The police in New York City wrote 124,498 summonses last year for drinking in public — far more than for any other violation. After having to adjudicate so many of these public drinking cases, a Brooklyn judge has decided he has had enough.
The sniff test, judge, Noach Dear wrote, was not enough.
Judge Dear made his intentions known in a written decision released on Thursday in a run-of-the-mill Criminal Court case: Julio Figueroa, 38, was cited for illegally drinking a cup of beer on a city sidewalk near his home in Greenwood Heights, Brooklyn.
It was not sufficient, the judge wrote, that a police officer had smelled the contents of Mr. Figueroa’s cup and detected beer. Nor was it enough that Mr. Figueroa had told the police officer that, yes, the liquid was indeed beer.
In dismissing Mr. Figueroa’s case, Judge Dear wrote that the police should be required to adhere to a higher standard of certainty that the drink’s alcohol content exceeded 0.5 percent, the threshold under the city’s open-container law, before issuing a court summons. One way to do that, he suggested, would be for the New York Police Department to have a laboratory test conducted.
Judge Dear made it clear that he hoped his interpretation of the city’s public drinking law would persuade the Police Department to reconsider its enforcement of the ordinance. In his experience, he wrote, the department singled out blacks and Hispanics when issuing public drinking summonses.
“As hard as I try, I cannot recall ever arraigning a white defendant for such a violation,” wrote Judge Dear, a former city councilman who has handled mostly civil cases since his election to a judgeship in 2007.
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
5 Responses
I disagree with the Judge. If you make a law to difficult to enforce, the police just won’t bother, like many other laws that are not enforced. Also, what percentage of the people that reside in the city are white? I am sure that for the most part, Jews only drink in their homes on Shabbos so you probably won’t arrest any anyway. Also, according to the Judge, if the person was a Jew (and white) he would have had no problem putting him in Jail. That is very interesting indeed.
Seems reasonable. It is perfectly legal to drink non-alcoholic versions of beer and wine, and in any event, a cup would retain a smell even if filled with something else.
Judge Dear never really distinguished himself as a legislator, but he is building up a very favorable reputation as a judge, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he ends up on a higher court.
If you make a law to difficult to enforce, the police just won’t bother, like many other laws that are not enforced.
Why do you have a problem with that?
I don’t understand Dear’s ruling. So the cop is supposed to confiscate the beer, send it for test, then go back an issue a summons? Why not develop a pocket alcohol tester. Was he applying the law when he dismissed the case or using his personal moral standard. Just like a Dem, legislating fromthe bench
#4, yes, let the cop send it for a test, and if it comes back negative compensate the guy for his lost drink. Or else let him just leave the guy alone.
“Why not developt a pocket tester?” No reason. Go ahead and develop one if you like. Or were you expecting Dear to do so, or perhaps the fellow with the drink should do it? It’s not their job. If the police want to get such devices, fine. But until they do, they can’t just charge people based on guesswork.