Put that bottle in a bag!
mm
IIRC, drinking liquor outdoors in public, or doing so visibly, was
against the law in most jurisdictions, and so people put their
half-pint in a brown paper bag so that it wasn't clear what they were
drinking, and either they were no longer violating any law, or it was
impossible to enforce the law in their case. I'm not sure which.
Then in the early 1970's or so, the US Supreme Court ruled something
like public drunkeness could be against the law, but public drinking
could not be generally. There could be rules made for public parks
against drinking, and probably some other limited areas, but it
couldn't be a generally applicable law.
It's been more than 30 years and I haven't noticed any change in
people's habits. I don't think I've ever seen anyone drinking liquor
in public outside without it being in a bag. Is that so it doesn't
slip out of their hands, because they don't know the law has changed,
or did they somehow change the situaton and it's still or again
against the law in many areas?
Gordon Burditt
>people's habits. I don't think I've ever seen anyone drinking liquor
>in public outside without it being in a bag.
Is it possibly because they don't want the liquor stolen, or get mugged
by someone who wants to steal it? Is it possible they don't want to
be nagged by teetotalers?
Barry Gold
>Much less important than the previous question. :)
>
>IIRC, drinking liquor outdoors in public, or doing so visibly, was
>against the law in most jurisdictions, and so people put their
>half-pint in a brown paper bag so that it wasn't clear what they were
>drinking, and either they were no longer violating any law, or it was
>impossible to enforce the law in their case. I'm not sure which.
There is a video floating around of a senior cop addressing some
junior cops on this subject. He points out that the "bottle in a bag"
was a perfect solution to a dilema:
1. The city council (or state legislature) saw fit to pass a law
against drinking alcohol in public.
2. For many lower-middle-class and lower-class people, the street
corner is their "bar". They stand around talking and drinking
beer or wine, not really creating a problem except for people
who are offended by seeing men standing around drinking.
3. If the cops actually enforced this ordinance, they would make
themselves extremely unpopular. In addition, they would have no
time left for dealing with real crime.
4. But if the cops _don't_ enforce the law, they encourage
disrespect for the law in general. Plus the people who wrote
their councilmen and got the law passed will object to the cops
ignoring this obious "crime".
Some genius put the bottle in a bag. Presto: the cops can't see what
is inside the bag, so they have no grounds to arrest anybody for
drinking in public. And nobody can (legitimately) complain that they
aren't enforcing the law, because this is clearly beyond their power.
Problem solved.
The senior cop was proposing that a similar solution be found for the
various drug laws. There are way too many people violating those laws
to make it practicable to actually enforce them. So the cops use it
as a way to bust those they want to bust, and make themselves
unpopular in most minority areas. Plus the time spent on busting
somebody for smoking marijuana or snorting cocaine is time not spent
solving or preventing real crimes.
--
Barry Gold, webmaster:
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Inc.: http://www.lasfsinc.org
David Chesler
> I don't think I've ever seen anyone drinking liquor
I'll leave the substantive questions to the net.lawyers (including
what in Massachusetts is called "protective custody" -- it sure seems
like arrest and detention but it isn't -- there was a question whether
the cops may take someone out of a house and place him in protective
custody merely because he is drunk) but my father always said the
reason you put your liquor in a brown paper bag is so you don't have
to see the end coming.
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
Free Cory Maye
Jimmy
> Some genius put the bottle in a bag. �Presto: the cops can't see what
> is inside the bag, so they have no grounds to arrest anybody for
> drinking in public. �And nobody can (legitimately) complain that they
> aren't enforcing the law, because this is clearly beyond their power.
It's generally known in NYC that cops will ticket you even if your
alcohol is in a brown bag. It happened to someone I know.
While the police might not have proof you're drinking alcohol, and
they might not have constitutional grounds to search the bag, they
know what's going on when they see a brown paper bag and write the
ticket anyway.
Jimmy
Barry Gold
>> Some genius put the bottle in a bag. �Presto: the cops can't see what
>> is inside the bag, so they have no grounds to arrest anybody for
>> drinking in public. �And nobody can (legitimately) complain that they
>> aren't enforcing the law, because this is clearly beyond their power.
