Havin' A Brew on Your Stoop May Cost Ya.

GOD wrote: [quote=King without a crown]Wow things must be pretty slow around here! Didn't we exhaust this topic several times in the last month?

I think it's still moving...

Carnivore wrote: [quote=modsquad] I can't imagine what "supporting deposition" would make this a "slam dunk".

Maybe this will answer your question.

Why do you use every thread to support your own Cop hating agenda? I think I answered all quesions honestly and accurately. As a moderator on this board, I would expect a little more from you.

Cops busting you for open container when quietly drinking in front of your home is a dick move - particularly if you've poured your drink into a neutral container because the cop basically has to go out of their way and approach you and your beverage closely enough to determine if there's any alcohol involved. Think of the actual physical steps needed for a cop walking a bea or driving a car to walk to your stoop, walk up a stair or two and basically start smelling you and your cup.

A cop could technically approach every single adult he/she sees drinking some sort of beverage out a a coke bottle or a coffee cup or what have you - but really how often does that happen? That could be a vodka and coke in that coke bottle. That can be an Irish coffee in that Starbucks cup.

But if a cop spent their entire shift accosting citizens to see if he can catch the whiff of booze off of them or their cup - so that he may write a ticket - that cop wouldn't be doing much for public relations. One would think that this cop should find better use for his time. Would his superiors approve of this cop spending his entire shift sniffing passerbys for signs of booze consumption? Or actually not passerbys - because in these instances its people sitting in front of their homes - the cops is inititiating contact w/people who are just sitting quietly minding their own business.

The above cop would seem to be a prick. Hence a cop who approaches someone drinking "something" out of a neutral vessel in hopes of busting balls or to write a ticket comes off like a prick.

Drinking straight out a beer bottle in the stoop scenario makes the cops' approach easier to accept - but still, it's sort of a prick move, no?

Well, the story completely outs me to the world (and this board), but here's the NYT story on my recent brush with the NYC open container law:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/nyregion/08stoop.html?ref=nyregion

Carnivore wrote:
Nitpicking a bit, but alcohol itself has no odor

I've heard this before, but I don't believe it. I've used spectroscopic grade ethanol. It's a volatile solvent. You can smell it if you haven't been drinking.

Here's a paper about factors affecting alcohol odor detection, naming a 'well-validated' ethanol odor threshold test.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14508636

sterling2000 wrote: Well, the story completely outs me to the world (and this board), but here's the NYT story on my recent brush with the NYC open container law:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/nyregion/08stoop.html?ref=nyregion

Your story made #1 on the Libertarian Subreddit today.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/

sterling2000 wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/nyregion/08stoop.html?ref=nyregion

Most interesting, or, er, LAMEST part:

Indeed, last year, a State Supreme Court justice in the Bronx ruled that an apartment building lobby qualified as a “public place” in relation to the open-container law. A police officer had confronted a man who was drinking a beer in the lobby of a building on the Grand Concourse, and Justice Joseph J. Dawson ruled that the officer had probable cause to arrest him.

Not that precedent doesn't get overturned, but if a lobby qualifies as public, a stoop certainly does as well. Under _that_ precedent, at least.

What _really_ bugs me about that though, is that there is really no end to that thinking. If you leave your door open for ventilation, does then make you living room public? What about a window? What about if you have the door closed, but not locked? Someone could walk in, does that then make it public? I mean, if a “substantial group of persons” can gain access to your lobby or stoop, then shy not walking into the apartment?

Anyway. I'd rather be fighting the man. And all.

Subject: Reasonablenes

Reasonableness - is a word that America has forgot - especially when it comes to the law. A reasonable cop would have determined that here is a man sitting by himself enjoying a beer disturbing no one. But the cop had to think of everything as black and white the "law is the law".
How many times has that cop had a beer in public, I'm sure many.

daver wrote: [quote=sterling2000]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/nyregion/08stoop.html?ref=nyregion

Most interesting, or, er, LAMEST part:

Indeed, last year, a State Supreme Court justice in the Bronx ruled that an apartment building lobby qualified as a “public place” in relation to the open-container law. A police officer had confronted a man who was drinking a beer in the lobby of a building on the Grand Concourse, and Justice Joseph J. Dawson ruled that the officer had probable cause to arrest him.

