[nico]

I know there's been a lot of (too much) cop bashing around here lately, but this is a ridiculous case of sour grapes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601652.html
The link requires registration, but bugmenot gets around it.

Police Ticket Cars In Lieu of Teens
Liquor Fears at Md. Party Unfounded

By Nancy Trejos and Daniel de Vise
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; Page B04

Anna Phelan and Emily Adams wanted to end their four years at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School with a memorable backyard graduation party.

There was a blues band, a moon bounce, a popcorn machine and a pit for making s'mores. Guests feasted on hot dogs, hamburgers and bratwurst. There was plenty of ginger ale, cranberry juice and root beer to go around. What there wasn't plenty of was alcohol.

"It was pretty low-key, and it was just sweet," Margaret Engel Adams, Emily's mother, said of the party for about 80 friends and relatives. "It was just pretty much out of Norman Rockwell."

All that changed about 9:30 p.m. Thursday, Adams said, when a Montgomery County police officer knocked on the Phelans' door, in the 4600 block of Rosedale Avenue in Bethesda, to say that someone had complained about the noise. The officer then asked Anna's mother, Kathy Phelan, if he and several other officers could give breath tests to the teenagers. She refused.

So police stationed patrol cars at each end of her street, six in all, and began giving the tests to guests as they left the party, she said. None of the teenagers tested positive for alcohol, she said.

Officers then began ticketing vehicles parked outside the Phelans' house, she said, including ones that belonged to neighbors who weren't at her party. Some vehicles were ticketed for a wheel improperly touching a curb or for extending into a driveway. Emily Adams, 18, received a $35 parking ticket; her Honda Odyssey minivan was parked directly in front of the Phelans' home.

"It almost seemed like they were angry that they didn't find anything," Kathy Phelan said.

The officers were part of an Alcohol Enforcement Section that combs the county around holidays and during prom season to guard against underage drinking. The eight-officer unit checks bars and restaurants and responds to citizen complaints when house parties appear to involve underage drinking.

"When they get calls that there may be underage drinking, their response is to investigate it," said Lt. Eric Burnett, a police spokesman. "We're trying to prevent teen deaths."

Margaret Adams and Kathy Phelan have written a letter to Montgomery Police Chief J. Thomas Manger and several other county officials. They are seeking disciplinary action against the officers and apologies to their daughters, best friends since middle school who graduated from Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School on Wednesday.

Burnett said that it was too early to discuss the allegations of the party hosts but that the incident was under investigation and that any proven misconduct would result in disciplinary action.

He said it is standard procedure for alcohol enforcement officers to cordon off a block if they are denied access to a property where they suspect underage drinking is happening. He added that the parking infractions described in the letter "are tickets that you can actually receive. We can't just make this stuff up."

Phelan said police never asked her if there was alcohol in the house. There was a small amount of beer at the party -- for adults -- but it was kept in the kitchen. The teenagers couldn't get to it without walking past an adult, she said.

John King, assistant Montgomery police chief, said the alcohol enforcement officers had "some indicators" of underage drinking at the party. "But it turned out those indicators were wrong."

Ryan Hamm, 17, said he was tested as he walked from the house to his car. No alcohol was detected, he said.

"We were like making s'mores in the back and they had cake," he said. "It was just like people talking and a band playing, and it was fun."

A local morning DJ was talking about it today and quite a few cops called in supporting these actions. One of them said he was at the party and that if the woman "had done the right thing and let [them] in" there wouldn't have been a problem. Another caller mentioned that people have a right to not let cops in. But, the next caller (also a cop) said that if you're in the woman's situation, you should just "do the right thing" and let the cops take a look around.

When did it become "the wrong thing" to exercize a Constitutionally guaranteed right if it happens to make a cop's job less convenient?

[hifi]

Everyday the 4th Amendment is becoming more and more irrelevent.

[LAR-15]

It does sound like sour grapes from the cops.

Not that the tickets/permits are illegitimate, they clearly are legal.

But the cops were mad nothing panned out.

[MudPuppy]

Well, there might not be so much cop bashing if you didn't have retalitory enforcement like the described incident.

I realize there's always more than one side to the story, but it's pretty screwed up when other LEOs support that action as described.

I saw a thread a while back about your bags being searched when you left stores like Frye's or Best Buy--too many folks said it's not big deal, don't worry about it. The problem is that mentality infests itself into the public norm and kids grow up thinking that is normal and then become cops and judges and it becomes policy.

