SLO McLintocks’ temporarily closes over liquor license suspension

February 4, 2023


F. McLintocks’ Saloon and Dining House in downtown San Luis Obispo has temporarily closed after the state of California suspended its liquor license. 

McLintocks’ closed its bar and restaurant on Higuera Street, rather than operating without alcohol. It will stay closed from Jan. 19 through Feb. 17.

California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control suspended McLintocks’ license for multiple violations stemming from an incident in which employees assaulted a patron, Bryce Avalos, a communications analyst for the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control told the Tribune.

In Oct. 2021, employees assaulted a patron, resulting in serious bodily injury. After the assault, multiple employees committed additional violations, including obstructing officers attempting to investigate and preventing the apprehension of suspects, Avalos told the Tribune. 

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The term “employees committed additional violations, including obstructing officers attempting to investigate” is usually copsplaining for the subject is not cooperating, and will not assist us with our investigation because they are declining to talk to us. Cops who say it is a violation are at best, poorly trained or stupid, or far worse, corrupt and lying to get someone to talk to them. (Stupid and corrupt are often indistinguishable. –paraphrased from Dietrich Bonhoeffer)


The employees are under no obligation to “assist” cops in this manner, and it is not a “violation”. I think this is an extremely prudent action on the part of the employees, especially since they are being questioned about an alleged assault. Cops are not obligated to warn you about the implications of what you might say until you are in a “custodial interrogation” [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)], so you don’t get the Miranda warning at the beginning of a consensual conversation.

Hopefully most everyone has heard the portion of the Miranda warning which says “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” This means exactly what it says. It does not say “Anything you say can and will be used in your defense…” because any statement your make cannot be used to benefit you. Any defense you offer a cop is hearsay, and not admissible. However, anything you tell a cop which is detrimental to you IS admissible. I think lawyers call such a statement a “statement against interest”. Therefore, EVERYTHING you say to a cop is inadmissible unless it is harmful and damaging to you. The obvious conclusion is, DO NOT TALK TO COPS!!

You are confusing criminal code with business code. Under criminal law, employees have no legal obligation to talk to police, but ABC is free to use criteria outside of criminal law to determine who can get and keep a liquor license. The violation is that of ABC requirements, not of criminal law.

Maybe. I don’t know about the ABC. What you say may be true, but it shouldn’t be. The constitution is the supreme document (when we bother to dust it off and read it). It protects EVERYONE from EVERY government agency and EVERY public servant (or at least that is what the founding fathers intended). I don’t think it says anywhere that it applies to every government agency except ABC.


However, it might appear otherwise. A rogue agency (or a rogue communications analyst) could blackmail citizens into “cooperation” by threatening

to withhold authorization for said citizen to earn a living. Agencies and

public servants do this all the time. This problem is currently being battled

by public interest law firms, civil rights attorneys, and activists on many

fronts. I think they are winning by attrition, but it is a very slow war due to

monumental resistance by the law enforcement complex (up to and sometimes including thesupreme court).


Thanks for your reply.

If they quit serving water there may be less to fight over.

It sounds like Bull’s Tavern back in the 80s/ early 90s.

McClintocks might have a serious problem here and is likely going to face a significant lawsuit, if the most likely scenario is what’s playing out.

Odds are some guy got drunk after drinking too much, caused a problem and ended up getting his a$& kicked by either a bouncer or bartender plus whichever other employee joined in. The cops were called and the employees refused to cooperate to such a degree that SLOPD referred the thing to ABC.

The drunk and now victim is going to be able to argue that not only was he assaulted but the entire incident is their fault because they over served him and legally, assuming he was sold alcohol there, is going to have a solid case. This has to be pretty egregious for SLOPD to take these steps. After all, they are mostly there to protect downtown property and businesses. Especially a legacy business like McClintocks. Who, by the way, have the sneaky best breakfast in town. Is up there with Bon Temps

Take it to a jury trial (if their insurance company will play along).

So I agree with “rellim,” I don’t tink the person assaulted was an ABC employee. But rather it was Bryce Avalos who gave the official statement to the Tribune. That being said, I didn’t realize the ABC could pull your license for assault. Perhaps the assault was alcohol related somehow? I guess i should read-up on what exactly the ABC enforces when you have a liquor license. I’ve been to some pretty rowdy clubs in my life, and if a simple assault causes a suspension; some o these clubs sould ave lost their license altogether years ago.

It feels like there is more to this story. Why would employees assault a patron and is it just a coincidence the patron was an ABC employee? It’s never okay to assault anyone but this doesn’t pass the smell test.

I wonder if there would had been a license suspension if the assault would have involved a non-ABC employee?

I don’t think the person assaulted was an ABC employee; I think the awkward wording of the sentence makes it sound like Mr. Avalos was the one assaulted, when it was just him being quoted for the article.

Maybe someone at CCN can clarify for us readers if the person assaulted was Mr. Avalos or if it was someone else.

I wonder if perhaps the desk jockey from the ABC was possibly flexing some illegitimate official muscle as a patron of the establishment in order to impress someone and had a bit of a backfire?

Eats shoots and leaves. Or is it eats, shoots and leaves? There is a significant difference.

The ABC employee works in their communications department. His role in this is merely to relay the reason for the suspension. The wording is a bit confusing