More on Bar Raids
Posted by Foobooz on March 8th, 2010
More details have emerged on the PLCB raids on Memphis Taproom, Local 44 and Resurrection Ale House. Don Russell (aka Joe Sixpack) and Bob Warner combine for a solid article in the Philadelphia Daily News.
Among the most interesting bullet points:
- Four kegs, 317 bottles and 60.9 gallons of beer were seized.
- Total value of $7,200 representing 20 brands
- Among the confiscated:
- Monk’s Cafe Sour Flemish Red Ale which appears on the state list as “Monk’s Cafe Ale”
- Duvel Belgian Golden Ale which appears on the list as “Duvel Beer”
- Not on the Pennsylvania list:
- Heineken owned Hacker Pschorr
- Russian River Pliny the Younger
Lew Bryson ponders many worthwhile questions and raises good points on his blog, Why The PLCB Should Be Abolished. Meanwhile Bryan Kolesar has a though provoking piece on his blog, The Brew Lounge.
Among the questions we still have:
- Who’s responsibility is it to ensure the beer sold is registered in Pennsylvania? The bar or the distributor?
- How often is the legal list updated?
- What happens when the registration expires? Is the beer then illegal?
- How do other states handle beer registration? Do they?
- Will this effect the likelihood of getting one-off beers in the future?
Troopers raid popular bars for unlicensed beers: Dozens of gallons seized after ‘citizen complaint’ [Philadelphia Daily News]
More Details (thanks to Don Russell and Bob Warner) [WTPLCBSBA]
Shut Up About Your Pliny the Younger [Beer Lounge]
Commenst on “Unregistered Beers” Get Local Bars Raided [f8b8z]
March 8th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Section 445 of the Pa Liquor Code (Brand registration), I think people have lost sight of where the primary responsibility for compliance lies. Responsibility (and liability) lies with the manufacturer and distributor.
Under Section 445 and PLCB-1905 (the Application for Malt or Brewed Beverage Brand Registration, available at the PLCB website, then go to “for licensees,” then to “information and forms,”) it is up to the manufacturer or the franchisee of the manufacturer to register the brands. In addition, PLCB-1905 states that importing distributors that accept delivery of unregistered beverages may also be subject to penalty.
However, it is not the legal responsibility of the “retail dispenser” (the bar) to check the list every time they bring in a new beer. When a beer is offered or made available to a bar, they are justified in assuming that the manufacturer or franchisee registered the brand and paid the $75 fee, and that the importing distributor is not offering unregistered brands.
Now, it may be wise for a bar to check the list because unregistered beers are considered “contraband” under Section 444(c) that may be confiscated by the board and “disposed of,” which could come at a large financial loss to a bar. But primary responsibility for this law lies with the manufacturers and distributors not the bar owners.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
I think what people are stuck on is that not often used section of the PLCB charter was used to selectively raid a buisness, when using that same “list” the same raid could have been enacted up and down the Delaware valley. It is completely correct that the law states that its the manufacturers job to register a brand, but the bar in question has stated that brands that were registered were taken (Monk’s and Duvel).
It appears that these institutions may have been targeted because of an individual’s problems with the owners. And then when you have details about confiscating material that is on the “good” list as well and you begin to wonder even more about what happened in these raids.
But you are completely correct that the antiquated PA laws do require that a beer manufacturer pay an extra $75 to sell a new brew in this state. That ideas seems as antiquated as the notion that we can only buy wine from the state or can’t buy a 6 pack where i buy a case. But there it is, in the law. So it must be right…….
March 8th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
I am sharing the letter I sent to my legislators and the Board of the LCB, in response to this weekend. I would encourage others to do the same. (I am not affiliated with any of those involved, just feel strongly about Philly’s growing reputation as a world class food, beer, and BYOB city.):
I am incensed by the actions of the PLCB this weekend in Philadelphia. There is no excuse for the fact that the laws on the PLCB’s books seriously need to be reviewed and changed. Someone must step up to the plate to take on this issue and soon.
How can it be that brand registration takes so long and costs so much that it discourages businesses from registering?
Why is brand registration even in The Almighty Liquor Code?? Does this really serve any purpose whatsoever??
Why did the PLCB see fit to mount such a ridiculous raid for such a pointless infraction? And did you as a legislator support this activity?
Why would the PLCB disrupt a business on the word of an anonymous tipster, when that’s a practice that’s just ripe for abuse?
Why were beers confiscated that were on the registered list?
In the past year at least, Philadelphia has been lauded in the press as the next great beer city, touted by Maxim magazine and many others, adding to its established charm as a food destination. Is it really in the state’s best interest to destroy this grassroots, yet lucrative economy in Philadelphia????? The same economy that supports our many BYOBs??? I suspect this is one person in the PLCB who has a beef with “who knows what”… and that kind of immature and reckless behavior has ramifications that reaches far beyond an evidence locker of wrongly confiscated beers, taken out of the buying chain and left to sour.
Me thinks we are on a ship of fools and it is time to mutiny.
March 8th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Not surprising from the Keystone cops. Let’s all be glad the police in Philadelphia don’t have real crime to worry about. Oh wait…
March 8th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
ThadS = yet another civic illiterate who can’t wrap his head around the fact that city resources do not take part in PLCB actions, they have their own agents with equivalent powers of state police, and call on state police troopers for additional support.
It’d be nice to think that the many intelligent ideas about reforming or abolishing the PLCB were actually read and understood, but the writings of ThadS I fear are far more symptomatic of ignorant as opposed to informed critiques of “the system.”