And honestly, that consititution is a nice read and all, but those folks still got tickets to pay.

[deanf]

This is pretty much S.O.P for cops around the country. Most people are intimidated into cooperating lest they get a parking ticket, so you don't hear about it much.

[Zundfolge]

nico, why do you hate the children?

Don't you realize that if you don't do every little thing a police officer asks you then you undermine our entire police state...er...society?

And for those of you who want to bring up the constitution, that is an ancient, irrelevant text written by a bunch of dead white guys who did horrible things like smoke and drink and think people should be able to say NO! to authority, so obviously it doesn't have anything to do with our little post-modern Utopia :rolleyes:

You people make me sick.

[XLMiguel]

Sure sounds like abuse under color of authority to me.

Parents were home, kids were supervised, noise complaint was bogus (IIRC, you don't have to quiet down until 11PM in Mont Co), kids were otherwise behaving. Noise aside, no probable cause for a search. let alone shut down the party; a simple 'turn it down please' would have been sufficient.

Then again, Monkey County is pretty much the epicenter of MD liberal nannism & PC, so I guess you reap what you sow :barf:

[Sir Aardvark]

Things like this contribute to the "Us versus Them" mentality.

[hifi]

nico, why do you hate the children?

Don't you realize that if you don't do every little thing a police officer asks you then you undermine our entire police state...er...society?

And for those of you who want to bring up the constitution, that is an ancient, irrelevant text written by a bunch of dead white guys who did horrible things like smoke and drink and think people should be able to say NO! to authority, so obviously it doesn't have anything to do with our little post-modern Utopia

You people make me sick.

Zundfolge, good stuff man! :evil: Slave ownership! You forgot the slave ownership! LoL...

[wasrjoe]

The officers were part of an Alcohol Enforcement Section

Sounds like a real fun group of guys.

[Sindawe]

Hey, if you have nothing to hide, whats the problem?

'Scuse me while I wash my hands with lye soap. Bad fingers, BAAADD!!!...

[Bob]

There is a pretty simple solution to most of the so called cop bashing. Where I grew up people treated each other with respect, regardless of occupation or station in life. I think if law enforcement officers would behave in a respectable manner, they would have fewer problems with cop bashing. They seem to often have the idea that they ARE the law. That just doesn't fly with me or with lots of other folks.
Bob

[jefnvk]

I'm gonna get flamed for this, but oh well.

If I were a cop, and the parents told me that there was no alcohol, I wouldn't necessairialy be inclined to believe them. Having been to a few last year when I graduated, and this year is starting up again, it is usually the parents providing the alcohol.

The breathlyzers when the people exited, I don't really have a problem with. they had no way of knowing if there was alcohol or not being served.

The parking tickets? Sound like they were mad, but if the tickets were legit, I can't really be mad over that. If I were their supervisor, I may have a talk about decision making, though.

[AZRickD]

...or we will harrass you to the furthest extent of the law...
Burnett said that it was too early to discuss the allegations of the party hosts but that the incident was under investigation and that any proven misconduct would result in disciplinary action.The report was written before this incident. It will have words such as "unfounded" and "exonerated."

He said the police "suspected?" What reasonable suspicion did they have? And since they were wrong multiple times, what does that say about their police work and "intuition?"

Secondly, I would love to get more info on how the teens were coerced into doing BAC tests. Public skool graduates, no doubt. Trained to obey the State.

Maybe, just maybe, the PD have sown the seeds for, or even created a few more small-L libertarians.

Rick

[centac]

Screw the neighbors who called in the complaint. And anyone involved in an auto accident with one of these kids afterwards, well, hey, they shoulda got outta the way. Go ahead and park whereever you want, its a free country.

I dont get paid to lose or walk away. Bash away, its what you do best. :rolleyes:

[Sindawe]

Secondly, I would love to get more info on how the teens were coerced into doing BAC tests. The state may have one of those anti-drunk driving laws that specify if a breathalizer is refused, the drivers license is confiscated on the spot pending further investigation. IIRC we have one of those here in Colorado. Don't forget just how important that license is to teen-agers.

