ILNews

Crack open a lukewarm one: Indiana's quirky rules about beer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana law allows someone to walk out of a convenience store and crack open a beer purchased there, but it can't be a cold one.

Decades-old rules, closely guarded by elected officials who receive generous donations from the liquor store lobby, strictly manage who can sell "iced or cooled" beer for carryout.

It's a right granted to package liquor stores and restaurants but denied gas stations and convenience stores — that is, until one gas station owner discovered a loophole. He installed seating and served burritos, landing a restaurant classification and the right to sell cold beer.

The maneuver has ignited a fierce legislative battle, with some of the state's most powerful lawmakers scrambling to pass legislation to close the loophole, underscoring the liquor lobby's clout.

"It's crazy," said Jay Ricker, who created the uproar by serving Mexican fare and securing the proper alcohol permits at two of his Ricker's stores. "It points out the absurdity of the current regulations."

Liquor stores say they are protecting what's theirs, with store permits auctioning for as much as $500,000. But their influence extends beyond preserving cold beer rights. They played a major role in torpedoing a 2015 effort to repeal a Prohibition-era ban on Sunday alcohol sales, arguing it would unfairly benefit grocery stores.

An Associated Press review found liquor store interests have spent at least $150,000 on lobbying in recent years while donating more than $750,000 to lawmakers since 2010.

Operators of three prominent liquor stores were also poised to benefit financially from a stringent vaping industry law that lawmakers approved last year, records show. The law, it was later discovered, effectively created a monopoly for a handful of politically connected companies and sparked an FBI investigation.

"Our owners, many multigenerational, are active and engaged in their communities and have personal relationships with their neighbors who happen to be citizen legislators and community leaders," the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers said in a statement to the AP.

Most liquor store contributions went to a handful of key lawmakers, including Republican Sen. Ron Alting, who leads a committee overseeing alcohol matters, GOP House Speaker Brian Bosma and Republican Senate leader David Long. Since 2010, they have collectively received more than $226,000 from liquor store interests, records show.

"This isn't about protecting any lobbying interest, although it's being depicted that way," said Bosma, who voiced concern that Ricker's could also sell hard liquor with their restaurant permits. "This is about who makes decisions about how you sell a controlled substance."

Jim James, who did not respond to a request for comment, is president of Indianapolis-based 21st Amendment liquor stores and has donated $16,000 to Alting in recent years. After trying unsuccessfully since 2011 to get the permit revoked of a competitor with a gourmet wine and cheese store, Alting took up James' cause last month.

Alting made changes to a bill likely making it impossible for the store to renew its permit. The provision was later removed after an outpouring of opposition, but not before Alting singled-out the store, Grapevine Cottage, for using a comparatively inexpensive grocery store permit to sell wine.

"You want to get into business?" Alting said. "Go buy a package liquor store permit."

When asked about liquor store owners' influence on Monday, Alting said he "goofed" by including the provision and argued the perception that "these big powerful lobbyists from the package liquor store" have undue clout is incorrect.

Last summer, Alting was among a handful of lawmakers interviewed by the FBI in connection with an investigation of the state's vaping law.

John McCullough, whose family owns Evansville's Frontier Liquors and has donated more than $31,000 to lawmakers since 2010, owns another company that is among six approved to produce the nicotine-laced "e-liquid" sold in the state. He did not respond to a request for comment.

Another owner, Jon Sinder of Indianapolis' Crown Liquors, filed a lengthy court brief defending the monopoly on behalf of a vaping company with which he had done business. The lawsuit eventually led to much of the law being struck down. Sinder, whose companies have given $53,000 to lawmakers since 2010, declined to comment.

David P. Lorey, an incorporator of the Dearborn Liquor Group which operates Whitey's Liquor stores in Lawrenceburg, was also selected to manufacture through his company Cloudtown, records show. He could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Alting elaborated on his ties to the alcohol industry during a contentious March hearing on a bill Budweiser distributors opposed, arguing they had been shut out of behind-the-scenes negotiations.

"I'm a little offended that the fact that it sounds like I was running a closed-door mafia meeting," Alting said, adding that he "would do nothing to my Budweiser friends that I thought purposely was going to hurt them."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT