MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES; LIQUOR; JUVENILES;

MUNICIPALITIES; LIQUOR;

Connecticut laws/regulations;

You asked what authority does a municipality have to adopt ordinances making it illegal for a minor (someone under 21) to [possess alcohol on private property.

The Office of Legislative Research is not authorized to render legal opinions and the report should not be considered as one.

SUMMARY

The Liquor Control Act does not authorize towns to adopt such ordinances nor does it explicitly prohibit them from doing so. Towns might look for authority to do so under the municipal powers statutes, which give them broad authority to address nuisances and takes steps to protect public health and safety. Since a court has not decided the question, we cannot provide a definitive answer.

LIQUOR CONTROL ACT

The Liquor Control Act regulates the sale of liquor in Connecticut. It also has several provisions concerned with preventing minors from drinking. Among them, the law prohibits (1) inducing a minor to procure liquor (CGS § 30-87), (2) misusing a driver’s license to obtain liquor (CGS § 30-88a), (3) a minor from procuring liquor (CGS § 30-89), (4) minor from having liquor in a public place (CGS § 30-89), and (5) liquor permittee from allowing a minor to loiter in an establishment with a liquor permit (CGS § 30-90). The act does not contain any provision authorizing towns to adopt ordinances prohibiting minors from possessing alcohol on private property, nor does it explicitly prohibit towns from doing so. Opponents of such an ordinance could argue that the law implicitly prohibits them from doing so. But since no court has decided the question, we cannot provide you with a definitive answer.

MUNICIPAL POWERS

About a dozen towns have adopted ordinances prohibiting adults from hosting a party in which minors are served alcohol and their parent, guardian, or spouse over age 21 is not present. We surveyed two of them (Farmington and Glastonbury) and a third that is considering such a ban (Essex). They could not cite any statute that explicitly authorizes them to do this.

There may be implied authority in the statutes giving towns powers to address nuisances and protect public health. The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that a municipality’s powers are those that are (1) expressly granted or (2) by implication, necessary to exercise those powers (Hennessy v. City of Bridgeport, (1990) 231 Conn. 656). Further, it has ruled that an ordinance is not in conflict with state statute if it only enlarges on it (Aaron v. Conservation Commission, (1981) 183 Conn. 532). Finally, it has ruled that an ordinance that is not in conflict with a statute is not preempted by it (Modern Cigarette, Inc. v. Orange (2001) 256 Conn. 105).

Towns can define, prohibit, and abate all nuisances and their causes and all things that are detrimental to health, morals, safety, convenience, and welfare of their residents. In doing so, they can charge the expense of abating a nuisance to the owner of the property where it exists (CGS § 7-148(c) (7) (E)).

Besides addressing nuisances, towns can take steps to protect public health and safety. They specifically can:

• Regulate or prohibit business activities that could harm the public health, that foster fraud and cheating, or that endanger or annoy nearby residents or property owners (CGS § 7-148(H) (ii)) and

• Provide for residents’ health and do all things necessary to or desirable to secure and promote the public health (CGS § 7-148 (H) (xi)).

Towns could argue that these specific grants of authority given them implied authority to adopt the ordinance in question. We cannot give a definitive answer because no court has decided the question.

DD: ts