[sumpnz]

Secondly, I would love to get more info on how the teens were coerced into doing BAC tests. Public skool graduates, no doubt. Trained to obey the State. Once you're in your car, all the cop need to do is demand a breath test. Most states require that you comply with such a request as a condition for the privildge of driving. IIRC cops don't need much justification, and I'd think that most courts would uphold the decision to breath test the kids. Now, if you're just walking down the street, and not getting behind the wheel of a car, that's different.Screw the neighbors who called in the complaint. And anyone involved in an auto accident with one of these kids afterwards, well, hey, they shoulda got outta the way. Go ahead and park whereever you want, its a free country.

I dont get paid to lose or walk away. Bash away, its what you do best. I still have not added anyone to my Ignore list, but geeze centac you're getting awfully close to justifying that. I'm sure you'd have hauled the kids to jail too if they'd had a coffee can in their car?

[walking arsenal]

Stuff like this makes me wonder somedays why im going into law enforcement.

Other days it makes me glad i am, maybe i can help curb this kind of thing from happening.

[beerslurpy]

Yeah, but what are the chances that you are a big enough dip???? to be stuck on traffic patrol or liquor duty? Something tells me you wont run into these people very much if you are investigating homicides or somthing useful.

[2nd Amendment]

Just don't let the centacs of the world alter your goals, Arsenal.

And centac, ya know, I don't believe in "ignore lists". I read everything, especially the stuff I oppose...but you're just too damn much. So long.

[Don Gwinn]

I dont get paid to lose or walk away.
You're kidding, right? Are you some kind of pro athlete? This is a game you win or lose?

If a police officer asks me to consent to a search and I do not consent, I don't consider myself to have won some kind of game. I also don't think of that as the officer "losing" a game of some kind.

Centac, I don't want to be a jerk, but you're not helping your cause here. You'd help yourself a lot more if you'd think twice and post once.


I don't need to comment on the original article; Jefnvk said it all. I agree with him completely.

[thebucket]

One thing I've always wondered. If you're drinking underage and the cops want to breathalyze you, couldn't you refuse under the 5th amendment as taking the test would cause you to incriminate yourself? This is assuming they can't just shove the thing down your throat. Also could the same apply if the police knew you were drunk and believe, but don't know for sure, that you're underage and wanted to see your ID?

[centac]

Mr. Gwinn

Feel free to put me on ignore, it wont bother me a bit

[Glock Glockler]

centac,

By any chance did you have your lunch money taken from you a lot when growing up?

[Vernal45]

This is the problem,with Cops like Centac. If exercise your rights, you piss them off, due the LEO's being on a power trip. I am just glad no illegal coffee cans were found in the cars, could have been a whole lot of searching going on.


The 4th amend does not exist anymore, you can invoke it, you can say no to a consent search, but you will pay. As long as there are I AM GOD cops, you will pay.

[Sindawe]

Maybe he was traumatized by a coffee can full of dryer sheets when he was a child?

thebucket: Breathalizers may come under the same classification as urine streams and garbage, since the exhaled breath is a waste product. Dunno know about the state this took place in though.

[Luku]

Stuff like this is going to make it harder for the good cops to do their job.

[2nd Amendment]

From another forum, someone had an observation that struck a chord...

So holding people hostage till they take this alchol test is OK by these guys?

Pretty much distills it down to the bare truth. Surprised I didn't come to the same observation...

[nico]

One thing I've always wondered. If you're drinking underage and the cops want to breathalyze you, couldn't you refuse under the 5th amendment as taking the test would cause you to incriminate yourself? This is assuming they can't just shove the thing down your throat. Also could the same apply if the police knew you were drunk and believe, but don't know for sure, that you're underage and wanted to see your ID?
To the first question, I would think so. The thing is, MD is one of the above mentioned states where having a driver's license is a de facto consent to a brethalyzer and refusing results in an instant suspension of your license. I wonder, though, if that only applies while operating a car, but I wouldn't put it past the lawmakers in this state to make it universal.

To the second question, iirc, there was a Supreme Court case a few months ago where they basically ruled that if a cop asked for your ID in investigating a report, you have to hand it over.

Another fact in the case that wasn't mentioned in this article is that after setting up their road blocks, the cops looked into the house with binoculars and saw kids "drinking out of red cups" (the disposable kind you'd hand out at a party when you don't want to do a lot of dishes afterwards) which make them SURE underaged drinking was going on. I guess they went to the centac school of law enforcement.

::sigh:: without cops like centac, vernal45 wouldn't have a leg to stand on :rolleyes:

[Zundfolge]

The tickets where petty and childish ... but if they where legit tickets then those who got them are stuck ... pay the ticket.

