If you’re cooped up inside, trying to decide which of tonight’s Philly Beer Weekend events you’re going to go to, just think how nice the weather’s going to be on June 4th.
Specifically here. (Shhh… the official announcement comes on Monday.)
It’s clear the Great Philly Beer Raid Fiasco was at least partly due to dimwits at the State Police being unable to extrapolate that, perhaps, Duvel Beer is precisely the same thing as Duvel Belgian Golden Ale. As I’ve conceded in earlier posts, some beer names are, indeed, confusing and inconsistent.
The fact that it relies on the name on the label, and that it has to be exact, is ridiculous. Anyone at the PLBC ever hear of a barcode?
In the wake of the Great Philly Beer Raid Fiasco, brewers and importers have been hustling to add brands to the PLCB’s vaunted list of Registered Malt or Brewed Beverage Brands. By my count, 134 brands have been added to the list since the bust.
I had to laugh this morning when one local bar owner gave me the heads up on one of the latest to be added:
OUD BEERSEL DUDE GEUZE ALE
Dude! Someone stole my gueuze!
For the record, the correctly spelled name on the label is Oud Beersel Oude Geuze Vieille. The brewery just calls it “Old Geuze” - “oude” and “vielle” are simply Flemish and French for “old” or “aged.” (Not that the state liquor cops give a shit.)
I’m tired of writing about all that PLCB red tape. Let’s get back on track here…
If you’ve been following the infamous State Police beer raid, you’ve probably already bookmarked the PLCB’s online list of Registered Malt or Brewed Beverage Brands. This is the list that the cops cited when they busted three city bars last week, claiming they were selling brands whose breweries or importers had not paid the annually required $75 registration fee.
There’s one big problem with the list: It’s completely worthless.
As previously reported, the online list is rife with mistakes. Duvel, for example, was listed as “Duvel Beer,” when its label said “Duvel Belgian Golden Ale.” That discrepancy (since corrected) apparently led the police to confiscate bottles of Duvel from the bars and order its wholesale distributor to immediately cease shipments of the beer.But it gets worse: Disclaimers posted on the web sites of both the PLCB and the state of Pennsylvania clearly warn that the contents of the sites should not be used for any legal purposes.
“With respect to documents available from this server, neither the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, nor any of its employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, including the warranties or merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
State of Pennsylvania privacy policy – information disclaimer
Information provided on the Commonwealth’s Web sites is intended to allow the public immediate access to public information. While all attempts are made to provide accurate, current and reliable information we recognize the possibility of human and/or mechanical error. Therefore, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, its employees, officers and agencies expressly deny any warranty of the accuracy, reliability or timeliness of any information published by this system and shall not be held liable for any losses caused by reliance upon the accuracy, reliability or timeliness of such information. Any person who relies upon such information obtained from this system does so at his or her own risk.
So, bar owners and distributors have been warned: Don’t depend on this list to determine if the beers you’re selling are legally registered.
Importantly, a beer industry attorney who turned me onto these disclaimers told me, that warning applies to the cops, too.
Yet, it’s now clear the entire raid was sparked when the cops, acting on a complaint, matched the beer menu at the three bars with the online list of registered brands. That’s how they determined the likes of Duvel and another 20 or so brands were not registered. More than half of the brands, it turns out, were in fact registered properly.
I asked PLCB attorney Rod Diaz several questions about the disclaimer and the registration list, including:
Q. Can you explain how the PLCB expects licensees to determine if a beer is properly registered when the web site’s disclaimer clearly warns that the online list should not be used for any legal purposes?
A. “If I were a retail licensee, I think I’d call the board first. It’s always prudent to double-check.”
Elected officials respond to angry beer mob… This just arrived.
Donatucci sets House/Senate hearing into ‘beer raids’
HARRISBURG, March 10 – State Rep. Robert Donatucci, D-Phila., chairman of the House Liquor Control Committee, today announced that the panel and its Senate counterpart will hold a joint hearing in April into the raids conducted by the Pennsylvania State Police Bureau of Liquor Code Enforcement this weekend and Monday in Philadelphia on three bars and one distributor allegedly selling “unregistered” beer brands.
A beer is considered unregistered if the producer has not officially registered it with the Liquor Control Board as being distributed in the Commonwealth and paid the designated tax.
The beers involved in the raids were from small-scale producers. Even though the producers are ultimately responsible for the registration, current law requires Liquor Code Enforcement officers to confiscate unregistered brands.
Donatucci noted that the bureau officers acted on a specific complaint they had received and did not pull the idea for the raids “out of the air.” Subsequently, the LCB is looking into the possibility that some of the affected brands were registered, but that the registration may not have been properly communicated to the Bureau of Liquor Code Enforcement.
“These incidents have brought to light that the state Liquor Code appears to have some antiquated provisions and required procedures,” said Donatucci. “And the beer registration provisions could lead that list.
“While the registration requirement appears justified, we need to examine the registration process and enforcement, especially when it comes to having responsibly operating licensed establishments held to account for the producer’s mistake or an error in Liquor Control Board communications.”
