Should "drunk in public" be illegal?

[Lutherf]

Seems like a license to harass otherwise law-abiding "undesirables."

Absolutely. And it's good to see you included the "otherwise" qualifier.

 

[Gaius46]

You kept your clothes on?

Lol. While in public anyway. Can't say the same for a number of women we ran across.

 

[matchlight]

States have inherent authority as sovereigns to make laws and policies regulating public health, safety, and welfare. The Supreme Court has usually referred to this power as the "police (as in 'policy,' not the cops) power." Even in the 1950's, courts still recognized that the police power extended to a fourth area--public morals. The usual view now, though, is that public morals are included in the category of public welfare. Public intoxication laws are morals laws, just like laws against public nudity. From the beginnings of this country until about a dozen years ago, the Supreme Court recognized the right of any state to ban certain acts solely because most people in the state believed those acts were immoral and unacceptable. No longer.

I'm all in favor of laws against being intoxicated in most public places, but I realize they have to be justified as serving some legitimate government purpose. Not enough just to think that having your streets full of drunks lowers the moral tone of your community. And I don't presume to speak for people who live in other states. It should be up to the majority in each state to decide what kind of moral tone they want to maintain. If some state wants to prohibit all drinking in public places, or allow nudity in all public places, or allow marijuana smoking on the city hall steps, it's none of my damned business.

 

[d0gbreath]

I got popped for it in 1990. Moved back from Norcal, went to Borrowed Money with a couple of friends on 50 cent shot night. When I left, I knew that I couldn't drive home, so I went to sleep on the bench seat in my truck in a crowded parking lot. I woke up to someone shaking my shoulder at 3am. It was Johnny Law and his sidekick. The parking lot was empty.

They asked me if I was OK and I said that I was. I think they were going to let me go until they saw my CA DL and all that hair in the picture.
They said I could lock up my truck and leave it there instead of impound. That was nice. Cuffed, in the squad car, I asked what the charge was. They said PI. I said there wasn't a PI law in Texas and they told me that it was just passed 2 years ago while I was out of state.

I was locked up in a hospital looking ward that had about 50 single beds with pillows, sheets, and blankets (far south Harry Hines).

We were all arraigned in the morning, fed breakfast, and released on signature bond to dismissed charges. I did pay $50 to go back there to a six hour drunk class to get it wiped off my record. Your brain treats alcohol just like ether. I learned that in class.

They also passed no open container in your car law while I was out of state. ******s.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

It is a catch all tool of LEO's, they do not have to provide any proof other than they claim you were acting badly and obviously drunk, that is another reason for all of them wearing body camera's while working.

Not where I am. It's really rather specific: CA PC 647(f): Who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled substance, or toluene, in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of his or her being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way.

It's a PC I haven't seen abused much at all in the manner you're indicating.

 

[Ikari]

If I could have my way, for every new law passed, three would have to be repealed.

Yeah, but theaws theyd repeal would likely be banking and corporate oversight and regulations.

 

[MickeyW]

Should "drunk in public" be illegal?

If so, what should the standard be? Same blood alcohol content (BAC) level as driving? Something more subjective like inability to care for oneself and/or being belligerent? Maybe a pre-determined BAC level similar to driving, but higher?

If a person cannot care for them self, and/or is belligerent, don't we already have laws for those? If so, and you feel the criteria should be situation specific, why would we then need a law such as "drunk in public"?

Disclaimers: Question presumes a person is simply in public and not operating any machinery. Question also regards what you believe "should be", not what the law currently is. Your belief may or may not match up with current status.

Always had been, why should it be any different?

 

[MickeyW]

It is a catch all tool of LEO's, they do not have to provide any proof other than they claim you were acting badly and obviously drunk, that is another reason for all of them wearing body camera's while working.

That's BS. I never used any catch all tools. You are either out of line or you aren't! You broke a law...or you didn't. It's not hard to figure out and no anomalies are involved here...


Just like illegal alien, means illegal...that's a crime.

 

[radcen]

Always had been, why should it be any different?

"Because that's the way we've always done it." is not a rational justification. You have to do better than that.

 

[Casper]

That's BS. I never used any catch all tools. You are either out of line or you aren't! You broke a law...or you didn't. It's not hard to figure out and no anomalies are involved here...


Just like illegal alien, means illegal...that's a crime.

,
Actually I am not full of it, had my own experience with a LEO back in the day. A cop pulled over the car with four guys in it, I was not driving, and yes we had been drinking, the driver was barely over the limit and was arrested, rightly so. The LEO then focused on the passengers and one of them got a bit short with the Officer and the next thing I knew everyone was being arrested for public intoxication, even though I had done nothing nor had I said a word to the officer. Pleaded no contest in their night court, was released an hour later, time served, two whole hours, LOL. I am not the first person to have this happen to them and I know of several others that had similar experiences. I did not say, nor do I claim, that all LEO's use this tool, but knowing a few LEO's personally I know that many have used at one time or another if it served the purpose. Maybe you are an exception or they did not use the tool in Oregon, I doubt that, but my own experience and that of others says that it is used.

 

[Mr Person]

Should "drunk in public" be illegal?

If so, what should the standard be? Same blood alcohol content (BAC) level as driving? Something more subjective like inability to care for oneself and/or being belligerent? Maybe a pre-determined BAC level similar to driving, but higher?

If a person cannot care for them self, and/or is belligerent, don't we already have laws for those? If so, and you feel the criteria should be situation specific, why would we then need a law such as "drunk in public"?

Disclaimers: Question presumes a person is simply in public and not operating any machinery. Question also regards what you believe "should be", not what the law currently is. Your belief may or may not match up with current status.

Eh...I don't know. I'm not sure how much it accomplishes. A bad drunk may end up destroying property or fighting with people, and they'll already rack up charges for that. There's probably no need to go after people simply because they are drunk. Maybe you catch a few before they end up doing something. (Alternately, one could make the argument that this is an area where government should save people from themselves; drunk people have a habit of falling into things like lakes, rivers, and bays.)

On the other hand, even with laws against "drunk and disorderly", the people who are drunk but well-behaved aren't going to get in trouble. It's not like they do DUI checkpoints on the sidewalk.

I'm not sure I have a strong feeling one way or the other.



(I have, in fact, been known to go on a nice long walk if I feel like maybe I've had more than I should. It's pleasant to walk and ...well...you walk it off instead of sleeping it off or whatever)

 

[Mr Person]

Always had been, why should it be any different?

Relying solely on the existence of tradition to justify the tradition is illogical boot-strapping. Who cares what we did in the past? The questions are: what is the goal, what do we need to do to achieve it, and what's the cost/benefit analysis look like?