Jimmy <JimmyG...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>It's generally known in NYC that cops will ticket you even if your
>alcohol is in a brown bag. It happened to someone I know.
>
>While the police might not have proof you're drinking alcohol, and
>they might not have constitutional grounds to search the bag, they
>know what's going on when they see a brown paper bag and write the
>ticket anyway.
Fascinating. My guess is that they expect people will just pay the
ticket rather than go to court and fight it. Because if they actually
go to court, the dialog will go something like this:
Defense Atty (on cross-examination): Officer Smith, did you see what
was in the paper bag the defendant was holding?
Officer Smith: No, but it was reasonable to presume...
Def.atty: Objection -- just answer the question.
Judge: sustained
Smith: No.
(Prosecution rests)
Def.atty: Your honor, we move for a directed verdict for lack of a
prima facie case. Officer Smith's testimony does not provide enough
evidence to prove my client was drinking alcohol _beyond a reasonable
doubt_.
Prosecutor: (pounds on the table and waves hands in the air)
Judge: Motion granted. A verdict of Not Guilty is entered. The jury
is excused with the thanks of the Court.
Seth
And when someone claims that what he was drinking wasn't alcoholic,
what happens? He goes to court, the police officer testifies that he
saw the defendant drinking out of a paper bag, the defendant testifies
that he'd just bought a soda, the store clerk had put it in a paper
bag, he wanted to drink it immediately and he didn't want to litter,
so he left it in the bag while drinking it.
(Why not just pour the alcoholic drink into a coffee cup? People
sipping from coffee cups in public is a common sight.)
Seth
AndyS
Def.atty: Your honor, we move for a directed verdict for lack of a
prima facie case. Officer Smith's testimony does not provide enough
evidence to prove my client was drinking alcohol _beyond a reasonable
doubt_.
Prosecutor: (pounds on the table and waves hands in the air)
Judge: Motion granted. A verdict of Not Guilty is entered. The jury
is excused with the thanks of the Court.
Andy comments:
However, the defendant is still out many hundred dollars he
had to pay to his defense attorney. That alone should prevent
him from future actions which a local cop could "mis-interpret"....
Justice works in mysterious ways.....
Andy in Eureka, Texas
Don
> It's generally known in NYC that cops will ticket you even if your
> alcohol is in a brown bag. It happened to someone I know.
>
> While the police might not have proof you're drinking alcohol, and
> they might not have constitutional grounds to search the bag, they
> know what's going on when they see a brown paper bag and write the
> ticket anyway.
I see joggers, bicycle riders, skaters, etc. drinking out of water
bottles in public all the time, especially on hot summer days. Those
bottles could contain alcohol, who knows. Isn't it discimination for
cops to target people at football games and concerts just because they
drink from something in paper bags, while letting those sporting folks
go free? Come to think of it, even cans of coke and 7-up could be laced
with alcohol.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> I see joggers, bicycle riders, skaters, etc. drinking out of
> water bottles in public all the time, especially on hot summer
> days. Those bottles could contain alcohol, who knows. Isn't it
> discimination for cops to target people at football games and
> concerts just because they drink from something in paper bags,
> while letting those sporting folks go free? Come to think of it,
> even cans of coke and 7-up could be laced with alcohol.
It's certainly discrimination - just not illegal discrimination. I
guess they figure that if you can wait long enough to get the alcohol
into a water bottle, you're not a serious enough alcoholic to bother
with.
Seth
[ticket for drinking in public, drink inside a bag]
>Fascinating. My guess is that they expect people will just pay the
>ticket rather than go to court and fight it. Because if they actually
>go to court, the dialog will go something like this:
>
>Defense Atty (on cross-examination): Officer Smith, did you see what
>was in the paper bag the defendant was holding?
>
>Officer Smith: No, but it was reasonable to presume...
Officer Smith: I asked the defendant if he was drinking alcohol, and
to show me the contents of the bag. He refused, and dropped the bag
and its contents into a sewer.
>Def.atty: Your honor, we move for a directed verdict for lack of a
>prima facie case. Officer Smith's testimony does not provide enough
>evidence to prove my client was drinking alcohol _beyond a reasonable
>doubt_.
>
>Prosecutor: (pounds on the table and waves hands in the air)
>
>Judge: Motion granted. A verdict of Not Guilty is entered. The jury
>is excused with the thanks of the Court.
