.
Feedback

Bar Leucadian to Have Liquor License Suspended Following Undercover Cocaine Sting

The drug was purchased at the bar four times during the investigation.

The Encinitas Sherriff’s Department announced Friday that Bar Leucadian will have its liquor license suspended after undercover investigators bought cocaine at the bar multiple times.

During the four-month-long investigation, cocaine was purchased at Bar Leucadian four times, and both employees and patrons were involved in the sales, according to a news release from the Sherriff’s Department.

The investigation was launched after someone filed a complaint at the Encinitas Sheriff's Station, and the undercover work was funded by the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Grant Assistance Program.

As a penalty, Bar Leucadian will have its liquor license suspended for 45 days, which means during that period the bar cannot sell any alcohol. The news release also states that the owner of the bar has agreed to other conditions that will restrict live entertainment and hours of operation.

The notice of suspension will be posted at Bar Leucadian on Monday at 11 a.m.

LCC PREP June 30, 2012 at 02:22 am
i wonder if there were arrests?
Encinitas resident June 30, 2012 at 05:32 am
WOW, did they ever get their hand tapped!
Ed June 30, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Am I missing something here? If you repeatedly sell narcotics that means you are in possession with the intent to sell, a pusher, so how is a slap on the wrist like pulling the liquor lic for 45 days going to be a resolution or just punishment for the crime? If you have that type of element there do you really think they will even abide by that restriction? If they were bringing coke into the establishment they can certainly bring booze in as well without you seeing it.
No wonder we have issues here. I saw no mention of arrests yet if it was a "sting" they obviously saw the the transactions and therefore have the person/s identifiied. They need to permanently lose the lic. And be jailed period. Let someone who wants to have a legitimate business have the space and bring Encinitas up a notch.
Jay Berman June 30, 2012 at 01:47 pm
This is so wrong on so many levels. The owner would have never let this go on, I know that for a fact. Instead of a 4 month taxpayer funded "investigation" law enforcement should have approached the owner with the info, they should have worked together to eliminate the problem and bust the culprits ... instead they kill off a good business and put good people out of work ... My business is restaurant and bar security, I help my clients deter things like this from happening in their establishments. I know of no owner that would put their license at risk by allowing this. I find this practice abohrant .... Putting businesses at risk by bad or illegal behavior by minimum wage employees ... Bar Leucadian is a good business, they recently did a lot of work inside and painted their entire building pink to raise money and awareness for breast cancer ... these are good people and do not deserve this ..
Robert Paulson June 30, 2012 at 04:03 pm
First music , now alcohol. Not very smart.
molly poppins June 30, 2012 at 05:38 pm
well the owners wife is just a hag... thats all I have to say about that...
Kori J June 30, 2012 at 09:11 pm
Well said! I agree totally!
Jay Berman June 30, 2012 at 11:13 pm
The owner was not selling the drugs .... the owner did his best to keep noise down and be a good neighbor. The place is fully covered with surveillance cameras, I know, I put them there .... how would you like it if you had a business and one of your employees was doing something illegal and YOU lost your business ? This stinks, 4 months .... I never heard of a sting like that ... law enforcement should work with the owners ... not be their adversaries ..
Reina July 2, 2012 at 08:04 pm
Too bad. I loved the Leucadian mainly because of the live music and local casual vibe of true Leucadia, not like the snooty bars popping up everywhere. They will be losing a lot of business without having live music :(.
Joe Ewing July 2, 2012 at 09:39 pm
So does that mean you can't get a drink but you can still buy cocaine?
Jared Kramer July 3, 2012 at 02:33 am
So much for keeping leucadia funky. Isnt this obama's fault somehow?
No really, It's cool, we really need another plastic suburb safe for spoiled kids, fake tits and my Beemer in SoCal. Plus, I should still be able to score coke at the weekly botox party the divorcee across the street hosts. So, no big loss I guess. We can all just stay Locked up in our houses listening to the oriely factor, get schloked alone, and scream our collective outrage along with fox news. Just saying, there's a difference between a neighborhood bar with bad employees and a "community problem"- turning into a bunch of del mar wankers around here.
