Request By:
Hon. John Marion Williams
Commonwealth's Attorney
32nd Judicial Circuit
P.O. Box 491
Catlettsburg, Kentucky 41129
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Reid C. James, Assistant Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of March 27, 1979, in which you raise the question as to the legality of a bottle club operation in local option territory.
You are correct in presuming that a private club where each member purchases and stores his own bottle of liquor for his personal use on the premises is legal. Mere possession of alcoholic beverages in dry territory is not a violation of the local option laws. See
Commonwealth v. Trousdale, Ky., 181 S.W.2d 254 (1944);
Settles v. Commonwealth, Ky., 171 S.W.2d 999 (1943). However, one should be very careful not to violate any of the provisions of KRS 242.230, which read as follows:
(1) No person in dry territory shall sell, barter, loan, give, procure for or furnish another, or keep or transport for sale, barter or loan, directly or indirectly, any alcoholic beverage.
(2) No person shall possess any alcoholic beverage unless it has been lawfully acquired and is intended to be used lawfully, * * *.
The possession of alcoholic beverages for personal use must be purchased in wet territory and transported by the person who intends to use it, KRS 242.230(2). The statute prohibits the procuring for another or furnishing another alcoholic beverages in local option territory. Therefore any messenger or delivery service used to acquire alcoholic beverages to be transported into dry territory would be in direct violation of KRS 242.230, regardless of whose money was used to purchase the beverages and regardless of ownership.
Commonwealth v. Trousdale, Ky., 181 S.W.2d 254 (1944).
Enclosed is the requested copy of OAG 63-945. Also enclosed is a copy of OAG 32-719 which may be helpful. If we may be of further assistance in this or in any other matter, please feel free to call on us.