Prosecution of Drunks Ruled Constitutional

Ruling in the widely watched case of Robert Sundance, the California Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the constitutionality of a state law allowing arrests and criminal prosecutions for public drunkenness.

The ruling appeared to represent the final chapter in an 11-year legal fight waged by attorneys for Sundance, a 59-year-old Sioux Indian and recovering alcoholic who spent years on the streets of Los Angeles’ Skid Row and, before he stopped drinking, was arrested, incarcerated and released hundreds of times over a 25-year period.

In a 4-2 decision, the court rejected claims by Sundance and other plaintiffs in a landmark suit that the statute--647 (f) in the state Penal Code--violated constitutional guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment and lacked “penological justification.”

The justices declined to require that all public inebriates be sent to civil detoxification facilities instead of jail. (Under the statute, public drunkenness is a misdemeanor authorizing up to six months in jail.)

Nonetheless, the court left intact a series of sweeping health and safety reforms ordered by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge in the case that attorneys said could lead other cities to divert public drunks from the criminal system and provide them with better treatment at less expense in civil facilities.

The court majority agreed that chronic alcoholism was a serious social problem, but concluded that it was up to the state Legislature to effectively decriminalize the system--not the judiciary.

“While this court may agree with the plaintiffs that the problem of chronic alcoholism would be more effectively and humanely addressed through the use of civil detoxification facilities, it is the Legislature, not this court, that has the power to provide funding for such facilities,” the majority said in an unsigned opinion.

By recent count, 35 other states have taken steps to decriminalize the handling of public drunks, according to attorneys in the case.

Practice Challenged

Sundance, in his suit against Los Angeles city and county officials, challenged a longstanding practice by police of routinely arresting public drunks, transporting them in “B-Wagons”--vans with enclosed steel compartments--and then holding them in jail-house drunk-tanks until they sobered up. Release often came before arrestees appeared in court.

In 1978, he won a milestone ruling from Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Harry L. Hupp, requiring that sweeping improvements be made in the handling of public drunks--including additional padding in the B-Wagons and medical screening, within an hour of arrest, by trained health personnel at city facilities.

Hupp concluded that the penal system had “no positive effect” on rehabilitating alcoholics and ruled that arrestees could challenge their prosecution if they could show that they are chronic alcoholics. But the judge declined to declare the statute unconstitutional and the case was taken to the state Supreme Court.

Drop in Arrests

Meanwhile, in the wake of Hupp’s ruling, arrests by the Los Angeles Police Department for public drunkenness--a misdemeanor--dropped from more than 50,000 in 1975 to less than 4,000 in 1985 a1852055664units were established on Skid Row.

Nonetheless, arrests for public drunkenness are still common statewide, with a recent study reporting that over 219,000 people were taken into custody in California in 1983 under the statute at issue.

The justices, in their detailed, 64-page ruling Wednesday, upheld Hupp’s ruling and remanded the case to Superior Court for further proceedings over the issue of whether county defendants, like city authorities, should be required to offer medical screening for arrestees.

Timothy B. McFlynn, of the Public Justice Foundation, one of the attorneys representing Sundance, expressed disappointment with the court’s refusal to strike down the law.

But he expressed satisfaction that Hupp’s orders requiring reforms in the process had been upheld by the court and predicted that other cities and counties would look to civil detoxification programs as a better and far cheaper alternative to incarceration.

“Other cities, counties, supervisors and council members are all going to realize the folly of spending millions of dollars on a criminal system,” McFlynn said.

Sundance could not be reached for comment.

James Pearson, Los Angeles senior assistant city attorney, welcomed the ruling but agreed that the handling of public drunks was a “serious problem” that should draw the attention of the Legislature.

He noted that while the justices had not mandated statewide reforms, it was possible that other cities would consider instituting better treatment programs in wake of the ruling. The reforms ordered by Hupp have remained in effect and thus will not be affected by the court’s ruling, he said.

The court majority included Justices Stanley Mosk, Allen E. Broussard, Joseph R. Grodin and Malcolm M. Lucas. Justice Edward A. Panelli did not participate.

Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, joined by Justice Cruz Reynoso, issued a dissent deploring what she said were widespread constitutional violations as arrestees are “pushed through the revolving door” of the criminal justice system--being forced to endure unsanitary facilities and being denied adequate medical attention.

“Isn’t it about time the Legislature addressed this long smoldering scandal? Can a civilized society call itself such if it allows these processes to continue unabated?” Bird asked.

Bird, Reynoso and Grodin will leave office Jan. 5, in the wake of voter rejection of their bid for confirmation in the November election.