Bartender Summary

• Bartender 1 - Xxxxx:  Tall Caucasian male with dark brown long, spiky hair.  He wore a black shirt and jeans.

• Bartender 2:  Caucasian male with longer shaggy blonde hair.  He wore a black shirt and jeans.

• Bartender 3:  Tan skinned (possibly Mediterranean or Hispanic) male with dark brown, short spiky hair and short facial hair around the chin.  He wore a black shirt, partially opened in the front, with a necklace.

• Bartender 4:  Tan skinned (possibly Mediterranean or Hispanic) male with short spiky brown hair.  He wore a black shirt and jeans.

• Bartender 5:  Caucasian female with tan skin and dark brown hair pulled back in a ponytail.  She wore a black skirt and top.

The agent and associate approached the bar and were greeted by Xxxxx.  Xxxxx offered the agent and associate a beverage and took the order.  Before preparing the beverages or entering the order into the POS, Xxxxx took another order from a customer standing a few feet over, and prepared the beverages all at once – grouping the drink orders together.  Upon delivery, he quoted each party a price.  The agent presented a credit card and Xxxxx took the card to hold the tab. 

The agent would suggest that management highly discourage grouping orders as such, as beverages can be mistakenly forgotten or this process can effectively be used to mask bartender theft issues.

Xxxxx worked quickly as a bartender, but frequently grouped his orders.  Because of this “grouping” of orders, Agent cannot fully substantiate theft/integrity issues with this individual process; however, it is highly likely and very much suspected.

His pouring style was consistent, as he used a 4 count pour (4 count = 1 ½ oz) for virtually all beverages observed.

Xxxxx did not attempt to upsell on liquor when the opportunity presented itself, consistently deferring to the house brands for mixed beverages. 

Furthermore, Xxxxx was not diligent about entering beverage orders into the POS following service.

At approximately 11:53 pm, Xxxxx was observed serving a beverage to a customer and did not ring an order into the POS at that time. Agent classifies this as a theft occurrence.

This was not uncommon amongst the bartenders.  Nor were other types of misconduct.

At approximately 11:45 pm, Bartender 2 was observed pouring a 6 count of liquor into a beverage.  The agent could not confirm whether the beverage was charged as a double.

At approximately 11:49 pm, Bartender 4 served a customer and did not enter the order into the POS.

At approximately 12:02 pm, Bartender 3 was observed giving two females a hug across the bar.  He then served them two free shots and did not charge them. 

The same bartender later followed up with two additional shots at 12:04.  Again, he did not charge either for the shots.

In addition to serving beverages for which were unaccounted, the bartenders also were observed serving themselves alcohol.

Shortly after the two females were served free shots, Bartender 2 was observed quickly pouring himself a portion from one of the clear liquor bottles and quickly drinking it himself. This is an ADLLC violation. The liquor was also not accounted for and therefore a theft issue as well.

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.

Later, at approximately 12:24 am, Bartender 3 was observed pouring a beverage for a customer.  He surreptitiously placed an empty rocks glass next to the concoction and poured a long pull of about two full finger lengths of straight vodka before putting the bottle away.  He then proceeded to hide the glass behind the shaker set up, apparently so that customers could not directly see the glass of alcohol, and left it there as he served the original concoction to the customer. 

Some time later, he conveniently came back to retrieve the glass, apparently thinking that sufficient time had elapsed and the drink therefore would not be suspected by guests of being liquor, and brought it to the opposite side of the bar.  The agent was unable to observe what became of the vodka as he was conveniently obscured, but Bartender 3 was undoubtedly hiding the drink from onlookers, as it was poured discreetly and carefully hidden. This liquor was not accounted for and therefore is also considered a theft occurrence.

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 approximately 12:45 am, Bartender 4 was observed serving a customer and did not enter an order into the POS. 

At nearly the same time, Bartender 3 was again seen delivering free shots, without charging.

The agent had difficulty observing Bartender 5 due to the positioning of the crowd and the structure of the room.  She appeared to be pouring beverages consistently, and no integrity issues were noted; however, it is necessary to point out that this evaluation was based on limited exposure.

The agent also observed Bartender 4 constantly checking his cell phone, which he kept hidden on the back bar near the VIP ledge.

Overall, the conduct of the bartenders during this observation was rather unprofessional and irresponsible.  The agent observed free beverages being given away, grouped orders, and over-pouring.  Furthermore, the agent observed at least one bartender consuming alcohol, and another that at the very least intended to.  Irresponsible liquor service and a lack of diligent work ethic is an easy way put a liquor license in jeopardy.

The presumable MOD, a short Mediterranean male dressed in a suit, spent most of his time observing from the steps to the VIP section.  He was observed behind the bar on several occasions, giving the bartender hugs and fraternizing.  The agent found it surprising that he would not catch on to what was occurring.

When the agent was ready for the check, Xxxxx promptly presented an itemized copy of the receipt along with the agent’s card.  The receipt was relatively correct, although there was one possible manipulation (see the Beverage Addendum).                      

