instructed Xxxx to buy a beer for a bar guest.  Xxxx immediately filled the round but did not appear to ring it in on a comp tab.

The agent observed a pair of patrons sitting at a high-top table in the bar area.  Although they did not appear to be ordering alcoholic beverages, Server did not request identification from them.  Additionally, they carried a plastic bottle with them, the contents of which were indeterminable.  No staff member addressed them about the bottle or precluded them from having or drinking from the bottle.  The agent finds it likely the bottle contained alcohol, which poses several legal and liability issues for the establishment.

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Mobile: 602-622-0875
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

Shortly into the observation, the agent began to observe beverages given away without being entered into the POS. 

At approximately 9:41 pm, Aaaaa served a customer one large beer and did not enter the order into the POS.

Another imprecision in pouring noted by the agent was the tendency for a bartender to re-tilt the bottle when using the posi-pourers in order to garner additional liquor.  This was noted first at 9:43pm. 

At approximately 10:13pm, Aaaaa served a group of customers approximately 5 or 6 shots.  She did not enter the round into the POS.

The agent noted that a good number of customers seemed to be familiar with Aaaaa.  The generally called her by name, and quite a few of these individuals appeared to be getting free beverages.  There was one individual, a AAnnn male with shaggy brown hair wearing a blue cap, who seemed to get particularly special treatment from Aaaaa.  She would consistently seek this man out, and was observed touching him and kissing him on the face.  There were multiple instances in which he was involved in beverage service that was not rung into the POS following delivery.

One such occurrence happened at approximately 10:16, when he and a group of customers with him were served shots.  This same individual was served a beer at approximately 10:57pm.  This beverage was also not rung into the POS.

The agent also noted that over service of alcohol was a significant problem for the bar.  There were several individuals present this evening that were visibly intoxicated and definitely should have been cut-off. 

One customer that was on the receiving end of several of the group shot orders began to become increasingly boisterous over the course of the evening, shouting at the basketball game and freestyle rapping.  Speech was slurred.

Another individual dressed in a Xxxx jersey, was observed yelling at the television screen and accidentally bumping into surrounding customers as he swayed back and forth. Speech was slurred.

ADLLC Violation
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.

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Mobile: 602-622-0875
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

• Bartender A:  Caucasian female, 5’7”, 150 lbs with shoulder length brown hair.  She wore it down over her shoulders in layers.  She wore the xxxx xxx uniform.

• Bartender Xxxxxx:  Hispanic male, bald, 6’0”

• Server Xxxxxx:  Caucasian female, light hair pulled back, 5’4”

Most of the customers appeared to be regulars, and would commonly call out Xxxxxx, which is how the agent ascertained his name.  Xxxxxx was observed providing the regular patrons with free drinks on many occasions.  The agent would watch an entire transaction and would see the patron order drinks, Xxxxxx would pour and deliver the drinks, however; nothing would be registered into the POS, and no cash was ever exchanged. 

The agent witnessed Xxxxxx providing patrons at the bar, and at tables around the bar with draft beers, mixed drinks, and shots in this manner.  The agent witnessed free drinks being given away at: 

12:07am
12:10am
12:17am
12:34am
12:53am
1:15am
1:31am
1:52am
2:12am
2:34am
2:47am

ADLLC VIOLATION
4-244. Unlawful acts
It is unlawful:
13. For an employee of a retail licensee, during that employee's working hours or in connection with such employment, to give to or purchase for any other person  purchase for himself or consume spirituous liquor.

Xxxxxx was seen making change out of his tip jar for money out of the cash register.  Agent highly suggests that this behavior be discouraged with the bar staff as it can be used to mask bar theft and effectively launder stolen money.

Multiple drinks were open behind the bar and Xxxxxx was seen drinking out of them without lids or straws throughout the evaluation period.  This is in violation of Arizona Health Code.

Xxxxxx’s pour count was consistently at seven counts (4 count = 1 ½ oz) for a simple mixed drink, however; this was observed to fluctuate by a few counts either way.  This gratuitous over pouring can have severe liability issues.

