Court Opinion

ID: 9633193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:37:26.122405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:11.516402
License: Public Domain

THORNTON, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result. I do not, however, agree with that portion of the- majority opinion which concludes, in effect, that it wa.s incumbent upon the respondent, Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC), to prove the elements of the prime of disorderly- conduct as set *39forth in ORS 166.025 in order to find petitioners guilty of maintaining a disorderly establishment in violation of ORS 472.180 (5).
In support of the above conclusion, the majority opinion relies on the contents of a booklet entitled “Liquor Control Laws and Administrative Rules,” compiled and distributed by the OLCC to its licensees. The booklet contains a reprint of a large number of Oregon statutes. The first portion includes ORS chs 471 (Alcoholic Liquors Generally), 472 (Sale of Alcoholic Liquor by Individual Drink), 47B (Liquor Manufacturing and Importing Tax), 474 (Uniform Narcotic Drug Act), and 475 (Narcotic and Dangerous Drugs), plus the chapter (ch 845) of the Oregon Administrative Rules pertaining to the administration of the liquor laws. This is followed by a reprint of ORS ch 183 (Administrative Procedures & Rules of State Agencies). The final section of the booklet, captioned “Miscellaneous Provisions,” consists of a reprint of some 24 miscellaneous sections of the civil and criminal statutes, including ORS 166.025, the criminal statute pertaining to disorderly conduct.
I do not believe that the action of the commission in reprinting in this booklet a series of civil and criminal statutes, including ORS 166.025, should be interpreted by this court as restricting the commission to that single definition of ‘disorderly conduct’ in applying ORS 472.180. Prom my examination of the various code sections included in the “Miscellaneous Provisions” section of the booklet, I would regard this portion of the booklet as simply containing supplementary information for licensees — an effort by the administrative agency to list some additional code sections which might conceivably aid licensees in conducting their businesses according to other laws of this state.
*40First, OES 166.025 is not made a part of the administrative rules of the agency. Second, the agency does not designate OES 166.025 as an administrative interpretation of the term “disorderly” in OES 472.180. I can find nothing in OES 472.180 or in the Liqnor Control Act generally indicating a legislative intent to impose snch a. restriction npon the enforcement authority of the OLCC under OES 472.180.
As the opinion correctly points out in answering a different contention by petitioners, there can he no estoppel against the commission in these circumstances.
In most jurisdictions the law does not require the same strictness as to pleading, proof and procedure in proceedings to revoke liquor licenses as that which obtains in civil actions or criminal prosecutions generally. See, 45 Am Jur2d 620-21, Intoxicating Liquors § 189.
For the above reasons I believe that the rule thus announced is not warranted, and may result in unduly hampering the commission in carrying out its regulatory duties as to disorderly premises.