Red Bar

1. Bartender 1: Xxxxx, Caucasian 5’6” tall, long blonde hair pulled back in to a side ponytail.  The bartender wore a black tank top and black pants

1. Bartender 2:  Xxxxx, Caucasian 5’11” tall, brown hair pulled back in to a ponytail.  He had long thick sideburns.  He wore a black t-shirt and black pants.  He was identified by customers as Xxxxx.

The agent approached the bar and was quickly greeted by Xxxxx.  Xxxxx was friendly smiled at the agent and asked if he would like to place an order.  The agent indicated that he needed a few moments to decide, and look at the menu. 

Xxxxx patiently waited while he served other guests, and leaned on the back counter between guests. 

When the agent did decide on a drink, Xxxxx asked if the agent had a liquor preference.  Once the drink order was complete, Xxxxx turned and placed the drink order in to the computer.  When the agent requested to start a tab, Xxxxx requested a credit card to start a tab.  Xxxxx placed the credit card in a small glass to the left of the left POS. 

The agent observed Xxxxx handing receipts to every customer who paid with cash.  The tip from the customer would go in a clear plastic cylinder that was on top of the left POS leaning on a small structural wall that separated the bar back in half.

Xxxxx seemed to be enjoying himself at work that evening.  He would make small talk with the guests as well as with Bartender 2.  A happy bartender always seems to make for happy guests.  There was a bit of casualness about the way the two bartenders interacted and joked with each other.

When the cocktail servers would place orders, a receipt would print out to the bartenders POS.  Instead of placing the chit with the drinks made, and handing both the receipt and the drink to the server, every chit was thrown away after the order was read.  The cocktail waitresses never received this piece of paper verifying their drink orders. This should be a required practice in case verification is ever needed.

A bar back was quite busy helping out the bartenders throughout the evening.  He would bring them clean glasses, and clear out the dirty used glasses.

Xxxxx as well as Bartender 2 cleared off the bar top immediately after the drinks were finished.

Once the agents drink would become half full, Xxxxx would ask if the agent needed an additional drink. 

Every drink ordered was put in to the POS system.  The check was presented correctly with no mistakes.  The final payment was accepted and processed in a timely manor.

Please see the Addendum for additional information that may put the agent’s identity at risk.

Addendum:

Two small incidences happened during the agents visit to the Red Bar that may be worth mentioning. 

The outside bouncer came in to the bar complaining to Xxxxx about not feeling well.  I believe he said he had a sore throat.  Xxxxx whipped up a concoction for him in a small shot type of glass.  He was using simple ingredients in which did not make the agent suspicious, until the agent overheard Xxxxx telling the bouncer that there was only a small amount of alcohol in the drink.  Xxxxx did not ring this drink into the computer in any way, not even under a comp tab.  This is giving away alcohol, as well as the bouncer having alcohol on the job.  At the very minimum this drink should have been rung in as a comp drink.

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.

The second incident happened at 11:18pm.  A small group of people came up to the bar, and seemed to be familiar with the bartenders.  They placed an order with the bartender for three drinks.  Xxxxx did not accept cash, did not take a room key and did not take any form of payment.  Xxxxx went to the register and typed a few things in, however he was servicing multiple guests at this time, and could have been entering in the other orders.  The agent did not have a clear view of the screen to see what he specifically was inputting.  The patron next to the agent spilled a drink, breaking the glass, and needed to order a new one.  This drink the guest paid cash for; this order was put in to the POS where it is unclear if the other was ever actually entered.

The third incident happened at 11:25pm.  Two men approached the bar; they were familiar with the bartenders, and had a tab open using an American Express Credit card.  They ordered one more round of drinks and then asked to close out the tab.  While Bartender 2 went to grab the credit card for the tab, and the receipt, Xxxxx took a minute and introduced himself to the guests.  Bartender 2 handed the gentleman his credit card and receipt, and said “Eric, we’ll take care of this one for you; because we’re silly like that.”  Eric said ok, and then grabbed a $10 bill and threw it on the table for tip.  Bartender 2 threw it back.  They settled on four one dollar bills.  The agent did not see either bartender call a manager over to comp a check. 

