State v. Coles
324 P.3d 859
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- On Dec. 21, 2011 Scottsdale cited David Coles under S.C.C. § 19-8(a) for being "incapacitated by alcohol in public" (ordinance prohibits being "under the influence" in public when it reasonably appears one may endanger self/others/property).
- Coles moved to dismiss, arguing Scottsdale’s ordinance conflicts with A.R.S. § 36-2031, which bars local laws that make "being a common drunkard" or "being found in an intoxicated condition" an element of an offense.
- The municipal court dismissed the charge; the City appealed to Maricopa County Superior Court, which reversed, holding § 36-2031 does not preempt ordinances that prohibit being "under the influence." Coles appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- The appellate court reviewed preemption de novo and analyzed conflict, whether the statute addresses a statewide concern, and whether the Legislature intended to occupy the field.
- The court concluded the ordinance conflicts with § 36-2031 and that the Legislature intended statewide preemption by treating alcoholism as a public-health (noncriminal) matter, reversing the superior court and reinstating the municipal dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Coles' Argument | City of Scottsdale's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.R.S. § 36-2031 preempts S.C.C. § 19-8(a) | § 36-2031 prohibits local laws that use intoxication as an element; Scottsdale ordinance criminalizes being "under the influence" and thus conflicts | The words differ: state statute bars "intoxicated condition" but not "under the influence"; ordinance targets a narrower category (those endangering persons/property) | Preempted: "under the influence" subsumes "intoxicated condition," so the ordinance conflicts with § 36-2031 and is invalid |
| Whether the statute is of statewide concern and evidences intent to occupy the field | Legislature adopted treatment-focused statutes (A.R.S. §§ 36-2021–2031) modeled on UAITA to decriminalize alcoholism and preempt local regulation | The City urged narrow construction and pointed to statutory exceptions (e.g., sale/use restrictions, particular classes) to avoid preemption | Statewide concern and field occupied: Legislature intended to treat alcoholism as noncriminal conduct and to preempt local intoxication offenses; exceptions do not save the ordinance |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1962) (constitutional limits on criminalizing a person’s status or disease)
- Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1968) (upholding conviction for public intoxication on facts; discusses history and policy of criminalizing drunkenness)
- Coconino County v. Antco, Inc., 214 Ariz. 82 (App. 2006) (municipalities may regulate unless preempted by state law)
- City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 163 Ariz. 608 (App. 1989) (preemption test: conflict, statewide concern, legislative intent to occupy the field)
- City of Tucson v. Rineer, 193 Ariz. 160 (App. 1998) (preemption reviewed de novo)
- Hasten v. State, 35 Ariz. 427 (Ariz. 1929) (discusses difference between "intoxicated" and "under the influence")