### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A pr il 24, 200 8 S es sio n

AHM AD SU LEIMA N d /b/a BAR KSD ALE MA RKE T v. C ITY O F MEM PHIS AL COH OL C OMM ISSION

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forShelb y County No. CT-002570-07 Je rry Stokes, Judge

No. W2007-01806-C OA-R3-C V - Filed July 24, 2008

F oll ow inga

tr ia l de novo on writ of certiorar i, the t rial court reve rsed the City of Memphis Alcohol Com mis sio n’ s d e nia l of

a be e r pe rm it, ru lin g that the e vid e nc e did no t su pp or t a fi nd ingtha

t th e sa le

o f b e e r f r o mt h e a p p l i c an t ’ s m ar

k e tw o u l d i n t e r f e r e w i t ht h e p u

b l i c h e a l t h , s a f

e t y , an d m o r a l s

. It order ed the City

of Memphis to issue a bee r license to the applicant. We conc lude that the evide nce preponde rate s ag ainst the trial cour t’s decision. We reve rse a nd rema nd.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Ci r c uit

Co ur t R e ve r se d; and Rem anded

D AVI D R. F ARMER , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which H OL LY M. K I RBY , J. and W ALTER C. K URTZ , S R

. J., joined.

Elbert Jef fer son, Jr. and Roane Waring, III , Attorneys for the appellant, Cit y of Memphis Alcohol Commi ssion.
Scott L. Kirkpatrick, I II, Me mphis, Tennessee , for the a ppellee, A hmad Suleiman.

OP IN ION

Ahmad S uleiman (" Mr. Suleiman") applied to the City of Memphis Alcohol Commissi on (" the Commi ssion") for a permit to se ll be er at the Ba rksdale Marke t, a convenie nce s t o re i n the Coo pe r- Yo un g ne ig hb or

ho od , f or of f- pr e mis e s c on sumpt ion

. Th e pr e vio us ow ne rs of the B ark sd a le Marke t had sold beer

there and, ac cordingto Mr. Suleiman, were in good sta nding w i t h the Commi ssion. On May 2, 2007, the Alcohol Commi ssion de nied the application fo r t h e li cense , finding that beer

sales would interf

ere with the public safe ty , health, and m orals. The Alcohol Com mis sio n r e nd e re d it s d e c isi on purs ua nt t o s e c tio n 7 -8 -1 1 of the Me mph is Cod e of Or din anc e s, wh ic h s tate s, in p e rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s:

A. No license shall be issued t o sell any bever ag e comingwithin the provisions of this chapter:

. . . .-2-

3. Whe re su c h s a le wi ll c a us e c on g e sti on

of tr a ff ic or int e rf e rence wi th sc ho ols , c hurc he s, or o th er pla c e s o f p ub lic g a the ri ng , o r o the rw ise int e rf e re wi th p ub lic health, saf

ety and mora ls, and the judg ment of the [A] lcohol [C ]om mission on such matters shall be f

inal, except as same is subjec t to review at law.
Memphis Code of Ordinances § 7-8-11 (former ly codified at § 4-71). Mr. Suleiman filed a pe tition for writ of certiorar i in Shelby County Circuit Court on May 17, 2007, seekingrevie w of the de nial of his a pp lic a tio n. Th e Al c oh ol Com mis sio n fi le d its re sp on se , a nd a tr ia l de novo wa s h e ld o n July 16, 2007.

Mr. S uleiman t estified before the Commi ssion and the trial court. At trial, he described the i mp ro v em en t s h e h ad m ad e at t h e ma rk et , i n cl u d i n g p ai n t i n g, re p ai ri n g t h e f l o o ri n g an d

t h e l i gh t i n g, installing sec urity

came ras, a

nd upg radingthe air c onditioning unit. He also a sserted that the pr e vio us ow ne rs of the mark e t sold be e r the re and that th e re we re thr e e oth e r s imi lar e sta bli sh me nts wit h i n a fo u r- block ra dius of the marke t. The re cord r efle cts that althoug h there are other establishments permitted to sell beer in the vicinity , th i s m ar k et appears to be e mbedded in a