But its the breathalyzer tests that bug me.

These cops didn't have probable cause to give the tests ... in general you can't just randomly test people unless you have reason to believe they are indeed under the influence (for those over 21) or have consumed some alcohol (for those under 21).

Stuff like this is going to make it harder for the good cops to do their job.

Ultimately thats what this is all about. Crap like this erodes trust between police officers and the community they serve, and it always seems like its the good cops who pay the biggest price for this (by their jobs being harder and more dangerous).

Actions like this get ALL police painted by the same brush. Can anyone here imagine LawDog pulling such a childish stunt? I can't.

[Standing Wolf]

The cops had probably rounded up all the illegal aliens and violent criminals in their jurisdiction, and just didn't have anything better to do.

Let's cut them some slack, eh?

[nico]

These cops didn't have probable cause to give the tests ... in general you can't just randomly test people unless you have reason to believe they are indeed under the influence (for those over 21) or have consumed some alcohol (for those under 21).
I was under the impression that it was deemed OK as long as they brethalyzed everybody (basically, in this case, they set up two checkpoints near the house).

Standing Wolf: that's unlikely. MoCo's policy on illegal immigration all but invites them to come.

[Justin]

Good thing none of these kids had coffee cans in the back seat of their cars.

[Phantom Warrior]

What's the reference to coffee cans?

[P95Carry]

Phantom - do a search on that in Legal and Political - and if the thread/threads involved have not been canned, you should find out! :)

[hammer4nc]

Metaphor for the police state: If government officials are unhappy with you, everyone can be arrested for something. And, the same officials will make professional sounding statements justifying their actions. Some people who hear these statements will actually believe them.

[MN_Strelok]

So police stationed patrol cars at each end of her street, six in all, and began giving the tests to guests as they left the party, she said.

He said it is standard procedure for alcohol enforcement officers to cordon off a block if they are denied access to a property where they suspect underage drinking is happening.

Seriously? A six car police roadblock is their SOP for this sort of thing? Wow.

I guess when your department has a $150.6 million budget, you can really kick it up a notch.

[2nd Amendment]

Or just look up Vernal45's Sig Line... :D

[Steve in PA]

They can't just give breath tests, sorry. No way shape or form can they do that without PC.

As for the tickets, yeah pretty petty.

[pax]

:scrutiny:

Awright, you kids. No more personal comments about the other posters, please.

For those who need a refresher, you can find the forum rules here. (http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html)

pax

[Vodka7]

What really gets me is the cops started giving out parking tickets *after* doing the breathalyzers. I understand they're part of a task force to route out underage drinking. I understand that a lot of high schoolers get drunk at graduation parties.

But what I can't understand is why, after proving for a fact that no underage drinking whatsoever was taking place at this party, that the police officers involved decided the best use of their time was to give out parking tickets to people with, God forbid, a wheel touching the curb. I mean, there must have been a half dozen graduation parties in the same town the same night, and undoubtedly underage drinking was happening at some of these other parties. So why didn't they go find them, and do their real job? How does giving a parking ticket for blocking off the driveway of a party the person is at discourage that person from underage drinking?

[wasrjoe]

They didn't really care about the underage drinking anymore. They were slighted, and they had to retaliate.

[roo_ster]

PW:
According to some in law enforcement, an empty coffee can in your vehicle (and visible from outside the vehicle) gives them PC to search your vehicle/ruin your day/whatever.

Search the threads and tremble in awe.

[Cellar Dweller]

What would have happened if, after observing the roadblocks being set up, none of the guests had left and spent the night in the backyard or house instead?

What if they called their parents to pick them up? Legally, at a roadblock, is everyone in the car obligated to take a breathalyzer or only the driver or the driver + anyone with "alcoholic beverage smell?"

What if some called cabs to pick them up? Walked instead of drove?

If coercion doesn't work and the person isn't driving i.e. "not using the road that is being blocked" would a warrant be required? That is:

Given the flimsy PC of a party with music and teens and plastic cups and ~99% chance of SOME form of alcohol in the house (even if it's cooking sherry) but no one chugging from a keg or throwing beer bottles or dancing around with a bottle of grog...

[Crosshair]

Don't you have to be in a car for them to breath test you, so if you are walking home from a party they could not test you, correct?

