Man Sues Over Right to Get Drunk

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vernal45

member
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
729
Location
USA, I travel alot.
Man Sues Over Right to Get Drunk

Friday, July 08, 2005

BOSTON — A man arrested when police showed up to break up a New Year's Eve party at a friend's house has filed a lawsuit, arguing he had a constitutional right to get drunk on private property as long as he didn't cause a public disturbance.

Eric Laverriere (search), 25, of Portland, Maine, was taken into protective custody by Waltham police and locked in a cell for nine hours until the effects of the alcohol wore off.

Legal experts said his lawsuit, filed this week in U.S. District Court in Boston (search), is the first to challenge a state law allowing police to lock up drunk people against their will for their own protection.

Laverriere argues that the Massachusetts Protective Custody Law (search) was written to combat public drunkenness and that the police had no right to use it to take him from a private residence. He also says he had planned to spend the night at his friend's and wasn't going to be driving anywhere.

"One thing people should be able to do is drink in their own house," Laverriere told The Boston Globe. "That's the beauty of the land of the free."

Waltham Deputy Police Chief Paul Juliano declined to comment on the suit on the advice of the city's legal department.

Several lawyers said they believe police have the authority to take inebriated people into custody, but they said it was the first time the law has been challenged on the grounds that one has a constitutional right to get drunk on private property.

The Protective Custody Law, enacted in 1971, replaced a Colonial-era law that made public drunkenness a crime. It authorizes police to hold people against their will for up to 12 hours if they are drunk and a danger to themselves or others.

Attorney Leonard Kesten, who has defended police departments in civil-rights cases, said if officers are investigating a crime or responding to an incident and discover that someone is drunk and posing a danger, they are obligated to take that person into protective custody.

Police have been sued for failing to take people into protective custody who later died from alcohol poisoning or killed others in drunken-driving accidents.

Laverriere said that he drank several beers, but wasn't drunk, when officers arrived at his friend's duplex saying someone had thrown bottles at a passing police cruiser.

When the partygoers denied throwing bottles, Laverriere said, the officers became angry, prompting him to pick up a friend's camera and start videotaping. Laverriere told the Globe that Officer Jorge Orta ripped the camera from his hands and threw him to the floor, injuring his shoulder.

Laverriere said he told police he had been invited to spend the night at the house, but the officers insisted on taking him into protective custody.

One police report says that Laverriere appeared intoxicated and expressed "displeasure" at being told he had to leave the party. He was then taken into custody. The report says he fell to the floor while resisting Orta's efforts to handcuff him.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,161956,00.html
 
I agree wuth the man somewhat but he better be able to take responsibility for what he does when he is drunk!

Too many iffy sotries floating around lately. In everyone the cops seem to be the bad guys...and i find myself believing most of the time they ARE the bad guys.
 
I have an absolute right to get drunk.
In my youth I exercised this right on numerous occasions. A few resulted in my meeting and greeting the local constables. But in my own house!!!!
I'd sue too. For a lot .

AFS
 
isn't it ironic that FL would extend the "castle" law, and yet, clearly a man's home is no longer his castle. They can take your castle, they can tell you what you can do in your castle, even if its not bothering anyone else...maybe they could put screens on our walls that we're not allowed to turn off, so they can watch us for our own safety...
 
"One thing people should be able to do is drink in their own house," Laverriere told The Boston Globe. "That's the beauty of the land of the free."
BWAHAHAHAHA. Silly boy, you're in Massachucets, and good long way from the "land of the free."
 
So, he has a right to get drunk but not to smoke pot, make machine-guns or invite hookers over? Riiight...
 
hmmm... I wonder what else a person might do that could theoreticly make them 'a danger to themselves or others' and thus get taken into custody?
 
My brother and his friends used to skateboard all the time, Since I was 12, and he was 17 I used to tag along and look up to him. My parents had a video camera that we used to use to video tape him and his friends skateboarding. One day a cop stopped us in a Empty parking lot and started harrassing us. He verbaly, harrassed us, threw my brother and one of his friends to the sidewalk, and broke my brothers skateboard in half. ( I wasnt skateboarding, I was video taping, I always rode my bike, and had the video camera in a backpack when not in use). Anyway, he confiscated the video camera (what do you know, the tape was gone when my parents got it back)

When confronted about the verbal/physical abuse, and destruction of property, of course he denied everything.

Point IS: Cops dont like to be video taped, especially when they know they are doing they are not supposed to. Once you get on a cops bad side, good luck.......
 
Quote:
"One thing people should be able to do is drink in their own house," Laverriere told The Boston Globe. "That's the beauty of the land of the free."
BWAHAHAHAHA. Silly boy, you're in Massachucets, and good long way from the "land of the free."


What isn't free about Massachusetts? Its not as bad as people make it out to be, they issue CCW permits for all lawful purposes, and you only need to take a basic safety course. The issuing of those licenses is left up to a town/city basis, so local politics as in the elected police chief has the final say, so voting in small town or local elections plays a huge part. Isnt that democracy?, the state stays out of it and lets the towns/ city decide. With the exception of the assault weapon ban, which only limits me buying post ban guns, what can't I do in mass that makes it not a place of freedoms. The drunk guy from maine throwing bottles was not on his OWN property and in most places if the police show up after reports of drunk people throwing objects at cars, or cop cruisers, those people should be taken into custody because it is one thing if you are sitting around drunk not causing any harm to others or yourself, but start throwing bottles at cars and that sounds like a danger to the public. I know I would be pissed if someone threw a beer bottle at me while I was driving, it poses a danger to the public. I think that this is just another stupid lawsuit that is wasting time and tax money. Not saying that all cops are standup guys and that they never abuse thier power, but Come on, it is new years the guy is tanked and they are throwing crap at cars, its not like he was sitting in his living room having a few too many beers
 
So you have to beg the state to give you permission to carry a firearm and you consider that perfectly fine? I know folks who have had a LOT of trouble getting permits from Mass authorities. Having to win a local electoin in order to secure a fundamental right is not democracy. It's tyranny of the majority. And in Mass, the majority are insane leftists. They have two of the most intense anti-gun senators in the nation, and their local politicos are just as bad.

