| News |

Being Drunk in Public Is Not a Crime, According to Arizona Appeals Court

Keep New Times Free
I Support
  • Local
  • Community
  • Journalism
  • logo

Support the independent voice of Phoenix and help keep the future of New Times free.

Being drunk in public is not a crime, according to an Arizona Appeals Court decision.

The court was considering the case of a man cited for public intoxication in Scottsdale in December 2011, and the three-member panel unanimously ruled that state law has a specific ban on city ordinances outlawing public intoxication.

The state law says:

No county, municipality or other political subdivision may adopt or enforce any local law, ordinance, resolution or rule having the force of law that includes being a common drunkard or being found in an intoxicated condition as one of the elements of the offense giving rise to criminal or civil penalty or sanctions, but nothing in this article shall affect any laws, ordinances, resolutions or rules against drunken driving, driving under the influence of alcohol or other similar offenses involving the operation of vehicles, aircraft, boats, machinery or other equipment, or regarding the sale, purchase, dispensing, possessing or using of alcoholic beverages at stated times and places or by particular classes of persons.

The case was tossed by the municipal court, but the city prosecutor's office appealed the case to the Maricopa County Superior Court. The county court reversed the municipal court's decision, as the court ruled Scottsdale's ban on a person being "under the influence of alcohol" in public is not being the same as being "in an intoxicated condition," which is decriminalized under state law.

The appeals court acknowledged those two phrases have different meanings, but that doesn't solve the question.

"A person who is 'intoxicated' is in fact 'under the influence' to a particular, greater degree," the opinion states.

Therefore, Scottsdale's ordinance against being "under the influence" of alcohol in public conflicts with state law, the court ruled.

The appeals court opinion also says that Arizona's 1972 law banning such ordinances "signaled the Legislature's determination that alcoholism should be treated as a disease and not criminalized unless a person under the influence of alcohol engages in specified activities such as driving or operating other types of vehicles or equipment."

The City of Scottsdale could still appeal this case to the Arizona Supreme Court. The appeals court's ruling can be found below:

Arizona v. Coles

Got a tip? Send it to: Matthew Hendley.

Follow Valley Fever on Twitter at @ValleyFeverPHX.
Follow Matthew Hendley at @MatthewHendley.

Keep Phoenix New Times Free... Since we started Phoenix New Times, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Phoenix, and we would like to keep it that way. Offering our readers free access to incisive coverage of local news, food and culture. Producing stories on everything from political scandals to the hottest new bands, with gutsy reporting, stylish writing, and staffers who've won everything from the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi feature-writing award to the Casey Medal for Meritorious Journalism. But with local journalism's existence under siege and advertising revenue setbacks having a larger impact, it is important now more than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" membership program, allowing us to keep covering Phoenix with no paywalls.

We use cookies to collect and analyze information on site performance and usage, and to enhance and customize content and advertisements. By clicking 'X' or continuing to use the site, you agree to allow cookies to be placed. To find out more, visit our cookies policy and our privacy policy.


Join the New Times community and help support independent local journalism in Phoenix.


Join the New Times community and help support independent local journalism in Phoenix.