Salt Lake City News

PICK YOUR BATTLES

Don’t Wake the Booze Beast (Not For This)

By Kimberly Carlson, 12-05-05

Did you know there is a Utah law that if you are going to purchase an alcoholic beverage at a restaurant it must be accompanied by a meal? Have you ever gone to a bar, ordered all of your future drinks right away so that although you aren’t breaking the law by ordering any more drinks after hours, you are still receiving them? Of course you do, and perhaps you have—most Utahns are used to the crazy liquor laws and know how to navigate them: we play by the goofy rules and hope they don’t make more. But one local man, A. McReynolds, appears to be unfamiliar with the various ins and outs of our liquor laws (and may be opening the door to new and fascinatingly arbitrary edicts).

Last February, McReynolds was refused service by the State Liquor store when his adult companion could not produce identification verifying his age. McReynolds had the option to return later or go to a different liquor store and leave his friend in the car (or at home) and complete his purchase—but did not. Now he has filed suit against the store clerk, the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and the agency’s director Kenneth Wynn. The suit challenges the constitutionality of the 15-year old policy.

That’s what it is, really: store policy. There is nothing expressly stated in Utah Code regarding the accompaniment of a patron of the State Liquor store. Yet, clearly posted at every entrance of every State Liquor store (that I’ve set foot in) is a policy stating all adults must be able to produce ID and that minor children must be accompanied by an adult. McReynolds clearly did not heed this request.

So while I must commend McReynolds’ attorney, Brian Barnard, for his ambition, I am hesitant to fully support this endeavor. I’m heartened by the prospect that these laws could be changed for the better, but not so sure that Mr. Barnard has chosen the best case to accomplish this goal. It would be stronger if there had been more than one instance of flagrancy—or better yet, a case in which the purchaser’s companion was over 18, but also the patron’s child. This is a weak case that, given the nature of this state, only opens the door for more convoluted laws (any ruling that Judge Dale Kimball hands down could set new precedents).

I, for one, will remain very interested to see the outcome of this little lawsuit. Not because it will change Utah liquor laws for the better, but to see the new hoop (or hoops) we’ll have to gamely jump through in order to get a drink in this state.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.