It's a _ticket_. There's no jury (and likely to attorneys).
Seth
mm
>On 2009-11-30 11:43:17 -0800, Jimmy <JimmyG...@mailinator.com> said:
>
>> It's generally known in NYC that cops will ticket you even if your
>> alcohol is in a brown bag. It happened to someone I know.
>>
>> While the police might not have proof you're drinking alcohol, and
>> they might not have constitutional grounds to search the bag, they
>> know what's going on when they see a brown paper bag and write the
>> ticket anyway.
>
>I see joggers, bicycle riders, skaters, etc. drinking out of water
>bottles in public all the time, especially on hot summer days. Those
>bottles could contain alcohol, who knows. Isn't it discimination for
>cops to target people at football games and concerts just because they
>drink from something in paper bags,
Where I come from it's not those at games and concerts so much who get
trouble, but the ones drinking in alleys or on street corners who have
to be careful to use their paper bag.
But no one mentioned any Supreme Court decision in the 60's or 70's.
I know I read something but it must not have changed the country that
much.
Barry Gold
>>Judge: Motion granted. A verdict of Not Guilty is entered. The jury
>>is excused with the thanks of the Court.
Seth wrote:
>It's a _ticket_. There's no jury (and likely to attorneys).
OK, no lawyer, but knowledgable defendant. Much the same sequence,
with minor variations:
>>Def't (on cross-examination): Officer Smith, did you see what
>>was in the paper bag I was holding?
>>
>>Officer Smith: No, but it was reasonable to presume...
Def't: objection: conclusion on the part of the witness.
>Officer Smith: I asked the defendant if he was drinking alcohol, and
>to show me the contents of the bag. He refused, and dropped the bag
>and its contents into a sewer.
Def't: objection: absent probable cause, Officer Smith had no right to
demand to be shown the contents of the bag. Therefore, defendant's
refusal to show it is not admissible.
>>Def't: Your honor, I move for a directed verdict for lack of a
>>prima facie case. Officer Smith's testimony does not provide enough
>>evidence to prove I was drinking alcohol _beyond a reasonable
>>doubt_.
Prosecutor: (hems and haws)
Judge: Motion granted. Case dismissed.
Jimmy
> Jimmy �<JimmyGeldb...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >It's generally known in NYC that cops will ticket you even if your
> >alcohol is in a brown bag. �It happened to someone I know.
>
> >While the police might not have proof you're drinking alcohol, and
> >they might not have constitutional grounds to search the bag, they
> >know what's going on when they see a brown paper bag and write the
> >ticket anyway.
>
> Fascinating. �My guess is that they expect people will just pay the
The ticket my friend got was a type where you had to show up in court,
even to plead guilty (a desk appearance ticket?).
The case was dismissed as soon as it was called, so the only
punishment was having to wake up early enough to get to lower
Manhattan on time.
Jimmy
Seth
Jimmy <JimmyG...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> Jimmy �<JimmyGeldb...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> >It's generally known in NYC that cops will ticket you even if your
>> >alcohol is in a brown bag. �It happened to someone I know.
>The case was dismissed as soon as it was called, so the only
>punishment was having to wake up early enough to get to lower
>Manhattan on time.
I suspect that most such tickets are written to people who are not
likely to show up in court and look like they're prepared to argue
intelligently; and for those who do, having to show up is probably
considered sufficient punishment.
Seth
Mike Jacobs
[Moderator - I didn't snip any of the prior post, which was already
pretty closely trimmed of irrelevant prior content by the time it got
posted - but I am top-posting here so readers can get to the new
stuff first, then see the context if they want]
Whenever we see a pattern that the cops are routinely busting people
for doing something minor where "they know what's going on" but could
never prove it in a court of law, and especially when the net result
is that the cops either get people to 'fess up to and pay for crimes/
violations that would otherwise properly go unheeded and unpunished
_or_ make people go out of their way to come to court and defend
themselves - which waste of time or coerced fine, as Jimmy points out,
is itself a form of extra-judicial punishment that the police can mete
out summarily, even before trial - then arguably, the police are
overstepping their bounds and acting improperly.