Jenny Leucadia July 3, 2012 at 08:47 am
I didnt even know people still did cocaine.............
Michelle Smada July 3, 2012 at 08:05 pm
Ditto!!!
Wakeup Hello July 5, 2012 at 07:29 pm
Let's all blame the cops for doing their job. Not the cokeheads or the bar who allowed to continue. Give me a damn break. If you run a bar...you know what's going down in your bar. Go cry yourself over to the Saloon if you want a cokefest...I'm sure they have NO IDEA what's going on over there either, right?
Wakeup Hello July 5, 2012 at 07:31 pm
this*
Jay Berman July 6, 2012 at 01:07 pm
Ever own a business ? Do you think the bartender did this in the open or would you think they tried to hide what they were doing ? Do you think the owner of a business with an expensive and rare liquor license at risk condoned this ? I know this owner, I sold them a very sophisticated camera system in which they actively used. I think someone wants that land, someone with a lot of money and pull ... just a theory ...
Would you put your business and assets in the hands of a minimum wage bartender ? That's what our laws require, it should be changed. When the cops found out about the sales, they should investigate and contact the owner to put an end to it and arrest the employees involved, not enough money for the government hacks for that ...
Gigi Fomen July 9, 2012 at 02:44 am
I hate to say it folks but the bar is a nuisence to the neighborhood and everyone in a two block radius who is trying to sleep when the slobbering drunks go staggering to their car at the end of the night. We have empty bottles and cans, broken glass and trash, and I cannot tell you how many times I have seen their patrons wiz in plain sight on the side street by our house. So sad, too bad, wish the liquor ban was permanant.
Jay Berman July 9, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Gigi, Bar has been there a very long time, in a commercial district. Law enforcement should have worked with them to fix the problems, not against them. How can you be so sure your neighborhood problems are due to just the Leucadian ? I sure hope no one comes after your business or livelihood ..
Clevit July 11, 2012 at 09:59 pm
Jay,
I admire your defense of your client, but a good bar owner, or the owner of a good neighborhood bar would've known this was going on. I've been a bartender at neighborhood bars in several different cities around the country. In every case, the regulars and trusted customers would have picked up on the problem and warned the owners. If a bar owner doesn't have that level of control, or that type of relationship with theircustomers, you're not running a neighborhood bar, they're merely running a liquor store.
Jay Berman July 12, 2012 at 03:30 am
Sorry, I don't agree with you .... I've been involved with bars and restaurants for many years ... your assertion that regulars would let the owner know is well and good but never an absolute. I can go into a bar and pretty much pick out the druggies, not everyone can and even if you do, you can't throw someone out without proof in our lawsuit happy society here in CA ... Someone powerful was out to close this bar .. I can't think of any other reason there would be a 4 month investigation .. when the incident was reported to law enforcement, they should have investigated to see if the owner may be involved, if not, they should work with the owner to correct the problem NOT STEAL HIS BUSINESS AND LIVELIHOOD ... This is government out of control pure and simple ... Bartender can sell the dope in the bathroom ... they are not stupid, they will hide what they are doing .. trusting your business to a minimum wage employee .... your livelihood ... just wrong ... I will continue to help my clients with my cameras but I don't know how to teach them how to detect drug activity, that is law enforcement's responsibilty ...
Clevit July 14, 2012 at 08:22 pm
Thanks for the civil response Jay, I'll try to be as gracious. I think many readers here could spend some time in a bar and pick out the druggies, which is exactly my point. Having worked in a bar, you certainly know that it's essential to keep a close eye on the till and the pours, otherwise you can lose lots of money.
