The Safety and Licensing Committee met 08/27/2025. The most time-consuming item on the agenda was the alcohol license revocation hearing for Mr. Frogs on College Avenue, Vanessa Alvarado, agent.
At least 20 incidents have taken place in and around Mr. Frogs since Mr. Frogs first opened in September of 2024, five of which have resulted in demerit points being assessed against the alcohol license of the business. Since September of 2024, Mr. Frogs has accumulated at least 265 demerit points, 135 of which were assessed in July of 2025. Appleton’s Municipal Code requires that a retail alcohol license be revoked when the licensee accumulates 200 or more demerit points in a 36-month period.
Assistant City Attorney Zak Buruin, arguing on behalf of the complainant, Lieutenant Megan Cash, argued there were two main reasons to revoke Mr. Frog’s alcohol license. (1) The business had accumulated at least 265 demerit points in less than a 12-month period, well above the threshold of 200 demerit points within 36 months at which the city’s Municipal Code requires license revocation. (2) Separate from the number of demerit points, the number of types of incidents associated with Mr. Frogs qualified the business as a disorderly or riotous house, and Wisconsin State Statue 125.12(2) allowed the revocation or suspension of a business’s license when they are considered to be such a business.
Initially, Ms. Alvarado’s attorney, John Miller Carroll, asked the committee to adjourn the hearing until next month, but they declined to do that and instead went ahead with the hearing that day. Mr. Carroll argued that most of the incidents in question had happened outside of Mr. Frogs and were attributable to third parties, not Mr. Frogs. He did not believe that the issues rose to a level that would allow Mr. Frogs to be categorized as a riotous house. He asked the committee to consider a less severe sanction such as a suspension rather than revoking the license.
The committee went into closed session for around 20 minutes, then, when they emerged from closed session, ended up voting 5-0 to recommend the license be revoked on the basis both of the 265 accumulated demerit points as well as their finding of fact that the business was a disorderly house.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
Before I get into the recap of the discussion, I’m going to provide an overview of the multiple incidents that are mentioned in the complaint. 5 of those incidents results in demerit points being assessed against Mr. Frogs’ license and the other incidents are provided as evidence of the argument that Mr. Frogs is a disorderly or riotous house.
09/15/2024 (45 Demerits) – A fight broke out inside Mr. Frogs and spilled out the back into the St’ Joseph’s parking lot
09/21/2024 – Two female patrons got into a fight with each other inside Mr. Frogs.
09/22/2024 – Two women got into a fight with each other outside of Mr. Frogs.
11/02/2024 – A woman was choked by the father of her child when they were in Mr. Frogs.
11/03/2024 – A patron and a security guard engaged in a pushing match in the entrance way to Mr. Frogs. One of the people involved said he observed a physical disturbance inside the bar and then exited. Once the disturbance was over, he tried to enter the bar again and was denied entry by the security guard.
11/08/2024 (80 Demerits) – An underaged person gained entry to Mr. Frogs after previously being turned away at the doors of two separate bars. [For what it’s worth, the bouncer working then was Steven Wells who was also the bouncer who had previously worked at Speakeasy Ultra Lounge in 2023 and been one of the parties responsible for an incident that resulted in a 145 demerit point assessment against that business.]
11/10/2024 – Two people got into an altercation outside of Mr. Frogs.
12/13/2024 – A female patron caused a disturbance inside Mr. Frogs and was ejected. She then destroyed some of Mr. Frogs property. She was found to have drugs on her.
12/22/2024 – A Mr. Frogs patron had a warrant out for his arrest. Police arrested him while he was in Mr. Frogs. He was found with drugs on him.
12/26/2024 – A patron was denied entry to Mr. Frogs because he did not have an ID. The patron later gained entry without the knowledge of the bouncer. The bouncer and the patron got into a physical confrontation when the bouncer attempted to remove the patron and the patron’s hand ended up being injured with an open wound that appeared to have bone showing.
02/16/2025 – A crowd was gathered outside Mr. Frogs. A woman tried to fight with people in the crowd. After the woman was arrested she said that she had been attacked inside Mr. Frogs.
03/03/2025 (45 Demerits) – Two Mr. Frogs patrons exited the bar so that they could start fighting outside of the bar. Other parties became involved.
