Ordinance Addresses the Wrong Problem and May Be Unenforceable With Unintended Consequences
It was billed as a routine measure by Police Chief Landy Black, giving the city the ability to charge minors who had consumed alcohol. At the same time it was acknowledged only one other jurisdiction has a similar law on its books, and students expressed concerns about profiling and due process concerns.
The council passed the first reading of the ordinance, under the understanding that the UC Davis Student Liaison commission would weigh in and the matter would come back before the council. This action preserved the ability for the council to get the matter on the books prior to Picnic Day, which appears to be the real target of this measure.
The Minor Alcohol Preclusion Ordinance, while not presented as a tool exclusively for Picnic Day, according to the staff report, would say, “It is because of the challenges the community has had with Picnic Day in the past that staff began to search for other mechanisms to address inappropriate behavior during that weekend.”
As Police Chief Landy Black told the Council, “We’re trying to do this in our efforts for 2012’s Picnic Day.” He added, “Regardless of when it’s adopted it’s a good ordinance, it’s not going to be just a Picnic Day ordinance.”
In the staff report, this was presented as “a potential solution to curbing unlawful nuisance drinking and rowdy partying behavior, as well as punish those who choose to ignore the law,” by making “it unlawful for any person under 21 years of age to have a blood alcohol content equal to or greater than .01%, by weight, on any street or highway, or in any public place, or in any place open to the public.”
The staff report argued that, while the state regulates most issues involving alcohol, it does not completely regulate the private consumption of it.
“It seems to me that when we were thinking about the Alcohol Preclusion Ordinance, it was kind of a ‘duh’ moment,” Police Chief Landy Black told the council.
At the same time, he acknowledged that only one other community had enacted such an ordinance.
“I know that at least one other California City [in Del Norte County] has adopted an ordinance like this,” the Chief said in response to questions from Council. “It did get tested through to the appellate level and was found to be a constitutionally sound ordinance. Ours is modeled after that ordinance.”
Chief Black described it as closing a loophole
“It helps us in our equal application of the law and it closes a loophole that seems to be in existence between current city ordinances and state laws,” Chief Black told the council Tuesday night.
“Right now it is illegal for someone to provide alcohol to a minor and it is illegal for someone to have alcohol in his possession in a public place,” he continued. “However, there is no reasonable or appropriate way for the police department to deal with a minor who has alcohol in their system in a public place. It’s that alcohol in their system in a public place which complicates the issue of public safety in our communities and it has contributed to the nuisance things that have plagued our neighborhoods, especially those closer to the downtown area and the campus areas.”
Later he noted, “They drink in a way that it’s impossible for authorities to have any control over. It is at the departure of these parties where the evidence of it is exhibited in an unruly fashion.”
But the chair of the Student Liaison Commission, Adam Thongsavat, who is also the student body president, saw it more as opening a door that would have difficulty being closed. Mr. Thongsavat requested that the council allow the Commission, as the body representing student interests, thoroughly to review this matter before they approve it.
“Unfortunately, I have only seen this in the last 24 hours, the actual content of it,” he told the council during public comment. “I have some serious reservations on the enforcement policies, how that’s going to be done.”
He raised the concerns that this could be used for profiling.
“If I am a young person who is walking on Russell Blvd. on Thursday or Saturday nights, for no probable reason under this ordinance, the police are able to ask me if I would like to be tested [to see] if I am under [the influence of] the consumption of alcohol,” he said.
“I do not see how that’s effective policy,” he said, adding that his peers on campus would agree with that statement.
“No one is here to say that they condone underage drinking,” he said. He talked about the work he had done on Picnic Day and the changes that had occurred as the result of the collaborative work between the city and students. “I see this as a step backwards, if we’re going to tackle Picnic Day and we’re going to tackle these rowdy parties… there’s a different approach that I would really stress.”
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson said that she had heard concerns from people that they could be walking down the street and targeted by police because they look under 21. “I think it’s a reasonable question,” she said, “because it’s not in the wording of the ordinance what that tipping point is.”
Both the city attorney and the police chief disputed that this ordinance would allow students to be stopped and searched without probable cause.
City Attorney Harriet Steiner responded, “The ordinance requires that there be reasonable cause to believe that the person is [in] violation of the ordinance before they’re stopped. So it’s not just ‘I’m walking down the street and I happen to look like I’m 16 or 17 and I get stopped.’ “
“The officer has to have some reasonable belief that the individual is in violation of the ordinance before they stop someone,” she added.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald said that when she read the ordinance this weekend, she was “a bit taken aback,” stating that “it seemed like a radical idea.”
Councilmember Greenwald suggested that we needed to hear from all voices in the community on this issue, from those who are impacted by the negative behavior, including herself. She understands the concerns and the timelines for Picnic Day, but she said, “There are a lot of civil liberties implications of this type of legislation and we should have a community-wide discussion about it.”
Chief Black told the Council, “There is a law about what is the legal age to drink, we are only refining the way that we’re able to act as a police department, as a community, as a city, sort of address that at the public policy [level], because right now we don’t have a reasonable way of doing it.”
He added, “It’s rather embarrassing as a community and as a society that we can basically be ‘you got me, I’m drunk as a skunk but you can’t do anything to me because I don’t need to be hospitalized.’ “
The problem that emerges is what constitutes reasonable and articulable suspicion? If someone is walking down the street late at night, how difficult is it for the officer to make the claim that they looked to be intoxicated?
Mayor Joe Krovoza said, “At least for me, the crux issue here is how officers would define reasonable cause.”
He raised the concern that someone under 21 attends a party, realizing that they have consumed too much alcohol they decide to walk home. “That’s actually behavior that we would want to encourage,” he said. “We don’t want them to get behind a 3000-pound piece of metal and endanger everyone including themselves.”
“Is that someone we’re going to pull over and say that’s reasonable cause, you’re clearly drunk? Even though they’re not bothering anybody, they’re just trying to get themselves home.” he asked.
Landy Black responded, “Reasonable cause is a lot of things and every time you think you’ve got it nailed down, you realize that you haven’t.”
He added, “The issue that I have personally as a professional and should have with the city is the decision-making that took place before the first drink was taken.”
“If the person has made a good choice to not drive,” he continued, and they do something that draws attention to themselves, “then legally I suppose we have the right to approach them and talk to them and test them for alcohol content on their breath.”