[nico]

They can't just give breath tests, sorry. No way shape or form can they do that without PC.
My Maryland Driver's License reads
Driving in Maryland implies consent to chemical testing for intoxication as required by law. Longer license suspension may result from refusing to be tested

That tells me that refusing a breathalyzer=suspended license (and Sean Taylor's case backs it up). A kid walking down the street, I would think, would have every right to tell them where to stick the breathalyzer. The thing is, kids (especially in the DC area) are brought up to think that cops are the ultimate authority and you do what they say. The Consitituion is mentioned and often actually read, but I never had a teacher explain how the amendments relate to real life today.

IMO, it would do a great service to society if every social studies, l/s/n government, or US history class in high school had a section on what the Constitution means today. ie: when you have a right to keep your mouth shut, tell a cop they can't do something they want to do (search, etc.), etc. Most people think that a cop asking you to do something is just a nicety and that you have to do anything they ask. They don't realize that you ever have a right to say "no." I'm sure that most PDs and several cops of a certain breed would have a huge problem with such information getting such widespread dissemination though.

[geekWithA.45]

Some of the states more inclined to statism than others hold young people's driver's licenses hostage to their good behavior....and will yank licenses for underage posession of alcohol even if no vehicle is involved by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm moderately disturbed by the apparent pettiness and groupthink displayed by the cops in this case, and the escalation of force deployed in the face of someone asserting their prerogatives.

Recalling Sir Robert Peel's injunction that good policework cannot be achieved by force, and that it is entirely dependent on the public trust and confidence, I'd have to say that bad cops and policy are burning "coin" the good cops can't afford.

[geekWithA.45]

IMO, it would do a great service to society if every social studies, l/s/n government, or US history class in high school had a section on what the Constitution means today. ie: when you have a right to keep your mouth shut, tell a cop they can't do something they want to do

The public grade school I went to in the 70's covered exactly such topics.

[Desertdog]

To me, it's litigation time for harrassment, waste of police resorces, and intimidation by requiring all drivers to take the breathalyzer test.

Each and every one of the tickets should be fought in court, which would require the police officers to spend a lot of time in court to testify. Hopefully it would be on their days off or during the day when they work at night. :evil:

[joab]

They didn't really care about the underage drinking anymore. They were slighted, and they had to retaliate. I disagree.
I don't think that this was retaliation or even pettiness.
It sent a message to the 80 people at the party,
who will tell every one they know about the incident, who in turn will tell everyone they know about the incident.

The message is simple "We don't get paid to lose, or walk away. You play a game of whose the boss with us you will lose"
The next party they go to may just be a little more compliant

Suggesting or thinking that it just petty retaliation does nothing to stop what is really a coordinated effort to make us submit to the authority of the state

This would be a much better defenseEach and every one of the tickets should be fought in court, which would require the police officers to spend a lot of time in court to testify. Hopefully it would be on their days off or during the day when they work at night. Except in Fla or at least Orange county

[nico]

The public grade school I went to in the 70's covered exactly such topics.
If only it were still the case. I went to what was one of the top high schools in the state (it was a Blue Ribbon school while I was there) and graduated in '01 and the Constitution was never explained in relation to civil liberties and the like. In fact, I think I've learned more about civil liberties on this site than any course I've taken.

I just hope my school was the exception, but I doubt it, especially in this state (and MoCo).

[jefnvk]

The thing is, kids (especially in the DC area) are brought up to think that cops are the ultimate authority and you do what they say.

That is certainly not the case here. To many of the high schoolers, a police officer is about the bottom of the pot. Which doesn't help the situtation.

Maybe it is just my not trusting too many people, but just because the mom assures me that there is no alcohol, that assurance doesn't hold too much weight. Maybe it is just the number of parents that I have heard say 'I'd rather have my kid and their friends drinking here than somewhere else'. I guess my problem is more with the attitude that the cops should have just taken her word for it and left.

[nico]

To many of the high schoolers, a police officer is about the bottom of the pot.
Don't get me wrong. Most kids I knew growing up saw cops in the same way. What I meant (and should have phrased better) is that the general idea is when a cop "asks" you to do something, you have to do it. They're just being nice by phrasing it in the form of a question.

I don't entirely have a problem with the makeshift sobriety checkpoints (although I think 6 cruisers is overkill). My major beef is with the parking tickets. Sure, they were legal, but any with half a brain knows the cops were just doing it to screw with the party goers for not bowing to their will.

