Public Intoxication Charge in Ohio - Can I beat it?

[drexel ohio]

Sec. 90.14. Drinking in public prohibited.
No person shall drink beer or any intoxicating or spirituous liquor in public or in a public place. This prohibition shall not apply to the consumption of beer or any intoxicating or spirituous liquor which has been fully purchased for consumption on the premises where bought and consumed on the premises of a holder of a Class A-2, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-3a, D-4, D-5, D-5a, D-6, D-7, or F permit issued by the State of Ohio Department of Liquor Control. No person shall be intoxicated in public or in a public place.
(Am. Ord. 26317, passed 9-2-81)
Cross references: Penalty, see § 90.99.

 

[CdwJava]

Sec. 90.14. Drinking in public prohibited.
No person shall drink beer or any intoxicating or spirituous liquor in public or in a public place. This prohibition shall not apply to the consumption of beer or any intoxicating or spirituous liquor which has been fully purchased for consumption on the premises where bought and consumed on the premises of a holder of a Class A-2, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-3a, D-4, D-5, D-5a, D-6, D-7, or F permit issued by the State of Ohio Department of Liquor Control. No person shall be intoxicated in public or in a public place.
(Am. Ord. 26317, passed 9-2-81)
Cross references: Penalty, see § 90.99.

I can't seem to find this section at the state of Ohio website, so I'll have to take your word for it. The Ohio Revised Code has an entirely different numbering format.

Is this a LOCAL ordinance? If so, what city or county?

This section (whatever it is and wherever it is from) indicates that you were DRINKING in public, not intoxicated. if you did not have any alcohol in your possession or nearby, then you should have little difficulty prevailing ... unless they include having previously consumed as some sort of "internal" consumption charge.

- Carl

 

[justalayman]

Sec. 90.14. Drinking in public prohibited.
No person shall drink beer or any intoxicating or spirituous liquor in public or in a public place. This prohibition shall not apply to the consumption of beer or any intoxicating or spirituous liquor which has been fully purchased for consumption on the premises where bought and consumed on the premises of a holder of a Class A-2, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-3a, D-4, D-5, D-5a, D-6, D-7, or F permit issued by the State of Ohio Department of Liquor Control. No person shall be intoxicated in public or in a public place.(Am. Ord. 26317, passed 9-2-81)
Cross references: Penalty, see § 90.99.

I would guess it is the highlighted section that got him.

Seeing that it does apeat to be some loca ordinance, I have no way of checking to see what they classify as "intoxicated" or the requirements for making that determination.

Drexel?

 

[drexel ohio]

It's a local ordinance. I got it directly from the link to municode.com from the City of Dayton Municipal Court Page web site.

http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=13723&sid=35

 

[drexel ohio]

From what I can see, they don't have ANY requirements for making that determination, other than the training the officer receives to observe intoxication.

I would guess it is the highlighted section that got him.

Seeing that it does apeat to be some loca ordinance, I have no way of checking to see what they classify as "intoxicated" or the requirements for making that determination.

Drexel?

 

[paguy88]

ok tell me if I am wrong... or not...

but public intox is not that really big of a deal...?

pay your fine and be on your way.....

yea you are out what 250 bucks...

but it's not like you got a dui convition etc...

 

[drexel ohio]

You are correct. But then again, I never was disputing the severity.

I did admit to being stubborn didn't I

 

[justalayman]

It's a local ordinance. I got it directly from the link to municode.com from the City of Dayton Municipal Court Page web site.

http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=13723&sid=35

is that the actual code written on the citation?

 

[CdwJava]

is that the actual code written on the citation?

I don't think it is ... when I checked the Dayton Muni Code, that would have been in the Finance section.

Drexel, WHAT section is actually written on the citation? if there IS no section, then say so.

- Carl

 

[drexel ohio]

Yes, it states that I was in violation of section 90.14 of the RCGO

Just type in 90.14 in the search window and you will get Chapter 90, Alcoholic Beverages.

It is under Title IX GENERAL REGULATIONS

 

[justalayman]

I don't think it is ... when I checked the Dayton Muni Code, that would have been in the Finance section.

Drexel, WHAT section is actually written on the citation? if there IS no section, then say so.

- Carl

It's there. I had to type 90.14 in the seacrh section and it came up. I was running into the same thing as you were Carl.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

The ordinance doesn't define intoxication. The definition portion refers to R.C. § 4301's definitions, but that doesn't define intoxication either.

The law is just badly conceived and poorly written, but the judge is not going to care. I imagine the definition used will basically be the same as required to prove DWI, that you are in some way mentally or physically impaired by the intoxicant. The proof for this would just be the officers' observations of you.

 

[BigMistakeFl]

Castro brazen?

Wait a minute; I've seen some stuff in the Castro area that would make jumping in a hot tub naked look like Sunday School at a deep south Baptist church!

Carl, stop in that area around Halloween! Unbelievable!!!

 

[itsmewhoelse]

Well, it seems he discovered that the party involved all gay men sometime AFTER he stripped naked and jumped into the hot tub. Odd that he didn't figure this out much earlier.

- Carl

Bu then,
Why jump naked in a hot tub around all men regard less if they are homo or not?

 

[itsmewhoelse]

Thanks for the input justalayman, but based upon the video, I cannot see where I was any way unreasonably annoying to anyone in the vicinity. No other neighbors complained, and in fact, I sat silent on the sidewalk while I waited for the police to arrive.

I was in no way incoherent, unstable or intoxicated. Nor could it be argued that I was unreasonably annoying anyone, unless you can argue that anyone just being anywhere in public is grounds to claim that they are annoying. I would argue that there has to be some kind of behavioral justification other than "just being there."

Thanks for your advice and input though. It is helpful.

Dude your annoying me right now just by reading you rpost so i know youir were really annoying the party goers.

you keep talking about the SIDEWALK??

The issue doesnt have to do with you on the sidewalk, it has to do with you and the other gay party people. You told them i don't have to leave the sidewalk and I am staying on the sidewalk..

Thats annoying , if they asked you to leave the area..
Also thats endangering yourself because you even stated they dudes got aggressive but you still didn't leave the vicinity..

You guilty. Get a hint