The council remained concerned that this matter had not been vetted through the Student Liaison Commission, a body that is not only representative of students, but also law enforcement and business interests.
By passing the first reading and sending it back to the Commission to look into it more, the Council has preserved the timeline to allow the ordinance to take effect in time for Picnic Day in 2012. The real question at this point is should it take effect.
As captured by the comments of Elaine Roberts Musser, there is a growing sense of concern about the impacts of drinking in neighborhoods where student populations meet other residents. But will this solve the problem, or introduce a number of unintended consequences?
The first problem is that by enacting this ordinance the city would be criminalizing a wide array of behaviors that are not particularly burdensome on the community. While there is a sense that no one condones underage drinking, it is also not clear that this solves that problem.
Instead, it introduces a number of new variables into the equation. Landy Black argues that the police do not have tools to deal with students once they have consumed alcohol if they are underage. But that is fundamentally untrue. There are nuisance laws, public drunkenness law, and disturbing the peace laws that can all be utilized if the drinker is being an actual problem
What they do not have is a law on the books to take someone who is otherwise not creating a problem and intervene at that point. It should be noted that the burden to establish probable cause is quite low. All an officer would have to do is cite the fact that the student is out walking late at night and express some visible concern for them having consumed alcohol to be able to approach them.
This leads to another problem, that the police lack the ability to enforce this ordinance on private property. That means when the police come to break up parties, the students can simply refuse to leave the site. In addition, we run into the problems that the mayor cites, that sometimes we want people to walk home rather than stay at a party and continue to drink or get into their vehicles. This acts to discourage what is otherwise responsible behavior.
In short, this ordinance discourages more responsible behavior after drinking, diminishes the police’s ability to break up parties, and is largely unenforceable. All it would take is a concerted student education campaign to realize that police lack the ability to compel people to use breathalyzers and other devices to determine alcohol consumption.
In a car, they can utilize the legal loophole of implied-consent – which means getting into a vehicle is tantamount to consent to submit to a blood alcohol test. There is no such loophole for people who walk and thus, if the student population is educated, the law is largely unenforceable.
Already, there are problems with California Penal Code section 647F, which Chief Black described as the ability for police to arrest people who are so drunk that they can no longer care for themselves. The problem with 647F is that it has become a catchall for police harassment. The police do not need to charge under that penal code section, instead they can take people who are drunk, put them in jail and allow them to sober up, at which point they are released.
But because there is no charge filed with the court, there is no oversight. And so, in many communities the police use this as a proactive measure to get undesirables off the street for a few hours, many of whom are completely sober, and because there is no court process, they do not have to prove their case and there is little oversight.
This ordinance easily could become a pretext measure to pull young people over and test them to see if they have been drinking. Students unaware of their rights could fall prey to this, but it could also be used as a wider tool of profiling.
The bottom line is that the students got this right – it does erode the trust, it is aimed at them, and it is far from clear that the biggest culprits, in the battle against drunken students at Picnic Day and other times of the year, are minors.
The city needs to look at ways to deal with the actual problems that arise, not the potential that someone who drank and is now walking home might become a problem.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
How long before the police start using this “tool” on a regular basis. It is a large net in response to a one day problem.
But don’t worry the college kids don’t vote in high numbers and the ones who live on campus can’t vote in city elections at all. This is, after all, the advantage of keeping them disenfranchised. So go ahead and criminalize the kids behavior for alcohol levels below where they are a danger to themselves or others and if they don’t like it we will spray them with pepper, cite them for making too much noise or having an open can of beer, and have the people who are supposed to advise and assist them spy on them.
Welcome to Davis, can I see your medical marijuana card. Oh never mind we don’t have a club for that either. Too bad, maybe more marijuana would lead to fewer alcohol related problems. No our Calvinist style of student control prevents us from allowing such freedoms. Repression is our favorite means of control.
But wait, there is more! Isn’t there a Council election coming up. Students of Davis wake up and vote. Stop letting your parents dictate your lives.
“giving the city the ability to charge minors who had consumed alcohol
I think the key to the undesirability of this measure is in this sentence. The ability “to charge” does virtually nothing to address the real issue here, which for me is one of safety. From a doctors perspective, the most effective approach is prevention. Charging after the fact will do virtually nothing to address prevention unless one intends to lock up the miscreant for a long period of time in which case that one individual will be deterred, but at what cost ?. The next best option is intervention before the situation becomes serious. I would suggest that taking the impaired minor to the police station where the parents could pick them up is a better strategy than “charging ” them and thus further impacting our judicial system. As pointed out by Mayor Krovoza, this measure might actually inhibit desired after the fact responsible behavior by making teens attempt to hide their activity by not walking. Finally, I think it is almost certain to erode trust in the police, already low in this population, as I can attest by the comments of my 19 and 22 year olds, who while they have never had an adverse encounter with the police ( unless you include a helmet ticket) and yet still distrust the police and firmly believe that teens are unduly targeted. I acknowledge that the town has a problem with underage drinking ( as do most communities) but see this as a very poorly thought through measure which is unnecessary ( other laws cover public inebriation) , does not address either primary or secondary prevention, and is likely to foster greater distrust and a more adversarial relationship between police and our teens and young adults.
Let me repeat what I said at the City Council meeting:
1) Underage drinking is a problem in my neighborhood. We have an alleyway where minors hang out and drink, defacing property with ugly graffiti.
2) I do not go out on Picnic Day, because I do not feel safe in this town on that day.
3) The UCD students have had years to address the drinking problem, and have not done much to fix it.
4) So now it is time to let the police address/handle the problem.
I listened carefully to the ensuing discussion, and understood the concerns in regard to individual liberties. From wikipedia:
[quote]Terry stop
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the United States, a Terry stop is a brief detention of a person by police[1] on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.
The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[2] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;[3] the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect’s outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be “armed and dangerous”.[4] When a search for weapons is authorized, the procedure is known as a “stop and frisk”.
To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.[5] Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”,[6] and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.[7]
The search of the suspect’s outer garments, also known as a patdown, must be limited to what is necessary to discover weapons;[8] however, pursuant to the “plain feel” doctrine, police may seize contraband discovered in the course of a frisk, but only if the contraband’s identity is immediately apparent.[9]
In some jurisdictions, persons detained under the doctrine of Terry must identify themselves to police upon request. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177, the Court held that a Nevada statute requiring such identification did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, or, in the circumstances of that case, the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self incrimination.[/quote]
Frankly, I have grown impatient with the problem in this town of underage drinking and its infringement on my rights as a citizen to walk on the streets and feel safe. There has been ample opportunity to address this problem, but with almost negligible results. The only reason we have had any progress at all is because things became so bad, Picnic Day itself almost became a casualty.