And (this is a separate issue) why is parking with your tire touching the curb or blocking your own driveway a ticketable offense in the first place?

[yorec]

"We don't get paid to lose, or walk away. You play a game of whose the boss with us you will lose" I left more than one dept because of too many officers with just that outlook... :scrutiny:

Was that what was going on here? Don't know, but I think Jefnvk gave the response that mostly resembles my own so far - some of you guys are so far afield with those ideas! Check the batter's box, eh? Whew, lol! Chill out boys, we're all on this freeway together and road rage ain't allowed... :D (Keep us reigned in Pax!)

[Vernal45]

"We don't get paid to lose, or walk away. You play a game of whose the boss with us you will lose"


One can almost,...never mind.

YOU get paid to PROTECT society at large. It is not a game, you are not the final say so. I would like, once, to hear of a COP, with an attitude problem, get his/her A$$ whooped on the side of the road for violating someones rights. And the courts see it on the side of the citizen.

[Harry Tuttle]

Police apologize for disrupting party


by Charlotte Tucker
Staff Writer
June 8, 2005

Montgomery County Police have apologized to a Bethesda woman for interrupting her daughter's graduation party while investigating possible underage drinking.

Margaret Engel Adams said Deputy Chief John King called her Monday and apologized "over and over" and said he is "looking into" the incident.

Engel Adams and Kathy Phelan held a graduation party Thursday night for their daughters, Emily and Anna, at Phelan's home on Rosedale Avenue in the West Chevy Chase Heights neighborhood of Bethesda. The girls, who had known each other since elementary school, graduated from Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School the day before.

"It was an intergenerational party," with a moon bounce for the younger children and a blues band for the adults, said Engel Adams. Her husband, Bruce Adams, is the founder and president of Bethesda Big Train Base Ball and a former Montgomery County Council member.

"I was circulating among the guests," Engel Adams said. "There was cranberry juice, iced tea. There was no alcohol being served to the kids."

Phelan said police first knocked on her door about 9:30 p.m., in response to a noise complaint. She said they wanted to administer Breathalyzer tests to underage people at the party. She said that although police said they had received complaints about noise, they never asked her to turn down the music and instead focused on whether teens were drinking.

"Honestly, the party would have been [ruined] if the police had come in and started testing people," Phelan said.

So she said no.

Lt. Eric Burnett, director of the Media Services Division, said police receive many calls about suspected underage drinking, and they are rarely denied entry to a home when they request it. The officers who responded to the party were members of an alcohol enforcement team that deploys through the county to combat teen drinking.

When they are denied entry to a home, it is common practice to set up roadblocks near the house to ensure that those leaving the party are not intoxicated, which is what they did Thursday night.

"What we do is not to pick on people," he said. "Our job is to keep these kids alive."

Phelan said the roadblocks did not bother her.

"I have no problem with the fact that they checked the party out, that's their job," she said.

But she was upset that, after everyone passed the Breathalyzer tests, the police returned to her home. They asked to see her driver's license, Phelan said, and when she refused, they ticketed nearly a dozen cars parked near her home.

The tickets, Engel Adams and Phelan said, were for minor parking violations. The women contend the police were frustrated by their inability to find any wrongdoing at the party.

The band's van was ticketed because it was parked partially in front of Phelan's driveway, she said. Emily Adams' car was ticketed for parking opposite the flow of traffic.

"These were neatly parked cars," Engel Adams said. "The only violation I saw was the band's minivan ... which extended six inches into the hostess' own driveway. ...Certainly they had permission to do that."

Burnett said the tickets issued were for legitimate parking violations.

"All citations are legal citations," he said. "[The officers] did not make any of them up."

Police officials are investigating whether officers did anything inappropriate by issuing the tickets, according to Burnett. But, he also said, that police had no plans to change their policy toward investigating reports or suspicions of underage drinking.

Burnett also applauded the girls' families for holding an alcohol-free party, but said police responded the way they did because often such parties do involve alcohol and underage drinking.

He cited a case from the weekend in which Chevy Chase homeowners are charged with hosting a party at which they provided alcohol to teens, and another in which a girl was brought to Suburban Hospital with a blood-alcohol level of .50, more than five times the legal limit.

But Phelan and Engel Adams said the police needlessly ruined what should have been a happy occasion.