re sid e nti a l se c tor

of the ne ig hb or

ho od . T he re is o nly

on e c omm e rc ia l e sta

bli sh me nt i n t h e i mm e diate

are a - - a re cordingstudio across the stre et - - but it i s not open to the public. In contra st, as one wi tne ss at tr ia l e mph a size d, a t le a st on e (i f no t a ll) of the oth e r thr e e be e r sa le outle ts is l oc a te d in

a commer cial sec tor of the ne ighbor hood, with a hig h conce ntration of tra ffic.
Mr. Suleiman prese nted inconsistent testimony as to the projec ted per centa g e of g ross sales

a ttr ibuta ble to beer . B e fo re the Com mis sio n, he te sti fi e d th a t th e sa le of be e r w a s v ita l to his bu sin e ss and est im ate d bee r s a le s to be a pp ro xima te ly

20 % t o 3 0% of

g ro ss r e ve nu e . A t tr ia l, howeve r, he a

pproxi mated that bee r sales w ould acc ount for 50% to 60% of his gr oss reve nue.

Over the cour se of the Commission and trial court proc eeding s, five (5) Cooper-Y oung residents testified on the subject of be er sa les at the B arksda le M ar k et

. Severa l witnesses complained about the incre ased foot traff ic from outside the neig hborhood, comprised of m arke t customers who wo uld purcha se bee r, drink it in public, and throw their tr ash in the y ards of the residents. One resident who w orks out of her home in Cooper-Y oung testified at trial to her persona l experience with this problem and to witnessing it happen to other residents. She a lso testified that afte r the be er sa les ce ased, she noticed a distinct drop in foot tra ffic a nd litter.
Another pr oblem cited by the residents was the criminal activity associate d with the marke t and the sale of beer there

. Most witnesse s testified to r ece nt oc curr ence s of robbe ries in the mar ket and to the fo r

me r o w n e r b e in g s h o t i n s id e th e ma r k e t. I n d e e d , o n e w it

n e s s a t t r ia l c le ar ly

s tate d, wi tho ut o bje c tio n, to h is a wa re ne ss o f t his fa c t. Mr . Su le ima

n d oe s n ot d isp ute thi s p oint. T his same witness testified that beingable to purc hase be er at the marke t would be convenient for him, but that the incre ased pote ntial for cr ime posed a pr oblem for the ne ighbor hood. One r esident’s testimony be fo re the Com mis sio n summa ri zes we ll the natur e of

the te sti mony

thr ou g ho ut t

he se pr oc e e din g s:The w i t nes s w as r efer r i ng t o a s i x- w ee k pe r i od w hen t he s t or e w as c l os ed, pr i or M r

. Sul ei m an’ s ope ni ng t he 1
b u si n ess.
-3- I ’v e be e n a

re sid e nt i n the c omm

un ity and - - ri g ht b e hin d th e sto re fo r a pp ro xima te ly four y ear s. And under the previous operators, alcohol was sold at this location. And withi n t h e last y ear , there has bee n a ver y troubling se ries of shooting s that have

occurre d at this location. There have be en two shooting s with serious injury . I believe the first was in June of 2006, and then there wa s one in Fe bruar y of this y ear in which the cle rk wa s robbed at gunpoint and shot. . . .
My str e e t pr ov ide s, I thi nk

pr ob a bly wi th t he e xce pti on

of Ne lso n - - o r i n addition to Nelson, the most direc t acc ess to this establishment from outside of the Cooper-Y oung neig hborhood. And I can pe rsonally

attest to the fact t h at t h e foot traff ic from outside t h e n eighborhood is constant, a nd Ibelieve it to be a lcohol related. I see ma ny - - on many , many

occa sions - - pre tt y much on any g iven day and ce rtainly

on any g iven Saturday , Ican sit i n my living room a

nd observe ind ivi du a ls w a lki ng- - that I kn ow do no t live on my blo c k, wh ic h Ithi nk is t he la st blo c k o f C oo pe r- Yo un g - - wa lki ngth rou g h my blo c k to thi s e sta

bli sh me nt, purc has in g al coh ol, and

the n s itt ingin t

he fr on t y ard

of so me on e on

my blo c k to

c on sume it, if

no t on the pr e mis e s it se lf

. I have ob se rv e d th a t a s w e ll.
And so, from a p ersona l perspec tive, it causes me great conce rn duringthe

course of the last six wee ks when the e stablishment has not been o p er ati ng or has 1 not been se lling alc ohol at this location, the re has been a signific ant dec rea se in the amount of foot tra ffic thr oug h the neig hborhood. . . .

