Court Opinion

ID: 9687602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:38:55.856992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:29.222867
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
The issue is:
Whether the trial court erred in determining that the Board abused its discretion in denying Woodruff’s applications for malt beverage licenses in 1992 and 1993.
SDCL 7-8-27 provides that “[f]rom all decisions of the board of county commissioners upon matters properly before it, there may be an appeal to the circuit court by any person aggrieved[.]” The appeal shall be “heard and determined de novo.” SDCL 7-8-30.
Thus, the circuit court should determine anew the question ... independent of the county commissioners’ decision. The court exercises independent judgment. This means that the trial court should determine the issues before it on appeal as .if they had been brought originally. The court must review the evidence, make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and render judgment independent of the agency proceedings. (Citations omitted.)
Keogan v. Bergh, 348 N.W.2d 462, 464 (S.D.1984). The trial court concluded that under the de novo review standard of SDCL 7-8-30, the refusal to renew Woodruffs malt beverage licenses was an arbitrary exercise of the Board’s discretion. According to the trial court, the same concerns such as the ability to police, access of minors, access by law enforcement, and the type of business engaged in by Woodruff, are endemic to the Sturgis area during the motorcycle rally. The trial court further concluded that it was “an abuse of discretion to single out and penalize [Woodruff] for the same circumstances presented by and to other license holders.”
While the board of county commissioners of the county in which an applicant for a retail liquor license seeks to operate “shall have discretion to approve or disapprove the application depending on whether it deems the applicant a suitable person to hold such license and whether it considers the proposed location suitable,” SDCL 35-2-1.2; Luke v. Mellette Cnty., 508 N.W.2d 6, 7 (S.D.1993), this court’s scope of review of a trial court’s decision in a trial de novo is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous. See Yadco, Inc. v. Yankton Cnty., 89 S.D. 651, 237 N.W.2d 665, 669-70 (1975) (holding that the Supreme Court’s proper scope of review of a trial court’s decision in a trial de novo of an assessment matter is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous). Therefore, the issue presented on appeal is whether the trial court was clearly erroneous in concluding that the Board abused its discretionary powers in refusing to approve the 1992 applica*776tion because “law enforcement cannot work effectively’ and the “campground has catered to pornographic behavior,” and the 1993 application based on location.
The Board’s refusal to renew Woodruff’s applications because law enforcement cannot work effectively at Buffalo Beer, the campground has catered to pornographic behavior, and the location was not suitable, was found by the trial court to be an arbitrary exercise of the Board’s discretion. Under the clearly erroneous standard, “[t]he question for the appellate court is not whether it would have made the same findings the trial court did, but whether on the entire evidence it is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Yadco, 237 N.W.2d at 670 (citing In re Estate of Hobelsberger, 85 S.D. 282, 181 N.W.2d 455 (1970) (citations omitted)). Due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. SDCL 15-6-52(a); Yadco, 237 N.W.2d at 669; Hobelsberger, 181 N.W.2d at 458 (citation omitted).
The trial court found Woodruff cooperated with and helped law enforcement. According to the trial court, he has complied with all requests made of him by the Board and while there was slight evidence of underage consumption, there was no evidence of any illegal sales of alcohol to any underage buyer, or of any liquor law violation by Woodruffs staff. Responsible people have been hired to run the beer stand and effective methods have been employed to prevent the sale of beer to underage consumers. The trial court also found that although uniformed officers may elect not to enter Buffalo Chip for routine patrol, compliance with beverage sale regulations can be monitored by undercover officers. In fact, testimony was presented that law enforcement has similar concerns and instructions regarding other campgrounds and would not change any of its activities even if Woodruff did not have a beer license at Buffalo Chip. There is evidence to support the trial court’s Findings of Fact and I cannot say the Findings are clearly erroneous.
In issuing its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the trial court found that “[t]his Court had an opportunity to view the testimony and demeanor of [Woodruff] and his witnesses and specifically finds that testimony credible and entitled to great weight.” An objective reading of the trial transcript indicates that the majority opinion is jumping headfirst into the jury box and usurping the role of the factfinder. A review of the evidence does not leave one with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court erred.* *777Yadco, 237 N.W.2d at 670. Therefore, the trial court’s Order reversing the Board’s de*778nial of Woodruffs 1992 and 1993 malt beverage license applications should be affirmed.
MILLER, C.J., joins this dissent,

 Although the majority opinion suggests that the trial judge understated the evidence, one can argue that the majority opinion overstates the evidence.
The following is an objective review of the transcript concerning the majority's claims:
1) The claim that officers in pursuit were denied access.
There were two incidents described in the record where officers pursued speeders off the highway into the Buffalo Chip turn off and were stopped by individuals at the gate who wanted to know what was happening. However, there was evidence that the individuals may not have been Buffalo Chip employees and that the pursuing officers were some distance from the speeding vehicles. Additionally, all law enforcement have standing orders not to enter the Sturgis area campgrounds without significant back-up, so it was unclear whether the officers should or would have pursued the speeders further into Buffalo Chip.
The other incident involved the commander of the state troopers. He wanted to drive down a road adjacent to the campground to observe the area and the security force told him he could not. The commander told them to immediately allow him through or they would be charged, and the security people let him through.
