Centralia City Council considers increasing penalty for open alcohol container violations, adding criminal offenses for loitering

Possessing an open container of liquor in a public place could potentially be a misdemeanor offense in Centralia, as well as loitering for drug-related activity or near child-oriented locations.

The Centralia City Council voted to move forward with Ordinance 2567 on a first reading during its Tuesday night meeting, and the measure is slated to return for a second reading on Sept. 9, when it would officially be enacted if the council approves.

Consuming liquor or possessing an open container of liquor in a public place is currently a non-arrestable civil infraction in Centralia, and the city does not have any laws prohibiting loitering. To address a number of issues with drug and alcohol activities in the city’s parks and other public places, the Centralia Police Department asked the city attorney’s office to research and prepare criminal offenses that will give it additional tools to use.

Ordinance 2567 would amend the Centralia Municipal Code to make consuming or possessing an open container of liquor a misdemeanor offense. This will allow the police department to arrest offenders, and violators would have the possible penalty of jail time. In order to prevent violations due to sidewalk cafes or special events, the ordinance exempts serving and consuming liquor where the activity is authorized by a valid license or permit.

The ordinance would also create two new misdemeanor offenses: loitering for drug-related activity and loitering near child-oriented locations. Loitering ordinances face high judicial scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored to target specific behaviors in specific locations. The first offense makes it unlawful to loiter in any public place in the city for the purposes of engaging in prohibited drug- or alcohol-related activities.

The code section provides a non-exhaustive list of activities or behaviors that can be used to determine if a person is engaging in prohibited drug- or alcohol-related activities. The second offense makes it unlawful to loiter within 330 feet of a child-oriented location in a manner that would cause a reasonable person or child to fear for their safety or security.

Mayor Kelly Smith Johnston asked Chief Andy Caldwell about what she called “unconscious or subconscious bias” toward people of color or people who “look homeless or otherwise disadvantaged.”

Caldwell said the department conducts bias training at the end of every year and an evaluation to ensure there is no “overt bias” in officers’ application of use of force and enforcement of laws. Additionally, he wants the community to know that officers’ primary goal is to educate rather than take further action in many cases.

“We, as an agency, in seeking to achieve our mission, we always try to provide resources. The application of these laws would be education. First, we would try to apply resources,” Caldwell said. “A lot of times, people don’t want resources, and when we’ve exhausted all measures, then we have this as a tool to take further actions. If somebody needs help, we’ll provide that help. If they don’t want help and are causing a problem, this gets us a tool to get them out of the area, and even sometimes that gets them help.”

City Attorney Kyle Manley said other cities in Washington have open-container violations as misdemeanors and similar loitering for drug-related activity ordinances, but noted that the loitering near child-oriented locations ordinance is “more of a local creation.”

“The loitering for drug-related activity is found in a number of other cities. This ordinance is heavily based off of the one Spokane has, and it was upheld as being a valid use of police power,” he said. “I think there’s generally a strong mentality that it is a valid law and is used to great effect to help police departments.”

Caldwell said, since these are misdemeanor offenses, the crimes need to occur in the officer’s presence, although a citizen can alert the agency to the issue.

“We really need to get there and dive in and see what’s happening. We can do a follow-up and try to investigate when we don’t witness it firsthand,” he said. “If people see something that applies in this category, they need to call it in, let the officer come out, make the observations and apply the law appropriately.”

Circumstances for the loitering near child-oriented locations which may be considered in determining whether an intent to harass, intimidate or interfere with the safe use of the premises or to engage in prohibited conduct is manifested include, but are not limited to, the following:

• The person has been convicted of offenses against children.
• The person follows, accosts or repeatedly approaches a child or caregiver after being told to stop.
• The person obstructs entrances, exits or drop-off/pick-up zones.
• The person makes threats, gestures, or statements that a reasonable person would interpret as a threat of harm.
• The person displays a weapon or simulated weapon.
• The person engages in lewd conduct or creates a public disturbance or nuisance, including, but not limited to, excessive noise, litter, refuse, excessive odor, human or animal waste, or any act or omission that annoys, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of others.
• The person behaves in such a manner as to raise a reasonable suspicion that they are about to engage in or are engaging in activity that constitutes a criminal offense.
• The person manifestly attempts to conceal themselves or any object which could reasonably be involved in the commission of a criminal offense.