. . . .
Ithink the point that I ’m trying to make is that it has been my persona l observation that the vast majority of the trouble that we have had in the neig hborhood

a t th is e sta

bli sh me nt i s r e late d to the sa le of a lc oh ol a t th e e sta bli sh me nt.

Another r esident who testified bef ore the Commi ssion, but not at trial, had conducte d a neig hborhood surve y

of we ll over two hundre d residents a nd prese nted her

finding s t o the Commi ssion. Accor ding to he r surve y , there was widesprea d opposition to the prospective issuance of the pe rm it.
At trial, the Commissi on in t erp o s ed anothe r issue: Mr. Suleiman’s business pra ctices. A Cooper-Y oung resident testified t h at he e ntere d the marke t on May 7, only five da y s after the Commi ssion had ref

used to issue t h e p er m i t , and purc hased be er the re. H e testified that he was
awa re of potential problems with the per mit and so asked the store clerk i f beer was still for sa le. He boug ht two six -pac ks of bee r that day . Reg ardingthe transa ction on May 7, Mr. Suleiman stated that he knew n o t h i n g ab o u t i t , but that the cler k on duty that day no longe r worke d for him. Mr.D e sp ite M r. S u le im a n ’s g e n e ra l i n siste n c e th a t h is e m p lo y e e s w e re re sp o n sib le fo r t h e se v io la tio n s, w e n o te 2

t hat hi s t es t i m on y re gardi ng t he m ost r ece nt vi ol at i on i nd i cat es he par t i ci pat ed i n t he s al e:

[ L]i ke I t ol d you, I ha d be en che cki n g e v eryb o d y ’s i

. d. ’ s , a nd t hat guy s how [ ed] m e a f ake i

. d.
, or
s om ebody el s e’ s i

. d.

-4- S u l ei m an co n t en d edt h at al t h o u ght h e c o o l er s t i l l co n t ai n edb ee r, h e h adp o s t eda “ No tfo r S al e” s i gn there

.
I n addition to p ro v i n g an unlawf ul beer sale on May

7, the Commiss ion highlig hted Mr. Suleiman’s past violations in connection with another store he owns in Memphis. I t also emphasized Mr. Suleiman’s dishonesty reg ardingthe m atter when questioned by the C ommissi on. When asked during the C ommissi on proce eding s if he had any prior viol ations or pre vious appea ranc es bef

ore the Commiss ion, Mr. Suleiman rep l i ed i n t h e n eg ative. At trial, howe ver, it wa s clea r that Mr. Sul e ima n h a d b e e n be fo re the Com mis sio n at le a st thr e e tim e s bef or e , ea c h ap pe ara

nc e re latin g to vio latio ns fo r se lli ng be e r to min or s. Th e re c or d r e ve a ls f our p re vio us vio latio ns in c onne c tio n w ith his other store. To r econc ile this obvious conflict, Mr. Suleiman stated that he thoug ht the Commi ssion was inquiring into his personal history rathe r than his history

as a business owne r. Nonethele ss, he stated that his employ ees ha d sold the beer and that he had f ired them upon lea

rning of their r espec tive infrac tions. The most rece nt violation occur red in 2000 a

nd involved a fine of 2 $1,000; Mr. Suleiman asserte d that he had be en entr apped on that occa sion.

On J uly 17, 2007, the trial cour t entere d an orde r re versingthe Alcohol Commissi on’s denial and dire cting the City

to issue a bee r license to Mr. Suleiman. T he orde r stated that the c ourt had considere d the e v i d ence and testimony submitt ed bef

ore it, including the transc ript from the proce eding s b ef

o re the Commiss ion, and conc luded that the re cord f ailed to support the Commi ssion’s denial on the basis of interfe renc e with the public hea lth, safety , or morals. The trial transcr ipt indicates that the court rea ched this conclusion, in part, be cause beer had bee n sold there in the past, bec ause othe r businesses within four bloc ks also sold beer, a nd beca use t his Court, in Al

