Bill
SB 2845
Requires suspension or revocation of on-premises alcohol permits after a sequence of violent deaths at a venue, aiming to curb repeat violence; died in committee.
Title: Alcoholic beverages; require permit suspension or revocation after a sequence of violent deaths on bar or restaurant premises
Status: Died in Committee
Introduced: March 14, 2025
Primary Sponsors: Shimabukuro; Kidani; Wakai; Moriwaki; San Buenaventura; Chang; Fevella
Related/Companion Bill: HB 1810 (companion)
Note on chronology: the available legislative-action record includes multiple entries from 2024 and 2025 that appear inconsistent. This summary relies on the bill title, sponsor list, related bill information, and the recorded final status (Died In Committee). For definitive legislative text or precise procedural history, consult the official legislative website or bill text repository.
Purpose and intent
- The bill’s stated objective (from its title) was to create a mandatory administrative consequence—suspension or revocation of an alcoholic beverage permit—when a bar or restaurant premises is the scene of a "sequence of violent deaths." The intent appears to be to hold on‑premises alcohol permit holders accountable for repeated incidents of lethal violence on their premises and to use permit discipline as a public‑safety tool.
Key provisions (inferred from title; full text was not provided)
- Mandatory action: Require the relevant licensing authority to suspend or revoke an alcoholic beverage permit when a prescribed factual trigger is met — specifically, when there has been a “sequence of violent deaths” at the licensed premises.
- Definitions and triggers (likely but not available): The bill title implies the concept of a “sequence” (multiple deaths within some period or connected by circumstance). The bill would need to define:
- What qualifies as a “violent death” (homicide, felony assault resulting in death, etc.).
- How many deaths, and within what timeframe, constitute a “sequence.”
- Enforcement process: The bill would likely set out procedures for notification, investigation, and administrative hearings prior to final suspension/revocation, and may specify emergency suspension authority.
- Due process and appeals: Typical alcohol‑licensing legislation includes rights of the permit holder to a hearing and administrative/judicial appeals; whether SB 2845 preserved these rights is unknown from the title alone.
- Scope and exemptions: The bill may have addressed whether revocation/suspension applies regardless of the permit holder’s direct culpability (e.g., criminal responsibility) or only when certain regulatory violations (security failures, over‑service, illegal activity) are shown.
Who would be affected
- Licensees: Owners and operators of bars, restaurants, and other establishments with on‑premises alcohol permits would be directly affected; the bill increases regulatory risk for venues where violent deaths occur.
- Employees and patrons: An abrupt suspension or revocation could lead to job loss, business closure, and disruption for patrons and employees.
- Regulators and law enforcement: State or local alcohol control agencies and law enforcement would have a new or clarified enforcement obligation to investigate incidents and recommend or impose permit discipline.
- Local communities and businesses: Potential economic impacts for neighborhoods with affected venues; potential public‑safety benefits if policy reduces repeat lethal incidents.
Procedural and timeline aspects
- Introduced: March 14, 2025 (as recorded).
- Referred to committee(s): The bill was referred to committee for consideration (finance noted among referrals in the record).
- Final disposition: The available record states the bill "Died In Committee" (recommitted to committee on Feb 12, 2025 is recorded, though dates in the record are inconsistent). The bill did not advance to enactment in this legislative session.
Implications and considerations
- Public safety vs. fairness: Supporters would argue the measure strengthens public‑safety accountability for establishments where lethal violence recurs. Opponents might raise concerns about imposing severe license penalties when deaths may be beyond a proprietor’s control, potential due‑process shortcomings, chilling effects on business, and the need for clear, objective standards (e.g., number/timing of deaths, causation standards).
- Drafting details matter: The legal fairness and practical effects of such a law would depend heavily on definitions (what counts as a violent death), causation standards (liability vs. mere occurrence), procedural protections, and whether any mitigating actions (e.g., security upgrades) could prevent discipline.
Next steps for readers
- To evaluate the precise legal change, consult the full bill text and any committee reports or fiscal notes.
- Track companion HB 1810 for parallel activity or differing language.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
