Open Container violation in Prospect Park

Carnivore wrote: [quote=King without a crown]You are not required by Law to carry identification. However, if you break the law, ie: Drinking in public, you must have ID to be issued a summons. Since a summons is in lieu of arrest, the offender could be arrested and charged with the offense. You do not have a 24 hours to produce ID, nor or Cops required to allow someone to deliver ID to the staion house.

KWAC, if I recall correctly, this policy of arresting people instead of a summons if they don't have ID is relatively new, having just been implemented a few years ago. Is this right?
This has been going on some time now, however, most Police Officers would prefer to summons the offender on the street, rather than go through the lengthy process of bringing the offender back to the Precinct.

King without a crown wrote: This has been going on some time now, however, most Police Officers would prefer to summons the offender on the street, rather than go through the lengthy process of bringing the offender back to the Precinct.

"Some time" being since during the second term of "Giuliani time" right?

I have no idea, are we up to page 6 yet???????????????????????????

King without a crown wrote: I have no idea, are we up to page 6 yet???????????????????????????

Not yet. A few more one-liners...

Carmen wrote: why has this thread made it to 5 pages?

Because I'm working harder than hell to get it up to 8 pages! :twisted:

OP, next time skip the wine and fill up your plastic Poland Spring bottle with vodka.

I'll be happy if we make it to Page #7

Subject: keep it going

I second that biz. Looks like the thread is winding down. A pity!

Hey, Botgirl...what happened???

Subject: omg!

OMG! You'll never believe it! Like there was this big group of us and we got sloshed on one bottle of wine and the police like lined us up and gave us TICKETS, like SERIOUSLY.

Sorry, new2hood...i thought you were trying to keep the thread going. What happened was not much. We pretty much all paid our tickets and that's that. Much ado about nothing, but darn, it has been gratifying to see how this post unexpectedly shot its way around the local blogosphere.

Next time smoke a joint ,they'll probably join you.

Hamilton wrote: Next time smoke a joint ,they'll probably join you.

And as long as you're discreet, it looks like you've got a good chance of eluding law enforcement, since they can't search you based on the smell alone. At least in Washington State. Which isn't here. Actually, on second thought, don't take legal advice from me, I'm not a lawyer.

New court ruling:
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/smell_of_marijuana_is_insufficient_cause

Yeah that ruling doesn't apply to NYS and it's actually quite ridiculous. If you smell marihuana burning it's not unreasonable to think there might be some weed near by.

Carnivore wrote: [quote=Hamilton]Next time smoke a joint ,they'll probably join you.

And as long as you're discreet, it looks like you've got a good chance of eluding law enforcement, since they can't search you based on the smell alone. At least in Washington State. Which isn't here. Actually, on second thought, don't take legal advice from me, I'm not a lawyer.

New court ruling:
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/smell_of_marijuana_is_insufficient_cause

Wish I read beyond Carnivore's first sentence before dashing off to the park with a lit joint. Putting that stuff about Washington State first would have been helpful.

King without a crown wrote: Yeah that ruling doesn't apply to NYS and it's actually quite ridiculous. If you smell marihuana burning it's not unreasonable to think there might be some weed near by.

It's actually not ridiculous at all. The idea is to prevent cops from arresting a whole group of people just because they smelled marijuana in the area, and then bringing them back to the station and searching them all and sorting out who's guilty later. The cop has to have some other reason than the smell to arrest a specific individual.

Carnivore wrote: [quote=King without a crown]Yeah that ruling doesn't apply to NYS and it's actually quite ridiculous. If you smell marihuana burning it's not unreasonable to think there might be some weed near by.

It's actually not ridiculous at all. The idea is to prevent cops from arresting a whole group of people just because they smelled marijuana in the area, and then bringing them back to the station and searching them all and sorting out who's guilty later. The cop has to have some other reason than the smell to arrest a specific individual.

of course, the cops on the boardwalk tonight were totally ignoring the dudes just down from my cabana thingy smoking a massive blunt. I think I got a vague contact high. awesome. they were busy watching the people butcher karaoke songs. (the cops, I mean). damn funny.

Do you think if you get pulled over for a traffic infraction, and the Officer smells a strong odor of alcohol, does that establish probable cause for an arrest?

