FOES: BILL SAPS FIGHT ON YOUTH DRINKING

Issue: Law would erase some strikes against stores for liquor sales to minors.

A statewide crackdown on stores that sell alcohol to minors -- an effort
just getting a boost in Santa Clara County -- could wind up significantly
weakened because of a bill being pushed by liquor interests, police and
child advocates fear.

At issue is California's 4-year-old, three-strikes law for businesses that
peddle alcohol to anyone under 21. Since the law went into effect,
authorities have quadrupled the number of violators cited, revoked six
liquor licenses across the state and are awaiting appeals of their efforts
to yank 39 others.

Santa Clara County's first three-strike case is set for a hearing next
month. Moreover, the state's Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has
significantly beefed up its investigative unit here in hopes of nailing
more offenders.

But the liquor-backed bill, which the state Senate already has approved,
has clouded the future of the law enforcement campaign. The measure -- SB
1696 -- would let violators effectively erase one of their strikes if they
stayed out of trouble for a year and took measures to prevent future
problems.

That makes sense to Wine Institute lobbyist Mike Falasco, who said the
issue boils down to ``a matter of simple fairness.'' He said he considers
the current law too punitive and that the bill recognizes ``there is a real
difference between inadvertent and willful mistakes.''

Others are worried.

``A lot of kids die from drinking and driving, and a lot of kids get into
other kinds of difficulties because of alcohol,'' said Hayward police Capt.
Roger Power. ``We don't need to give the liquor stores . . . any more
breaks.''

Prompted by growing concerns about how easily many young people obtain
alcohol, state lawmakers four years ago were determined to get tough. One
of their responses was to give state grants to local police to combat
alcohol-related crimes. So far, the state has spent $7.5 million on such
efforts, including using underage ``decoys'' who work with police to
identify stores willing to sell to minors.

`Three Strikes' Was Key

But the heart of the legislative push that year was the three-strikes
concept. Under it, stores that violate the alcohol agelimit typically are
fined for a first offense. In the 57 cases prosecuted in Santa Clara County
from January 1997 through mid-April 1998, 26 fines ranging from $750 to
$3,000 were issued.

Stores guilty of a second offense within three years are usually forbidden
to sell alcohol for 25 days; those with a third strike in three years lose
their licenses.

Taken together, the grants and three-strikes provision have given local
police a big incentive to target alcohol violators. In fiscal 1994 before
the law took effect, 540 businesses statewide were formally accused of
selling to minors, according to state statistics. By the end of fiscal
1997, the annual tally had jumped to 2,487.

The number of accusations filed in Santa Clara County also has increased
since 1994, although the total has fluctuated yearly because of turnover in
the San Jose office of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC).
That agency, which licenses alcohol retailers and works with police to cite
violators, had been staffed with one to three investigators in recent
years. But it was just boosted to eight investigators, and they plan to
make stores that sell to minors a primary target.

``The enforcement is going to increase,'' said local supervising
investigator Chris O'Hanlon.

ABC officials declined comment on how SB 1696 might affect enforcement. But
it would make it harder to revoke a license.

The bill, which still must go through the Assembly, would let merchants
negate their first or second strike if they didn't get another violation
within a year and if they took precautions. These include testing employees
to understand and comply with liquor laws, and installing equipment that
can scan driver's licenses and alert clerks to underage customers.

Sponsored by the California Retailers Association, the bill is backed by
Miller Brewing Co., Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc. and the Wine Institute,
among others. In a letter to the Legislature, Miller lobbyist Parke Terry
argued that the three-strikes law is too harsh.

``An overworked clerk who fails to ask for ID from an underage individual
who manifests adult appearance and behavior, who misreads an ID or who
accepts an out-of-state ID that appears to be valid'' can unknowingly break
the law, Terry argued.

State Sen. Deirdre ``Dede'' Alpert, D-San Diego, who introduced the
measure, agrees, noting that ``there are people out there who
honest-to-goodness just make mistakes.''

Alpert, who received nearly $8,000 in campaign contributions from alcohol
and retail interests during 1995 and 1996, acknowledges that she introduced
the bill at the request of the California Retailers Association.
Nevertheless, she said, she's also heard complaints from constituents who
claim they were unfairly cited for selling to minors. And she denied being
unduly influenced by the contributions, saying they made up ``a very small
proportion'' of her total campaign finances.

Some critics, however, aren't convinced. In his own letter to lawmakers,
Joseph Pendry of San Benito County's Substance Abuse Program lambasted the
measure as ``very bad public policy'' and ``a sweetheart bill for the
liquor industry.''

A more fundamental concern is that the bill would make it harder for
authorities to put violators out of business. That has prompted opposition
from police in Berkeley, Hayward and Oxnard, as well as from a number of
advocacy groups.

``It would completely undermine the efforts of all the communities in the
state that have been working so hard to reduce sales to minors,'' said Joan
Kiley, president of the California Council on Alcohol Policy.

Liquor industry critics aren't persuaded by claims that clerks make
innocent mistakes. Most of the decoys used by police are 15 to 19.

In addition, the state-issued driver's license and identification card for
minors both bear a red stripe and clearly spell out in white letters the
year an individual becomes 21.

Critics argue that revoking a store's license is already a difficult and
lengthy process, which is compounded by the limited number of law
enforcement personnel assigned. Take Race Street Liquors in San Jose, which
has been accused of selling alcohol to minors three times in the past three
years and is the first Santa Clara County store threatened with license
revocation under the three-strikes law.

Focus Is On Store

The store was fined $2,306.60 for the first incident in 1995 and had its
license suspended 15 days in 1996 for the second. Both incidents involved
decoys. The third charge stems from a state claim that a 19-year-old decoy
bought beer there last August. Although a hearing on the latest alleged
strike is set for July 9, Race Street is still open.

Owner Balbir Dhillon denied any wrongdoing and accused authorities of
``trapping'' his employees and lying about the alleged sales. ``It's not
fair,'' said Dhillon, who called the law ``too hard.''

But Michelle McGurk, an aide to San Jose Councilman Frank Fiscalini, has
fielded many complaints about the store and is unsympathetic. ``Residents
were reporting to our office that they were seeing minors there come out
with bottles of alcohol,'' McGurk said. ``It's been frustrating for the
neighbors.''

Even if police could prevent every store from selling alcohol to minors,
young people ``will find a way . . . to get what they want,'' said Caroline
Montano, 18, of Mountain View.

To combat that, the state has begun targeting adults who purchase alcohol
for minors under a new law enforcement effort dubbed ``the shoulder-tap
program.'' Officials in Santa Clara County say they plan to try the
shoulder-tap idea soon. But for now, targeting stores is regarded as the
best preventive strategy.