I have no problem with the ASUCD students meeting with police and hashing out what will constitute “reasonable cause”. But I think this town needs to start sending a clear message that public underage drinking is not going to be tolerated in this town. Right about now I would favor having Davis be a “dry” town if I thought it would help. Minors have no business consuming alcohol, but do so with impunity, and when caught, in effect give the proverbial middle finger to society with a “neener, neener, neener, you can’t catch me”! I’m out of all patience, as I think are many citizens of Davis…
I believe this is the same ordinance that the City of San Diego is using to be able to knock on doors of houses when they hear music or voices from the sidewalk and then enter if they “suspect that there is underage drinking”, make everybody in the house do a breathalyser test and cite all who are under 21 years old. This has been done during the day when there is no party occurring – only music being played in the home, with students pulled out of their bedrooms while studying to do the test. Without this ordinance, the police would not have sufficient cause to enter the home. I don’t recommend that we allow this ordinance to pass. There are already laws against consumption of alcohol by minors and the police do not need this additional ordinance. Students – fight this.
I also have to mention that Davis youth are stopped and harassed frequently by the Davis police already. A family member told me that he and his friends were stopped at least once a week by certain Davis police when they were either walking or riding bikes all during High School. It became more infrequent as he got older and, once he turned 20 or 21 years old, the stops ceased. There would be a conversation “Where are you headed?” “Where are you coming from?” and sometimes one or more of them would be cited – no light, unstrapped helmet, possession of cigarettes, etc. – but more often nothing would happen and they were sent on their way. This ordinance will give the police one more tool to stop teens who are walking or biking through Davis.
Elaine
I agree and empathize with your concerns. I do not agree that this is the right approach regardless of degree of impatience with lack of progress with which I also agree.
A small personal story to emphasize the problem I have with the slippery slope of the “reasonable cause” approach.
I was with a friend for dinner and pool one evening. At dinner at about 6 pm, I had a single Margarita. Over the course of the evening, he had several beers. He was driving my car and in a well lit area, forgot to turn on the lights. We had gone about one block when pulled over. Despite the fact that he passed the roadside sobriety test and not one but two breathalizer tests, the police decided that I should be tested also. They were very polite and professional in their request, but clearly did not believe me about my quantity of alcohol intake. They asked me to voluntarily do a breathalizer test which I did with the anticipated 0 outcome. Not satisfied with this result, they asked me to repeat the test on a second device, which I did. Only then did they ask me if I would drive, since his level was positive, although well within the legal limit. I found this entire process demeaning and disrespectful since they had no reason to suspect I was not telling the truth, and in my mind no reason to test me at all since I had not been driving. I think that the police, whose job to enforce laws, necessarily causes them to be suspicious, can undermine the very effect that would serve them best, namely reinforcing positive behaviors, and working constructively to find solutions rather than taking a punitive approach which this is clearly intended to do.The police do work very hard to ensure our safety, and I think that it is important to understand that they are a branch of government, and it is incumbent upon us as citizens to be vigilant about their possible excesses as well as those of the populations they strive to protect.
Elaine:
I appreciate you speaking out on this because I think you do represent a group of people who is as you suggest fed up with this drinking.
I don’t feel that this is going to solve the problem.
You argued that the students have had years to clean this up, I think so has the city and police and they haven’t because this is a difficult problem. We have existing laws to deal with students who create problems, now you are going to try to stop students from creating problems by enabling the police to arrest people who are not creating problems. That really makes little sense and is not likely to work.
The more I have spoken to people, the more I believe this could create a lot of collateral problems for the police and it could make things worse not better.
[quote]You argued that the students have had years to clean this up, I think so has the city and police and they haven’t because this is a difficult problem.[/quote]
“Students” refers to UCD and public school students. I think the worries about civil liberties here are unjustified, since there will be discussions on what constitutes “reasonable cause”. The police and students can work together to determine what the standards should be for this particular ordinance. It is about time the students were forced to the table to make concessions in regard to their unbridled behavior.
I have to tell you, I was angry that night, listening to the students. They talked about their civil rights, but what about MY RIGHTS to feel safe on public streets? Thus far no solutions have presented themselves that have worked, as the Vanguard itself has conceded. Well, let’s try something new, and give it a test run. Students can be in on the ground floor to hammer out the details with law enforcement – I have no problem with that. But to sit back and let this fester is just not the answer.
And I didn’t see those same complaining students offering up any solutions to the problem. I would strongly suggest that they step forward with their own ideas if they don’t want this ordinance to move forward… personally I’m all for the ordinance… color me fed up with drunken minors who deface property; vomit/urinate on the sidewalks; assault passersby, and other reprehensible behaviors, not to mention endanger their own safety!
Elaine:
What are the problems that you see? How widespread are those problems?
How much of the problem is created by underaged drinking rather than legal aged drinking?
how do you see this ordinance solving those problems?
I’m still the same place, if you have a student who is a nuisance or drunk in public, then cite them for disturbing the peace or a 647F. I simply do not see how going after someone who has done nothing else wrong but happens to have alcohol in their system is going to solve this.
moreover, I don’t buy that this acts as a deterrent because of all of the things cited and the random nature of enforcement.
And you have implied consent problems and private property problems with enforcement as well.
I’d like to see the statistical evidence for other jurisdictions that this work.
“They talked about their civil rights, but what about MY RIGHTS to feel safe on public streets? “
Anyone who violates your right to be safe on public streets would be subject to arrest under existing statues.
[quote]I’m still the same place, if you have a student who is a nuisance or drunk in public, then cite them for disturbing the peace or a 647F. I simply do not see how going after someone who has done nothing else wrong but happens to have alcohol in their system is going to solve this. [/quote]
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Let me give you an example. Public school students congregate in an alleyway across from my home. They imbibe freely of alcohol, and often deface property with ugly graffiti. If they get rowdy enough, they will wander the streets in a large group (as many as 20 teens), being loud, raucous and belligerent. This has literally been going on for years. If approached by police they suddenly either run, or become docile and polite, deny any wrongdoing, and are essentially free to go on their way. It is a constant cat and mouse game, played over and over again.
