DC Alcohol Server study materials
DC Alcohol Server study resources

The Handoff

DC Alcohol Server · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

The Handoff

You are the ABC Manager of a 90-seat restaurant with a patio that faces the public sidewalk. On Saturday at 10:15 p.m., a 24-year-old man, T, buys two bottles of beer at the bar, walks out to the patio, and passes one bottle through the railing to a 17-year-old standing on the sidewalk.

Twenty minutes later you see T at a table with two young women. A pitcher of beer is on the table and one of the women, J, is drinking from a glass. She has no wristband, and house policy is that every guest 21 or older gets one at the door. When you ask J for ID, she says it is in the car and that T is her brother. T says, 'That's my pitcher, that's my drink - she's not drinking anything.' The restaurant's practice is that guests order at the bar rather than from a server. The sidewalk minor is still outside, holding the bottle, and there is no staff member assigned to the patio rail.

1. Which rules are implicated here, and who is exposed?

Read the worked answer
  • Furnishing alcohol to a minor. T handed a bottle to a 17-year-old. That is a violation for T whether or not money changed hands, and it is a reminder that 'furnish' and 'sell' are not the same word.
  • Permitting a minor to consume on the premises. J is drinking from T's pitcher inside your licensed space, with no wristband and no ID.
  • The handoff through the rail. The licensee's control extends to areas used by its patrons. A beer bought at your bar and passed over your rail is a foreseeable extension of your operation, and 'it happened on the sidewalk' is not the clean defense it sounds like.
  • Pitcher service with no proof of age. Nobody verified J, and nobody verified the second woman either.
  • 'It's my drink.' Not a defense. The licensee is responsible for what is happening at its tables and cannot outsource compliance to a customer's claim of ownership.

Exposure: the license and the ABC Manager, the bartender who sold the pitcher, T criminally, and J for minor in possession.

2. What do you do in the next five minutes? Give the sequence.

Read the worked answer
  1. Remove the alcohol first, talk second. Take the glass from J's hand and the pitcher off the table. Tell them what is happening; do not ask permission.
  2. ID both women. No wristband and no ID means no drink. If either produces a valid ID, the wristband goes on now, not later.
  3. Ask J to leave, and walk her out. Do not let her wait for T on your patio, where she will simply be handed another drink.
  4. Recover the bottle outside if you can do it safely. Do not chase and do not grab. If the sidewalk minor refuses, call MPD with a description.
  5. Close T's tab. He is done for the night. Say why once, briefly, and do not negotiate.
  6. Call the owner or GM per house policy, and call MPD if T will not leave.
  7. Write the log before you leave: times, names, what was served, who served it, what you removed, whether police were called.

3. What operational changes would actually have stopped this, as opposed to just documenting it?

Read the worked answer

Documentation is what you do after; these are what you do instead.

  • Wristbands that mean something. Applied at the door, checked at the bar, and checked again on the patio. A wristband nobody verifies is a bracelet.
  • Table service with a per-person rule. No pitcher goes to a table until every glass being poured has an ID behind it. Pitchers are the single easiest way to serve a minor without meaning to.
  • Physical control of the rail. One way onto the patio, planters or a raised barrier that makes a pass-through impossible, and a staff member assigned to that edge during busy hours. A sign on the rail is not a control; a person or a barrier is.
  • Train the sentence out of your staff's vocabulary. 'He bought it, it's his' is the exact reasoning that produces this violation, and every server should hear that in training.
  • Camera coverage of the patio and rail, reviewed after incidents, so the next handoff is provable rather than arguable.