03/03/2025 (50 Demerits) – Concurrent with the above incident Mr. Frogs was open after hours. Bartender Nayeli Tierrablanca allowed people to remain in the bars after 2AM and claimed to police that she could not make them leave. She had no explanation as to why she did not call the police for help in getting them to leave. She was also heard by a police officer telling patrons to tell the police officers that the entire disturbance had taken place outside so that “it could not be used against Frogs.” Based on camera footage, Ms. Tierrablanca allowed patrons to remain in the bar after 2AM. Additionally, after they got into a disagreement and exited the bar in order to fight, she allowed them to re-enter the bar even though it was 10 minutes after 2AM.
03/23/2025 – A female patron of Mr. Frogs became physically violent with a bouncer and another person.
04/05/2025 – Two female Mr. Frogs patrons got into an altercation with each other.
04/26/2025 – A group of female patrons fought with each other as they were ejected from Mr. Frogs.
05/10/2025 – A Mr. Frogs patron forced open the door of a bathroom that was currently locked and in use causing approximately $500 worth of damage.
05/18/2025 – Some kind of physical altercation happened between patrons at Mr. Frogs.
05/18/2025 (45 Demerits) – While the police were investigating the above mentioned incident, a bouncer with Mr. Frogs became verbally aggressive with people who were at the front door of the business. The bar was closed and the doors locked; the people seemed to be asking for a lost phone. The bouncer responded verbally aggressively saying things like “who the fuck you talking to,” “meet me in the back alley,” and “you better have a switch on you”. The police officer interpreted this as the bouncer trying to incite a fight and recognized the term “switch” to reference an attachment that turns a gun into an automatic weapon.
06/14/2025 – Bartender Tierrablanca served an alcoholic beverage to an underaged person.
Revocation hearings do not follow the same rules as a criminal trial. City Attorney Christopher Behrens explained, “[I]n a hearing of this matter, the specific rules of evidence don’t apply. Evidence having reasonable probative value should be allowed. Immaterial, irrelevant, unduly repetitious evidence may be excluded, and, Chair, it is your decision what evidence to include. Committee members—a reminder that they are to be impartial, make the determination on evidence presented at this hearing.”
Ms. Alvarado’s attorney asked the committee to agree to an adjournment of the hearing for at least a month because he had been retained by Ms. Alvarado only 7 days earlier, he had not yet received any of the documents he had requested from the Appleton Police Department, and he needed time to get all of the witnesses to attend the hearing. He also thought it was problematic that the complaint had obviously been drafted by the City Attorney’s Office, not the complainant Lieutenant Megan Cash. He also believed there had been no interim discipline, request for sanctions, or conditional warning made prior to this revocation hearing.
Assistant City Attorney Buruin objected to an adjournment. He said that state statutes were very clear about how soon a hearing needed to be held after a complaint was served, and this hearing met that statutory timeframe. Additionally, the police reports and judgements of convictions associated with the multiple incidents that were driving the request to revoke Mr. Frogs’ license had been attached to the agenda for the meeting since at least 08/22/2025. He did not believe that any concerns about procedural issues were valid, and any non-procedural concerns could be addressed during the course of the hearing. He also confirmed that he had drafted the complaint, but that was irrelevant. Lieutenant Cash was the one who submitted the compliant.
[I suppose it’s an indication of the relative strength of the merits of your case, when you as a defense attorney are essentially trying to suggest that it is somehow improper for a complainant to have a lawyer draft her complaint rather than composing it herself.]
Alderperson Chris Croatt (District 14), the chair of the Safety and Licensing Committee, ended up ruling that the revocation hearing would not be adjourned but instead continue as originally scheduled. This was supported by all of the other committee members.
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) stated, “[G]iven the way that these hearings need to be held and the time frame that is supplied to us legally, I think that we should carry on with it.” And Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) commented, “I think based on the number of incidents that have led us to this point today that this should not have come as a surprise, even if the notice was seven days ago, that I would feel there would be enough time to see this coming and be prepared for today, and since we are operating within the statutory dates, that I would say we should proceed.”
When they got into the case itself, Attorney Buruin did not spend much time going over the information that had already been provided in written form or the details of all of the specific incidents. He called only one witness, Lieutenant Ben Goodin who not only works on patrol but also oversees alcohol license related activities, including bartender applications, business alcohol license applications, monitoring violations that occur, conducting premise checks, and conducting controlled alcohol transaction checks.
