# Clarification on Boston City Ordinance 16-12.28 (Drinking in Public)



## NewOwner

I'm in my late 20s and recently bought a duplex that I will also be renting out. I don't plan on throwing crazy parties or allowing my renters to do so, but I would like some clarification on the definitions used in this ordinance for myself and my renters so that none of us may get a $200 fine unnecessarily.



> 16-12.28 Drinking of Alcoholic Beverages in Public.
> 
> No person shall drink any alcoholic beverage as defined in Chapter 138, Section 1 of the General Laws of the State, or possess an open container, full or partially full, of any alcoholic beverages, while on, in or upon any public way, upon any way to which the public has right of access, in any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, in any park or playground, conservation area or recreation area, on private land or place without consent of the owner or person in control thereof.
> 
> (CBC 1975 Ord. T14 § 312; Ord. 1982 c. 21 s 1; Ord. 1982 c. 23 s 1)


I'm wondering whether or not the front stoop of my building qualifies as an area in violation of this ordinance. Of particular interest would be the following portions:

*"upon any public way"*

_I would argue that a front stoop would not qualify as a "public way" as it is deeded to me, the property owner, not the City of Boston._

*"upon any way to which the public has right of access"*

_I would argue that the public does not have right of access. While members of the public may have access, typically unfettered, they do not have a right to access._

*"in any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees"*

_This is the one that is most puzzling to me. Wouldn't anywhere qualify under this portion of the ordinance? If I have a dinner party, the people I have invited clearly have access as invitees. With this broad reading, this one line would essentially establish 18th Amendment-style prohibition within the city limits. I assume this interpretation must be incorrect, but I'd like an explanation of why._

*" on private land or place without consent of the owner or person in control thereof."*

_Would I be correct to assume that my lessees are considered "person in control thereof"?_


----------



## Eagle13

Fail. This came up on here a while ago...:beer_yum:
http://www.masscops.com/f50/drinking-public-violation-73712/http://www.masscops.com/f50/drinking-public-view-83128/


----------



## NewOwner

I'm sorry, but neither of those threads offer the clarification for which I'm looking. Also, both are full of flaming and questioning the original poster's story.


----------



## Tuna

Holy Shitstorm Batman
View attachment 2928


----------



## NewOwner

Eagle13 said:


> Fail. This came up on here a while ago...:beer_yum:
> drinking-public-violation-73712/
> drinking-public-view-83128/


I have read both of those threads, among others relating to drinking in public in Boston. The two you cited and most others are rife with flaming and questioning of the original poster's story.

More importantly, none of the threads I've seen have answers to the questions I have asked.


----------



## csauce777

NewOwner said:


> I'm in my late 20s and recently bought a duplex that I will also be renting out. I don't plan on throwing crazy parties or allowing my renters to do so, but I would like some clarification on the definitions used in this ordinance for myself and my renters so that none of us may get a $200 fine unnecessarily.
> 
> I'm wondering whether or not the front stoop of my building qualifies as an area in violation of this ordinance. Of particular interest would be the following portions:
> 
> *"upon any public way"*
> 
> _I would argue that a front stoop would not qualify as a "public way" as it is deeded to me, the property owner, not the City of Boston._
> 
> *"upon any way to which the public has right of access"*
> 
> _I would argue that the public does not have right of access. While members of the public may have access, typically unfettered, they do not have a right to access._
> 
> *"in any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees"*
> 
> _This is the one that is most puzzling to me. Wouldn't anywhere qualify under this portion of the ordinance? If I have a dinner party, the people I have invited clearly have access as invitees. With this broad reading, this one line would essentially establish 18th Amendment-style prohibition within the city limits. I assume this interpretation must be incorrect, but I'd like an explanation of why._
> 
> *" on private land or place without consent of the owner or person in control thereof."*
> 
> _Would I be correct to assume that my lessees are considered "person in control thereof"?_




Dude...if this is a fancy way to ask if you can sit on your front steps and enjoy a frosty beer, the answer is yes. The citation comes into play if you decide to walk down the street or hop in your yuppy-mobile and take a cruise with said brew in hand. As for your tenants, the answer is the same.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

Just because you are able to do something doesnt mean its a good idea...


----------



## NewOwner

csauce777 said:


> Dude...if this is a fancy way to ask if you can sit on your front steps and enjoy a frosty beer, the answer is yes. The citation comes into play if you decide to walk down the street or hop in your yuppy-mobile and take a cruise with said brew in hand. As for your tenants, the answer is the same.


If you read the threads linked by Eagle13, you'll see there are quite a few posters here who think otherwise. I'm not some college kid trying to beat a drunk in public rap like the people in those other threads may or may not have been, so I'm asking my questions as an adult would.

Three out of the four seem pretty clear to me that no legitimate claim of violation (of this ordinance, at least) could be made so long as my tenants or I are on my property. It's that third one, the one that would appear to reestablish the 18th Amendment, that gives me cause for concern. I'm sure my interpretation has to be wrong, but I'd like an explanation as to how that bit of the ordinance is typically applied.


