image by NoiseCollusion
Many alcoholic beverage laws are reactions to a perceived evil, or a nuisance. While the legislature should protect the public, it should not be able to do so at the expense of private rights.
In the case of the Singhs, who own New Grand Save Mart, the city of Stockton revoked their right to sell alcohol at their store due to crime in the market’s parking lot. The market, which has been selling alcohol legally for 60 years, is in a “high crime area, [and] its parking lot has been a center of criminal activity, from loitering, public drunkenness, gambling and narcotics activity to assaults, robberies and homicides.” The police went after the market’s liquor license because they believed it was the initial attraction for the loiterers, which lead to other crimes.
Rather than fight the bad behavior to reduce the crime problems, the city revoked the Singhs’ rights to sell alcohol. For two years the city did nothing to attempt to fix the problems in the market’s parking lot. Instead, the city placed the blame on the Singhs and “sought revocation without regard to what the law required.”
The California Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, decided that the city had overstepped: “violated the dictates of due process, as well as its own municipal code.” The US Supreme Court has held that police power in abating a nuisance must be reasonable, and “not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The [L]egislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interests, arbitrarily interfere with private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations…” In this case, the city did not take, or even consider, less drastic steps to abate the problems before revoking the Singhs’ rights.
Governments should fight the real problems of crime, rather than blame alcohol vendors.
Posts
