I know I have previously posted things that may make you feel as though I believe otherwise, but why can a passenger in my car not enjoy a shot or a beer as I travel through traffic? Hell, with the way I drive, it may make more people want to participate in the car pool with me. I will save the questions of why the driver cannot have a beer for Great Debates or the BBQ Pit.
SSG Schwartz
AFAIK it’s becuase of the drinking and driving laws. So instead of the cop/judge having to listen to whatever excuse the driver has to explain that he was not drinking and driving (holding it for the passenger, handing it over to the passenger when he get’s pulled over, etc…), it’s very clear cut. No open containers. Period. I think it just makes it easier for the cop.
Just like when your parents find drugs in your bedroom. You can tell them you’re holding it for a friend, hell, you might actually be doing just that, but you’re parents will still give you the “Not in my house” speech. The same reason as before, if they just say, no drugs, period, yours or otherwise, it’s easier.
Until fairly recently (10-15 years ago), in Texas it was legal for a passenger to have an open container of alcohol, or even to be blind drunk as long as they behaved themselves. Not many years before that, it was legal for the driver to have an open container so long as they weren’t legally intoxicated.
In the case of Texas, intense lobbying by MADD, not to mention a number of highly publicized DUI’s involving death, got the beer out of the driver’s hand. Not long after that, the passenger had to give them up as well on the argument that it made the first law too easy to circumvent a la “Oh shit, the cops. Here honey, hold my beer.”
Both responses make sense, but with breath, blood, urine tests, if the driver can blow a 0.00 doesn’t that show that he/she really was holding it for a friend? Not to argue, but just to clarify.
SSG Schwartz
I suppose that’s true, but for the cop’s sake, it’s easier and cheaper to have an open container law. It could also be argued that even if the law was that open containers are legal as long as the driver blows a zero, keeping the law in place reduces the temptaion to drink and drive. Drinking and driving is one of the instances where what you do with your private life can/does affect and kill other people.
I’m not 100% on the law here is (heard different stories form different people).
But I’ve lost count of how many times i have been threw a booze bus or random checked by coppers and everyone in the car is shit face and drinking. And the cops havn’t cared all that much. Never got a fine or know anyone who has.
That open container law would suck. What about when going for a road trip or even just a short trip to the beach you need a traveler.
It’s just my opinion, so take it for what it’s worth, but I think these laws are crafted and supported by people who tend to assume the worst about everyone else. Anyone with alcohol in a vehicle is a potential murderer. The fact that they are correct a statistically significant percent of the time keeps these laws on the books.
For a less GD answer, ISTR that the argument is that if open containers are permitted in a vehicle, an officer seeing a passenger with a beer wouldn’t have probable cause to give the driver a sobriety test. The officer would have to have a reasonable suspicion thet the driver is impaired before that step. Of course this is the case even when no alcohol is seen in the car. However, if the driver can be stopped and charged for merely having an open container in the vehicle, then that driver will be prevented from downing a pint of tequila on his way home from work and forcing a schoolbus full of children off of a bridge.
Huh?
Most of these laws were passed before the quick, portable ‘breathalyser’ devices that cops can have in their car nowdays. Even now, they aren’t cheap, and many cop cars don’t have one. And blood or urine tests are done back at a station or a hospital. Transporting the driver there, running the test, waiting for the result are all time-consuming & expensive. And apologies needed if they pass the test.
As Joey said, having a no open-container law makes it much simpler: if you’re driving with an open container in the car, you’re under arrest.
My understanding of the law here is that it’s perfectly legal to have open containers of alcohol in the car, as long as the driver is still below the legal limit.
Then again, every police car in Australia has a breathalyser in it, so it’s a very simple matter for the police officer to perform an RBT on the driver, regardless of who might be holding the alcohol…
I wonder if the following scenario played a role (it has been invoked by canny drunk drivers here in Germany, sometimes with ultimate success in court but IIRRC thwarted by more sophisticated analysis methods in the last two decades):
Drunk driver gets stopped, shuts off ignition and, in view of the cops or any other available witnesses, drinks spirits from a hip flask kept in the car for that purpose. (the German legal term for this is Nachtrunk).
Driver then refuses breath test and has to be taken to a doctor to have blood drawn - enough time for alcohol from Nachtrunk to enter blood stream.
Driver then claims that of course he had high BAC at time of blood test, but not at the time when he was stopped.
Was such a gambit ever tried/succeeded in in US courts? If so, open container laws might have in part me meant to defeat it.
I thought this was going to be about why there are no open container laws on, like, the city streets. Why? Shocked the hell out of me in New Orleans to see people, gasp! Walking with beer!
When I’ve heard of this, instead of using a flask, you use a sealed container and clearly open it outside the vehicle and in view of the officer.
I can’t understand how all those people who go around in the backs of limos drinking champagne get away with it.
In Missouri there is no state-wide open container law, but 31 municipalities have them. I would like to know which municipalities they were. Also there is a place in KC where open containers are allowed on the street.
It’s probably partially due to the divider, but due to the nature of the business they probably have a special licensce to do that. I know that my wine dealers have a permit to carry open containers in their vehicles (wine samples), I would imagine limo companies probably have something similar.
This is what tonedef was getting at - he was talking about what I’ve heard referred to as a “party bus.” You rent a bus and someone drives you and your friends around, often to different nightspots, to get shitfaced in bars AND while in the bus. I don’t know why this doesn’t seem to apply - maybe because it’s usually a hired driver?
Some quick googling is telling me that some states have an exemption for party busses and most of the rest just look the other way.
In California, the law allows open containers in an area of the vehicle that is not accessible to the driver. You can carry an open container in the trunk, and I’ve had a CHP officer tell me you can carry one in the back of your SUV if there’s a barrier that prevents the driver from reaching it while he or she is driving. I would guess that this also covers limousines.
The state of West Virginia has no open container laws in vehicles. They only applicable law is that a person may not drink liquor in a vehicle. A driver or passenger can drink beer or wine (provided the driver isn’t drunk) while driving down the road. And unless the officer actually saw you drinking the liquor, then there is no penalty.
Now, most municipalities have open container laws, so if you are in your vehicle driving through a town, then the municipal ordinance would apply.
I grew up there, and I don’t see the problem. As long as you aren’t legally drunk, then why? I can have a beer at a bar, and then drive home, but it is illegal to drink a beer on the way home? Makes no sense.
And while I appreciate that police have a tough job, I shouldn’t give up a freedom just to make their job easier…