San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow issued a press release Tuesday threatening to withhold offers of diversion to those arrested for misdemeanor offenses committed during St. Patrick’s Day celebrations.
Dow declared that anyone arrested for misdemeanors in the city’s “Safety Enhancement Zone” between March 14 and March 18, 2025, will not be eligible for pre-filing diversion programs.
While maintaining order during large public gatherings is clearly a legitimate concern, the elimination of diversion options raises significant legal, ethical, and practical questions.
Rather than being an effective deterrent, this move over-polices young people, burdens the courts, and ignores proven public safety strategies that actually work.
San Luis Obispo—home to Cal Poly San Luis Obispo—sees a surge in public drinking and partying during St. Patrick’s Day, much like other college towns across the country.
To address potential disorder, the city designates a temporary “Safety Enhancement Zone” where: laws are strictly enforced, fines for violations are doubled and law enforcement increases patrols and DUI checkpoints
While these measures may seem reasonable on the surface, banning diversion programs altogether is an overreach that criminalizes first-time offenders rather than guiding them toward rehabilitation.
The impact disproportionately impacts students and young people, who may face long-term consequences for minor infractions
This policy fails to recognize that one-time, party-related offenses do not equate to ongoing criminal behavior.
If the goal is to ensure public safety, then why remove tools that address low-level offenses more effectively than jail time and criminal records?
Are Zero-Tolerance Policies Effective? History Says No.
San Luis Obispo’s policy follows a long tradition of college towns cracking down on public celebrations. However, research suggests that these tough-on-crime tactics are largely ineffective:
Illinois – “Unofficial St. Patrick’s Day” at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)
- University of Illinois officials implemented aggressive police crackdowns, leading to mass arrests, fines, and bar restrictions.
- Outcome: While the event shrank over time, complaints of excessive force, racial profiling, and constitutional violations increased.
West Virginia University – FallFest Crackdown
- Morgantown, WV, suspended pretrial diversions, ramped up enforcement, and boosted arrests.
- Outcome: Public intoxication decreased slightly, but arrest rates remained stable, suggesting the policy merely shifted criminal activity to different locations.
New Orleans – Mardi Gras
- New Orleans enforces a zero-tolerance zone but continues to offer diversion programs after the event.
- Outcome: Strict policing in high-risk areas helped manage violence, but targeted enforcement—rather than blanket bans—was key.
San Diego – Beach Alcohol Ban
- After a series of violent incidents, San Diego banned alcohol on public beaches and increased patrols.
- Outcome: Public disturbances declined on beaches but increased in surrounding neighborhoods, proving that strict enforcement does not eliminate crime—it just moves it elsewhere.
The lesson? Heavy-handed policies often fail to prevent crime but also can escalate tensions rather than diffuse them.
The blanket denial of diversion programs also raises serious legal and constitutional red flags.
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits selective enforcement or policies that disproportionately impact certain groups. If this policy only applies within a designated zone and not citywide, it could be challenged as arbitrary and unfair enforcement.
Prosecutors have broad discretion, but courts have ruled that they must consider cases individually rather than implementing rigid, one-size-fits-all policies.
Furthermore, under California law, misdemeanor diversion exists to reduce long-term harm for low-level offenders.
The San Luis Obispo policy removes that safeguard without individualized consideration, potentially violating state law.
While policymakers may frame this move as tough but necessary, the collateral damage falls squarely on young people, students, and first-time offenders.
Students face potentially life-altering consequences for minor offense—remember, these are misdemeanors but a single misdemeanor charge can jeopardize scholarships, job prospects, and professional licensing.
Non-violent offenses—like public intoxication or disorderly conduct—should not carry lifetime penalties.
Furthermore, there is the potential that such a move could backfire, and the system could be overwhelmed.
Without diversion, there will be fewer immediate releases and more cases will go through the court system, leading to backlogs and delays for more serious offenses.
Low-level offenders lose the chance for rehabilitation as diversion programs exist to educate and rehabilitate. Removing them increases recidivism rates rather than addressing underlying causes.
Over-policing college students and partygoers does not build community trust. Heavy-handed tactics could lead to tensions between students, local residents, and law enforcement.
What Works Better? Evidence-Based Solutions
If San Luis Obispo truly wants to ensure public safety, there are proven strategies that work far better than blanket criminalization:
Targeted Enforcement – Focus on high-risk behaviors rather than sweeping crackdowns. Arrest repeat offenders, not first-time partygoers.
Community Engagement – Partner with universities, local businesses, and student organizations to promote responsible drinking and behavior.
Safe Ride Programs – Increase free or low-cost transportation options to prevent DUI incidents.
Harm Reduction Strategies – Set up medical assistance stations, sober monitors, and alcohol education programs.
Diversion with Accountability – If someone commits a misdemeanor, allow them to complete alcohol education, community service, or counseling rather than permanent criminal records.
The San Luis Obispo DA’s office is making a mistake by prioritizing punishment over prevention. The decision to remove diversion programs for St. Patrick’s Day offenses is not a smart or fair way to enforce the law.
Instead of mass arrests and rigid prosecution, San Luis Obispo should invest in targeted, evidence-based strategies that actually reduce harm while ensuring fairness in the criminal justice system.
Tough-on-crime policies make headlines—but smart public safety strategies save lives. It’s time to ditch the ineffective crackdowns and embrace solutions that work.
“proving that strict enforcement does not eliminate crime—it just moves it elsewhere.”
Just like public drug using street people 😐
“What Works Better? Evidence-Based Solutions” Because if it’s ‘evidence-based’, it sounds like it’s based on science, and a bunch of people gathered at the Capitol recently to support “science”. But was it ‘evidence-based’ science?