When Mr. Frogs received its alcohol license in 2024 and before they opened, Lieutenant Goodin spoke with Ms. Alvarado and went over important information such as “[T]he demerit point system, what constitutes violations, commonly encountered violations, importance of checking IDs, security, having people at the doors, over serving. Basically, you name it, I kind of try to cover it, mainly because a lot of people this might be the first time running a business that has a liquor license. […] [A]nother part I include is recommending monitoring people that are causing problems, addressing that behavior proactively, calling [the police] as much as they can if there’s going to be an issue that we need to be involved to help resolve that problem that’s developing.”
Mr. Frogs ended up experiencing its first incident that resulted in a demerit point the very first night it was open. After that incident, Lieutenant Goodin spoke with Ms. Alvarado again, “[J]ust going over safety measures, again, the importance of notifying the police if there’s issues getting out of hand, identifying problem behaviors, and addressing those proactively.”
He spoke with her again in November after an underaged person was able to gain entry to Mr. Frogs.
He testified that of all the bars in the 400-500 block of College Avenue, Mr. Frogs required the most attention, and police were responding to incidents there a few times a month. However, Mr. Frogs rarely proactively called police for help.
In terms of the way in which Mr. Frogs responded to disorderly incidents in and around the business, Lieutenant Goodin described their actions as, “Less than cooperative. We have received some cooperation, but not every time. As far as requesting video or staff cooperating with our questions, like right on scene when an incident is unfolding, that’s been one of the biggest hurdles other officers have faced.” He could not, however, provide a quantifiable number as to the number of times Mr. Frogs had not provided video after having been asked.
His impression was that Mr. Frogs was more concerned with making sure the business was not held responsible for the things that went on in and around them, rather than addressing issues. This made it more difficult for officers to investigate incidents and resulted in less accountability for people engaging in inappropriate behavior, which make Mr. Frogs and attractive environment to people who acted out negatively.
Mr. Carroll’s strategy seemed to be to try to cast doubt on the accuracy of the reports and the association of the things in the report to Mr. Frogs.
For example, he tried to suggest that the first incident that happened on 09/15/2025 and which led to 45 demerit points for failure to maintain order had taken place in the parking lot of St. Joseph’s and had not originated in Mr. Frogs. Lieutenant Goodin, however, noted that the supplemental police narratives [in this case the narrative supplied by Lieutenant Botz] provided corroborating evidence that the incident had started in Mr. Frogs.
That 09/15/2025 incident had resulted in a 19 year being cited and eventually convicted for drug possession and resisting an officer. He was also issued a citation for underaged drinking.
This prompted the following exchange:
Attorney John Miller Carroll: Okay, and but you don’t know who served him and at what bar it took place in?
Lieutenant Ben Goodin: Correct.
Attorney John Miller Carroll: So, he was convicted of resisting and obstructing and possession of THC in Outagamie County.
Lieutenant Ben Goodin: Yes.
Attorney John Miller Carroll: On July 15.
Lieutenant Ben Goodin: Yes.
Attorney John Miller Carroll: And you at the city is assessing 45 demerit points for what somebody else may have done in this bar.
Lieutenant Ben Goodin: It’s being assessed based on the information from the police reports.
On 11/08/2024 an underage person gained access to Mr. Frogs after two other bars turned her away at the door. One of those bars had proactively flagged Lieutenant Goodin down and told him that an underaged girl had tried to enter their establishment. Lieutenant Goodin followed her, watched her get turned away by another bar, and then saw her walk right in to Mr. Frogs. Attorney Carroll tried to ascertain whether Lieutenant Goodin was aware if the underaged person had presented a fake ID or whether she had presented an ID when she approached the bar.
Attorney John Miller Carroll: So, you—you didn’t see whether or not the 20-year-old was asked for an ID when she went into the bar.
Lieutenant Ben Goodin: She—no, I didn’t. She claimed she presented one, but she didn’t have one in her possession when we arrested her.
Attorney John Miller Carroll: Okay. So, you unilaterally assessed 80 demerit points for that.
Lieutenant Ben Goodin: Yes, because she walked right in. I watched it happen.
