Bill Proposes Less Undercover Stings Seeks to Place Blame on Underage Drinkers

Author: Meghan Michelson

In order to combat underage drinking in Vermont, the Liquor Control Department (LCD) frequently conducts undercover operations, called stings, in businesses that sell alcohol to ensure that identification cards are requested from customers purchasing alcoholic beverages. In the last year the LCD has performed 1,100 liquor compliance checks and 1,200 tobacco checks in Vermont.

The purpose of such sting campaigns is to eliminate the possibility of alcohol sales to minors without proper identification. The consequences of a store caught selling to minors include a fine or temporary suspension of its liquor license. However, suspicion has surfaced recently as to whether or not undercover inspectors are really decreasing alcoholic substance abuse among minors.

A bill introduced to the Vermont State Legislature cites a proposal to "limit undercover compliance inspections of licensees for sale of alcohol or tobacco to minors only for cause." This means that undercover stings can only be performed when the LCD has been tipped off through verbal or written evidence that the store has violated the prohibition of selling alcohol or tobacco to minors.

Currently, the law states that the LCD can conduct compliance tests as frequently as necessary. The bill was introduced by Senator McCormack of Windsor County, Senator Greenwood of Essex-Orleans County, Senator Ide of Caledonia County and Senator Lyons of Chittenden County.

Ide explained his reasoning for suggesting such an alteration when he said, "Currently, the system and attitudes put the burden on the seller of alcohol and allow the minor or consumer to go scot- free." Ide believes that in scrutinizing store employees for checking identifications, the blame is being placed in the wrong hands. "The fault should be placed on those who falsify their identities," Ide said.

He noted there was a need for a change in the approach to cutting down underage drinking. "The attitude needs to change so that the liar is the villian, not the seller," commented Ide. He did mention that undercover tests and chastising stores for selling to minors are critical components to fighting underage alcohol use. "The state liquor inspector can still sting, but only when tipped off by a phone call, letter, notice or confession that a store has a record of selling to minors," Ide stated.

McCormack agreed with Ide's disapproval of an abundance of undercover stings and said, "The government tricking people into breaking the law is not a good way for the government to relate to people." He explained that alternative methods of stopping underage drinking would be more beneficial toward humanity. "I think we need to enforce laws prohibiting the sales of alcohol to minors, but these tricks are worse than entrapment," said McCormack.

Director of the Liquor Control Department Bill Goggins has an opposing opinion in regards to the quality of such undercover compliance checks. "Compliance checks most definitely reduce underage drinking," Goggins said. He did, however, recognize the fact that there are alternative ways minors can obtain alcohol. He is personally not in support of the proposed bill and described it as "a step backwards" in the fight against underage drinking.

If the bill passes through the legislature and becomes a law, it will ultimately affect store owners more than underage drinkers. One local store owner who could potentially benefit from the passage of this bill is Andrew McCabe, proprietor of the Middlebury Wine Company, which has two stores in Middlebury and Vergennes. McCabe reported an estimated 15 to 25 undercover compliance checks between the two stores during the last seven years.

Of those tests, the Middlebury Wine Company failed twice in properly requesting identification from a young undercover inspector attempting to buy alcohol or tobacco products. Now, McCabe and his employees claim to check identification every time a customer appears to be younger than around 35 years of age.

McCabe is not totally against the idea of undercover liquor inspectors and said that he is "not as big an opponent as many people are." He does admit to defects in the system of undercover compliance checks. "Anytime you have a measuring device to see what store owners are complying with the law, that is checking IDs, it is going to be flawed. The biggest flaw is that it does not check stores equally." He explained that although cashiers should always check identification, there are situations in which the person becomes distracted.

He also emphasized a similar point to that of the senators when he said, "There should be more penalty on those who to try to buy alcohol who are underage." In addressing the proposed bill, McCabe said, "It certainly will be in my best interest." He is not, however, entirely convinced enough to vehemently support and encourage the passage of the bill.

An undercover compliance check at The Grille resulted in a two-day suspension of its liquor license in November 2001. General Manager of McCullough Dining Services Steve Reigle feels neutral about the possible effects of the new bill. Although The Grille has been subject to at least three compliance checks in the last two years, they only failed the most recent test when an employee miscalculated the age on a driver's license.

Riegle does not feel threatened by compliance checks or relieved by the bill and described the tests as "strong compliance checks, not stings or tricks."

Compliance checks are an attempt to reduce the problem of underage drinking. However, the efficiency of such checks is under examination. Stopping the sales of alcohol to minors with false identification will not guarantee an end to the consumption of alcohol by those under 21 years of age. On this point McCabe commented, "There is no question that underage drinking happens — it does. How do we stop that? Retailers not allowing sales does not necessarily stop minors from drinking."