Donatucci said the hearing, to be held at 10 a.m. April 13 in the Majority Caucus Room, will examine the causes behind the beer registration raid and how the registration provisions and other aspects of Liquor Code enforcement may be outdated and how to remedy them.
“By all indications the officers acted in accordance with the law and established procedure,” Donatucci added,” but having a small amount of a designer beverage that may not meet a technicality required of the producer should not constitute grounds for a full-fledged raid as if they were black-marketing truckloads of illegal moonshine.
“If nothing else, however, these incidents have alerted us to the need to look closely at our Liquor Code and enforcement procedures to ensure that all aspects meet practical and effective standards.”
As feared, the other shoe has dropped.
Last night, the State Police raided Origlio Beverage, the wholesale distributor that supplied some of the beer that was confiscated at Local 44, Resurrection and Memphis Taproom. My colleague, Bob Warner, and I will be reporting more details in tomorrow’s Daily News, but here’s some of what I know:
The Bureau of Liquor Enforcement agents arrived about 7 p.m. last night and conducted a search of the warehouse, specifically looking for Origlio’s share of brands they’d confiscated from the bars last week. This includes: Duvel, Monk’s Cafe Sour Flemish Ale, Hacker-Pschorr and Russian River Supplication.
They reportedly confiscated only the Supplication because they would’ve needed a tractor trailer for the rest. They ordered Origlio not to distribute any of the other brands.
That’s why, as I reported in a previous blog post, shipments of Duvel in Philadelphia have ceased. I’m already hearing from local bar owners that they’re running out. (Ironic, because it’s assumed the snitch who alerted the PLCB about the unregistered brands is probably a local bar operator who will now have to suffer along with everyone else.)
As I reported on Monday, Duvel is an especially troublesome brand in the midst of all of this because it is clearly registered. It’s just that the brand name on the state’s list of registered brands is “Duvel Beer” and the label actually reads “Duvel Belgian Golden Ale” - a fact that the Daily News stressed in its first report, and which the BLE surely knows.
What we’re witnessing isn’t just bureaucratic incompetence or the result of outdated laws. This is an act of unrepentant arrogance. As one local restaurant operator remarked of the BLE, “They don’t answer to anybody. They’re running amok.”
Meanwhile, other distributors are scared shitless that they’re next in line. They’re lawyering up and desperately re-checking records to make sure every “i” is dotted.
The good news is that this whole episode might be a tipping point in the whole battle over beer regulation in Pennsylvania. It’s provoked a chorus of outrage online, and the grousing at area bars is deafening. Take away our beer? How dare they!
If this stuff outrages you, complain to the PLCB and write your state legislator now!
Word arrives this afternoon that some bars are having difficulty getting new shipments of Duvel Belgian Golden Ale - certainly one of the biggest selling Belgian ales in America - because the PLCB registration list refers to it only as “Duvel Beer.” In other words, distributors are suddenly gun-shy because of the State Police beer raid… More to come.
Somebody please set this to music:
Today we salute you, Over-Reacting PLCB Agent.
(Mr. Over-Reacting PLCB Agent)
Any state cop can chase speeders all day on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. But it takes real talent to conduct a raid on a bar over a clerical error.
(This is a bust!)
Packing heat and carrying a briefcase, you meticulously double-check beer labels and enforce all that red tape.
(Pliny the Younger? Book him!)
And even though you wouldn’t know a stout from a pilsner, you tirelessly uphold senseless laws from the 1930s, certain that you’re protecting the public welfare.
(Carry Nation lives!)
So crack open an ice-cold Jack Boot Beer, Over-Reacting PLCB Agent, because that’s the closest you’ll get to being a real policeman.
Yesterday’s report about the State Police beer raid drew an incredible amount of response. Last time I checked, my Day 1 story had drawn more than 350 comments.
Here’s the Day 2 report from my colleague, Bob Warner, in which the state’s ranking Republican on the House liquor committee calls it “a ridiculous use of manpower.”
Here’s my latest take on the raid, which echoes some of the observations I shared yesterday - mainly that beer has changed, and the laws haven’t kept up.
I did a live studio interview about it all with NBC10 yesterday afternoon, but I can’t find it online. Maybe somebody’ll send me a link.
Fox29 chimed in here. Note Sgt. William LaTorre suggesting that if his guys confiscated any properly registered beer, it was the PLCB’s fault. He also claims the beer is being kept at “cellar temperature.” And Action News does a spot here, with Sgt. LaTorre basically agreeing that the bars are guilty until they prove themselves innocent.
If you have the time to read, there are some pretty good discussions about the episode at Beer Advocate and Lew Bryson’s NOPLCB and Jack Curtin’s Liquid Diet, especially in this post.
Other bloggers have noticed, including Jay Brooks out in Californy. Here’s the chatter at the Brew Lounge, FooBooz, Philly Speaks/West Philly & /Food & Drink.
You are currently browsing the Beer Radar weblog archives for March, 2010.