----------



## Guest

As long as you don't bring attention to yourself, you'll be fine. The Boston PD has better things to do


----------



## NewOwner

Delta784 said:


> As long as you don't bring attention to yourself, you'll be fine. The Boston PD has better things to do


I believe you are missing the point. If it's at the discretion of BPD, then it is illegal. If it is illegal, I'd like to know the justification based on the law.


----------



## niteowl1970

NewOwner said:


> I'm wondering whether or not the front stoop of my building qualifies as an area in violation of this ordinance. Of particular interest would be the following portions:


You mean this kind of stuff ? mtc is correct about Solo cups.

View attachment 2931


----------



## NewOwner

niteowl1970 said:


> You mean this kind of stuff ? mtc is correct about Solo cups.
> 
> View attachment 2931


He's not correct about Solo cups. They may draw less attention, but legally they are still open containers.


----------



## NewOwner

USMCMP5811 said:


> Not in the sense you are talking about. They are "House Guest" not customers or the general public, as the language in the statute refers to invitees.


So what's the distinction between an invitee and a guest that makes that portion of the ordinance necessary? In what kind of scenario would it be applicable?


----------



## Rock

Why are you SO worried about this? As a "New owner" I'd be more concerned with my tenants paying the rent and not wrecking the joint not some rare and random $200 fine I may or may not get. Something is a bit off here.


----------



## Eagle13

NewOwner said:


> I'm sorry, but neither of those threads offer the clarification for which I'm looking. Also, both are full of flaming and questioning the original poster's story.


Welcome to Masscops



NewOwner said:


> I have read both of those threads, among others relating to drinking in public in Boston. The two you cited and most others are rife with flaming and questioning of the original poster's story.
> 
> More importantly, none of the threads I've seen have answers to the questions I have asked.


Again, welcome to Masscops



NewOwner said:


> If you read the threads linked by Eagle13, you'll see there are quite a few posters here who think otherwise. I'm not some college kid trying to beat a drunk in public rap like the people in those other threads may or may not have been, so I'm asking my questions as an adult would.
> 
> Three out of the four seem pretty clear to me that no legitimate claim of violation (of this ordinance, at least) could be made so long as my tenants or I are on my property. It's that third one, the one that would appear to reestablish the 18th Amendment, that gives me cause for concern. I'm sure my interpretation has to be wrong, but I'd like an explanation as to how that bit of the ordinance is typically applied.





NewOwner said:


> I believe you are missing the point. If it's at the discretion of BPD, then it is illegal. If it is illegal, I'd like to know the justification based on the law.


A lot of laws are not defined to an exact point, leaving them open for interpretation and the use of discretion, because all cases aren't the same and don't warrant the same actions. Loose language helps protect the public from overly restrictive laws, this allows police officers to tell you to take the party inside and also to write cites for the a-holes that think they know better.



Delta784 said:


> As long as you don't bring attention to yourself, you'll be fine. The Boston PD has better things to do


Delta is more than right. Use common sense and be respectful to your neighbors and to BPD if they roll through. No one is going to bust your balls about having a few drinks, especially if you are being discreet and not causing a scene. But you need to keep that in mind, even if BPD did ask you to bring it inside. I have a feeling you are trying to get someone here to say YES you can sit on your stoop or NO you can't, so you can tell the BPD that "you know your rights" if it came down to it. The answer to your question is not yes or no, it is it depends on the situation because there is much that is left to the discretion of the officers and the court.

Just have some drinks, be cool and keep it classy. BPD has more to worry about than some hipsters enjoying Stella Artois on their front steps.


----------



## cc3915

NewOwner,

If the answers provided here on MassCops don't satisfy your needs, then I encourage you to consult an attorney or contact the Boston Police directly to get their official opinion. This site is not a clearinghouse for legal advice. It's more of a place where law enforcement folks and their supporters get together to let off a little steam and discuss the news of the day. Good luck.


----------



## NewOwner

cc3915 said:


> NewOwner,
> 
> If the answers provided here on MassCops don't satisfy your needs, then I encourage you to consult an attorney or contact the Boston Police directly to get their official opinion. This site is not a clearinghouse for legal advice. It's more of a place where law enforcement folks and their supporters get together to let off a little steam and discuss the news of the day. Good luck.


I'm not looking for legal advice. I'm looking for comments from LEOs. This is the "Ask a Cop" subforum, is it not?

The threads Eagle13 posted offered nothing more than flaming of the original poster. I have no desire to stoke yet another flame war, which is why I haven't replied to some of the attempts at baiting posted in this thread.


----------



## cc3915

NewOwner said:


> This is the "Ask a Cop" subforum, is it not?


Why, yes it is.



NewOwner said:


> Would I be correct to assume that my lessees are considered "person in control thereof"?




Sounds like a legal opinion to me.

Have a nice day.


----------



## NewOwner

cc3915 said:


> Why, yes it is.
> 
> Sounds like a legal opinion to me.
> 
> Have a nice day.


