Aziken v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of Smart Aziken's alcoholic beverage license following a shooting death and evidence of recurring criminal activity, underage drinking, controlled-substance use, and other regulatory violations at his nightclub. The court rejected Aziken's due process claims concerning discovery, witness subpoenas, and the testimony of the Police Chief. It also held that the three-member signing panel constituted a quorum and that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings.

Holdings

1. The Board committed no reversible procedural error by proceeding with the hearings while discovery was still being completed or by refusing to require live testimony from Chief Lanier. Aziken showed no actual prejudice, had the opportunity to recall witnesses after receiving discovery, did not recall them, and did not identify testimony Chief Lanier could have added.
2. The final revocation order was valid because three members constituted a quorum under D.C. Code § 25-431(b), and the two members who personally heard all the evidence constituted a majority of the three-member quorum. Therefore, the additional proposed-order notice and argument required by D.C. Code § 2-509(d) did not apply.
3. Substantial evidence supported the Board's findings that Aziken knowingly permitted controlled-substance use, served alcohol to underage customers, and operated under an unapproved name; the revocation order was therefore sustainable.
4. The March 2008 amended order was the final order before the court and cured the omission by incorporating and discussing evidence from the June 12 hearing; the January order was no longer operative.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Board denied Aziken a fair hearing by proceeding before all discovery was completed and by quashing his subpoena for Police Chief Lanier.
2. Whether the Board's final revocation order was invalid because it was signed by only three members and because one signing member had not personally attended every hearing.
3. Whether the Board's findings and license-revocation decision were supported by substantial evidence.
4. Whether the Board's amended March 2008 order was invalid because the initial January order did not mention the June 12 hearing.

Disposition

affirmed