Napa Wineries Claim Tastings as Human Rights

California's attorney general is currently investigating several alleged civil rights violations.

Sheriff's Departments in Los Angeles County, Riverside County and Santa Clara County are accused of excessive force, including shooting an unarmed 18-year-old in the back. Members of the Torrance Police Department sent racist text messages for years and joked about violence against suspects.

Now, three wineries are asking California's Attorney General to investigate Napa County for violating their civil right to host visitors for wine tastings.

The three wineries held a press conference on Wednesday in which they detailed their plight. At the center is Lindsay Hoopes, owner of Hoopes Vineyard, which was sued by Napa County last year in an attempt to prevent it from holding public tastings or tours. Wineries Smith-Madrone and Summit Lake joined Hoopes' counter complaint against Napa County, and are part of the letter sent this week to both California's attorney general and the federal United States Attorney for the Northern District.

"The county in filing quasi-police actions is making quasi-criminal accusations of these businesses," Hoopes said. "It's just like any law enforcement officer citing you for a violation. That constitutes a civil rights violation if they are telling you that you are not allowed to do something that you are legally allowed to do."

Hoopes knows the law better than most winery owners. She is a former prosecutor who worked in the San Francisco District Attorney's office under Kamala Harris. One man Hoopes successfully prosecuted was former San Francisco sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, who ended up pleading guilty in 2012 in a domestic violence case. She also is an adjunct professor of law at UC Law San Francisco.

"Police officers beat up an individual. That's how we usually hear about civil rights," Hoopes said. "In this case, the county is taking away substantial property rights that we have invested in for decades. Whenever you take rights away without due process, that is a constitutional violation of the civil rights act."

Hoopes said that she gave up her job as a prosecutor to help care for her ailing father and to take over the family wine business. Her father was a grapegrower for many years and made his first wine at a custom crush facility in 1999.

In 2017, Hoopes acquired Hopper Creek Winery, which had been open since the 1970s. Crucially, though it had changed ownership, it opened before Napa County passed its Winery Definition Ordinance in 1990 that began limiting tastings and public events. Hoopes says that because the winery's permit predates the ordinance, she is not subject to county limitations on tastings and events.

Napa County officially disagrees. In a statement, county attorney Arthur Hartinger said: "A use permit exemption does not allow for tours, tastings or consuming wine on the premises. The prior owner, called Hopper Creek winery, only possessed the use permit exemption and that is what Hoopes purchased."  

Currently Hoopes says she is not holding tastings in the traditional sense, but she does allow people to buy wine and drink it on the property.

A thorny issue

Tastings – and especially public events – are extremely controversial in Napa and neighboring Sonoma County. Neighbors complain about traffic. It's a big political issue and it leads to somewhat different alliances than you might think, though non-wine industry county residents tend to favor tighter restrictions on visitors.

Within the wine industry, large wineries that have the most political power tend to have the permits they want, and so they are often pitted against small wineries that do not. The county has been petitioned by small farmers for years to allow more tastings. Because it is difficult for small wineries to sell their wines to stores and restaurants, many rely on direct sales, and direct sales of wine are difficult if visitors can't drop in and taste.

"When a local government takes away property rights, it is theft," Hoopes said. "We have asked to speak with the Board of Supervisors, but have been denied. We have nowhere else to turn to demand government accountability. We need help to protect us from being stripped of our livelihoods."

Heather Griffin, proprietor of Summit Lake winery, said her father bought their property in 1971.

"Every year we lose more family wineries and small businesses due to the hostile business environment Napa County has created," Griffin said. "We are asking the state and federal government to step in and help us protect what has been a special place."

Stu Smith, co-founder of Smith Madrone, says that Napa County recently attempted to ensnare him with a sting operation, as a county employee tried to book an event on the phone, and revealed his identity only when Smith refused to book it.

Smith, who got his use permit in 1973, said it had no limit on events, so he should be allowed an unlimited number of events. But in 2022, he discovered in a county database that the county had assigned him limits of 10 visitors per week with no events.

"They never contacted us. They never gave us a hearing about this. They never notified us about this," Smith said.

The wineries may have a solid case legally; but, practically speaking, they face a steep uphill climb. The California Attorney General's Office maintains a web page about civil rights investigations. It lists 14 specific civil rights issues, including discrimination by businesses or in housing, disability access rights, reproductive rights, sexual assault on college campuses, hate crimes, human trafficking prevention, police misconduct, voting rights, the protection of free speech and workers' rights.

Property rights are not listed, though the page does say that civil rights are "not limited to" the ones listed.

A separate web page from the Attorney General's Office for Civil Rights Major Initiatives lists more than 40 cases the office has pursued over the past 22 years. Many involve fighting for disabled people to get jobs or housing. Some involve preventing construction of toll roads through Native American lands, and preventing a water pump station from being built on a Native American ceremony. (Have they never seen "The Shining?"). But none involve property rights.

But there's always a first time!