The Columbus City Council on Tuesday killed a proposed amendment to the city’s open container ordinance when no one motioned to approve it.
Councilmen were considering an amendment that would forbid open or previously-opened containers of alcohol in vehicles on public right of way, which would include parking lots.
The ordinance carried a penalty of up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.
During their Aug. 4 meeting, when the matter first came up, councilmen voted to table the discussion to allow time for consideration.
On Tuesday, the council let the matter die without much new discussion. After the meeting, several councilmen cited public pressure or issues with the way the proposed amendment targeted motorists as reasons for their opposition.
“We got a lot of calls — or I know I did — from my constituents,” Ward 2 Councilman Joseph Mickens said. “From listening to the other councilors, they were getting some of the same calls from their constituents. At this time, we felt like it was better to leave that well enough alone.”
During the meeting, city Attorney Jeff Turnage told councilmen the Transportation Equity Act allows for federal funds to go to states that pass open container laws that meets federal standards. He said Mississippi is the only state that has no prohibition of drinking and driving beyond enforcement of the 0.08 and 0.02 alcohol blood content limits for adults and minors.
Turnage went on to explain to the council that the proposed ordinance would not apply to open containers in a vehicle’s trunk, locked glove compartment or an area behind the last upright seat of a vehicle if it does not have a trunk. It also would not be a violation under the proposed amendment to have an open container as a passenger in a hired vehicle, such as a taxi or limousine.
It would, however, still be a violation for passengers in non-hired vehicles — riding with a friend, for example — to have an open container in the passenger cabin.
Ward 6 Councilman Bill Gavin said he did not have a problem with trying to cut down on drinking and driving. However, he said he took issue with the ordinance’s wording and believed it could target innocent people.
“It penalized a driver that may not have even had anything to drink,” he said. “There was no provision in there to take care of a possibly innocent person that might be driving a vehicle … to me it’s about transportation — not for driving and drinking. I’m for getting the drinking and driving folks off of the road, but when you stop someone, you can always test them and see how much alcohol they’ve had.”
Ward 4 Councilman Marty Turner said he opposed the measure entirely and wanted to see it left alone. Turner, like Gavin, said he worried about the law targeting potentially innocent people.
“It should be left alone, because it would start targeting people in the community,” Turner said. “If you make a mistake and leave your friend’s house or relative’s house and you put a bottle of wine that you took the cork off of on the back seat or the floorboard, if the police pull you over you will get cited for that. I don’t think that’s fair to the citizens, so I could not agree with it and I think it should be off the table for now.”
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 32 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.