Not that precedent doesn't get overturned, but if a lobby qualifies as public, a stoop certainly does as well. Under _that_ precedent, at least.

What _really_ bugs me about that though, is that there is really no end to that thinking. If you leave your door open for ventilation, does then make you living room public? What about a window? What about if you have the door closed, but not locked? Someone could walk in, does that then make it public? I mean, if a “substantial group of persons” can gain access to your lobby or stoop, then shy not walking into the apartment?

Anyway. I'd rather be fighting the man. And all.

This my argument. If a stoop or lobby is defined as a "public space" then what recourse do you have in asking people who are trespassing to leave? We ought to just remove the locks from our building's lobbies and start installing park benches for the general public to just come and hang out.

Although a stoop to a Condo with 20 some odd units is not by defenition a "Public space", the fact that this stoop provides access to the buildings residents and visitors; this location would constitute being somewhat public. If the offender were to be drinking a beer on the stoop to his own single family brownstone, I would say his claim of that location being private would hold more merit. I don't think this Law was enacted to prevent the hard working guy from enjoying a beer on his stoop. Unfortunately, all Officers do not excercise discretion, and the ones who do, are often criticized for practicing "selective enforcement".

King without a crown wrote: Although a stoop to a Condo with 20 some odd units is not by defenition a "Public space", the fact that this stoop provides access to the buildings residents and visitors; this location would constitute being somewhat public. If the offender were to be drinking a beer on the stoop to his own single family brownstone, I would say his claim of that location being private would hold more merit.

How so? Whether the property is held jointly by twenty owners or held by a single owner, it is still not a public space. Hence the large NO TRESPASSING OR LOITERING BY NON-RESIDENTS sign over my stoop.

King without a crown wrote: I don't think this Law was enacted to prevent the hard working guy from enjoying a beer on his stoop.

I would agree with that, it is unfortunate that it is being interpreted that way.

King without a crown wrote: Unfortunately, all Officers do not excercise discretion, and the ones who do, are often criticized for practicing "selective enforcement".

Which depends entirely upon who is being enforced upon...

Mougar wrote: [quote=daver]
Whether the property is held jointly by twenty owners or held by a single owner, it is still not a public space. Hence the large NO TRESPASSING OR LOITERING BY NON-RESIDENTS sign over my stoop.

There is a distinction between publicly owned (e.g. Central Park) and publicly accessible (e.g. retail stores). In this case, the cop is considering your stoop a publicly accessible location. However, since you have a No Trespassing sign this doesn't really fly.
Interesting interpretation. Melikes.

I want to sue the asshats that stick flyers and crap on my car. I don't want to be a litter bug and chuck it on the ground. But I don't want to take it and have to have it in my car of find a spot to recycle it. Annoying. My car while parked on the street _may_ be publicly accessible, but it is still my private property and I don't want stuff stuck on it.
Damn it.

Whatchuwant wrote: [quote=daver]I want to sue the asshats that stick flyers and crap on my car. I don't want to be a litter bug and chuck it on the ground. But I don't want to take it and have to have it in my car of find a spot to recycle it. Annoying. My car while parked on the street _may_ be publicly accessible, but it is still my private property and I don't want stuff stuck on it.
Damn it.

They do actually have a law against that now (pretty recent- last year?). Only thing is you have to catch them in the act of putting it on your car.

And then what are you supposed to do- hold the guy down and call cops?

From the law in question, A6247-A

16 2. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the person whose name,
17 telephone number, or other identifying information appears on any adver-
18 tising or soliciting materials described in subdivision one of this
19 section and placed at two or more premises shall be liable for any
20 violations of this section.


So no, you don't have to catch the person in the act. You only need to get another person to file a compliant. The accused may attempt to rebut this presumption, but it would be difficult. Also, you need to have a 5"x7" sign on your property stating you do not want to receive advertisements.

you got steve wasserman on it? excellent.

you got to fight for your right to party.