The majority opinion discusses an occasion where officers were called to the campground and then were refused entrance. The trooper involved testified that staff called law enforcement to remove someone who would not leave. However, when they arrived security told them they were no longer needed because the problem was under control. The trooper testified that it is not unusual for callers to tell law enforcement when they arrive that help is no longer needed, because the problem is under control.
2) Stabbing incident where officers picked up knife and were told by large man in a black jacket, “Don’t make a scene, just bend over and pick up the knife and get out of here.”
Testimony by the officer investigating the incident indicated that he believed the remarks were meant for the safety of the two officers in the crowd, not as an attempt to direct the investigation. Additionally, testimony by another officer indicated that the perpetrator in the stabbing was arrested and removed from the campground. Testimony by law enforcement indicated that there was another stabbing at another *777campground, a shooting at another campground, and a shooting and stabbing on the Main Street of Sturgis.
3) Evidence that a rape occurred but no charges were ever brought.
The only reference to a rape in the record was an incident described by the officer as "supposedly a rape took place. We had received information that the perpetrator had been bitten in the groin area. We were given a physical description and then asked to walk around the grounds to see if we could identify an individual walking that matched the description that exhibited pain in the groin area.” Police in plain clothes investigated the incident, but the alleged perpetrator was never found. There is no information indicating that the investigation was hindered or inadequate.
4) Assertions that the owner of Buffalo Chip had to be contacted first before entry into gate would be allowed.
The sheriff of Meade County stated he orders all his officers, when investigating a problem at any Sturgis campground during the rally, not to go in alone. He tells them to "wait at the gate until you get sufficient backup and preferably you meet the owner there and discuss what the problem is and take care of it and get out.” Another campground owner indicated that the standard procedure is for law enforcement to meet the owner at the entrance of the campground and discuss the problem before entering the campground.
5) Juveniles' access to Buffalo Chip
There was no evidence that the beer stand at Buffalo Chip sold beer to underage customers. Security officers card individuals entering the premises to insure they are at least eighteen years old. Additionally, employees wander the concert area and ask individuals who appear to be under 18 for identification. Evidence indicated that the owner of Buffalo Chip hired local teachers to work at the beer stand and campground because they would be better able to identify area teenagers. Although there was testimony that some individuals under 21 leave Buffalo Chip intoxicated, the evidence was unclear as to whether the individuals were obtaining beer at Buffalo Chip or elsewhere'. Some law enforcement witnesses indicated that juvenile consumption is less of a concern and treated less seriously dining the rally, because of other law enforcement issues. Witnesses indicated that the police could place undercover officers in the area if that were a problem with selling beer to juveniles. The sheriff of Meade County stated that because he has had no complaints indicating that Buffalo Chip sells to minors and he has more important concerns during the rally than a few underage drinkers, he did not elect to place undercover agents at Buffalo Chip. Although some officers said that juveniles leaving Buffalo Chip were intoxicated, evidence was unclear as to the severity of the problem. For example, two officers stated that they have contacts with juveniles two or three times during rally week on the road leading to Buffalo Chip. Another stated he had one juvenile contact in 1992 outside of Buffalo Chip. He took the alcohol and wrote two tickets, but could not say where the alcohol had been purchased. Another officer stated that a sixteen year old was discovered intoxicated at Buffalo Chip in 1990, but it was later learned that she had actually become intoxicated in Box Elder.
6) Juvenile Nudity
Apparently, during the 50th anniversary rally, a 16-year-old girl danced on the stage in the nude while drinking beer and may have been involved in other pornographic behavior. Also, a 17-year-old girl was photographed one year lifting her shirt up and exposing her chest. Witnesses indicated that there was nudify at other campgrounds and that Buffalo Chip employees card individuals at the gate to prevent juvenile attendance.
7) Other
In addition to the above evidence, there was testimony that the problems experienced at Buffalo Chip are identical to problems at other campgrounds and concert areas during the rally. As for police reluctance to enter the campground to enforce the law, law enforcement personnel unanimously acknowledged that they were not to enter many Sturgis area campgrounds without back up. A former sheriff of Meade County testified that Buffalo Chip was cooperative with law enforcement and that he had no objection to Buffalo Chip holding a beer license. He stated that denying the license would probably result in more intoxicated people on the road, because they would leave the campground to get more alcohol. Other law enforcement personnel acknowledged that the owner of Buffalo Chip was cooperative and had met with law enforcement on various occasions to coordinate security before the rally. Although the Hell's Angels insisted on parading across the Buffalo Chip stage one year, a former DCI investigator who now works for the U.S. Treasuiy/Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said he would not have attempted to remove the gang by force if he had been the chief of security at Buffalo Chip and that he could not say security should have acted any differently than they did. He acknowledged that gangs may be a problem for lots of area campgrounds. Law enforcement officers were uncertain whether denying a liquor license would have any effect on controlling drinking, nudity, etc, at Buffalo Chip or elsewhere. The current sheriff stated that he would need two times his law enforcement personnel to adequately police all the area campgrounds, but that increased manpower was unlikely.
This objective review of the claims made by the majority opinion against the transcript confirms there is competent and substantial evidence to support the trial court’s decision.