Attorney John Miller Carroll: But you don’t know what efforts were made to find out what her true age was.
Lieutenant Ben Goodin: It appeared zero, because there was no line of waiting or discussion with anybody. She walked right in.
Attorney Carroll also asked questions about the 03/03/2025 incident that had resulted in two separated demerit point assessments, one for 45 points for failure to maintain order and one for 50 demerit points for being open after hours. During this incident patrons were inside Mr. Frogs after hours. Two patrons exited the bar and started fighting on the sidewalk. Patrons were then allowed to reenter the bar even though it was after hours. Additionally, the bartender Nayeli Tierrablanca was heard by a police officer telling patrons to tell the police that the entire disturbance had taken place outside so that “it could not be used against Frogs.”
Attorney Carroll’s position seemed to be that the fight did not start inside the bar but, instead, happened outside the bar. Lieutenant Goodin’s position was that “fight” was a very subjective term. [Per the incident reports, it seems like they exited the bar specifically with the intention of fighting which would suggest that the thing leading up to the fight had started inside.]
Attorney Carroll seemed to be wanting to suggest that all of the fights had taken place outside Mr. Frogs, not inside, as demonstrated by this line of questioning:
Attorney John Miller Carroll: Okay. Have there—have there ever been any shootings inside the bar?
Lieutenant Ben Goodin: No.
Attorney John Miller Carroll: There ever been any stabbings inside the bar?
Lieutenant Ben Goodin: No.
Attorney John Miller Carroll: Have there ever been, actually, any fights inside the bar?
Lieutenant Ben Goodin: Yes.
Attorney John Miller Carroll: Which are those?
Lieutenant Ben Goodin: I don’t remember specifically, but I know there have been fights in there.
Attorney John Miller Carroll: But the incidents in the complaint refer to incidents that occurred outside the bar.
Lieutenant Ben Goodin: Some of them do, yeah.
On redirect, Attorney Buruin highlighted that all of the police reports were written very close to the time of the actual incidents and so were put down while they were fresh. He also asked Lieutenant Gooding, “[I]s it a good idea to wait until weapons related violence occurs within an establishment to hold it accountable?” To which Lieutenant Goodin responded, “No, that’s way too late.”
Attorney Buruin also highlighted that none of the conversations and follow-up Lieutenant Goodin had with Ms. Alvarado about demerit points and bar management and safety were statutorily required. Rather Lieutenant Goodin conducted those conversations because she had indicated she had never run a bar before, and he wanted to help her out. The city was safer when the bar was being run well.
Attorney Carroll called only one witness, the license holder Ms. Alvarado. He asked her what steps she had taken to prevent some of the problems Mr. Frogs had experienced since it opened. She indicated they put a mini wall next to the entrance so people can sneak in. She said security had been changing when the underaged girl sneaked in, so now they have bouncers at the door at all times and lock the door if somebody can’t be there.
Ms. Alvarado said that there was no real need to proactively call the police because they were usually stationed right in front of the bar.
Attorney John Miller Carroll: Okay. Is there any reason why you wouldn’t want to summon the police to your bar to assist?
Vanessa Alvarado: They’re already there half the time. They’re already kind of waiting for something to happen. I feel like they’re on top of what’s going on at all times in front of us.
He asked her about the bartender Ms. Tierrablanca who had been heard telling people to say that an altercation had happened outside rather than inside the bar. Ms. Alvarado said that Ms. Tierrablanca no longer worked for her.
Attorney John Miller Carroll: And why doesn’t she work for you?
Vanessa Alvarado: She’s problematic.
Attorney John Miller Carroll: So, you took steps to get rid of her. Is that correct?
Vanessa Alvarado: Yes.
[Not noted was the fact that the incident in question happened on 03/03/2025 and on 06/14/2025 Ms. Tierrablanca was still working at Mr. Frogs where she served alcohol to an underaged person. So, it doesn’t sound like her behavior during the 03/03/2025 incident was so “problematic” that she wasn’t allowed to continue working there for at least 3 1/2 more months.]
Attorney Carroll went on to ask, “Has anyone approached you with a potential resolution of this matter that would be less severe than outright revocation such as suspension or a conditional renewal?” To which Ms. Alvarado responded, “No, I, I applied for the renewal for the license a couple months ago. Yeah, May-ish, June. I didn’t get anything. And I mean, I feel like when something happens, I try to fix it, or do what I can to fix it.”