Addendum

The agent decided to order a double gin and tonic to test the bartenders pouring skills.  Xxxxx poured the beverage using about a 7 count pour.  The beverage was stiff, and appropriately balanced for a double.  On the itemized copy of the receipt, the agent was shockingly only charged a single dollar for the double, as it appeared on the bill as “$$ rocks.”  Again, Agent found this highly surprising to have 1 nearly 1 ¼ oz of liquor for a dollar.  The agent does not know the establishment’s policy on double drinks, but would assume that a double would be twice the price, or at least more than $1.                             

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

Bartender Summary:

1.      Bartender 1:  Caucasian female, short dark hair, tattoos on arms

2.      Bartender 2:  Caucasian male, short hair, glasses

The agent approached the bar top and was greeted by Bartender 1 within one minute.  Bartender 1 was not friendly, did not smile, and asked the agent and associate what we would like to drink in a very hurried manner.  The agent and associate ordered two drinks and Bartender 1 quickly fulfilled the drink order and then stated the amount owed by memory.  The agent provided Bartender 1 with a cash bill, and Bartender 1 moved to the cash register and was seen entering in the amount stated and then Bartender 1 returned back to the agent with the correct amount of change.  Each interaction with Bartender 1 went similarly, and each time she seemed less and less friendly. 

Each time, Bartender 1 did record the transactions into the cash register.  Two drinks were ordered through Bartender 2, and he was quiet but seemed friendlier than Bartender 1.  Bartender 2 handled the transactions similar to Bartender 1, in that he would deliver the drinks; verbally state the amount owed, and then register the cash provided into the cash register. 

The agent did observe a few questionable interactions with patrons that the bartenders apparently knew on a personal level. 

·        At 11:35pm the agent observed two male patrons at the bar top get served two beers by Bartender 1, and the agent did not see Bartender 1 collect any cash from these patrons.  Bartender 1 communicated with these patrons on a very familiar level and seemed to know them on a personal basis.  No transaction was made.

·        Another group of patrons, a larger group of six or more people, appeared to be well known by both bartenders.  The agent observed multiple instances in which this group of patrons was served drinks but the agent did not observe these drinks recorded into the cash register.  Moreover, the agent did notice rather large tips being provided to the bartenders from this group of patrons – just not register transactions. 

This same large group of patrons caused quite a spectacle within the establishment, as they were extremely intoxicated. 

At one point, a male patron from that group removed his shirt and proceeded to dance around the establishment, finally ending up rolling around shirtless on one of the pool tables.  This male patron continued to be served alcohol, and was seen posing for pictures with many of his friends. 

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.

Bartender 2 was observed smoking cigarettes outside the front entrance on a few occasions, and he was not seen washing his hands after smoking at any time.    

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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

Bartender 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 some  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.

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.

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 AmXxxxxan 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 “Xxxxx, we’ll take care of this one for you; because we’re silly like that.”  Xxxxx 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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

Bartender Summary:

Note:  Agent was told by a member of security that the establishment has seven bars.  During the two hour period, Agent was only able to visit five of the seven bars.  The following evaluations have been separated by bar.  Please note the general description of the bar as a reference.

Bar 1:  Xxxxxxxxxxxx of the pool tables

• Bartender A:  Xxxxx female, approximately 5’5” tall, thin build, long, straight, highlighted hair (Xxxxx on Xxxxx)

• Bartender B:  Xxxxx female, approximately 5’4” tall, stocky build, very curly Xxxxx hair

Name on Agent’s receipt reads “Xxxxx”

Agent and associates approached Bar 1 at 10:50PM.  The bar was observed to be very busy in an objective viewpoint.  Agent was requested to report speed/politeness of staff. Bartender A made eye contact with us within two minutes.  Bartender A elicited a drink order from the Agent over the din. Service was reported to be fast.  Bartender A did not make any connection with the Agent. Service is reported to be impolite.

Bartender A poured a solid 6-count highball.  Agent is not privy to the facilities standardized official pour count; therefore, will as a general rule, default to the national  standard highball contains about 1.5-ounces of liquor(4-count = 1.5 oz.). From this 4 count standard a 6-count highball is objectively flagged as an over pour. 

Bartender A served the drinks, sans beverage napkins (Agent cannot attest if this is a standard at this location or not, but reports it as such), and then asked Agent if they would like to start a tab or pay cash.  Agent handed over a credit card and asked Bartender A to go ahead and close it out.  Bartender A moved to the POS system. Agent noted Bartender A accounted for all drinks ordered accurately.

Bartender B also pours a 6-count highball. 

Bartender B was observed handling cash ethically, and counting change back accurately for guests.

Agent and associates sat at this bar for approximately 30 minutes observing operations.  At approximately 11PM, Bartender A was observed preparing three, pink-colored shots for customers at the end of the bar.  Bartender A personally consumed one of the alcohol shots. Agent did not observe manager approval. Bartender A failed to ring up the shots on the POS or account for the liquor order in any matter apparent to Agent.