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

Red Bar

1. Bartender 1: Xxxxx, Caucasian 5’6” tall, long blonde hair pulled back in to a side ponytail.  The bartender wore a black tank top and black pants

1. Bartender 2:  Xxxxx, Caucasian 5’11” tall, brown hair pulled back in to a ponytail.  He had long thick sideburns.  He wore a black t-shirt and black pants.  He was identified by customers as Xxxxx.

The agent approached the bar and was quickly greeted by Xxxxx.  Xxxxx was friendly smiled at the agent and asked if he would like to place an order.  The agent indicated that he needed a few moments to decide, and look at the menu. 

Xxxxx patiently waited while he served other guests, and leaned on the back counter between guests. 

When the agent did decide on a drink, Xxxxx asked if the agent had a liquor preference.  Once the drink order was complete, Xxxxx turned and placed the drink order in to the computer.  When the agent requested to start a tab, Xxxxx requested a credit card to start a tab.  Xxxxx placed the credit card in a small glass to the left of the left POS. 

The agent observed Xxxxx handing receipts to every customer who paid with cash.  The tip from the customer would go in a clear plastic cylinder that was on top of the left POS leaning on a small structural wall that separated the bar back in half.

Xxxxx seemed to be enjoying himself at work that evening.  He would make small talk with the guests as well as with Bartender 2.  A happy bartender always seems to make for happy guests.  There was a bit of casualness about the way the two bartenders interacted and joked with each other.

When the cocktail servers would place orders, a receipt would print out to the bartenders POS.  Instead of placing the chit with the drinks made, and handing both the receipt and the drink to the server, every chit was thrown away after the order was read.  The cocktail waitresses never received this piece of paper verifying their drink orders. This should be a required practice in case verification is ever needed.

A bar back was quite busy helping out the bartenders throughout the evening.  He would bring them clean glasses, and clear out the dirty used glasses.

Xxxxx as well as Bartender 2 cleared off the bar top immediately after the drinks were finished.

Once the agents drink would become half full, Xxxxx would ask if the agent needed an additional drink. 

Every drink ordered was put in to the POS system.  The check was presented correctly with no mistakes.  The final payment was accepted and processed in a timely manor.

Please see the Addendum for additional information that may put the agent’s identity at risk.

Addendum:

Two small incidences happened during the agents visit to the Red Bar that may be worth mentioning. 

The outside bouncer came in to the bar complaining to Xxxxx about not feeling well.  I believe he said he had a sore throat.  Xxxxx whipped up a concoction for him in a small shot type of glass.  He was using simple ingredients in which did not make the agent suspicious, until the agent overheard Xxxxx telling the bouncer that there was only a small amount of alcohol in the drink.  Xxxxx did not ring this drink into the computer in any way, not even under a comp tab.  This is giving away alcohol, as well as the bouncer having alcohol on the job.  At the very minimum this drink should have been rung in as a comp drink.

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.

The second incident happened at 11:18pm.  A small group of people came up to the bar, and seemed to be familiar with the bartenders.  They placed an order with the bartender for three drinks.  Xxxxx did not accept cash, did not take a room key and did not take any form of payment.  Xxxxx went to the register and typed a few things in, however he was servicing multiple guests at this time, and could have been entering in the other orders.  The agent did not have a clear view of the screen to see what he specifically was inputting.  The patron next to the agent spilled a drink, breaking the glass, and needed to order a new one.  This drink the guest paid cash for; this order was put in to the POS where it is unclear if the other was ever actually entered.

The third incident happened at 11:25pm.  Two men approached the bar; they were familiar with the bartenders, and had a tab open using an American Express Credit card.  They ordered one more round of drinks and then asked to close out the tab.  While Bartender 2 went to grab the credit card for the tab, and the receipt, Xxxxx took a minute and introduced himself to the guests.  Bartender 2 handed the gentleman his credit card and receipt, and said “Eric, we’ll take care of this one for you; because we’re silly like that.”  Eric said ok, and then grabbed a $10 bill and threw it on the table for tip.  Bartender 2 threw it back.  They settled on four one dollar bills.  The agent did not see either bartender call a manager over to comp a check. 

