Utah Supreme Court
What evidence satisfies the endangerment requirement under Utah's public intoxication statute? Due South v. DABC Explained
Summary
The DABC found Due South liable for three violations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act following a fatal drunk driving incident and an undercover operation. Due South challenged the definition of ‘intoxication’ and the district court’s trial de novo standard of review.
Analysis
In Due South, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the Utah Supreme Court clarified the endangerment standard required under Utah’s public intoxication statute and established important precedent for liquor license violations.
Background and Facts
The case arose from two incidents at Due South’s private club, Southern X-posure. The first involved a patron who became intoxicated at the club and later caused a fatal drunk driving accident with a blood alcohol level of .22. The second involved an undercover operation where agents observed five patrons who allegedly were allowed to become intoxicated. The DABC found Due South liable for violating Utah Code section 32A-12-216, which prohibits permitting persons to become intoxicated as defined by the public intoxication statute.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issues were whether the “may endanger” element of the public intoxication statute could be satisfied by speculative possibility of harm, whether private clubs qualify as “private places” under the statute, and what standard of review applies to DABC decisions. Due South also challenged the statute as unconstitutionally vague.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court held that the endangerment requirement demands circumstantial evidence of a reasonable likelihood of harm based on specific circumstances, not mere speculation. The court rejected the district court’s finding that speculative possibility sufficed, noting this would “eviscerate the endangerment requirement” and conflate public intoxication with DUI standards. The court also determined that private clubs are “private places” under the statute, requiring the higher “unreasonably disturbs others” standard rather than the “may endanger” standard that applies in public places.
Practice Implications
This decision provides crucial guidance for defending liquor license violations. Practitioners should demand specific factual evidence of endangerment rather than allowing agencies to rely on generic conclusions about intoxication. The ruling also confirms that trial de novo is the proper standard of review for informal DABC proceedings under UAPA, giving defendants a fresh opportunity to contest agency findings in district court.
Case Details
Case Name
Due South v. DABC
Citation
2008 UT 71
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20060971
Date Decided
October 10, 2008
Outcome
Remanded
Holding
The public intoxication statute’s ‘may endanger’ element requires circumstantial evidence of a reasonable likelihood of harm, not speculative possibility, and private clubs qualify as private places under the statute.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law
Practice Tip
When challenging administrative findings under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, argue for trial de novo review rather than deference to agency findings under UAPA procedures.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.