At 11:15PM, Bartender A greeted two male patrons. It was objectively obvious to Agent that Bar A was acquainted with the patrons. The male patrons ordered 4 bottled beers, but Agent observed Bartender A charge for only two beers.  Agent audibly heard Bartender A state that the other two beers “are on me.” 

Bar 2:  Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx of the pool tables, characterized by a Xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx

• Bartender C:  Xxxxx male, approximately 5’7” tall, with short, xxxx-xxxx hair under a ball cap; he has a goatee

• Bartender D:  Xxxxx female, approximately 5’8” tall, shoulder-length Xxxxx hair

Name on Agent’s receipt reads “Xxxxx”

Agent and associates took seats at Bar 2 at approximately 11:20PM.  This bar was observed to be very busy.  When we arrived, Bartender C was busy preparing approximately 15 shooters for a group of guests around the bar, while Bartender D took drink orders from the other guests around the bar. 

We waited approximately five minutes for service.

Bartender C waited on us as soon as he was available.  He was friendly and welcoming.  Agent would classify this as “polite” as instructed by management.

Drinks were prepared quickly and served without beverage napkins. 

Bartender C prepares highballs with a 6-count pour.  (4-count= 1.5 oz.) 

Bartender C offered to start a tab for us, but Agent instead presented a credit card and asked for the tab to be closed out.  Bartender C presented Agent with receipts. He did not have a pen when presenting bill. One was presented <1 minute later. 

Agent and associates sat at Bar 2 for approximately 50 minutes.  At approximately midnight, Agent observed as Bartender D prepared Rumplemintz shots for her bar guests.  Once prepared and served, Bartender D had two shots left over for herself and for another male employee behind the bar. The two consumed the shots and then continued working. Bartender A failed to ring up the shots on the POS or account for the liquor order in any matter apparent to Agent.

(Agent believed this man may have been a barback, but later he was observed answering a question for a bartender that seemed to be about the POS system.  Thus, he may have been the manager and therefore approved of the employee alcohol consumption.  He is a Xxxxx male, approximately 5’9” tall, with light Xxxxx hair under his ball cap.  His face was scruffy, but without full facial hair.) 

Bartender D also serves a solid 6-count highball.

Agent observed a plastic cup on the backbar filled with a dark Xxxxx liquid.  Agent did not see which bartender was drinking this drink and also cannot confirm that it was alcohol based.

Bar 3:  Second Floor, Left side when facing the rear of the building (larger than the bar on the right side)

• Bartender E:  Xxxxx male, approximately 5’7” tall; he has Xxxxx, wavy hair under a ball cap; his face was scruffy without the presence of full facial hair

Agent and associates approached Bar 3 at 12:15PM. Every stool at the bar was taken and there was a row of guests behind the bar stools waiting to be served.  Bartender E was working alone and was observed NOT to be “fast” as instructed to observe by management. 

On several occasions, Bartender E was observed to be objectively confused and stare at his liquor display for several minutes. 

Agent noted that Bartender E groups orders to ring in the POS. 

Agent waited for service at Bar 3 for 20 minutes without service or eye contact from Bartender E.  Due to time constraints and the number of bars still needing visits, Agent made a professional judgment call to move on without further observing Bartender E. 

Bar 4:  Second Level, Right side when facing the rear of the building

• Bartender F:  Xxxxx female, approximately 5’3” tall; she has long, thick, curly Xxxxx hair.

Name on Agent’s receipt reads “Xxxxx”

Bartender F proved to be skilled and efficient in service.  Agent navigated crowd to the bartop and received immediate eye contact and a friendly service from Bartender F.

Service was provided within 2 minutes.  Bartender F took our drink order at 12:40PM and fulfilled it promptly.  She moved to the POS and rang in the drink order.  She quoted a price, and Agent handed her a card with the instruction to close out the tab.  Bartender F closed out the card and handed Agent receipts to sign.

She pours a spot-on 5-count for highballs each and every time without deviation ever.

While seated at Bar 4, Agent observed Bartender F working with the man Agent had suspected was a barback.  This employee (a Xxxxx male, approximately 5’9” tall, with light Xxxxx hair under his ball cap) seemed to be answering a question for Bartender F about the POS system.  At this point, Agent was unsure of this man’s role in the establishment. 

Bar 5:  Smoking Bar, Top Floor

• Bartender G:  Xxxxx male, approximately 5’11” tall, clean shaven but scruffy, light Xxxxx hair under a ball cap

The smoking bar on the top floor was less busy than the other bars in the establishment.  Bartender G was neither fast nor slow. He was observed “polite” to some guests and obtuse to others.

Agent arrived at Bar 5 at approximately 1AM and sat for about 15 minutes.  At approximately 1:07, Agent observed Bartender G consume a shot of Dark Sambucca with a bar guest.  Agent did not observe manager approval. Bartender A failed to ring up the shots on the POS or account for the liquor order in any matter apparent to Agent.

Bartender G pours an inconsistent 5-count highball. Agent observed one rum and Coke observed was poured with a 7-count and served in a pint glass. 

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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

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