Besides, the man in question here was never charged or arrested for throwing bottles at anyone. So your point is completely irrelevant.
 
What isn't free about Massachusetts? Its not as bad as people make it out to be, they issue CCW permits for all lawful purposes, and you only need to take a basic safety course. The issuing of those licenses is left up to a town/city basis, so local politics as in the elected police chief has the final say, so voting in small town or local elections plays a huge part. Isnt that democracy?, the state stays out of it and lets the towns/ city decide.
Hoo-boy. Last I checked Mass was a "may-issue" state, and as you noted it is up to the local constabulary as to whether or not you get the permit. Forgetting for a moment that needing a permit would be an anathema to the founding fathers, that sort of discretion is exactly what contributes to Mass not being the "land of the free." Lest you forget, rights are not subject to the whims of the local politicians or popular will. They either exist or they don't. Besides, if it's alright to keep the state gov out of it, why not exclude the towns/cities. Leave it to the individual as to whether or not they choose to exercise such a right.
With the exception of the assault weapon ban, which only limits me buying post ban guns, what can't I do in mass that makes it not a place of freedoms.
Let's not even get into the taxes, and other nanny-state bovine manure the state of Mass inflicts on it's subjects. It boggles my mind that any state with such a proud history as Mass could repeatedly elect Swimmer and Lurch, never mind all the other state and local politicians that are a disgrace to freedom (Menino, Romney spring to mind).

As to the behavior of the idiot in question, he was taken into "protective custody" for being drunk. He was not charged with any crime according to the article quoted. The cops took him away because they were pissed. He was not a danger to others at that time, from the evidence presented (he may have been, but there wasn't anything in the article that confimed that). Even if he was a danger to himself, that's his problem not the state's. He was a guest of the homeowner, and therefore totally entitled to punish his liver as much as his host allowed. Absent criminal behavior the cops had no right to take him away.
 
Perhaps because I reside in MA I find the state to be decent, I can CCW and the whole MAY issue thing is crap, if there is no reason for them to not issue it and then they deny you then it becomes an issue, but so far that has only become an issue in something like 3 towns out of 200+ and last I heard there were lawyers working on correcting those issues, yes it is sad that it had to come to that but the people in the town elected a police chief that decided to act that way. The taxes are not that insane, things like property tax are pretty damn low considering the property values, if I wanted to get choked by taxes I would buy a house in NH. Until then I will take living in MA while shopping in NH tax free, and still getting all the consumer benefits of living in MA, like consumer protection laws, free credit reports, lemon laws, and a very high prevailing wage etc etc. Its nice out here, my state isnt over run with illegal immigrants, and the quality of life is pretty good but if that ever changes, NH is only 20 minutes away, Maine 45, VT 1 hr, Ct and RI only about 45 min. Its not NY, elected guys like Menino have been alot better than any of the crap that NY has elected, there aren't many stories of Boston cops running around raping people with plungers and crap like you get in the dump of NY. Yeah its got its problems but where doesn't? I am sure you really like where you live, but I could never be convinced to go there
 
Why were the cops there in the first place? If it was a quiet, private party, then there was no reason for anyone to call the cops. If it was a drunken brawl of some sort, then there was probably a complaint. While the guy probably has the right to get as drunk as he wants, he doesn't have the right to be a pain in the ass because of it.
 
I was with the fllow all the way up to the part about throwing bottles at police cars.
But we know that that never happened, because the drunk man said so.

Why were the cops there in the first place
They have super duper alcohol detecting machines in their cruisers and listening devices that will detect the sounds of laughter and good times from at least 650 yards.
It's all part of a concerted effort between the MIB and the high commander of the planet Disulfiram to systematically deny us of all pleasure.
Either that or it was the bottle throwing thing
 
Perhaps I missed where the article said that Laverriere was the one throwing bottles at the police car. In fact, we don't know whether the bottle-throwing incident ever occured...

This is not an issue of any "right to get drunk." This is an issue of out-and-out police brutality and abuse of authority.

Why aren't the honorable cops in Massachucets standing up and condemning this deplorable act?

- Chris
 
I tried to video tape at the beach a few cops giving us a hard time

We were at Myrtle Beach "cruising" up and down the strip. Like any young highschool grads we had a video camera (big as they were at the time). Well, one of the guys in the car decided he was going to talk to some "beach bunnies" as he put it, and opened the door to the 80's model Camaro. As he was doing this, I saw in the mirror a golf cart cruising down the parking spots lining the side of the road. I yelled at him to wait on getting out but it was too late. the car door was open just enough to have the leverage of the entire car behind it and well.... the Golf Cart (with two police officers) lost to one of Newton's laws. Unfortunately the cops succumbed to the "objects in motion" law...

Needless to say they didn't want me to video tape that either. The only thing I could think of to save my friends was "are you supposed to be driving through parking spots as a lane?" They didn't like that either but we were told to leave or go to jail. We chose to stay in the hotel room... I still have the tape too of up to the moment of impact. Good for a laugh every now and again. :cool:
 
Perhaps I missed where the article said that Laverriere was the one throwing bottles at the police car.
No more than I missed the part about him being arrested for throwing the bottles. We also dont't know that the bottle throwing didn't happen
This is not an issue of any "right to get drunk." This is an issue of out-and-out police brutality and abuse of authority.
It's not out and out anything it's an unsubstantiated accusation so far, nothing more
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top