[quote]Anyone who violates your right to be safe on public streets would be subject to arrest under existing statues.[/quote]
Not until AFTER the damage has been done.
[quote]I’d like to see the statistical evidence for other jurisdictions that this work.[/quote]
Let’s give it a test period and see if it works. It would be refreshing if it did, bc nothing else seems to have been efficacious with this intractable problem…
The concerns about this ordinance are overblown I think, if the students are allowed input from the get go. As Chief Landy Black noted, students need to be a part of the solution… even if they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table…
Just as an aside, one of the big problems has to do with Twitter, and the ability of students to gather quickly in a single spot for a drinking binge. This is what has happened in our alleyway…
Elaine: The students that you describe are actually committing at least two existing crimes – minor in possession and drinking in public. You do not need a new law to stop that behavior.
Having raised two sons in Davis and now having an 18 yr. old grandson, I can tell you that underage drinking is most definitely not a “one day out of the year” problem. My youngest graduated from DHS in 1995 and I remember there was something called the “Friday Forty Club”. This involved drinking 40 oz. of beer during the 40 min. lunch hour and took place in any home where both parents were at work. Fortunately, my son always came home for lunch. It’s also not at all unusual for kids in their teens/early twenties to distrust the local police. Anyone remember the mantra from the late 60’s and early 70’s? – Don’t trust anyone over 30. They just have a very strong resentment for any kind of authority at that age. Hopefully, they survive those years and grow up to have children of their own.
This law is a horrible idea.
I strongly disagree with a test period. There is no reason to test, or pass, a violating and paranoia-inducing law to combat a pocket of teenagers near your house.
How, in ten years, do we go from a permissive city that allowed responsible drinking of open beverages on the street, to one where we’re actively searching for alcohol in the bloodstream of 33% of the city’s population?
It’s going to be horrible for relations with the 18-20 year-old-crowd. Almost every undergrad will at one point fear facing a breathalyzer and a police charge while they are otherwise acting in a responsible manner.
Drinking or not this will be a problem. If a sober undergrad gives an impromptu “Go Ags!” whoop while walking with their friends down Russell, how much will they enjoy getting the 3rd degree and breathalyzer test if an officer happens to be near by? Silly college behavior = reasonable cause.
Negotiating reasonable cause means nothing. If the law is passed, then only the loosest definition of reasonable cause will apply when the boots hit the pavement and officers are picking off students. I strongly believe that we will see the stealthy equivalents of DUI checkpoints for walkers on Russell Blvd, 3rd Street, Anderson, and F Street. Homeowners: how are you going to enjoy students taking detours thorough your neighborhoods or hopping over your fences to flee officers that they spot a few blocks away?
This may sound absurd to the law-and-order crowd who believes a law is just simply because it’s a law, but people in college drink, and that isn’t necessarily a problem. I’d like everyone else to take a realistic look back to when you were 18-20 and think about how many times you could have come up on the wrong side of this law. Also, an 18-year-old can fight in Iraq but they can’t have a responsible drink in Davis? And, as David has stressed, we have laws for drinkers who cause problems.
If the Police department is trying to focus on Picnic Day, then why isn’t the law written to only apply on Picnic Day? Why are these violations enacted for the rest of the year?
City Council – don’t try to compromise on this one. Just kill it.
Elaine – the ordinance suggested will not do the following: 1) make you feel safer on Picnic Day or 2) stop people from congregating in your alley. I think your fear of your personal safety on Picnic Day stems from reading the newspaper about problems occurring on that day, instead of personal experience. There were 10’s of thousands of people who had a very fine, safe time on the UC Davis campus (including children, parents, and grandparents, as well as students). I have never heard any reports of drunk underage mobs attacking senior citizens on that day…ever.
Your desire for a “dry” Davis and your fear of teenagers and young people congregating any where, much less a public thoroughfare behind your house, is misplaced in a town where roughly half of the population is under 25 years old. Maybe you should consider moving to a seniors only development.
I am astounded that you think having people submit to a breathalyser because they are 1) under the drinking age and 2) walking down the street not an infringement of personal rights. Since when are these two things probable cause that they are engaging in criminal activity.
EM: “Let me repeat what I said at the City Council meeting:
1) Underage drinking is a problem in my neighborhood. We have an alleyway where minors hang out and drink, defacing property with ugly graffiti.”
Seems like you need better policing in your alley. You are trying to swat a fly with a rolled up constitution. Try a fly swatter.
Previously having lived for six years in Davis between two houses rented by underage students, and constantly dealing with problems of underage drinking: noise issues, out of control parties, vandalism, etc., I think this law is well warranted. It is unfortunate that the students can rally against things like student fees, police oppression, etc., but they cannot come up with a create solution on their own to solve this problem. I agree with Elaine.
I think the people providing the hypotheticals of the student being harassed for walking down the street while not having consumed any alcohol need to understand the actual problems that many Davis residents have faced. Safeguards can be put in place to stop those hypotheticals. The police need some bite to stop the parties that have been going on in neighborhoods like the one that I used to live in. It was not uncommon for the police to come back many times over the course of an evening, only to be powerless to stop anything from happening. I have had to clean my property after many of these parties, and repair damage that they caused, while the police could do nothing.
As I posted on the mayor’s Facebook page:
1. You realize this [b]criminalizes cough syrup[/b] and smoothies made with vanilla extract, right? ([i]See, e.g.[/i], http://calapp.blogspot.com/2005/01/bobus-v-dmv-cal-app-january-6-2005.html)
2. To quote the law: “The [alcohol] testing shall be incidental to a lawful detention.” That reminds me of something – the Arizona immigration law, where a violation of any random ordinance could prompt the police to question a suspect’s immigration status. The council should clarify whether that initial lawful detention must be based on the violation of a DIFFERENT ordinance/law, or if suspicion of violating the alcohol ordinance is sufficient to justify a detention.
3. The ordinance makes submitting to testing voluntary. Good. That complies with the California Welfare & Institutions Code, which allows the police to ask minors already in custody (for habitual truancy, among other things) to consent to voluntary drug/alcohol testing – but the W&I Code also requires the police to affirmatively tell the minors that the testing is optional. That explicit statement should be included here, as well.