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

Hello Bar Owners & EYE SPY Clients - This is EXACTLY why we stress in our Eye Spy Reports about liquor liability in regards to over service. Bar Owners, regular Eye Spy evaluations that report on your staff in regards to over service can really help you if you happen to unfortunately find your self in a dram shop (liquor liability) lawsuit. Regular reports AND follow up with DOCUMENTED action can help indemnify you in a lawsuit as it shows that you are making an effort with the standard of care in regards to liquor service.

LIQUOR LIABILITY:

$40 MILLION awarded in teen's death

Boy on bike killed by drunken driver

By Kim Smith Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Saturday, February 13, 2010 12:00 am

A Pima County jury awarded the parents of a Tucson boy killed by a drunk driver $40 million Friday. City taxpayers will be responsible for a third of that, with the driver and Chuy's restaurant sharing responsibility for the rest.

Jose Rincon Jr., 14, and a friend were riding their bicycles east on East Broadway near Harrison Road around 7:20 p.m. Jan. 12, 2008, when Glenda Rumsey struck both teens with her car. Rincon died.

Although the city was found to be only one-third responsible, its more than $13 million share is the largest individual judgment ever against the city, dwarfing the $1.75 million paid to the family of Deshun Chance Glover, who was electrocuted at the Hi Corbett Field complex in Reid Park in July 2008.

Rumsey, whose blood-alcohol level was 0.249 two hours after the crash, was sentenced to 14 years in prison last year. Chuy's, which is where she had been drinking, has already settled with the family for an undisclosed amount.

A lawyer for the family argued successfully that the city was partially at fault because of the poor design of the road.

City Attorney Mike Rankin said the city will appeal. He said he was surprised both by the amount and by the city's being found 33 percent responsible.

"This is shocking," Rankin said, adding he was stunned at the amount and "the notion the city would be equally responsible as a drunk driver that was three times the legal limit."

Jose and Adriana Rincon burst into tears when the verdict was read.

After having been through both a criminal and a civil trial, nothing has changed, Adriana Rincon said. "It doesn't bring him back. Tomorrow I still have to find a way to cope."

Jose Rincon said the lawsuit was never about money.

"The main reason we're here is for vindication and to carry the ball the whole 10 yards on (Jose Jr.'s) behalf," he said.

The three-way finding of blame validated their belief there was a "perfect storm" of variables that came together and took their son's life, Jose Rincon said.

"In my heart of hearts it started with Glenda Rumsey, but that doesn't excuse irresponsible business practices nor cavalier decision-making on the implementation of well-thought-out and carefully designed building plans," he said.

Last week, the Rincons' attorney, Ronald Mercaldo, told jurors a city engineer abandoned plans to add 5 feet of asphalt to the roadway during an improvement project, creating a large offset in the lanes on either side of Vozack Lane, just east of Harrison. As a result, Rumsey ended up in the bike lane when her lane ended and she tried to merge.

Rumsey's attorney, Stefano Corradini, agreed his client and Chuy's were largely responsible for the crash, but he, too, blamed the city because of the road design. He would not comment after the verdict.

Attorney Richard Davis, who defended the city, told jurors that engineers did nothing wrong. He blamed Rumsey, saying roads can't be designed to be drunken-driver-proof.

The jury deliberated less than three hours.

Mercaldo said he was grateful to the jury but noted the judgment will never compensate the Rincons for their loss.

Jose, a straight-A student at St. Michael's Parish Day School, died hours after he took entrance exams for Salpointe Catholic High School.

The middle of the Rincons' three children, Jose Jr. was known to be kind and an exceptional musician and talented athlete.

Judge Kenneth Lee presided over the trial.

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 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