We expect such things to happen in a totalitarian police state, where
everything is forbidden unless it is specifically permitted, and where
an arrest by the State is almost as good as a conviction (since
"undesirables" can be sent to prison in Siberia indefinitely, without
benefit of a trial or even a specific charge). We do _not_ expect
nor, I would hope, tolerate such things in the Land of the Free, where
everything is supposed to be permitted unless specifically forbidden;
where, even as to those things that are forbidden, due process
requires fair notice of specific charges and a fair opportunity to
contest those charges (i.e. a trial); and where the State must prove
guilt of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt. In such a Free
Land, the police are supposed to exist for the laudable purpose to
_protect_and_defend_ the citizenry, not to harass and cow them,
although we know that sometimes those bounds are overstepped by an
over-zealous cop in the heat of an actual enforcement situation in the
field.
What I find unconscionable, though, is a measured decision by higher-
ups in the police force, or some politician's office, to intentionally
disregard these Constitutional restrictions on police action, and to
(in effect) bypass the courts by encouraging the beat cops to impose
such extra-judicial punishments routinely on "undesirables" who are
nevertheless minding their own business in a manner which is unlikely
to get them _convicted_ of any crime in any fair proceeding, so the
cops can "clean up" the city and make it more presentable for
tourists, or make it safer for the oligocracy (e.g. when police harass
and groundlessly arrest those who are attending a protest rally,
frex).
I don't know enough about NYC in particular to make any factual
allegations myself, but I do know I've heard discussions debating
whether, back when Rudy Giuliani was mayor (and even before that, when
he was NYC's chief prosecutor), the "cleanup" effort in NYC went
largely along those lines - sometimes with tragic results, as in the
case of Amadou Diallo (Google him), the guy who got shot and killed by
cops while unarmed because he was reaching for his wallet after he got
stopped (for no good reason, as it turned out). So, it's not all just
about a couple hours wasted at Manhattan municipal court to defend
against a legally unsupportable petty charge, it could be a matter of
life and death.
The same attitude that led to Giuliani's "cleanup" of NYC led his
Republican, neo-con pals GW Bush and his followers and handlers
(Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft et al) to create an American gulag at the
Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba and to ship thousands of suspected
"terrorists" there for years of detention without a trial or even a
specific accusation of wrongdoing. It also led the Washington, D.C.
police department to perform groundless mass arrests of people
protesting globalism at the World Bank back in 2000 - a wrongful act
for which the DC government recently paid a $13 _million_ settlement
to the victims. See e.g.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/23/ap/national/main5751321.shtml
Fortunately, as shown by the recent DC verdict and other new
developments since the Obama administration began, including the
President's recent Nobel Prize speech, we seem to be coming back to a
sense of balance and proportion in this country, where we can protect
our national security and protect the citizenry without destroying
everything good we stand for, and countless peoples' lives, in the
process.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Seth
>>[ticket for drinking in public, drink inside a bag]
>Barry Gold <bg...@nyx.net> wrote:
>>>Def't (on cross-examination): Officer Smith, did you see what
>>>was in the paper bag I was holding?
>>>
>>>Officer Smith: No, but it was reasonable to presume...
>
>Def't: objection: conclusion on the part of the witness.
Prosecutor: Professional opinion is admissible.
>>Officer Smith: I asked the defendant if he was drinking alcohol, and
>>to show me the contents of the bag. He refused, and dropped the bag
>>and its contents into a sewer.
Nice trick, that. It isn't at all easy to drop something that size
down a sewer; in NYC, drop it, step on it, and kick it into the side
opening (the only one large enough). And then the officer can write a
ticket for littering. Or as soon as the bag is dropped, he can pick
it up or step on it to prevent it from being kicked into the sewer
(assuming there's a sewer opening right there in the first place).
>Def't: objection: absent probable cause, Officer Smith had no right to
>demand
Prosecution: He asked, not demanded.
> to be shown the contents of the bag. Therefore, defendant's
>refusal to show it is not admissible.
So the police officer smells alcohol on the person's breath, suggests
he's guilty of "intoxicated in public" (however that's defined), and
takes him to the police station for a breath test. Somewhere in that
process, the defendant puts down the bag, and the officer opens it (no
expectation of privacy in a non-sealed bag).
Seth