King without a crown wrote: Do you think if you get pulled over for a traffic infraction, and the Officer smells a strong odor of alcohol, does that establish probable cause for an arrest?

If there's one person there and s/he smells like alcohol and you had a reason to pull over the car (the car was violating traffic rules), that seems like a pretty reasonable to think the individual was drinking. However, if you walk into a crowded subway car and the whole thing reeks of pot, it is NOT reasonable to arrest everyone or search everyone to try to catch the one who was smoking. You have to have some indication of who it is other than the smell.

Agreed that arresting and entire trainload of passengers doesn't make much sense, but the ruling deals with 2 individuals in a car in which the Officer smells marihuana. Are we up to page #7 so someone can lock this thread?

I'm not locking it. I love this thread ... considering how much pot I smelled walking home tonight. damn. eastern parkway was stoned.

King without a crown wrote: Agreed that arresting and entire trainload of passengers doesn't make much sense, but the ruling deals with 2 individuals in a car in which the Officer smells marihuana. Are we up to page #7 so someone can lock this thread?

Given how NYPD has responded to Critical Mass, for example, I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about unjustified mass arrests.

Carnivore wrote: [quote=King without a crown]Agreed that arresting and entire trainload of passengers doesn't make much sense, but the ruling deals with 2 individuals in a car in which the Officer smells marihuana. Are we up to page #7 so someone can lock this thread?

Given how NYPD has responded to Critical Mass, for example, I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about unjustified mass arrests.

I second this - think republican national convention or iraq war protests.

King without a crown wrote: Agreed that arresting and entire trainload of passengers doesn't make much sense, but the ruling deals with 2 individuals in a car in which the Officer smells marihuana. Are we up to page #7 so someone can lock this thread?

Why do you want to lock up this thread? It's not doing anything wrong!

Carnivore wrote: [quote=King without a crown]Agreed that arresting and entire trainload of passengers doesn't make much sense, but the ruling deals with 2 individuals in a car in which the Officer smells marihuana. Are we up to page #7 so someone can lock this thread?

Given how NYPD has responded to Critical Mass, for example, I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about unjustified mass arrests.

There are unjustified arrests in NYC all of the time.

I will smash puppies if this thread isn't locked!!! no... just kidding. I wuv dah puppies! especially the ones with down syndrome. dey so kewt! woogie woogie woo

Subject: THE END OF THE STORY!

Hello folks,
So, here you have it:

I just got home and found THIS letter in my mail from the NYC Criminal Court:

"As of the above referenced date, July 15, 2008, the NYPD has failed to file a legally acceptable accusatory instrument with this court. There is no need for you to return to court on the summons number referenced above."

Um. I think we're scott free!

Craziness!

Thanks to all of you who posted on this topic.

All the best,
Botgirl

congratulations! now remember...all wine goes into plastic bottles, and if you or yours break a law (even if it's silly), suck it up and pay $25.
(are we at 8 pages yet?)

Subject: Re: THE END OF THE STORY!

botgirl wrote: Hello folks,
So, here you have it:

I just got home and found THIS letter in my mail from the NYC Criminal Court:

"As of the above referenced date, July 15, 2008, the NYPD has failed to file a legally acceptable accusatory instrument with this court. There is no need for you to return to court on the summons number referenced above."

Um. I think we're scott free!

Craziness!

Thanks to all of you who posted on this topic.

All the best,
Botgirl

Way to go, botgirl! But have you learned your lesson and will you always be sure to stash your vodka in a Poland Spring plastic bottle or will you come back crying next week? Stay out of trouble and take time to freeze red wine in a watermelon shell. Be good!

Ya know, New2Hood, I actually sent in my $25 check, but they didn't cash it. Imagine that! I have to give props to our criminal court for NOT taking advantage of a check they could have easily absconded with. I'm impressed.

And Raw, I solemnly swear, now and forever, to only take my alcohol outdoors in containers that look remarkably similar in color to the non-alcoholic liquids that they are known to contain. This new kombucha tea trend could make that bottle worth the $5 it costs--I can pour out that crap that tastes like a wine cooler and put the real deal inside. And thank god I love sangria--a nice big fat pitcher. I can haul that anywhere!

No tears here! Woo!

Since this thread has been revived, you could also try obeying the Law, rather then coming up with sneaky ways to break it! Just a thought