Koshshi v. Memphis Alcohol Commission , had re verse d a p ermit denial unde r more e g reg ious circ umstances than those at bar

.
The Alc ohol Comm ission filed its not ice of appea l on Aug ust 7, 2007. On appe al, it argues t h a t t h r e e f

a c t o r s
- - M r

. S u l e i m an ’ s h i s t o r y o f s e l l i n g b e e r

t o m i n o r s , d i s h o n e s t y a

b o u tt h a th i s t o r

y,
and , mo re re c e ntl y , il le g a l be e r s a le s fr om the B ark sd a le Ma rk e t - - o ve rwhe lmi ng ly

su pp or t it s denial of Mr . Suleiman’s permit application.

Iss ue Prese nte d a nd St

and ard o f R e v ie w

Th e Com mis sio n r a ise s th e fo llo wi ngiss ue on a pp e a l:

Whether the e vidence preponde rate s ag ainst the judg ment of the trial court reve rsing the de c isi on of Ap pe lla

nt, City of Me mph is Alc oh ol Comm iss ion , de nying a lic e ns eT enness ee C od e A nn ot at ed s ect i on 57-5-10 6 (a) g ran t s t o m un i ci pal i t i es t he po w er t o pass ordi nances t hat 3

gover n t he i s s uanc e, r evoc at i on, a nd s us pens i on of l i ce ns es f or , a m ong ot her t hi ngs , t he s al e of be er

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 57 -5-1 0 6 (a) (20 0 2 ).
-5- to Appellee, A hmad Suleiman, and allowingthe s ale of beer at his convenie nce store , Ba rksdale Ma

rket, for off- premises c onsumption.

Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 57-5-108 provides that the ex clusive m ethod of re view of an a g ency ’s re fusal to g rant thi s ty pe of lice nse is by

way of the statutory

writ of ce rtiorar i. Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-5- 108(d), ( f) ( 2002). An unsuccessful applicant ca n petition the circuit or c hance ry
c ourt of the c ounty

in whic h th e de nia l oc c ur re d and the re by ob ta in a

tr ia l de novo as a substitute for appea l. See id. § 57-5-108( d). When the t rial court g rants the wr it, the ag ency must then certify

and transmit to the court the transcr ipt of its procee dings. Id. § 57-5-108( e). Although the court re views that transcr ipt, it also presides over the trial as if the c ause ha d orig inated in that cour t. Se e Can tre ll v. De Kalb Count

y Be er Bd. , 376 S.W .2d 480, 482 (Tenn. 1964). Fur ther, the trial court must make an indepe ndent judg ment on t h e merits and may substitut e its judgme nt for that of the licensing authority

. Id. I n th is c a se , M r. Sul e ima n o bta ine d a

tr ia l de novo and a f

avora ble judg ment.
The Commission now appeals the trial c ourt’s order direc ting the issuance of the pe rmit. The

so le qu e sti on

pr e se nte d is wh e the r the iss ua nc e of thi s p e rm it t o M r. Sul e ima n w ou ld i nte rf

e re wi th the pu bli c he a lth , s a fe ty , or mor a ls; if so , su c h int e rf e re nc e wo uld be a g ro un d f or de nyingthe pe rm it under se ction 7-8-11 of

the M emphis Code of Ordinances. Fur ther, the Te nnessee Code provides 3 that
(b ) I

n o rd e r t o r e c e ive a

pe rm it, an a

pp lic ant m

us t e sta bli shthat: (1 ) N o b e e r w ill be so ld e xcept a t pl a c e s w he re su c h s a le wi ll n ot c a us e
c on g e sti on

of tr a ff ic or int e rf

e re nc e wi th sc ho ols , c hurc he s, or oth e r pla c e s o f p ub lic g a th e r in g , o r

o th e r w is e inte r f

e r e w it hp u b li c h e a lt h , s a f e ty an d mo r a ls [. ]

