Monday, July 13, 2009
Missouri's current open-container law allows passengers in vehicles to keep drinking alcohol, whether the car is pulled over or not, and drivers can join them - as long as they don't get caught.
"It's been one of those problems we've had for 20 years," said Sgt. Larry Stobbs of the St. Joseph Police Department.
Mr. Stobbs said the statute is poorly written. He compared it to the state's seat belt law; law enforcement can only stop a driver if they see him or her drinking, much like they can only stop a driver for violating the seat belt law if they see him or her not wearing a seat belt.
"Until the Legislature changes it, I don't know what we're going to do about that," he said.
Missouri has yet to join the states complying with the federal government's guidelines in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). One part of the act prohibits open alcohol in the passenger area of a vehicle, including unlocked glove compartments, which the driver can reach while driving.
Many of Missouri's neighboring states are strictly enforcing their open-container laws. In Kansas, a person can be fined up to $200 and/or spend up to six months in jail for violating the statute. In Oklahoma, a violation can cost up to $500 and/or six months in jail, and in Illinois, a first-time offense will result in a fine up to $1,000.
"When you're dealing with alcohol-related issues, you have different interests from bars and restaurants and citizen groups and the Youth Alliance, a lot of opposing sides," Mr. Stobbs said. "There's no middle of the road with these groups."
Anna McMillen, project associate for the Missouri Youth/Adult Alliance, agrees.
"People in Missouri want to make up their own minds about things and don't like laws that force them not to do some things," she explained. "But sometimes you have to sacrifice some things for the good of everyone."
As an incentive for complying with TEA-21, the federal government provides states with roadway funds. The states that are non-compliant are required to divert funds from road maintenance to alcohol education programs, crash prevention and enforcement.
MoDOT spokeswoman Kristi Jamison said the cost is $12 million less each year for road maintenance. Instead, the transferred funds contributed to the 500 miles of guard cable on the highways, and has allowed more law enforcement presence on the highways at certain times.
State Rep. Ed Wildberger, D-St. Joseph, said the Legislature is concerned with strengthening drunken-driving laws, including the recent passage of the ignition interlock law. He said he believes a discussion over the open-container law may come up in the future. However, he has reservations.
"We haven't seen where open-container laws have been very successful in other states in deterring drunk driving," he said.
Nevertheless, a number of cities in Missouri have decided to take action. Thirty-one municipalities have outlawed open containers within city limits, including Maryville. The city of St. Joseph has not.
Even if the city does eventually decide to outlaw open containers, Sgt. Ron Gordon, crime analyst for the Police Department, is unsure of how effective it would be.
"In my opinion, people do what they would normally do," he said, "whether they drink while driving or not."
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. We do not review every post or respond to every removal suggestion. Comments that threaten someone or degrade them on the basis of gender, race, class, national origin, religion or disability will be removed. Comments containing abusive, vulgar or sexually-oriented language will be removed. Comments that spread rumors or lies will be removed. Please discuss only what has been factually proven. Comments posted in all caps will be removed. Stay on topic! Brief quotes are okay as long as the source is given. Blatant cutting and pasting is not acceptable. Comments must be kept under 250 words or less. Stjoenews.net moderators also reserve the right to remove comments for any reason they deem worthy. Click here for our full user agreement.
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
"People in Missouri want to make up their own minds about things and don't like laws that force them not to do some things," ..... in a nutshell, the state animal is a mule.
July 13, 2009 at 7:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMoe says...
I'm for a stiffer open container law - get it done!
July 13, 2009 at 7:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
Stobbs is a mad man anyway. He has been the local head of MADD which is wrong. At the same time he was the officer who was in charge of certifying the breathalyzer machine. He should have some level of independence and honesty when in fact he is an advocate for MADDs position.
July 13, 2009 at 7:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
donaldo says...
i think if you are an alcohalic you shouldn,t drink. i dont and havent since 1985.people with the problem know they have a problem and an open container law will not matter to them except they will be more carefull. it wont matter to them or slow them down. the kansas law is good and when i drank i was more carfull when i went there. i dont think a police officer can be bias if he is involved in madd. all to him will be guilty of d.w.i. because of his feelings. regardless of their b.a.c.level.especially if he adjust,s the breathalizer machine.i know many freinds who have had d.w.i.,s and they were probibly guilty of this. they said they were not, now im not really shure after hearing stobbs was involved in setting the machine up. it matters not, they still have a problem with drinking if they have to drive while getting ripped.yes on containner law in mo..
July 13, 2009 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_O says...
I am starting my Own club, DAMM, Drunks against Mad Mothers.
I personally do NOT drink alcohol, but the thought of banning ALL open containers in vehicles will NOT improve the situation. Many people Bar Hop, and can certainly wait 5 min. to get to their next stop, that does NOT make them any less Drunk during their trip. You ask for designated drivers, then you want to eliminate the need for them. If someone wants to PAY me to be a DD for the evening, I stand to lose revenue. The ONLY sure cure IS, TEST the Driver, and if there is NO ALCOHOL detected in HIM,,, they should be allowed to continue on to their next destination.
The ones who DRIVE DRUNK, will not change no matter WHAT the law says, I believe that!
July 13, 2009 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
I personally do not and will not drink and drive, but all I got to say to this situations is more goverment and more goverment. If the driver is drunk throw his butt in jail and charge him.
July 13, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bigbob says...
All too frequently well intentioned laws are enforced without logic by the police. Until there is a way to instill common sense in law enforcment we might be better off with vague laws.
July 13, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
truthbetold says...
I think the common sense needs to be the legislators making the laws. You tell me the rational in the seatbelt law. If an officer sees someone 16 or younger not wearing a seatbelt he or she can pull them over for that violation. However if you are 17 or older they have to have some other reason (red light violation, speeding, etc) to stop you in order for them to get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. STUPID
July 13, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
insideout says...
One of the many problems with this idea is that it may very well reduce the number of individuals that are willing to be a DD. It takes a strong person to go out and not have any drinks while everyone else is "having a good time". Why would those individuals want to offer their services if they could possibly get in trouble for it? What about the revenues made by those that rent items like buses and sober drivers for those groups looking to responsible?
The fact of the matter is that if an officer witnesses an alcoholic beverage in a moving vehicle, passenger or otherwise...they will find something to pull you over. If the folks are responsible enough to have found a DD, then I say they should receive a pat on the back rather than more harassment!
The bottom-line is MADD will not be satisfied until alcohol is completely illegal and removed from society. History shows we have tried that once and it also shows how well it succeeded.
July 13, 2009 at 11:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dreammid says...
Keep go'n people....next thing ya know when you rise in the morning, make sure and ask the state and fed if you can put your feet on the ground, or what cloths you should wear...go ahead , they're just about take'n care of every thing else you don't want to have to think about. Wonder why they called it "Big Brother" back in the day, seems to be more like "Master" to me.
July 14, 2009 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )