Chicago DUI lawyer comments on the recently failed bill to prohibit open containers in cars

Whoa! A group of State legislators are taking a long hard look at legislation that for so many of the States, including Illinois, was passed a long time ago. Connecticut legislators have had significant discussions on the problems with prohibiting open containers of alcohol in cars.

June 2, Hartford, CT

A bill that would have made it illegal for anyone to have an open container of an alcoholic beverage in a vehicle on Connecticut roads was killed Tuesday in the state House of Representatives.

The bill, which would have made Connecticut one of about 40 states with open container laws, won approval last week in the Senate, and proponents in the House thought that they had the votes to pass it and send it to Gov. M. Jodi Rell for her signature.

But as the House's debate entered its third hour Tuesday, some legislators began hammering on the fact that the bill would make only drivers — not passengers who were drinking — subject to tickets beginning at $90 for the first offense and increasing to $500 for the third.

Under current law, passengers in moving cars can drink all they want, and the driver can have an open alcoholic beverage in the car as long as he isn't drinking while driving or legally drunk.

"We have a bill here whose stated purpose is to punish sober drivers," said Rep. Peter Tercyak, D- New Britain. Others said the bill was so badly drafted, with so many compromises and exclusions, that it made a "better press release" than legitimate legislation.

Last year, the open-container bill failed after black and Latino legislators voiced fears that it would inordinately hit racial minorities. A major concern was that if an open-container violation were a "primary" cause for a police officer to pull over a car, it could bring an increase in "racial profiling."

A compromise was reached to meet that objection: Under the proposed law, an open-container violation would only be a "secondary" cause for an officer to stop a vehicle and could not be the only, or "primary," trigger to stop the vehicle.

I don't know who the State legislators leading the opposition are, but it is clear that they are taking a long hard look at this law before putting it in place. At the State level at least, it looks like it may not be R.I.P. for the 4th Amendment yet.