In the alternative, the council should just refuse to enact the ordinance. Cops harass students enough without this additional arrow in their quiver.
David Grundler – This ordinance does not solve your problem. It addresses only underage people who have alcohol in their system in public places. It doesn’t address people drinking in a private home. As David pointed out, students can get around the ordinance by merely never leaving the home.
What this does is allow police to stop and detain students under 21 years old for no other reason than suspecting that they might have drunk a beer prior to stepping out into a public place (walking, or riding a bike or merely standing on a public sidewalk) and arrest them even if the youth declines to take a test to prove that they have not been drinking. No other “probable cause” is necessary. The person could be merely walking down the street on his way home from the library and the police, under this ordinance, has a right to stop them.
It will not stop your neighbors from having a party. There are other ordinances that you can use to address this, unless you think that police should be allowed to enter your home if they merely suspect that underage drinking might be occurring, as is happening in San Diego.
[i]If the Police department is trying to focus on Picnic Day, then why isn’t the law written to only apply on Picnic Day?[/i]
I think that’s an excellent idea.
[quote]If the Police department is trying to focus on Picnic Day, then why isn’t the law written to only apply on Picnic Day? — [b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]I suggested exactly that but could not drum up any interest in it.
If my neighbors were only drinking in their home, then you are right. The party was constantly in the street, and in the greenbelt behind my place. When the police would show up, they would just stash the alcohol inside. If they had the power to arrest even one, it would probably make them less likely to party outside, greatly alleviating my situation.
Ryan Kelly says:
[quote]What this does is allow police to stop and detain students under 21 years old for no other reason than suspecting that they might have drunk a beer prior to stepping out into a public place (walking, or riding a bike or merely standing on a public sidewalk) and arrest them even if the youth declines to take a test to prove that they have not been drinking. No other “probable cause” is necessary. The person could be merely walking down the street on his way home from the library and the police, under this ordinance, has a right to stop them. [/quote]
The proposed law says:
[quote]The testing shall be incidental to a lawful detention and administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable cause to believe the person was in violation of subdivision (a).[/quote]
So, this section of the proposed law refutes the scenario you just created…
“The testing shall be incidental to a lawful detention and administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable cause to believe the person was in violation of subdivision (a).”
You mean the police will use discretion and restraint like they did when they decided to use pepper spray.
There are plenty of laws that a bad cop can use to harass someone if they so choose. This law will not make a difference in a bad cop choosing to harass a student. The law states “The testing shall be incidental to a lawful detention and administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable cause to believe the person was in violation of subdivision (a).” A good cop will not detain and test a subject without reasonable cause.
David:
There already are a lot of complaints out there about arbitrary police tactics locally. And I still have not seen anyone make the case that there is a problem that cannot be resolved through the enforcement of current laws.
When I lived downtown loud drunks would stumble home regularly so I understand the problem. Its just that criminalizing our young people is not an effective tool. This is a college town, however annoying the behavior of students is to the resident gentry, young people acting stupid will always be a part of our culture. You need to get used to it. I’m not condoning boorish or ruffian behavior but if you are too afraid to go outside police repression is not going to solve your problem. You might think about getting a chaperone or something.
Alcohol abuse has long been a problem but its repression through criminalization has never worked. Remember prohibition. Don’t forget there was an anti-immigrant bias to prohibition just as there is an anti-student bias in this proposal here in Davis. Davis needs solutions that don’t add to the oppression of students we has had enough of that lately. Personally, I would rather see Picnic Day moved to Sunday, kept on campus or cancelled for a few years over increased criminalization of our kids and young adults.
“A good cop will not detain and test a subject without reasonable cause. “
This comment shows a lack of understanding about what actually happens on the Davis streets after 10pm. Police constantly stop students using the loosest definition of reasonable cause. An officer can choose from many empty excuses like “You match a suspect in the area” or “a member of your group seems impaired”. Be sure not to trip on any uneven sidewalk panels or talk above a whisper.
DMG,
I do not disagree that this problem might possibly be resolved through the enforcement of local laws, but what laws and what policy? No one else has put forth a viable solution.
Mr. Toad,
No one should have to get use to the behavior of the type that often takes place in this town.
BW,
Your comment shows a lack of understanding of my comment. I said “good cop.” You state situations where you believe cops are already unjustifiably harassing students before this law is even part of the equation. That would lead me to believe that a bad cop that wants to harass students will do so regardless of this law. Of course a cop will stop someone that matches the description of a subject that committed a crime. If the cop is just using that as an excuse to stop people when they don’t actually meet any description of a subject that just created a crime, well then that is not a “good cop” is it?
David:
There are already public drinking, nuisance, and drunkenness laws on the books, so that is the starting place. I would suggest a few ideas to start:
1. Identification of troublesome locations
2. Focused patrols (which I believe already exist) in those locations
3. Neighborhood watch programs where neighbors can work together
4. Neighborhood groups identify either UC Davis students who are causing a problem or high school students causing a problem
If people are drinking in an alley, that’s already illegal on several fronts.
DMG,
You mean those focused patrols that students already claim are harassing them for no reason?
“You mean those focused patrols that students already claim are harassing them for no reason?”
Isn’t that a point that needs to be addressed as well.
To me, i feel like residents are upset that people are being loud and noisy and causing problems in the neighborhoods and students believe they are being unfairly targeted by police and perhaps neighbors. So the first step should be to figure out what the problem really is before we just start adding laws which I think do not go to the heart of the matter and are likely unenforceable.
Alcohol abuse and its impacts on society are lamentable realities. The question is what to do about it. Clearly criminalization and harassment of young people is not the best approach.
he above commentary is very dimissive of senior citizens, citizens who have been harmed by drunken students, and a civilized society, in the name of some rarified notion of all-encompassing civil liberties AT ALL COSTS (which is anarchy by the way).
1. I have 3 kids of my own who all graduated from UCD. I love kids/students – they make this town vibrant and alive. The implication that I am a cranky old senior is offensive, wrong, and unjustified. I should not feel like I have to leave town (or get used to it) just to accommodate drunken students who cannot behave themselves in a civilized manner. Assaults; vomiting/urinating in public, destruction of property, etc. are not minor issues that any citizen, be they young or old, should have to “get used to” or else be forced to move away from this town because of.