Te nn . Co de Ann. § 5 7- 5- 10 5( b) (1 ) ( 20 02 & Sup p. 20 07 ). Th e tr ia l c ourt fo un d th a t th e e vid e nc e did not sup p o rt a fi n d i n g that issuing this permit would cause such interf ere nce. I n revie wing a trial court’s judg ment reg ardingthe issuance of a be er pe rmit, this C ourt pre s u m es it to be corre ct and can disturb it only

when the pr eponder an ce of the evidenc e is otherwise

. Ha rv e yv . R he a Co un ty Bee r Bd ., 56 3 S. W.2 d 7 90 , 7 92 (T e nn . 1 97 8) ; Lones v. Blount County Bee r Bd. , 538 S.W .2d 386, 389 (Tenn. 1976) ; Al-Koshshi v. Memphis Alcohol Comm’n , No. W2004-02783-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 1692947, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. J uly 19, 2005)( no perm. app. filed ). Ac cording ly , we sha ll now consider whether

the evidenc e preponde rate s ag ainst the trial court’ s finding that the issuance of the pe rm it t o M r. Sul e ima

n w ou ld n ot i nte rf

e re wi th t he pu bli c he a lth , s a fe ty , a

nd mor a ls.

A n alys i s

Our a naly sis beg ins with Al-Koshshi v. Memphis Alcohol Commission , the case not ed by the trial court a

nd relied upon by

Mr. Suleiman. I n Al-Koshshi v. Memphis Alcohol Commission , th is-6-

Court considere d whether the trial cour

t properly denied a beer permit for inter fer ence with the health, saf

ety , and morals of the community

. Al-Koshshi , 2005 WL 1692947, at *1. Ther e, the Me mph is Alc oh ol Comm iss ion and the tr ia l c ourt ha d d e nie d th e pe rm it b a se d u po n th e pr oximi ty of the business to t h re e s ch ools, a history of loitering , littering, a

nd prostitution i n the ar ea, a nd testimony to the eff

ect that those historical problems had a bated whe n the bee r sales c ease d. Id. at *2.

I n Al-Koshshi , we c on c lud e d that the re c or d lac ke d ev ide nc e linkin g the c ite d p ro ble ms t o the sa le of

be e r at th a t loc a tio n, a s w e ll a s th e imp ro ve d s ur ro un din g s to the c e ssatio n o f b e e r s a le s. Id. at *3. The a

pplicant’s conve nience store wa s located at an intersec tion in a high- traff ic area. Id. at *1. At least t wo establishm ents permitted t o sell alcohol we re loc ated in the immediate a rea

. Id.

a t *3. Ev e n if pr os tit

uti on in the are a

ha d d e c re a se d, the re c or d r e ve a le d th a t th e pr os tit ute s g e ne ra lly cong reg ated a cross the stre et, not in or near the applicant’ s business. Aside from the Commission’s bla nk e t a lle g a tio ns , w e c ou ld f ind no thi ngthat e ve n s ug g e ste d a c a us a l link be tw e e n the be e r p e rm it and prostitution.

F ur the r, we fo un d th e sto re mana g e r’ s te sti mony to b e pa rt ic ula rl y re le va nt o n s e ve ra l po int s. He testified to c leaningthe par king lot si x to eig ht times a day ; to collecting bag s of litter g ener ated by pe de str ians and dr ive rs pa ssi ng by ; to wo rk ing wi th loc a l po lic e so that patr ols wo ul d i ncr e a se to thr e e tim e s pe r da

y ; and to ins ta lli ng se c ur ity c ame ra s. Id. a t *1. He a lso te sti fi e d th a t Cit g o O il Compan y h ad j u s t p u rcha sed the store and wa s g oing to spe nd $65,000 on improvements. Id. Reg ardingthe store’ s proxi mity to schools, the manag er te stified that most of the students freque nted the business ac ross the street beca use it wa s more acc essible to the schools and had not implemented a policy (like his) prohibiting the prese nce of more than two students i n t h e store at one time. Id. I n s um, thi s Co ur

t r e ve rs e d th e tr ia l c ourt ’s de nia l, n oti ngthat th e g re a t we ig ht of a uth or ity on thi s point resulted in reve rsals under simil ar f acts. Id. at *4.