Giving drinks away for free is obviously stealing.  The inaccurate pour counts are also a form of stealing but may be a sign that the bartender is out of practice when it comes to free pouring accurately or giving away the gratis liquor for increased social status or larger tips.  Another reason they may be over-pouring is because they feel they are offering a better product, especially for their regulars. 

In actuality, over-pouring cocktails isn’t doing anyone any favors.  Let’s say this is a patron’s first time at the establishment.  They visit other bars were pour counts are militantly observed to maintain liquor costs.  They know they can go to that bar, drink 3 drinks in 2 hours and still get home safely. 

Then they come to your bar.  They consume 3 “lights out” drinks in 2 hours, the liver processes the alcohol approximately 2oz. per hour.  Thus the majority of the liquor hits them before leaving or while in the car driving home.  Suddenly the patron is in a world of hurt, possibly behind the wheel, and completely blindsided by outrageous pour counts.

In addition, when pour counts are high, establishments sell fewer drinks.  Why would you order 4 drinks at, say, $30, when you can get the same effect on 2 drinks and save the money?  Keeping pour counts steady and monitored is safe, cost effective, and important to the bottom line. The bartender is also making less money by reduced gratuities because of selling less rinks and a lower check average.

The Agent would recommend the management purchase a pour tester and frequently test all the bar staff to ascertain what they are pouring and further train them and access exactly what and how much to pour.

Xxxxxx did not consistently use an ice scoop in the ice bin and was commonly seen using glasses themselves to scoop ice. This is an Arizona health code violation. Xxxxxx’s hand touches the side of the glass and then the side of the glass comes in direct contact with the sanitized ice. The ice is now contaminated and illness can be spread to whoever is made a drink henceforth.

It is also, plain and simple, very careless and lazy bartending as the glass can shatter, chip or break in the sanitized ice. This can pose a real threat if any drinks are served to guests with broken glass shards and may even invoke a lawsuit. Moreover, “burning” an ice well mid shift is cumbersome and because this is necessary after a broken glass, the establishment is most likely losing money because of decreased sales.

Xxxxxx and Xxxxxx (Xxxxxx referred to her by this name out loud multiple times) had a good repertoire and he would provide Xxxxxx with drinks as they were registered. However; the agent did see Xxxxxx back behind the bar on multiple occasions, and she would also use glasses directly in the ice bin. 

At approximately 12:30am Xxxxxx appeared to have gone off duty and seated herself at the bar top.  The agent was unable to ascertain whether Xxxxxx was drinking alcoholic beverages, as the drink was prepared behind the bar not in view of the agent.  The drink that Xxxxxx was drinking was served in a glass rocks glass with ice and appeared alcoholic.  It is suspected but could not be substantiated.

ADLLC VIOLATION
4-244. Unlawful acts
It is unlawful:
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 1:16am cash money was seen taken from the register (see Food and Beverage summary for details). 

At 2:00am Xxxxxx offered the agent and associate a final round of beverages, which the agent and associate accepted.  Xxxxxx prepared and delivered the drinks, but never registered them into the POS.  Xxxxxx then immediately asked if the agent would like the tab placed on the holding credit card and the agent agreed.  An itemized receipt was provided and was clearly missing items (see Food and Beverage Summary for details). 

At approximately 2:30am patrons began smoking cigarettes inside of the establishment, and neither Xxxxxx nor Xxxxxx seemed to mind, pay heed, or discourage this illegal behavior whatsoever.   

36-601.01. Smoke-free Arizona act

As defined by the law, all violating proprietors are subject to be fined up to $500 for each offense.
B. Smoking is prohibited in all public places and places of employment within the state of Arizona
I. An owner, manager, operator or employee of place regulated by this law shall inform any person who is smoking in violation of this law that smoking is illegal and request that the illegal smoking stop immediately.
K. A person who smokes where smoking is prohibited is guilty of a petty offense with a fine of not less than fifty dollars and not more than three hundred dollars.

