Legal

If A Man's Home Is His Castle, What's His Stoop?

MayorBob.

Posted to Legal on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:49:05 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Kimber VanRy believes the police in Brooklyn ought to have better things to do.  He doesn't have a problem with them being on patrol and available to protect law abiding citizens from assault and what not.  But he believes they may have stepped over a very broad line in doing what they did to him on August 27th.  Because that's the date he was handed a summons to answer up in court for drinking in a public place.  He's especially torqued at the notion because the public place where he was drinking was his front stoop.

New York City's open container law (NYC administrative code Chap 10-125(2)) prohibits the consumption of alcoholic beverages in a public place.  A public place is defined in the statute as:

A place to which the public or a substantial group of persons has access including, but not limited to, any highway, street, road, sidewalk, parking  area, shopping area, place of  amusement, playground, park or beach located within the city except that the   definition  of  a  public  place  shall  not include those premises duly licensed for the sale and consumption of  alcoholic beverages on the premises or within their own private property.  Such public place shall also include the interior of any stationary motor vehicle which is on any highway, street, road, parking area, shopping area, playground, park or beach located within the city.
There are exceptions to the law; mostly outdoor events and establishments licensed to sell alcoholic beverages.  The summons the police officer handed VanRy that night would probably only cost him (US)$25 if he shows up in court in November and pleads no contest.  However, according to VanRy, something's just not right here.  He doesn't think he did anything wrong and sees the whole drinking-on-your-front-stoop issue "a real gray area."  The officer handing him the summons said if VanRy's coop had a gate in front of the stoop, he would have been totally okay.  Part of that gray area looks like a class thing.  Beer drinkers like VanRy get harassed and nailed for drinking in public while the middle to upper crust are able to imbibe wine in public without fear of getting cited.  Even the Big Apple's mayor Michael Bloomberg was photographed recently with a wine in a Brooklyn park (and left without a summons).

The case law in this area is a bit mixed.  On the one hand, judges have convicted people of the offense who were imbibing in an apartment lobby.  Steve Wasserman of the Legal Aid Society says the law shouldn't apply to a person's property and "if you can't be arrested in your kitchen" why should you be able to be arrested on your front stoop which "may be more like your kitchen than your sidewalk?"  A Columbia University law professor allows as how a person might be on his property but "be in public" at the same time.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by MayorBob, New York City, Brooklyn, open container law, beer, wine, class warfare (all tags)

This story: 7 comments (1 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

draw the line

gerrymander.

Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:02:22 PM EST

5.00 (interesting, interesting)

He doesn't think he did anything wrong and sees the whole drinking-on-your-front-stoop issue "a real gray area."

It's not -- or at least, it shouldn't be. Unlike the apartment complex in the example above, a house's front access is not a common area. Property lines are drawn for a reason, and if VanRy was on his property engaging in legal behavior, doing so on his stoop is no different from doing so from underneath an open doorway.

If NYC wants to make the case that it isn't so, VanRy should accept that judgment -- and immediately file a class-action civil suit seeking redress for the lien a "public access" restriction places upon his and other homeowners' properties, an immediate reassessment of the property for (reduced) tax purposes, and damages owed from the time current owners' properties were initially bought. Let the city decide if the influx of future $25 tickets will be worth a multi-million dollar tax and current asset loss now.

2

^ 1

Re: draw the line

Steve Urkel.

Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:25:24 PM EST

none

You can be engaged in legal activity on private property and doing something "in public" and therefore illegal at the same time. Like having sex on your front porch, or on top of your roof, or in your living room in front of the window.

For more on stoops, see Little Jackie.

3

^ 2

Re: draw the line

gerrymander.

Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:49:46 PM EST

none

You can be engaged in legal activity on private property and doing something "in public" and therefore illegal at the same time.

Granted, but I think there's a difference in kind which separates sex and drinking. American life is built to accommodate eating and drinking -- including alcoholic beverages -- as a communal and community-acceptable experience. It is not built to accommodate sex in the same way.

4

^ 1

Re: draw the line

DEMachina.

Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:03:26 PM EST

none

Agreed (it was bound to happen sooner or later, eh gerrymander?).  NYC seems weirdly restrictive about some things.  Granted their crime rate isn't what it used to be, but I'd still think the police there have better things to do.

God knows I've had a drink on my or a friend's stoop (I don't live in NYC) and we never had an issue (nor can I recall any stories of it happening).  And this is the south, too, where they tend to be a lot more restrictive on alcohol in general.

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

5

^ 4

Re: draw the line

gerrymander.

Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:31:29 PM EST

none

(it was bound to happen sooner or later, eh gerrymander?)

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. (I leave deciding which of us is the clock in that metaphor to the reader. ;-)

6

^ 1

Re: draw the line

wetkarma.

Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 04:47:39 AM EST

none


Unlike the apartment complex in the example above, a house's front access is not a common area.

Except its not a house, its a 20 unit co-op. Which is analogous to an apartment complex. If a man can be arrested in the lobby of an apartment on the grounds that the lobby is a public area, then the stoop/entryway to a 20 unit coop is probably going to get ruled as a public area as 'anyone can access it'.

The argument to reduce taxes based on the lien for public access restriction is a novel one. It might work (factoring in statutes of limitations for damages) unless the city made the claim that the lien always existed and 'carried forward' as the property changed -- so the property taxes already factored out the restriction. This is probably a losing argument since the odds are that the city have not done any supporting calculation to prove its argument.

I hope he wins his case, but I suspect the courts will rule against him.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

7

^ 6

It is and it isn't.

MayorBob.

Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:16:57 AM EST

none

"Except its not a house, its a 20 unit co-op. Which is analogous to an apartment complex."

Like an apartment building, the co-op is sectioned off into 20 units occupied by 20 different people or families.  Unlike an apartment building, the occupants own a share of all the space considered common to it, including the lobby, the stairway, the elevator (if they have one) and the front stoop.  I'm hoping a judge will recognize the fact that the cops had to enter private property to hand VanRy that summons for enjoying a brewski on what amounts to his front porch.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

This story: 7 comments (1 from subqueue)
Post a Comment