Apparently someone tipped off law enforcement, and I presume that the owner was at one time a suspect himself/herself. It's entirely plausible that the owner was simply disconnected from the business, and unwittingly allowed things to go on (for many months) purely out of neglect. To me that qualifies this as a badly run neighborhood bar that should perhaps be closed or sold to someone who can pay closer attention. Whether or not this represents some Establishment vendetta against the owner and bar is now utterly irrelevant. We're not talking about noise or parking violations, we're talking about narcotics sales. It's not much of a leap to imagine physical violence would follow close on the heels of this situation had it been allowed to persist. It's a shame to see a local business hurt, but these injuries seem pretty much self-inflicted to me.
Jay Berman July 17, 2012 at 07:59 pm
Clevit - you are wrong .... You don't know, you are just making assumptions. The place is open 16 hours a day, it is impossible to monitor every action of an employee .. What do you do, follow them into the bathroom ? You have to trust your employees ... having to trust your assets and livelihood to a minimum wage worker is wrong. I'll say it again, when law enforcement saw the owner was not involved, they should have contacted him, advised him and arrested the employee. Law enforcement should work with business owners to more easily detect things like this. These owners pay taxes ... all this did was put more peoiple out of work and cut the taxes paid to the county because the place isn't making money ... it is a lose/lose to all parties ... the cops should have NEVER let this go months, they should have arrested the dealer right then and there and be done with it ..
Boon ski July 22, 2012 at 06:02 pm
I totally agree with Jay. It's easy to say revoke the license permanently when your an old miserable asshole. That Bar has been there a long time so I don't feel sorry for the neighbors cause the bar was there before they were. The same people trying to pass the law to close all bars at 12:00 am are probably the same people if any that have an agenda w the Leucadian. Not everyone in Encinitas eats super at 4:00 pm and goes to church 4 times a week. Every patron I've met there were great people, never seen an altercation of any sort or a drug not even pot. But I have seen all of that at the yuppy bar Union.
oldtimeleucadian July 24, 2012 at 12:02 am
I hope this is a permanent ban. The Leucadian hasn't always been a problem bar. It used to be just a nice local bar where you could play shuffle boare, some pool, and walk home. Then the crowds, the bkers, the drugs, and the loud music took it over. It is no longer a "good neighbor". The quiet has finally been restored to the local neighborhood. No more obnoxious drunks, no more outrageous loud music, No more A hole Harley riders lighting up the Vance HIndes at 1:30 A.M. I've been a good neighbor to the Leucadian for 53 years. They are just no longer a good neighbor to me anymore. Time to close the doors permanently.
Jay Berman July 24, 2012 at 11:34 pm
What bugs the crap out of me is that the cops let this go on for 4 months, making 4 buys instead of making sure the owner had nothing to do with it and busting the bar tender the first time .. someone wants the Leucadian closed, maybe someone wants that property .. it really sucks, I know the extent that owner went to to secure his bar .. I sold him the equipment ... really pisses me off ...
Jay Berman July 24, 2012 at 11:36 pm
The cops should have done their job at night and busted the trouble makers instead of a 4 month "investigation" .. Shutting it down makes it easier on the cops so they don't have to do their jobs ...
Encinitas_m March 2, 2013 at 09:27 am
Loss of a great hang out. I spent many nights there, met some fun people, bar tenders were great, locals fun, and loved the diverse crowd on different nights. It had something for everyone, who likes to wear flip flops and just chill. I lived in that city for over 6 years and went there from day 1, I never was approached or sold drugs from anyone there, but with so many people doing drugs these days, they find a way to sell it anywhere.. I think most bars bars around encinitas in general are a place for dealers to hang out and sell from what I hear..... but I know it's just basically just a bartender issue, they are the life or the party, and keep the party flowing... even after hours when the doors shut.
Jay Berman March 3, 2013 at 08:26 pm
Marty was screwed and abused by his own government ... this is what we have to deal with, an out of control and corrupt government ... someone wanted that building ... do what it takes to get them out .... so sad ....