"I know they have a job to do, and I know it's a tough job," Phelan said. "But I don't know how they expect to engage the help of a community by treating people like that."

http://www.gazette.net/200523/bethesda/news/278897-1.html

[joab]

I guess my problem is more with the attitude that the cops should have just taken her word for it and left. How about taking her word for it and leaving after you have tested some of the kids leaving the party. Instead of hanging around to ticket cars.

How about simply observing the motor skills of the kids leaving the party until there is reasonable cause to test them. Or simply having a quick conversation with them to check for signs of intoxication.

I know cops are trained in that kind of stuff, I used to be a drunk

[Vernal45]

"But I don't know how they expect to engage the help of a community by treating people like that."

That, is why people dislike cops. A few bad ones, make everyone look bad.

[Zundfolge]

I guess my problem is more with the attitude that the cops should have just taken her word for it and left.

If there is no evidence of a crime being committed (which clearly there was not) then why the hell not "take her word for it" and leave?

So if a bunch of cops showed up at your house right now and said they thought you might be sniffing Cocaine in your livingroom and you didn't appear to be under the influence of Cocaine and there's no white powder on our face, then why shouldn't you just let them come in and ransack your house looking for the drugs that you know are not there (and therefore there couldn't be any evidence to substantiate probable cause)?

Hell, why not just let the cops go house to house and search for... whatever? after all, if you're innocent then you have nothing to fear.

[Vernal45]

if you're innocent then you have nothing to fear.


Unless there is an empty coffee can in plain view.

[Jeff]

Burnett said the tickets issued were for legitimate parking violations. "All citations are legal citations," he said. "[The officers] did not make any of them up."

Theoretically, a cop can ticket someone for going 1mph over the friggin speed limit. Does enforcing such strict arbitration-- contrary to any semblance of routine and reasonable attention to detail (and subsequent ticketing)-- result in anything practical or safety-inducing?

What a bunch of sore-assed losers.

[joab]

Unless there is an empty coffee can in plain view.I'm sorry I don't want to hijack o open old wounds but,

I used to work pest control in a community almost overrun with rat snakes. Not wanting to kill them, as the customers requested, I would take them either to my property or to a wildlife refuge on my route.

I also did a few restaurants that would give me their old kingsized cofee cans

Guess what I transported these 4 to 6 foot snakes in.

Search away officer I got nothing to hide :D

[jefnvk]

Zund, I don't see where the officers could clearly see that there was no alcohol in use. From what I read in the article, the officers talked to the parent at the front door. It may well have been a scene out of Norman Rockwell, but do we know for sure that the officers could see all of what was going on?

[Mixlesplick]

So police stationed patrol cars at each end of her street, six in all, and began giving the tests to guests as they left the party, she said. None of the teenagers tested positive for alcohol, she said.
Officers then began ticketing vehicles parked outside the Phelans' house, she said, including ones that belonged to neighbors who weren't at her party.
Screw the neighbors who called in the complaint. And anyone involved in an auto accident with one of these kids afterwards, well, hey, they shoulda got outta the way. Go ahead and park whereever you want, its a free country.

The officers didn't seem to care about the neighbors. After all their efforts to find under age drinking were thwarted they ticketed all the cars they could including the cars of people who were not involved in the party.

But she was upset that, after everyone passed the Breathalyzer tests, the police returned to her home. They asked to see her driver's license, Phelan said, and when she refused, they ticketed nearly a dozen cars parked near her home.

That still looks like retaliation to me. The investigation was going nowhere so they ticketed a bunch of cars in front of the house. This was after achieving part of their objective of alcohol testing the teenagers. They just didn't get to do it inside the house or, possibly, test all of them.

Of course all the tickets were probably legitimate. That just goes to show that there are countless laws that can be brought to bear on anyone who refuses to cooperate with police. The laws can also be used against friends and neighbors to coerce cooperation.

The "alcohol enforcement team" seems to have well defined tactics for under age drinking investigations--except for what to do if no one is actually drinking who shouldn't be. I'm glad to see the party hosts didn't cave in to the pressure.

On a final note, if I had been the neighbor who had called in a noise complaint I would have been really ticked off at these results. The noise complaint was not addressed. More police showed up (six squad cars) to block off the street and then possibly having my car ticketed for a parking violation. It would be a good reason to never call the cops for minor problems again. The police had their own agenda and it didn't involve the neighbor's noise complaint.

