Following up on Eric’s Wolff’s story about one man’s attempt to circumvent the city of San Diego’s beach booze ban, City Attorney Mike Aguirre—clad in blue jeans and a Hawaiian shirt, apparently readying himself early for a barbecue—told reporters today that his stance on the idea of drinking while floating is unambiguous. He said he has met with police and lifeguard leaders and has encouraged them to cite anyone drinking alcohol on a flotation device. He said he is prepared to take any such case through the trial level and into the appelate level if need be.
I asked him if he believes such activity would violate the letter of the city’s ordinance or the spirit of the ordinance. He said he was not referring to any language in the ordinance. So, I said, that must mean he’s talking more about the “spirit” of the law. For some reason, he doesn’t like that word; he seemed to favor the word “thrust.” Drinking while floating violates the “thrust” of the law. He seems to be saying the City Council didn’t intend to leave a loophole in the law allowing partiers to carry their unopened beers into the water and drink them there instead of on the sand.
July 3, 2008 - 8:55 pm at 8:55 pm
I guess the fishing boats at the point loma and la jolla kelp beds will be subject to the ban. The harbor cruise. USS Midway, (his personal eye sore) shut down for the day. I think there is a law that says to prosecute you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. then you may file charges and bring it to a jury. or you can take the Agurrie method ’sue until you break them”
July 4, 2008 - 8:27 am at 8:27 am
It is the duty of the legislature to make laws that are clear in their meaning, so that individuals may know when they are or will be in violation of such law. Where a criminal law is “vague and indefinite”, prosecution and conviction under such law is unconstitutional. If the booze ban prohibits drinking on the “beach”, rather than drinking on the “beach and in the water adjacent to the beach”, the law is not clear and definite with respect to drinking in the water. In fact, one may argue that the exclusion of drinking in the water was intentional to permit drinking on boats and other pleasure craft. Thus, any citation, prosecution, or conviction of an individual for drinking in the water would violate the “due process clause” of both the state and federal constitutions, because it fails to give adequate notice that the act of drinking in the water is illegal. Mr. Aguirre should know this as all 2nd year law students are taught it. Additionally, by encouraging police/lifeguards to cite and/or arrest individuals for behavior, which is not prohibited by the law, Mr. Aguirre is violating the ethical obligations of a prosecutor and setting the city up for another losing lawsuit.
July 4, 2008 - 7:25 pm at 7:25 pm
Promising prosecution with no facts and ordering arrests? I hope the police have the sense to understand who gets sued first. 4th of July, Constitution, what are we missing here? Feds will have to hire outside counsel to help
July 6, 2008 - 2:16 pm at 2:16 pm
of course the water issue was done on purpose. rich folk have boats. no one intend to make them uncomfortable with this ban.
faulkner sucks. I can’t wait to see who can step up and challenge this false republican.