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Encinitas Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Vicki Campbell June 17, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Prop A will help residents and stop greedy developers from buying city council. Vote YES
Rick Moore June 18, 2013 at 09:27 am
I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation that folks read the initiative. When you readRead More sections 6 and 9, you will see that Prop A sets a 30-foot or 2-story ceiling across the entire city, overriding lower height limits in many areas. The Downtown Specific Plan limits residences to 22-26 feet, as detailed on the DEMA website, so Prop A would actually allow the building of taller homes. It makes no exemptions or allowances for historic buildings like La Paloma, church towers or other structures over 30 feet high; the only exceptions are medical complexes and public high schools (see clause 6.2). Rebuilding or renovating (more than 50%) would require expensive public votes. Should the SRF be required to pay for an election to rebuild the Lotus Tower? Such contingencies are allowed for in our Historic Overlay Zone, which would clearly be overridden by Prop A. So is the Encinitas Preservation Association's plan to convert one of the boathouses to a museum. Again, Prop A would require an election (see section 4.1, clause e), which the EPA cannot afford. Prop A would thus favor large developers who have the money, time, lawyers and other resources to campaign for their project. How many nonprofits and small businessmen can afford to spend a minimum $30,000 just to get their project on a general election ballot (upwards of $300,000 for a special election like this one)? Yes, folks, please read the initiative, especially Section 9, which lays waste to anything that conflicts with it. That's why this has been dubbed Propzilla. I trust that most Encinitas citizens are smart enough to see that this meausre is deeply flawed, problematic and counter-productive. We can find much better ways to limit growth and preserve community character.
BlueAngel2 June 18, 2013 at 10:20 am
SAVE ENCINITAS FROM RANCID DEVELOPERS. VOTE YES ON PROP A!
BlueAngel2 June 15, 2013 at 09:47 pm
It would NOT surprise me. I thought we dumped Stocks. Why is he still around?
Encinitas YES on A June 16, 2013 at 02:44 pm
My YES on Prop. A sign was stolen yesterday. Other YES on Prop. A signs are disappearing. YetRead More another deceptive and untruthful mailer from the opponents of Prop. A was in my mail box. There's a shrillness and desperation in their opposition. They can't rely on facts and fair play. Polling data not looking good?
BlueAngel2 June 16, 2013 at 03:17 pm
YES ON PROP A will be victorious!
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
It just goes to show if Stocks or any of his puppets are involved, you will not hear the truth aboutRead More this proposition. They continue to confuse the issue. Please do not throw your vote away to ruin our city and enhance the developer's pockets who do not care what they do to our beautiful Encinitas. Vote YES on PROP A!
TB-ENC June 7, 2013 at 02:01 pm
How is this not a racist group with Hispanics in California at 14 million second behind whites atRead More 14.8 million. We only need one chamber to represent all Californians.
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 02:09 pm
So any group other than white is a racist group?
Miranda Klassen June 5, 2013 at 10:39 am
Congrats to all on the groundbreaking. Reesey has done an incredible job with making Lux what it isRead More today!
BlueAngel2 June 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
Vote YES on PROP A! The City Council is not experienced in real estate, zoning, construction orRead More development to make decisions for us.
CardiffCreature June 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Prop A will not control growth. It will make sure that BOTH the council and the public get toRead More directly weigh in on the deals being brokered between big developers and the city. This won't end the indirect developer subsidies, but it sure will help.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:26 am
Yes, it will help to slow growth, by making sure that the public approves raising height limits orRead More upzoning, for developments over the parameters of a MAXIMUM of 30 ft. and two stories. Lower set height limits will not be repealed, because they are not in conflict with the initiative or the General Plan. David Ahlgren's fear and speculation is not backed up by one single fact. He just raises the usual building industry "mantra" of alleged risks created by unnamed "unintended consequences." Council's attempt at a preemptive ordinance does NOT guarantee that will be placed on the ballot in 2014, and does NOT eliminate other loopholes such as the "less-than-5-acre" exception, the "categorization of intensity of use" exception, and the height limit exception. The only loophole that Council's drafted ordinance affects is Council's ability to vote by a 4/5 supermajority on upzoing if it is done with respect to a "significant public benefit." Not only is Council's recently drafted ordinance NOT guaranteed, in that a future Council could reverse it, if it is not enacted through a public vote, but also Council's attempt at preempting the "right to vote on upzoning and raising height limits initiative" DOESN"T eliminate the other loopholes that still exist in our General Plan, Policy 3.12., which exceptions I've spelled out, here.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:37 am
An initiative to Prop A has worked in Escondido, without any lawsuits. "In the 26-yearRead More history of Encinitas, no council has ever used this provision to approve a major project without first a vote of the people." That's completely untrue. The North 101 and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plans were pushed through by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission and a supermajority of past Council AGAINST the wishes of citizens, against years of feedback from Specific Action Review Committees (Sparc)s and Community Advisory Boards (CABs), who wanted to stay with the limits of the General Plan of two stories, 30 ft, MAX, with certain exceptions, consistent with the Initiative! Just posting your opinion without any supporting evidence, Mr. Stocks, is only hurting your "cause." We and everyone we know, all our friends and neighbors, are voting YES on A! Voting YES is best if you want to take back your ability to help slow growth and to take back local control. Yes on A is a vote for Democracy and against insider influence and spinmaster jive promoted by marketing masters of misinformation, attempting to manipulate the uninformed masses with distortions of the truth. We don't need to be spoon-fed our opinions, but can think for ourselves, and act to protect and preserve our community character and our quality of life.
Greg Hay June 6, 2013 at 07:19 pm
Lies, lies and more lies. That's all the supporters of "No on Prop A" can come up with.Read More Even their slogan is weak and devoid of anything of substance… "It's not what it seems"… Really, THAT'S your argument against it?
BlueAngel2 June 6, 2013 at 07:22 pm
YES on PROP A which is NOT deeply flawed and very well written.