Carson City supervisors agree on indecent conduct ordinance, table public drinking ordinance for review

During Thursday's Carson City Board of Supervisors meeting, the board heard two proposed ordinances which, according to Carson City District Attorney Jason Woodbury, would help clean up the Carson City Municipal Code, which is currently under review by his office.

“The ordinance is not new,” said Woodbury, in reference to the indecent behavior mandate. “This is simply a matter of housekeeping.”

The DAs office is reviewing all Carson City codes for legal and legislative purposes. The two items are among several being reviewed.

Supervisors discussed concerns from the community that a public urination ordinance could be used against individuals on public lands, such as hiking trails, who need to use the facilities when facilities are not present.

Both Woodbury and Sheriff Ken Furlong stated it would not be used in that manner, but that it would pertain more toward public urination in the downtown sector.

The board voted 4 to 1 to pass the ordinance on first reading, with Supervisor Maurice White voting against.

The second item from the DA's office would prohibit the possession of an open container on public, city-owned property, with the exception of special events or encroachment limits. Someone found in contempt would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

According to Woodbury, there is another exception already in the code from Parks and Recreation, which has an ordinance that prohibits alcohol use in a park specifically when it is hosting a scheduled youth activity, or if the park is posted with a notice prohibiting any alcoholic beverages.

“The passage of this ordinance significantly changes nothing in this community,” said Furlong. “It gives law enforcement the ability, a tool, for extreme circumstances where there is a public concern and alternatives are not available.”

Furlong stated that he strongly encouraged this ordinance, because it allowed law enforcement to take action when all other alternatives have been exhausted.

“This seems to be a really broadly sweeping way to find a solution for a very specific problem,” said Supervisor Lisa Schuette.

Woodbury stated that when this ordinance takes place, the conduct usually involves disorderly conduct, breach of the peace, etc., instead of only having an open container.

Woodbury gave an example of a case in which a man was attempting to enter rooms at a local hotel, where he wasn’t a guest, before being told to leave. When deputies arrived on scene, they found him sitting on a sidewalk drinking an alcoholic beverage, and wouldn’t have been able to arrest him since they did not see the crime of attempting to enter a motel room occur in their presence.

“The officers had no constitutional basis, other than the open container, to take him into custody, to remove him from the situation,” said Woodbury. “The hotel manager did not want to be involved. That’s not infrequent.”

The deputies were left with only one ordinance, an open container, in order to take him into custody, said Woodbury.

Supervisor Stacey Giomi stated he found it an issue that the Downtown Business Association was not contacted for the Business Impact Statement.

He also stated he has never received more comments from the public against an item than he received against this item.

Giomi also stated that while he appreciates that Sheriff Furlong and his deputies will not write tickets to citizens walking across the street with a beverage to their neighbor's house, that doesn’t mean that a highway patrol officer won’t.

“This is overly broad,” said Supervisor Maurice White, citing many NRS and CCMC codes that could already be used to tackle issues. “Drinking in public is either okay, or not okay. Providing exemptions to particular groups in my mind creates an unfair playing field.”

“I’m always interested in providing tools that keep the peace,” said Mayor Lori Bagwell. “To find the least restrictive methodology to keep the peace. I think what concerns me is it looks as if we’re allowing it when it can be controlled. However, I question whether or not - are you having complaints downtown (of open containers)?”

“It’s the homeless,” said Furlong. “You want to take the tool away for a business who is being urinated on, defecated on? Alcohol is at the core of it.”

Furlong stated that in a recent instance, a man was laying in the street and a concerned citizen stopped and called the sheriffs office for help. Furlong stated if this tool was taken away, he couldn’t have done anything.

Supervisor Lisa Schuette asked why they couldn’t have taken him to the hospital, if he clearly needed help because he was lying in the street.

“No, the hospitals are full,” said Furlong. “We were able to take him to a shelter.”

Giomi pointed out that there were already ordinances to address that specific situation, such as an ordinance that exists against sleeping on the sidewalk.

Supervisor Schuette agreed with Supervisor Giomi that the language needs to be clearer so that there cannot be inconsistent enforcement.

Supervisor White asked whether or not the ordinance could be written so that an open container is a secondary offense, so that someone would have to have a first offense for it to be used.

“We survived without this ordinance for the last four years,” said Supervisor Giomi. “You’ve been able to get by. Do we really need it?”

“I’m overly concerned and I’m thinking as hard as I can as to what tool I can provide as a board to provide the sheriff to respond to an issue, because I want to,” said Mayor Bagwell. “I don’t want to not give you the tools.”

The board chose to table it for now, until the language is rewritten.