## Facts

- Iris Smith operated a beer tavern in Albia, Iowa, for over twenty years under a state beer permit issued by the Iowa Liquor Control Commission.
- On January 12, 1968, an 18-year-old patron requested two six-packs of beer; a helper/barmaid, Elsie Watts, made the sale after the patron produced identification showing he was under the legal age.
- The patron was arrested shortly after leaving and pled guilty to illegal possession of beer.
- Watts was indicted and, after a jury trial, convicted of selling beer to a minor in violation of Iowa Code § 124.20(3).
- Smith’s existing permit was set to expire March 7, 1968; she sought renewal but withdrew that application on March 4, 1968.
- A new beer permit for Smith was approved by the city council on March 11, effective March 12, 1968.
- On March 22, 1968, the Commission issued an order confirming automatic revocation of Smith’s original beer permit by operation of law based on Watts’s conviction; Smith received the order on March 23.
- Smith asserted Watts was not a regular paid employee but an unpaid helper who worked when Smith’s regular employee was unavailable; Smith denied observing the sale.

## Issues

1. Whether due process requires prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Commission revokes (or confirms automatic revocation of) a beer permit based on a worker’s criminal conviction for selling beer to a minor.
2. Whether the statutory scheme may impose automatic permit revocation on the permittee as a consequence of a sale to a minor committed by a person working in the establishment.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment sustaining the Commission’s revocation.
- The court rejected Smith’s due process challenge and upheld automatic revocation without a pre-revocation administrative hearing.
- The court treated the Commission’s action as implementing a statutory consequence triggered by an established criminal conviction, rather than new agency fact-finding.

## Legal Principles

- A legislature may condition a liquor or beer permit on compliance with alcohol-control laws and may provide for revocation upon specified statutory triggers, including a worker’s conviction for selling to a minor.
- When revocation follows automatically from a criminal conviction establishing the relevant violation, due process does not necessarily require a separate pre-revocation notice-and-hearing procedure before the licensing authority acts.
- In heavily regulated alcohol licensing, a permit may be treated as a conditional privilege subject to summary statutory sanctions, so long as the agency action is tied to an objective statutory trigger rather than unguided discretion.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court upheld the Commission’s confirmation of automatic revocation of a beer permit based on a helper’s conviction for selling beer to a minor, holding that due process did not require prior notice or an administrative hearing where the revocation was a statutory consequence of the criminal adjudication.


Smith v. Liquor Control Comm’n, 169 N.W.2d 803 (Iowa 1969)