Molina went to Fuzzy’s Taco Shop in Lake Worth on Nov. 21, 2021. Richardson served Molina eight drinks containing a double serving of vodka, starting around 10:30 that morning. There was less than a half an hour between drinks., though Richardson said that she was not aware that Molina drank all of the drinks himself.
Yet, the police insist that Richardson should have known because “After his 7th drink was served at approximately 1254 hours, Molina begins to exhibit common signs of intoxication that included approaching individuals at the bar with a loose, belligerent body posture and hugging and/or touching a customer at the bar that Molina did not appear to be acquainted with.”
Molina was served his last drink at 1:12 p.m. and started driving at around 1:30 p.m. Three minutes later, Molina had crashed his Jeep into the Cervantes’ car.
Notably, the observational evidence cited in the criminal complaint occurred after the seventh drink. Only one drink was served to Molina after that point.
It is clear that Molina should not have been served the final drink. Indeed, he should not have been served this high number of drinks in such a short period. Bartenders often complain that the Dram Shop laws expect them to monitor individual customers in what are often busy and crowded bars.
If this were a conventional torts case, there would be little controversy. The question is whether these cases should be criminalized and whether the death of a detective was the impetus in making this a criminal matter. Richardson is charged with one misdemeanor count of Sale to Certain Persons. This is a criminal negligence provision under Section 101.63: “A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence sells an alcoholic beverage to an habitual drunkard or an intoxicated or insane person.”
The police acknowledged that Richardson might not have known that Molina was drunk but that her training for a license to serve alcohol, includes “recognizing signs of intoxication and the prohibiting of serving intoxicated individuals.” Thus, she should have had “reasonable knowledge of (6) to (8) double alcoholic drinks over a (2)hr (50)min timespan, with only (16)-(29) minutes in between each alcoholic beverage would precipitate the intoxication of an individual.”
One added factor is that Richardson not only overserved Molina but her server’s license was reportedly expired at the time of the incident. Yet, the underlying criminal negligence crime in this case does not refer to serving without an active license as an element for this crime. It could be an aggravating factor in sentencing.
The question is whether this should remain a civil matter or whether it is justified to potentially jail Richardson for up to 1 year. I generally disfavor the criminal negligence charges because they blur the lines between civil and criminal conduct. Yet, the tragic loss of this officer (and the terrible injuries caused to his family) understandably militate in favor of more serious action. The question is where the line is drawn in the enforcement of the criminal negligence standard. It is admittedly a tough call in cases like this one with such a terrible loss and injuries.
What do you think?