A revie w of these authorities makes c lear that the re cord must contain some f actua l evidence showing “how or why the particular permit requested w ould interfer e with public hea lth, safety and morals.” H

a r v e y v

. R h e a Co u n ty B e e r

Bd. , 5 6 3 S

. W

. 2 d

7 9 0 , 7 9 2 (T en n

. 1 9 7 8 )( qu o t i n g Ewin v. Richardson , 399 S.W .2d 318, 320 (Tenn. 1966)). I ndeed, g ener al objections to the sale of alcohol provide no support for

the denial of

an other wise per miss i b l e l i ce n s e t o sell beer , nor does the expression of fea

rs, spec ulations, a n d appre hensions of those with fixed opinions reg ardingthe subject matter. Id.

This cas e pre sents community g rieva nces that are particula

r to the sale of

beer at the Ba rksdale Market. Gene ral grie vance s or fears cannot support a pe rmit denial. See, e .g.,Harve y , 563 S.W. 2d a t 79 2 ( fi nd ingno fa c tua l evi de nc e re g ard ing ho w or why the pe rm it w ou ld i nte rf

e re wi th public health, saf

ety , and morals, and noting that opposition wa s larg ely based on the fea r that bee r
wo uld be c ome mor e re a dil y

ava ila ble to h ig h s c ho ol s tud e nts ); Co ff m a n v

. Hamme r , 548 S.W .2d 310, 312 (Tenn. 1977) (findingno basis for a denial of beer permit wher e objections to its i ssuance consisted of g ener al concerns reg arding potential for drinking and driving , for incr ease d litter along the highw ay s, and fo r the de str uc tio n of the so c ia l f

a br ic ); Gr e e n v . Ci ty

of M e mp his , Sh e lby

Eq uit y-7-

No. 17, 1990 WL 66527, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 22, 1990), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. Sept. 24, 1990)(a ffirmingissuance of permit wher e re cord c ontained no adve rse e v i d en ce p articula r to that

a pp lic ant a

nd wh e re op po sit ion

c on sis te d o f f

e ars a bo ut a lc oh ol- re late d c rime s and pr ob le ms unrelated to proprietor

or establishment). In contra st to the ev i d en ce in the le adingcase s on the

su bje c t, t his re c or d co nta ins fa c tua l evi de nc e sh ow ing ho w this pa rt ic ula r pe rm it w ou ld a dv e rs e ly aff ect the w elfa

re of the community

.
At trial and be fore the Commiss ion, Cooper-Youngresidents testified that customers of the Ba rksdale Ma

rket littered r esidents’ y ards with bee r ca ns and bottles. I n Coffman , the “litter” g ri e va nc e wa s a sta te me nt to the e ff e c t th a t “ dis c ard ingbe e r c ans and bo ttl e s a lon g the highw ay is ‘detrimenta l to public health, the environme nt, and constitutes a public nuisance .’” Coffman , 548 S.W .2d at 312. In Al-Koshshi , there was wides p re ad l itter, but the establishment in that case was located at a busy

commerc ial intersec tion where other be er outlets we re ope rating

. Al-Koshs hi v. Mem phis Alcohol Comm’n , N o. W20 04 -0 27 83 -C OA -R 3- CV , 2 00 5 WL 16 92 94 7, a t *3 (T e nn . Ct

. App. J uly 19, 2005)( no perm. app. filed ). Moreove r, the connec tion be tween the ce ssation of bee r sales ther e and the decr ease in litter was, a s we noted, te nuous at best. Id. We further opined that “the Te nnessee Suprem e C o urt has sug g ested that litter and tr ash found a long our public roads aff ords no basis for the denial of a beer permit.” Id. (c i t i n g Coffman , 548 S.W .2d at 312, and quoting its sta te me nt t hat “ be e r d

ri nk e rs have no mon op oly on th at un fortunate pr e dil e c tio n o f s ome
me mbe rs of

the pu bli c to m ar t

he be a uty of pu bli c tho ro ug hf

are s .

