Judge Overturns Ban on Drinking on Private Property

In a major boost to critics who accuse Huntington Beach of overzealousness in cracking down on Fourth of July revelers, a judge has ruled that a city ordinance allowing police to arrest people for drinking alcohol on their front porches or lawns was unconstitutional.

Municipal Judge Caryl Lee dismissed charges Tuesday against four defendants arrested on the Fourth of July for having open containers of beer on private property, saying Huntington Beach’s law was so vague that people could not be expected to understand it. Therefore, arresting them for violating it denies them of their constitutional guarantee of due process of law, the judge said.

“We hope Huntington Beach cleans up its act,” said Jose Lauchengco, a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, who with Orange County attorney Skip Raring represented the defendants at no cost. “I understand the city doesn’t want to condone rowdies, but you can’t have a zero-tolerance policy in a free society.”

Deputy City Atty. Sarah Lazarus said she expects that the City Council will not back down from its policy and will instead clarify the city code--explicitly including in it, if necessary, a ban on drinking alcohol on front porches and yards.

In years past, rowdy street parties, young revelers pelting officers with rocks and bottles, and drunken mobs setting sofas ablaze in the streets have been a troubling holiday ritual in Huntington Beach.

To combat the mayhem, city officials last summer instituted a policy broadening the interpretation of a city ordinance that banned drinking in public. The so-called zero-tolerance policy extended to private frontyards.

Last Fourth of July, police arrested 500 people, about half of whom were detained under the new policy. Many protested that they were on their own property--on front lawns, porches or driveways--when police arrested them.

The strict policy apparently helped quell disturbances, and was loudly applauded by many residents and downtown business owners, who suffered extensive property damage from past disturbances. However, the policy also drew intense criticism from those who said it violated the civil liberties of citizens.