Dear Senator Reynolds and Honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee,

I write in my role as Policy Director of New Futures, a nonprofit, non partisan advocacy organization working to reduce underage alcohol problems and increase access to substance use disorder treatment and recovery services, in support of SB 398, as amended by 2010 – 0431s. 

As amended by 2010 – 0431s, SB 398 will reduce the penalty for prohibited sales of alcohol (to minors and intoxicated persons) from a misdemeanor to a violation when the sale occurs during a compliance check.  This reduction in the penalty for a prohibited sale will not apply to a sale made knowingly or intentionally during a compliance check.  Liquor Commission rules define a “compliance check” as a “sting operation (“an attempt by an underage individual, under the supervision of an investigator or other police officer, to purchase alcohol or tobacco products in violation of statute”) carried out throughout a community annually for the purpose of assessing overall compliance.  The term does not include sting operations carried out at particular licensed establishments due to complaints or a history of violations.”  I note that both the original bill and amendment 2010 – 0431 use the phrase “enforcement activity initiated solely for the purpose of verifying noncompliance” rather than the term “compliance check” in order to be consistent with other sections in Title XIII.  The goal of compliance checks is to encourage voluntary compliance with Liquor Commission statutes and rules and to identify licensees who may need to receive additional training. 

New Futures has worked with the NH Lodging and Restaurant Association and the Liquor Commission on Amendment 2010 – 0431s to ensure that the bill as amended does not increase the risk to underage youth or public safety.  The critical factors in New Future’s decision to support SB 398, as amended by 2010 – 0431s are:

• There is no risk to underage youth or public safely from a prohibited sale in the context of a compliance check because the alcohol is sold to a participant in the compliance check and is not consumed; and
• The penalty for a prohibited sale made “knowingly” in the context of a compliance check remains a misdemeanor, as it does for a prohibited sale made in the context of a sting operation. 

In conclusion, I respectfully request that the Committee recommend SB 398 Ought to Pass with Amendment 2010 – 0431s.  Thank you for your attention to this letter.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance to the Committee.