2. Underage drinking is a very real, intractable, and growing problem in this town. (We are becoming known as the “party city” and a destination place to get loaded with alcohol.) If you are the victim of underage drinking, you better understand where I’m coming from. Living across the way from an alley that is constantly filled with youngsters constantly drinking, writing offensive graffiti (such as the “N” word), carousing late at night that spills into the street with as many as twenty out of control teens and then proceed to intimidate passersby and further destroy property and litter the street with detritus, vomit, urine, is no way to live in harmony. Everyone has the right to live in peaceful enjoyment of their property. To put one’s head in the sand and pretend underage drinking in this town is only a problem on Picnic Day is just plain ignorant IMO.
3. For those of you who insist this will improperly infringe on civil liberties, what about MY RIGHT to live in peaceful enjoyment of my property, which has been infringed on for years as drunken students do whatever the h_ll they want? I don’t feel safe to go out on Picnic Day, and neither do many other citizens. We should not have to feel that way. The Safe Zone established by law enforcement for Picnic Day just pushed drunken students to the outer perimeters so the surrounding neighborhoods did not feel safe, but it didn’t really solve the problem of underage drinking. Many businesses did not sign on to the pledge not to sell alcohol so early in the day. Shame on those businesses. They are very much a part of the problem. Women were groped on Picnic Day; others were physically assaulted (at the mini-mart on the east end of town). And commenters want to tell me I should feel safe on Picnic Day? That my concerns are unfounded? As a victim of assault in my younger years, I beg to differ.
4. This ordinance can be tweaked, by having ASUCD participate in the discussion. Students can express concerns that they will be rousted for no reason at all, and suggest what they consider reasonable parameters. The city Council, if any of you were listening with any objectivity, made it clear there is a deep concern that the standards for reasonable cause may be abused. So the only way this ordinance will pass city Council muster is if the reasonable cause standard is more clearly spelled out so as to allay vague fears of infringement on civil liberties. It is about time students came to the table for a discussion of the problem, even tho students had to be brought “kicking and screaming” to that discussion. Students have needed to be part of this discussion for a very long time, like it or not.
5. I would also point out that the possibility of infringement of civil liberties is nothing but an amorphous trepidation not yet realized; whereas the problems caused by underage drinking are VERY REAL, FACTUAL, and nothing a civilized town should be condoning as if it is “no big deal”, i.e. “students will be students”. Frankly this reminds me of the whole UCD Band controversy about sexual assaults on the band bus, which were viewed by many as “boys will be boys”. I dissuaded my daughters from joining the UCD Band because of that incident. No female should have to put up with being sexually assaulted just to continue being a member of a band. The tolerance for reprehensible and illegal behavior in this town just appals me, frankly.
6. Students have gleefully and willfully disobeyed the law for years, without making any attempts to police themselves. They were perfectly fine with the way things were, because it allowed them to flaunt the law with impunity, and suffer no consequences for their unlawful actions. Do they clean up the vomit and urine and detritus and graffiti they have left behind? Do they pay for the property damage they have caused? How is that treating them like responsible citizens? How is that teaching them to have respect for others? What message are we sending to youngsters: drunken student civil liberties trumps everyone else’s rights?
7. Personally, what I would favor is some type of community diversion program, where underage kids caught drinking would have to clean up after themselves. If they had to clean up their own graffiti, vomit, and urine, they might think twice about doing it again.
As you can tell, I am extremely angry. Angry at students for thinking they can make everyone else’s life miserable if they choose to drink and be obnoxious. Angry at commenters who dismiss anyone – who would dare to infringe on a minor’s “right”to indulge in alcohol – as nothing more than someone who is a whiney fuddy-duddy elderly crank whose concerns are somehow not legitimate and should leave town if they can’t get used to their property being defaced; vomited on; urinated on by drunken teenagers. In case anyone hadn’t noticed, there are many silently suffering citizens in this town who are fed up with the repercussions of underage drinking…
[quote]There are already public drinking, nuisance, and drunkenness laws on the books, so that is the starting place. I would suggest a few ideas to start:
1. Identification of troublesome locations
2. Focused patrols (which I believe already exist) in those locations
3. Neighborhood watch programs where neighbors can work together
4. Neighborhood groups identify either UC Davis students who are causing a problem or high school students causing a problem
If people are drinking in an alley, that’s already illegal on several fronts.[/quote]
1) Locate troublesome spots? LOL Twitter makes that impossible – you obviously don’t get the complexity of the problem.
2) Focused patrols? In case you haven’t notices the police force in Davis is pretty small, and perhaps on the way to getting smaller. The minors involved in underage drinking can run circles around law enforcement in a heartbeat.
3) We already have neighborhood watch programs, that are largely ineffective for this sort of thing. If the kids can run circles around law enforcement, how much power do you think neighbors have? If I dare to do what I’d like to do to these little darlings, I’d get arrested! I’m being a bit facetious, but you catch my drift!
4) Hello, groups have been ID’d, but so what? Nothing happens, except at most a night in the slammer to sleep it off. Where are these drunkards in the morning when people wake up to vomit/urine/graffiti on their property?
I’m sorry, IMO you just really don’t get the problem… law enforcement does…
Students need to be forced to the discussion table to hammer out some solutions, or let the police handle it with this new ordinance…
ERM: “5. I would also point out that the possibility of infringement of civil liberties is nothing but an amorphous trepidation not yet realized; whereas the problems caused by underage drinking are VERY REAL, FACTUAL, and nothing a civilized town should be condoning as if it is “no big deal”, i.e. “students will be students”. Frankly this reminds me of the whole UCD Band controversy about sexual assaults on the band bus, which were viewed by many as “boys will be boys”.”
I think equating underage drinking with sexual assault undermines the seriousness of sexual assault.
As for your freedom you really think its a war zone out there? Because your police state solutions seem really over the top.
Red Queen: “Off with their heads!”
ERM:”Angry at commenters who dismiss anyone – who would dare to infringe on a minor’s “right”to indulge in alcohol – as nothing more than someone who is a whiney fuddy-duddy elderly crank whose concerns are somehow not legitimate and should leave town if they can’t get used to their property being defaced; vomited on; urinated on by drunken teenagers.”
Nobody is arguing in favor of the rights of drunks that is a mischaracterization. What concerns me is innocent law abiding citizens being harassed.