Xxxxxx disappeared back behind the bar for a very long period of time and Xxxxxx was the only employee present from 2:30-3:00am.  The agent observed Xxxxxx pouring and serving drinks to patrons across the bar at 2:34am. 

ADLLC VIOLATION
4-244. Unlawful acts
It is unlawful:
15. For an on-sale or off-sale retailer or an employee of such retailer to sell, dispose of, deliver or give spirituous liquor to a person between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, and 2:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on Sundays.

When the patrons offered to pay for the shots, Xxxxxx replied with something similar to “Don’t worry about it!”.  This is not only theft but violates numerous ADLLC laws.

ADLLC VIOLATION
4-244. Unlawful acts
It is unlawful:
17. For an on-sale retailer or an employee of such retailer to allow a person to consume or possess spirituous liquors on the premises between the hours of 2:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, and 2:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on Sundays.

ADLLC VIOLATION
4-244. Unlawful acts
It is unlawful:
13. For an employee of a retail licensee, during that employee's working hours or in connection with such employment, to give to or purchase for any other person, purchase for himself or consume spirituous liquor.

Xxxxxx was seen pouring draft beers for patrons at 2:45 am, and again, these drinks were never registered into the POS, nor was any cash exchanged. Again, this is a theft issue, as well as, a 3 part liquor violation.  

Around 2:50am a group of patrons requested shots from Xxxxxx, and she was overheard saying something to the effect of “Let’s wait until they leave”, and nodded towards or indicating the agent and associate’s presence. 

At 3am the agent and associate left on our own accord, no one requested, implied, or suggested that we should leave.  At the time of the 3 am departure there were still approximately ten patrons inside of the establishment, and none of them looked as if they were ever leaving anytime soon. 

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Mobile: 602-622-0875
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

·        Bartender 1 – Xxxxxxxxx:  Caucasian female with blonde hair pulled into a ponytail.  She wore a black shirt with yellow trim and black pants.

·        Bartender 2 – Xxxxxxxxx:  Caucasian female with dark brown wavy hair pulled into a ponytail.  She also wore a black shirt with yellow trim and black pants.

The agent found an open spot at the bar and was given a friendly greeting by Xxxxxxxxx.  The agent ordered a beverage, and Xxxxxxxxx promptly asked for ID.  After confirming the agent’s age, Xxxxxxxxx prepared the beverage and quoted a price upon delivery.  The agent presented a credit card, and Xxxxxxxxx confirmed that the agent wished to keep a tab open.

Xxxxxxxxx was very energetic and spent the majority of her time dancing along to the music.  This did not impede her work, and seemed to add to the energy of her surroundings.  

The bar was fairly crowded this evening, and many of the individuals seemed to be collegiate and of questionable age.  For the most part, the agent observed Xxxxxxxxx carding individuals as they approached the bar.  Later, when the associate arrived at the establishment, Xxxxxxxxx made sure to verify age; however, there were significant portion of the crowd that seemed to be very familiar with Xxxxxxxxx, as evidenced by their conversation content and her familiarity with their names.  These individuals were never carded, and it was not long before the agent observed the first beverage being given away free.

At approximately 9:50 pm, the agent observed a male customer call the bartender by name and ask for a shot of Patron.  Xxxxxxxxx prepared the shot.  The customer secured cash from the customer, and brought it over to the POS; however, when she reached the computer, she quickly dropped the sum of money directly into the tip jar, which was positioned in rather close proximity to the POS system.  

Shortly afterward, the same customer brought two friends over to take a round of the Patron shots.  This time the transaction was handled appropriately; however, these customers were very visibly intoxicated, and they subsequently spilled a good portion of the tequila onto the bar.  This spillage was never cleaned up.  More importantly, Xxxxxxxxx displayed complete neglect to the level of intoxication of her customers.

The agent, and later the associate, sat at the bar until 10:00 and never were even offered a menu.  Eventually, the agent reached over the bar for one at which time Xxxxxxxxx approached and asked whether we wanted to order food, handing us menus.  This was nearly 45 minutes after first sitting at the bar.  Xxxxxxxxx did not make any recommendations from the menu, nor did she mention the Thursday wing special that is featured at the establishment.  She also neglected to mention any other beverage specials that might have been occurring.  As the agent and associate perused the menu for what turned into 19 minutes, the agent observed another beverage being given away for free.