If a LEO is to cite someone for violating the ordinance, he must understand said ordinance. I am asking for the opinions of LEOs based on that understanding.

Please, if you have nothing of value to contribute, don't.


----------



## kwflatbed

NewOwner said:


> If a LEO is to cite someone for violating the ordinance, he must understand said ordinance. I am asking for the opinions of LEOs based on that understanding.
> 
> Please, if you have nothing of value to contribute, don't.


Who the hell do you think you are coming on this site and telling people what and what not to post. If you don't like the answers take your ball and go
play somewhere else.


----------



## cc3915

As alluded to in a previous post, have you contacted the Boston Police Department directly regarding your question? They would be the best source to direct you in your quest. Stop by your local district station and ask an officer there. I'm sure he/she could fully answer your questions.



NewOwner said:


> Please, if you have nothing of value to contribute, don't.


You don't have to get snippy. I'm trying to help you out here.


----------



## Rock

NewOwner said:


> Please, if you have nothing of value to contribute, don't.


Yeah CC! What's wrong with you?!


----------



## Eagle13

NewOwner said:


> I'm not looking for legal advice. I'm looking for comments from LEOs. This is the "Ask a Cop" subforum, is it not?
> 
> The threads Eagle13 posted offered nothing more than flaming of the original poster. I have no desire to stoke yet another flame war, which is why I haven't replied to some of the attempts at baiting posted in this thread.


Third time you have mentioned this. Please read Disclaimer about this forum area. And get someone else to do your pre-law homework.

View attachment 2936


----------



## NewOwner

Eagle13 said:


> A lot of laws are not defined to an exact point, leaving them open for interpretation and the use of discretion, because all cases aren't the same and don't warrant the same actions. Loose language helps protect the public from overly restrictive laws, this allows police officers to tell you to take the party inside and also to write cites for the a-holes that think they know better.


This is 100% wrong. Vagueness in law does nothing to protect the public from anything, nor does it establish the ability for officers to use their discretion. Vagueness does nothing more than allow the opportunity for actual offenders to be acquitted or have their cases dismissed. Clear and concise law is of absolute benefit to the public and law enforcement alike.

The existence of officer discretion has absolutely nothing to do with what you perceive to be intentionally vague laws (which are, thankfully, rare). If the party in your example is in violation of noise ordinances, it does not matter that the officer chose to let them bring it inside because they were respectful, their act was still in violation of a presumably clear ordinance.

With this kind of attitude and gross misunderstanding of law, I sincerely hope you're merely a LEO groupie and not actually employed as one.



> Delta is more than right. Use common sense and be respectful to your neighbors and to BPD if they roll through. No one is going to bust your balls about having a few drinks, especially if you are being discreet and not causing a scene. But you need to keep that in mind, even if BPD did ask you to bring it inside. I have a feeling you are trying to get someone here to say YES you can sit on your stoop or NO you can't, so you can tell the BPD that "you know your rights" if it came down to it. The answer to your question is not yes or no, it is it depends on the situation because there is much that is left to the discretion of the officers and the court.


Again, you are wrong. It is a simple yes or no question. An officer exercising discretion does not change the fundamental legality of an action.

If the answer is yes "stoop drinking" is legal, it is still possible for an officer to cite other ordinances of which one may be in violation. There is certainly no shortage of them if an individual decides to get mouthy with the officer.

If the answer is no "stoop drinking" is not legal, it is still possible for an officer to not cite an offender if he is respectful.

I am not asking for the grey area that is officer discretion. I am asking for the actual interpretation from actual LEOs.


----------



## grn3charlie

NewOwner said:


> I'm not looking for legal advice. I'm looking for comments from LEOs. This is the "Ask a Cop" subforum, is it not?
> 
> The threads Eagle13 posted offered nothing more than flaming of the original poster. I have no desire to stoke yet another flame war, which is why I haven't replied to some of the attempts at baiting posted in this thread.


Yeah, you kind of are looking for legal advice because you want specific legal language. You are in fact getting snippy with comments like "This is the "Ask a Cop" subforum, is it not?" This isn't a customer service based forum. Not everyone on here is a LEO and I believe you saw that caveat when you saw the forum. You are looking for opinions of LEOs and you got some. Sorry it was not to your liking but again, no one here owes you anything. Here is my opinion, I don't believe that you are looking to the future. I really believe that something has happened, you have an upcoming court appearance, are representing yourself and looking for free advice. Should I be wrong and you really are that worried, I have some advice:

1) Get out of the landlord business if the possible actions of your tenants keep you up at night.
2) Completely kill any possibility of outside problems by enjoying your suds inside.
3) Don't complain about about the opinions you received. You asked for them, you got them.
4 Repeat. This is not customer service based. You don't like it here then don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.


----------



## cc3915

NewOwner said:


> With this kind of attitude and gross misunderstanding of law, I sincerely hope you're merely a LEO groupie and not actually employed as one.


I've had it with you. Tried to play nice. Go to the Boston Police Department and bend their ear about your stoop drinking.

Thread closed!


----------