Assistant City Attorney Buruin confirmed with Ms. Alvarado that Lieutenant Goodin had spoke with her prior to Mr. Frogs opening and had gone over the demerit point system with her. He also confirmed with her that Lieutenant Goodin had spoken with her over the past several months although she didn’t remember exact dates.
He asked her to confirm the date that she received the summons for the revocation hearing. She wasn’t sure but thought it was maybe the 20th. He noted that the affidavit of service indicated it had been served on the 19th. He asked if that sounded correct to which she responded, “I guess so.”
Alderperson Van Zeeland asked her why staff or management sometimes delayed providing or did not provide surveillance footage to the police department when they requested it in regard to incidents.
Ms. Alvarado responded, “So sometimes they ask me for footage that shows like the sidewalk. I don’t have any. The camera is a Ring camera that faces the door, and it kind of tapes whatever it feels like when it thinks it senses movement. So, I don’t always have video to provide them. Not great at downloading it, either. So sometimes I have to get my kid to help me, and they kind of do that whenever they feel like it. So that’s—usually the biggest struggle I have, is if I do have video covered of it, I can’t download it. I don’t know how.”
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) asked her if she remembered receiving notices in January and May of this year requiring her to appear before the Safety and Licensing Committee to address demerit points that Mr. Frogs had been assessed.
Ms. Alvarado said she only received one and, “The one I received I got after the fact from the mailbox. So, I missed it.” She said she had called the City Clerk’s Office and was told the letter would be sent out again, but she didn’t get anything.
The two attorneys made their closing arguments.
Attorney Buruin’s position was that the license should be revoked for two reasons. (1) The business had accumulated at least 265 demerit points in less than a 12-month period, well above the threshold of 200 demerit points within 36 months at which the city’s Municipal Code requires license revocation. (2) Separate from the number of demerit points, the number of types of incidents associated with Mr. Frogs qualified the business as a disorderly or riotous house, and Wisconsin State Statue 125.12(2) allowed the revocation or suspension of a business’s license when they are considered to be such a business.
Attorney Carroll felt that the police were second guessing incidents that they probably knew nothing about. He commented, “[I]t would have been nice to actually subpoena people that were interviewed by the police who saw what happened, so they could actually tell you what happened, but we weren’t able to do that.” His position was that most of the incidents in question had happened outside of Mr. Frogs and were attributable to third parties, not Mr. Frogs. He did not believe that the issues rose to a level that would allow Mr. Frogs to be categorized as a riotous house. He asked the committee to consider a less severe sanction such as a suspension rather than revoking the license.
The committee voted to enter closed session. They deliberated for approximately 20 minutes in closed session. When they came back into open session, they ended up voting 5-0 to recommend the license be revoked on the basis both of the 265 accumulated demerit points as well as their finding of fact that the business was a disorderly.
[Setting aside the disorderly riotous house argument, I don’t understand how one can even overcome the demerit points that have been racked up. The Municipal Code is pretty clear that when demerit points of 200 or more are assessed, revocation “shall” take place.
It’s also not clear to me that a revocation hearing is the correct place to try to get demerit points overturned. Surely there must be some other process through which a person can appeal demerit points, but I would think that appeal would have to be connected to the demerit points in question or the incidents that prompted the demerit points and the appeals process would be time sensitive based on when the demerit points were first assessed.
It’s very frustrating to hear all of the efforts Lieutenant Goodin has taken to reach out to Ms. Alvarado and to have seen the effort the Safety and Licensing Committee took on two separate occasions to have conversations with her about her demerit point violations, to say nothing of the discussions that were had when Mr. Frogs’ alcohol license first came before the committee and when it came up for renewal, and then to see her act as if she wasn’t aware of any of it. The city has gone above and beyond in its efforts to facilitate her success as a bar owner, and she doesn’t seem to even know what they have done.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1308970&GUID=821D8226-556C-4CC8-B989-73213FC48425
One thought on “Safety And Licensing Committee Recommends Revocation Of Mr. Frogs Alcohol License – Committee Unanimously Verifies Bar Has Accrued 265 Demerit Points And Determines Bar Is A Disorderly And Riotous House”