At approximately 10:07 pm, the agent observed a tall male wearing a hat approach the bar.  Again, he and the bartender seemed to be familiar with one another.  This individual asked Xxxxxxxxx for “another Margarita.”  Xxxxxxxxx promptly prepared the drink, but did not enter anything into the POS system to account for the beverage.

Finally, at 10:19, Xxxxxxxxx came back to us and asked if we were ready to order.  The agent placed a food order, and the associate ordered an additional beverage.  Xxxxxxxxx had no idea about the beverage, which was listed as a feature item on the menu.  She was very rude to the associate, as if it were not her responsibility to know the menu.  Her only response was, “it’s a huge menu.” This behavior was rather disconcerting. If Agent was not on duty, we would have tabbed out and never returned to this establishment.

As the agent and associate awaited the food, the agent observed Xxxxxxxxx’s bartending style.  It was very evident that her pouring methods were highly variable. Occasionally, beverages would be lucky if they were reaching a 1 ¼ oz, and at other times her pour count would reach 5 counts (4 count = 1 ½ oz pour).  

At 10:22 pm, Xxxxxxxxx was preparing a beverage from a bottle that was nearly empty.  Rather than using a jigger to measure precisely, Xxxxxxxxx decided to pop off the pourer top and free pour the remainder into the glass.  Precision on pour amounts was totally out the window, although it appeared that the customer was likely the one whom was shorted in this scenario.  The agent also observed Xxxxxxxxx free pouring from a Beefeater bottle later in the evening, at approximately 11:07 pm.

The agent’s food arrived in a reasonable amount of time.  Surprisingly (This was the agent’s personal feeling by this point), Xxxxxxxxx came to check on the food order.

At approximately 10:30 pm, the agent observed one of the employee’s that had apparently gotten off work approach the bar.  Xxxxxx approached him and asked what he wanted to order.  He gave an order, and Xxxxxxxxx postponed service to take care of some of the other customers first.  Eventually, he stated that he would like to order from one of the other employee’s tonight.  It was unclear about what his intentions were, but it seemed suspicious at the time and was noteworthy. It definitely raised “red flags.”

At approximately 10:58 pm, the individual that had ordered the margarita earlier had returned.  This time he was complaining that he was not nearly drunk enough yet.  Xxxxxxxxx mixed him an additional margarita and again neglected to ring the order into the POS.  

Due to proximity, the agent was able to observe Xxxxxxxxx much more closely than Xxxxxxxxx; however, they were both rather variable in pours.  Despite this variability, the agent never observed either bartender pour more than a 4 ½ count.  This is still rather strong, but not necessarily egregious.  The agent would definitely recommend more training on pour counts, or perhaps requiring them to use a jigger for precision.  

The agent also felt that the two bartenders had a good energy behind the bar adding to the vibe of the establishment; however, it appeared that their rapport with the customers went over the line, as evidenced by free beverages being given away.

Both bartenders need to be much more alert to intoxicate customers, as there were quite a few of them.  A group toward the back of the room were becoming very loud and boisterous by the end of the night, classic signs of intoxication for which a bartender should be aware. 

The agent’s largest issue with the MOD’s during this evaluation are in regards to what they allowed to happen during the observation.  To begin with, there was absolutely no method to deter underage people from getting alcohol.  There was a beer pong tournament and a nice patio area where any individual could take multiple drinks and hand them out to whomever.  The agent was not checked for ID at the door, and there were no wristbands or stamps to indicate drinking age.  There was absolutely no regulation.  On a night when there are open beer pong tables to whomever wishes to play, there needs to be some method of regulation, especially when the layout of the establishment includes a restaurant feet from the bar area that allows all ages.  The responsibility to ensure that the area is secure for underage drinking is ultimately the MOD’s responsibility.

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Mobile: 602-622-0875
Toll Free: 800-880-0811