United States v. Hemani · ¶42

Notably, the government doesn't rely on surety-of-thepeace statutes in this case. And that makes sense. To warrant the imposition of a surety of the peace, just being a habitual drunkard wasn't usually enough. So in this case the government directs us to a different kind of surety stat- ute—one that required certain individuals to post sureties of “good behavior.” Brief for United States 22 (internal quotation marks omitted). Under those laws, a judicial officer could impose a surety of good behavior on individuals who threatened a “scandal.” Parker 410. And a scandal could include anything from “haunting bawdy houses” to “evesdropp[ing]” to, yes, being a “common drunkar[d].” Ibid. In fact, one surety statute targeted those who had “a common practice of getting drunk, and prophane cursing and swearing, and blasphemy, to the great dishonour of Almighty God.” 1 Del. Laws 173 (1797). But…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.