LV ordinance would tighten drinking law

Monday, Jan. 6, 2003 | 11:06 a.m.

An ordinance will be introduced at the Las Vegas City Council meeting Wednesday that would further restrict the drinking of packaged liquor on city streets.

The proposed ordinance would make it illegal to open packaged alcohol -- beer and wine bottles, cans, etc. -- and drink it within 1,000 feet of a "church, synagogue, public or private school, hospital, drug treatment center or homeless shelter."

It differs from the current ordinance under which a person need only walk more than 1,000 feet from where he bought the alcohol to open and drink it -- even if that location is near a school, church or the other establishments.

City officials say the measure is designed to help law enforcement better address alcohol-related problems. But the American Civil Liberties Union says the proposal is yet another attempt by the city to selectively enforce laws and restrict the rights of the homeless and otherwise poor.

The proposed ordinance on Wednesday will be sent to a council recommending committee meeting later this month. Public comment will be taken at that meeting.

Jim DiFiore, the city's business services manager, says the proposed ordinance does not apply to residences or special events within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, or the other establishments that would otherwise trigger the prohibition. It also does not apply to people carrying glasses of alcohol between downtown casinos.

"This addresses the same kind of problems as when we wrote the convenience store part of this ordinance several years ago," DiFiore said. "Metro Police now have additional concerns of people leaving the area from where they bought the alcohol and drinking it in front of a school. These are safety concerns.

"It is fair because it will apply to everyone."

Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU Nevada, says the ordinance would not treat everyone fairly.

"You will not find the upper middle-class or tourists close to drug treatment centers or homeless shelters. This bill targets the places where homeless people can be ensnared by police and thrown in jail," Peck said.

"This is another instance where the city, instead of dealing with the issue of homelessness and poverty in a sensible way, as a health issue, is instead criminalizing it and overburdening the courts and wasting tax dollars. It is another political stunt and not an effort at serious policy-making."

DiFiore said the tradition of allowing people to carry glasses of alcohol between casinos in the resort corridor areas is exempted because they are not drinking packaged liquor and there generally are no schools, churches or like businesses near casinos.

"It usually is a case where a person walks a short distance from one casino to another with a glass in his hand," DiFiore said. "However, it is not legal for a person to buy say a six pack of beer and walk along Fremont Street and drink the whole six pack."

DiFiore said the city, which has done sweeps of makeshift shelters on city streets, must consider health risks to the public. During past sweeps, the areas just south of the homeless shelters were heavily littered with empty beer bottles and cans, posing a public health threat, DiFiore said.

The proposed ordinance comes on the heels of a City Council decision to allocate about $434,000 for a $3.8 million crisis center at WestCare, located within the city's limits, to address public inebriation and mental illness.

Also, a hospital is one of the projects suggested for 61 acres of former railroad land just west of downtown, which currently does not include plans for alcohol-serving establishments.

DiFiore said the city's talks with police addressed only some general areas, not specific parts of the city.

Peck, however, believes that in the wake of the city's recent police sweeps of the downtown area, which resulted in arrests of people for incidents like jaywalking, this ordinance will be used as a hammer on those who do not have the financial means to properly defend themselves.

"We are always worried about selective enforcement, and based on the recent downtown sweeps, this law opens a new set of problems," Peck said. "Based on the city's past practices, there is no expectation that government officials will enforce this with even-handedness."