. . ” ). Unl ik e the op po sit ion in Coffman and Al-Koshshi , howeve r, the testimony offe red by

these re sidents unequivocally linked the sal e o f b e e r f r o m t h is p arti c u la

r e s ta b li s h me n t t o th e li tt e r in g o f p r iv a te p r o p e rty

w it hb e e r b o tt le s and ca ns purcha sed at that marke t. Although not determinative, this point is st ill a releva nt fac tor in our ana ly sis of this unique circumstance

.
L ike wi se , Co op e r- Yo un g re sid e nts ra ise d the iss ue of c ri me a sso c iate d wi th t he B ark sd a le Marke t. I n Gree n , th is C ourt he ld t hat r e sid e nts ’ state me nts re g ard ing pr e vio us inc ide nts of c ri me and alc ohol-related problems we re imm ater ial beca use those occ urre nces ha d no connec tion to the establishment itself or to the propr ietor. Gree n , 1990 WL 66527, at *2. In this case, ther e is no appar ent dispute that the s hootings and arme d robber ies occ urre d inside this market. We cannot lea p to t he c on c lus ion

that th e sa le of beer a t th is l oc a tio n attr a c te d th e pa rt ic ipa nts in t ho se c ri me s;
never theless, we do believe the rec ord contains evidenc e that the sale of be er at this establishm ent attrac ts f oot tr aff ic from outside the ne ighbor hood and that an inc rea se in litter and unlawf ul conduct

acc ompanies that foot tra ffic.

I t is true that these events transpire d befor e Mr. Suleiman bec ame involved in the mar ket’s operation. I n Lon es v. Blo un t Coun ty Be e r B oa rd , the Tenne ssee Supre me Court reve rsed the de nial of a be e r p e rm it a

nd de c lin e d to c on sid e r t

he e sta bli sh me nt’ s p ri or

re putati on for lawl e ss a c ts i n
connec tion with its new owner ’s application for the per mit. Lones v. Blount County Beer Bd. , 538 S.W .2d 386, 389 (Tenn. 1976) . I n contra st to arme d robber y , for ex ample, the lawless ac ts in Lones involved intox ication and drunke n driving

. Id. Moreove r, t he court stated t hat “[ i] t should be noted at the ver y outset that this applicant stands in this rec ord as a . . . citizen of g ood moral cha rac ter.” Id. Th is r e c ord , on the oth e r h and , c on ta ins e vid e nc e of Mr . Su le ima

n’ s h ist or y of se lli ngbe e r t o-8-

minors and, more importantly , of th e unlawf ul sale of be er f

rom the B arksda le Marke t. Mr. Sul e ima n h ims e lf may no t ha ve pa rt ic ipate d in the se tr ans a c tio ns , but, a t le a st in t he mos t r e c e nt s a le from this establishment, he did very littl e to insure c ompliance with the law

. I n d ee d , afte r the Commi ssion denied his permit, Mr. Suleiman could have remove d the bee r fr om the cooler or plac ed a lock on it to avoid furthe r problems wi t h t h e C i t y of Memphis. Additionally , we f ind Mr. Suleiman’s attempt to reco ncile his conflictingtestimony reg ardingprevious violations to be dis ing e nu ou s at be st. We h ave little tr ou ble makin g the c onne c tio n be tw e e n a be e r v e nd or ’s ina

bil ity to abide by

the law a nd its adverse eff

ect on the c ommunity

welfa re.

We conclude that t h e residents’ testimony conce rning the sale of

beer from this particular establishment and Mr. Suleiman’s business prac tices, consider ed tog ether , preponde rate ag ainst the trial court’ s decision. This case stands in stark contr ast to the Al-Koshshi case . I n Al-Koshshi , there was no ba sis in the recor d for connecting prostitution and li ttering to that establishment, situated as it was on the cor

ner of a busy , commerc ial intersec tion. Her e, the Bar ksdale Mar

ket is surrounded by homes and a

churc h, and the rec ord contains evidenc e li nking the sale of be er the re to a pattern of littering and unlawful conduct. Unlike the manag er in Al-Koshshi , who t ook proac tive measure s to c omb a t li tte r a

nd c ri me , M r. Sul e ima

n h a s sh ow n h imself to be less tha n f or thr ig ht i n h is te s ti mo n y an d , a t b e s t, in e f

f e c ti v e in c o mp ly in g w it hth e la w s c o n c e r

n ing the s a le o f

b e e r

. We there fore reve rse the trial court’s judgment and rema nd the m atter for further procee dings. Cost s of this appeal a

re tax ed to the Appe llee, Ahmad Suleiman d/b/a Ba rksdale Ma

rket, for which execution

s h a l l i s s u e i f

n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ DAVI D R. FARMER , JUDGE