Chandler council hears presentation on ordinance to prohibit drink and food tampering
Loading...
Summary
At its April 6 study session, the Chandler City Council heard an overview of a proposed ordinance (item 9, "51 59") that would add a local prohibition on knowingly introducing intoxicants or drugs into another person’s food or drink and would create a misdemeanor-level enforcement option when felony prosecution is not pursued by the county.
At its April 6 study session, the Chandler City Council heard a staff presentation on a proposed ordinance to prohibit tampering with another person’s food or drink and to add attempted tampering as a local offense.
The city attorney covering the meeting said the proposal would add definitions and a prohibition to Chapter 11 of the city code and would make it "unlawful for any person to knowingly introduce into a drink of food or another or attempt to introduce any intoxicating liquor or drug without the knowledge or consent of that other person." He said the measure is intended to provide a local misdemeanor enforcement option when a county prosecutor declines felony charges, and to allow earlier local intervention in suspected tampering cases.
The presentation noted that Arizona law already makes introducing intoxicants or drugs into another’s food or drink a felony under state statute; the local ordinance is intended to fill a gap by adding an attempted-offense provision and by empowering city-level prosecution when felony prosecution does not proceed. The city attorney said penalties under the city code would use the code's default misdemeanor penalties; the presentation referenced a class 1 misdemeanor and cited a $2,500 fine and up to six months in jail as the applicable local penalty range.
Council member Poston, who called the item in, said he brought the matter forward to clarify the gap in local authority and thanked staff for the explanation. Council member Harris said he had worked with the city manager and city attorney to develop the measure, saying the growing city and influx of new residents and college populations made it important to give law enforcement additional tools and to enable early intervention when evidence is time-sensitive.
No formal council vote on the ordinance was recorded at the study session; the mayor noted items not called out will be voted on Thursday and staff indicated the ordinance will return for formal consideration at a subsequent meeting.
The city attorney took questions at the end of his overview and said staff would be available for council follow-up prior to any formal vote.
