Sean C. Morgan
The Public Works Committee is preparing an ordinance proposal to prohibit public drinking in Sweet Home, which it will submit to the City Council.
City Attorney Robert Snyder said he would draft a proposed ordinance based on the one the city of Albany adopted in 2013. While Albany’s ordinance made the offense a misdemeanor, the Sweet Home proposal would make it a violation. The penalty for a misdemeanor could be arrest and jail time; a violation would lead only to a citation and a fine.
Snyder cautioned the committee that he believes such an ordinance violates state law, even though cities across the state have adopted anti-public drinking laws. The state prohibited cities by law from passing laws prohibiting public drinking because state lawmakers didn’t want local governments treating drinking as an offense instead of a disease in the 1970s.
The state law has an exception, allowing prohibition in particular places, Snyder said, but “when you prohibit it everywhere, you’ve passed a law against public drinking.”
He has told the committee previously that the state says a city cannot pass a law or an ordinance to prohibit public drinking, except in places where it is generally prohibited, such as parks. But if it’s prohibited “everywhere,” the “exception eats up the rule.”
Resident Linda Iljin said the legal question is “touchy” and wondered about why the rules have not been challenged.
Snyder said such laws often may not be challenged for years, and maybe only when circum-stances lead to such a challenge. For instance, he said, Sweet Home city used to tow vehicles when drivers were found driving while suspended – an ordinance he thought was an effective ordinance that kept people who shouldn’t be driving off the road. That happened for years until a driver who was related to an attorney was arrested and then challenged the ordinance, something the Ninth Circuit had previously ruled against as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Iljin said she is concerned that if Sweet Home is the only city that doesn’t prohibit public drinking, word of mouth will spread, and people will come here where they can buy alcohol and consume it in public near stores.
She thinks Sweet Home should pass an ordinance and level the playing field.
Iljin doesn’t hear any objections to banning public drinking, she said. Any challenges would have to go statewide too.
Councilors and committee members Greg Mahler and Dave Trask agreed.
Portland is a big city, and it prohibits public drinking, Trask said, and Portland isn’t worried about it.
Snyder said that if it were up to him, he would avoid treating it as a misdemeanor. Under Albany’s ordinance, a driver with an open container is committing a violation. When that driver steps out of his car, he’s committing a misdemeanor in Albany.
Mahler advocated moving forward and rolling the dice.
He said he’s inundated with complaints about public drinking.
“I think it’s probably not being challenged as much for the simple fact that the public is in agreement with this,” Mahler said. “The public’s going to jump on board with it.”