ERM – Thank you for so explicitly showing the hatred that influential members of the community feel towards students. While a student at UCD, I always had a feeling that this attitude was out there, but it was never so clearly stated. Now as a community member I’m ashamed of my current peers.
Living in a large community means tolerating differences, and not manipulating the law to persecute people outside of your demographic.
I suggest that the council name this ordinance the “Alley Protection / Get-Off-My-Lawn Act of 2012.” Then at least we’re being honest.
BW, tolerating differences does not include tolerating unlawful acts or nuisance problems that can be remedied. Your comment to ERM is not helpful, and quite disturbing. ERM does not hate the students. On the contrary, your statements toward ERM seem quite ignorant and hateful to me.
One question, do you think that Davis doesn’t have a problem?
David:
I think Davis has issues with a heavy-drinking subset of the student population that are less severe than most comparable college towns. We also have a minuscule problem with chronic homeless alcoholism, or general-population heavy-drinking compared to almost every other California city. We should have some perspective and consider ourselves lucky.
Listen to the “This American Life” episode about State College, PA if you want to learn how good we have it. Or imagine what life would be like if the football program was on-par with Cal or a Florida school.
The tactics in this ordinance are excessive compared to the problem we face. They won’t affect me, but I have empathy for the population that will live in paranoia under them. I feel for the 20-year-old that gets wrapped up in the legal system for having some weekend beers at a friend’s house and then walking home. The quarter system is grueling, and an interruption like that could easily derail their progress.
BW,
If a town has 20% of the murders of another town, should they consider themselves lucky? I would hope they would be upset that they had any murders at all. Comparison to other areas does nothing to remedy the situation here. Frankly, I don’t care what problems State College, or Florida or Berkeley or any other location have. I don’t live in those areas. Their problems are for them to deal with.
Again, i don’t think the problem here is the casual student having a few beers and walking home from a friend’s house. Is it possible that they could be targeted? Yes. Likely? Probably not. I’m curious which “tactics” in this ordinance are excessive? Would you care to quote them for us? I have copied it below:
[quote]26.06 MINOR ALCOHOL PRECLUSION ACT
26.06.010 Title
This article shall be known as the “Minor Alcohol Preclusion Act.”
26.06.020 Minors in Public Places
(a) It is unlawful for any person under 21 years of age to have a blood alcohol content equal to or greater than .01%, by weight, on any street or highway or in any public place or in any place open to the public.
(b) An officer detaining or arresting a person for a violation of this article shall request the person consent to a preliminary alcohol screening test, or other evidentiary breath test if a preliminary alcohol screening test is not available, for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol in the person. The testing shall be incidental to a lawful detention and administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable cause to believe the person was in violation of subdivision (a).
(c) Any person arrested for a violation of this article may request to have a preliminary alcohol screening test, or other evidentiary breath test if a preliminary alcohol screening test is not available, for the purpose of determining the alcohol content of that person’s blood, and, if so requested, the arresting officer shall have the test performed.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions in subdivisions (b) and (c), a person may be found to be in violation of subdivision (a) if the person was, at the time they were contacted or detained, on any street or highway or in any public place or in any place open to the public, under the age of 21 years, and under the influence of, or affected by, an alcoholic beverage regardless of whether a preliminary alcohol screening test, or other evidentiary breath test, was performed to determine that person’s blood-alcohol concentration.
2606.030 Effect
This article does not make unlawful any act expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by the general laws of the state of California.
26.06.040 Penalties and Violations
A violation of this article shall constitute an infraction, punishable by a fine or other appropriate alternative remedy.[/quote]
David:
It’s clear that we have different fundamental values.
I don’t consider a murder in the same galaxy as drunken stumbling, vomiting, urinating, or even vandalism. Also I wouldn’t support allowing the police to administer a polygraph to any suspicious person walking down the street with the hope of eliminating the all of the murders in a city. I feel like this is the equivalent of mass breathalyzer use to eliminate drunkenness.
We also disagree on the likelihood of my hypothetical 20-year-old getting stopped. You don’t think it’s likely, but based on my prior experience as a student, I feel like it is very likely. On more than one occasion I was stopped by the police for no reason, while sober, walking home late at night. Taking a breathalyzer test on top of that would have been humiliating.
I’m sorry that you had difficult neighbors, but applying this ordinance to 33% of the population is overkill.
I find (a) through (d) excessive.
(a) It is unlawful for any person under 21 years of age to have a blood alcohol content equal to or greater than .01%, by weight, on any street or highway or in any public place or in any place open to the public.
(b) An officer detaining or arresting a person for a violation of this article shall request the person consent to a preliminary alcohol screening test, or other evidentiary breath test if a preliminary alcohol screening test is not available, for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol in the person. The testing shall be incidental to a lawful detention and administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable cause to believe the person was in violation of subdivision (a).
I find these parts escessive.
First of all, I don’t find murder and the rest in the same category. I am just illustrating a point, that is easier to illustrate on the extremes. I don’t think problems are minimized, now matter how large or small, by comparing the rate of those problems to other areas that have more. It is a red herring, a diversion from the local issue.
You say you were “stopped by the police for no reason.” What do you describe as “a stop?” Did they detain you? Did they just ask you questions?
Just curious, do you find it excessive that 18-20 year olds are not legally able to drink?
I do think that the minimum drinking age in this country is too high. We will send an 18-year-old to war, and let them vote, but we won’t let them drink a beer. And you?
The police drilled me with questions about where I had been, where I was going and where I lived. Then they drove off. It may sound like no harm was done, but if this happened to a more established Davis resident (perhaps a reader of the Vanguard), then imagine the hell that they would raise. For students these stops are common. Now add the breathalyzer into these fishing expeditions.
[quote]ERM – Thank you for so explicitly showing the hatred that influential members of the community feel towards students. While a student at UCD, I always had a feeling that this attitude was out there, but it was never so clearly stated. Now as a community member I’m ashamed of my current peers. [/quote]
Don’t put words in my mouth. I do not “hate” students. I love students (I had three of my own attend and graduate from UCD). In my post I made it very clear that IMO students give a vibrancy to this town. What I do object to is students who cannot behave themselves, and trample all over my rights to live in peace on my property. Now explain why that attitude is so unreasonable?
[quote]I think equating underage drinking with sexual assault undermines the seriousness of sexual assault. [/quote]
The analogy to the UCD band debacle is apt. If this town condones sexual assault, it is no surprise they look the other way at underage drinking and all the problems it causes.
[quote]I think Davis has issues with a heavy-drinking subset of the student population that are less severe than most comparable college towns.[/quote]
Are you living in the same town I am? If I remember correctly, Picnic Day was slated for elimination if it didn’t clean up its act, no?
BW, I feel that your general thoughts on alcohol for 18-20 year olds is part of the reason we are disagreeing. I think that many 18-20 year olds are to immature to drink. I think the statistics prove this. Unfortunately, we cannot easily determine who is mature and responsible, so an age has to be the arbitrary limit. The line has to be set somewhere (unless you are a proponent of no drinking age requirements). I think 21 is appropriate; however, I feel that active duty servicemen/women should be allowed the opportunity to drink while deployed and on R&R. BTW, be careful what you bring up as far as right to vote, etc. I am sure you will find people who flip the argument on you and say that it is a problem that 18 year olds are allowed to vote.
As far as what you said about your stop, I would consider that an officer doing his/her job. You didn’t give us any other circumstances as to day/night, location, etc. If all they did was ask you basic questions like you stated, where is the harm. I would rather they be inquisitive. Without more information, I seriously doubt they would have asked you to submit to a breathalyzer in the situation that you cite. If an officer was in the habit of doing this, and was constantly testing people that came out to a 0.0%, then it would be very easy to bring that officer under review.
As for your comments about a more established Davis Resident being questioned, it has happened to me three times over the past five years. I work on the East side of town, and am often working late into the night and early in the morning. I am between buildings, and occasionally go for a walk to clear my head. I have had officers ask me what I am doing out late at night, why I am in the area. They had no other reason to question me other that that it is unusual to see people out in the area at the time I was out. Businesses over here have had rashes of burglaries on occasion. Does it take a few extra minutes of my time to talk to them? Sure. But I am glad they do it. It makes for a safer and better city.
Just got back from walking through the alley across from my house, where students began to congregate yet again. To get home I had to walk through the middle of the gauntlet formed by loitering teens. They were in the process of getting ready to iphone their friends to come on over and have a drink and party in the alley, a favorite watering hole for underage minors to consume alcohol and smoke marijuana. While there, they would have left trash, and sprayed the walls with nasty graffiti like they have every other time… except that I stood and stared at them from a distance. They got tired of me watching them, didn’t want to be “supervised”, and split after about 2 minutes. I’m tired of the alleyway I walk through to get home being a teen hangout to drink and drug, which results in defaced property and safety problems. We have small children on our street who play outside…
[quote]I do think that the minimum drinking age in this country is too high. We will send an 18-year-old to war, and let them vote, but we won’t let them drink a beer. [/quote]
I’m all for raising the age to go to war to 21…
“(b) An officer detaining or arresting a person for a violation of this article shall request the person consent to a preliminary alcohol screening test, or other evidentiary breath test if a preliminary alcohol screening test is not available, for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol in the person. The testing shall be incidental to a lawful detention and administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable cause to believe the person was in violation of subdivision (a).”
This is not lawful from what has been explained to me. There is no implied consent in walking down the street.
What? Where’s Don Shor when you need him to remove posts, cite abuse & assess off topic remarks?
When seconds count…
For an interesting read [about 10 pp] see:
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JENNIFER S.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A122900
(Del Norte County
Super. Ct. No. JDSQ08-6182)
ERM
As an older citizen of our community, and having raised two children, I fully agree with your concerns about the seriousness of the adverse consequences of drinking that disrupts the peace and safety of others regardless of the age of the perpetrator. Where we disagree is on the merits of this particular proposal.
1) I do not agree that ” the possibility of infringement of civil liberties is an amorphous trepidation”. Of course this is true in the most narrow sense
since this particular ordinance is not in effect, however, as I alluded to in my previous post, the police can and do abuse their right to request
Alcohol testing. And yes, I did find it egregious and offensive when done to me.
2) Bigger concerns to me are equal application of the law, the highly subjective nature of reasonable cause, the lack of ability to enforce
effectively, and the tying up of a relatively small number of officers who are already arguably stretched too thin to enforce the laws we already
have according to your own posts, with this highly questionable and untested ordinance.
3) While I definitely sympathize with your frustration and anger with your feeling of lack of safety and the defacement of property, the “what
about my rights” argument can be a very tenuous one is our society and almost always results in one group resenting the rights and values
of others. An example in which I persistently come up on the short side in our society is that of the right to carry a concealed weapon.
My position on this is that I am more fearful of an armed individual than I am of one who is unarmed. So what about my right to be able to feel
safe and secure by being able to see who is armed and thus be able to avoid them ? There is no mention in the Constitution of the right of
concealment, and yet folks who feel safer with their concealed weapons routinely dismiss my fear of their concealed weapon. Living in a
democracy is always a balancing act between the rights of individuals of varying points of view.
[quote]Living in a
democracy is always a balancing act between the rights of individuals of varying points of view.[/quote]
Precisely. And drunken students have had it too much their own way for too long, trampling on my rights as a property owner to enjoy it. It is about time the pendulum swung a bit the other way…
There are already laws against everything you are describing, so I’m still trying to understand why we need a new law
The existing public drunkenness statute requires that there be at least some of the usual signs of intoxication. These include staggering, alcoholic beverage on breath, red eyes, slurred speech, and so on. Witnessing any of these behaviors is the probably cause standard to be met before someone could be legally detained.
In other words, the same public drunkenness identifiers would have to be present for both laws before the officer could detain and investigate further. That said, the “.01” wording is silly as nobody exhibits public drunkenness symptoms with a very low alcohol intake. The ordinance would be better served with a deletion of that phrase.
By the way, delete Section B. The police already have the ability to request a field sobriety test.
Getting back to the existing state statute, a key element in enforcement is the requirement that the suspect is, “unable to care for his own safety or the safety of others.” Yes, arresting officers must meet this standard to arrest a common drunk.
The proposed ordinance does not have this requirement; therefore, the proposed ordinance would be easier to enforce on that point alone.
ERM,
While you may very well be right about some of the things you addressed, there’s still more to be considered. The vast majority of UCD students don’t act as you describe, and the majority of people targeted by this ordinance will not be the people causing your problems, because there are already laws against that. Keep in mind that for every story you have of a rowdy student causing you problems, we students have of being harassed by the police.