[c_yeager]

The breathlyzers when the people exited, I don't really have a problem with. they had no way of knowing if there was alcohol or not being served.

I have a problem with the assumption of guilt here. A gathering of people DOES NOT equal probable cause in any way. Remember that the right to "peaceably assemble" is SPECIFICALLY protected by the constitution. It almost seems like our alcohol enforcement squad is having a real problem accepting this.

Zund, I don't see where the officers could clearly see that there was no alcohol in use. From what I read in the article, the officers talked to the parent at the front door.

This is true, however the reverse of this statement is also true. The police could not that there WAS any alcohol in use either. Our legal system is based on a presumption of innocence. This is why the police cant just walk into your house based on a whim. Retaliatory actions like these circumvent this presumption. By enacting repurcussions for the refusal of compliance they are in fact forcing cooperation when they have no legal right to do so.

[lunaslide]

Zund, I don't see where the officers could clearly see that there was no alcohol in use. From what I read in the article, the officers talked to the parent at the front door. It may well have been a scene out of Norman Rockwell, but do we know for sure that the officers could see all of what was going on?
You don't. But even more importantly, they have no probable cause to inspect any further, so it doesn't matter that the officers could not see all of what was going on. The party was taking place on private property under the supervision of adults. The adult responsible for supervision of the party informed the police that there was no underage drinking going on at the party and what could be seen without intruding into their space confirmed what she said. At that point, the police must leave. This is called presumption of innocence and we are all entitled to it in this country. The police are free to set up a road block at the end of the street to check kids coming out. If one of those kids tests positive for alcohol, there is now probable cause to investigate the party. If none of the kids test positive, the police can be satisfied in the knowledge that they did their job in keeping the streets and those kids safe and depart the scene.

The tickets were retaliation. Regardless of whether they were legitimate tickets or not, their purpose was plain as day: to teach the parents for denying them entry to the party. To claim otherwise is either incredibly naive or disgustingly disingenuous.

[peacefuljeffrey]

[/quote]"When they get calls that there may be underage drinking, their response is to investigate it," said Lt. Eric Burnett, a police spokesman. "We're trying to prevent teen deaths."[/quote]

Great. And what you ended up doing is destroying the teens' respect for law enforcement. Nice job, jerkoff.


And jefnvk, you really do make me sick. I have been watching posts by you for about a week and have not seen one thread involving a police abuse of power were you didn't bend over backward to give the benefit of the doubt to cops who were clearly abusing their authority, or to people who were on the side of trampling the rights of citizens. What is wrong with you? Why do you have such a thing against individual rights? Why are you such a statist? Do you really think that the government and the police know what is best for all of us, and act in our best interests at all times?? :rolleyes:

-Jeffrey

[peacefuljeffrey]

jefnvk wrote Zund, I don't see where the officers could clearly see that there was no alcohol in use. From what I read in the article, the officers talked to the parent at the front door.


So when I walk down the street, police officers cannot see that there is NOT a vial of anthrax in my jacket pocket. I guess according to your logic they should be able to force me to prove I don't have one, even though there's no reason to suspect that I do?

You're sick, man. You are defending police state tactics, and you are turning the presumption of innocence inside-out.

I wish I could believe that you're just playing (a very poor) devil's advocate, but I can't. I really think you honestly believe the crap you're pushing. That's scary. It's like, the people here, the combined wisdom of some of the really good posters here -- haven't been able to teach you anything.

Maybe if YOU get searched without cause some day, you'll feel the sting of it and get good and pissed off. There's also the possibility that you'll come back to us and tell us you didn't mind it, because it was done for the common good. :rolleyes: 'Cause, you know, how else can the police save us from ourselves if we don't let them do whatever they feel they need to?

-Jeffrey

[O.F.Fascist]

jefnvk
Maybe it is just my not trusting too many people, but just because the mom assures me that there is no alcohol, that assurance doesn't hold too much weight. Maybe it is just the number of parents that I have heard say 'I'd rather have my kid and their friends drinking here than somewhere else'. I guess my problem is more with the attitude that the cops should have just taken her word for it and left.

Yes the cops should have taken her word for it and left. They had no probably cause to search the place and they didnt have a warrent. So its none of thier god damn business what the ???? is going on in that house unless they have a warrent or probable cause.

[Marko Kloos]

The tickets were retaliation. Regardless of whether they were legitimate tickets or not, their purpose was plain as day: to teach the parents for denying them entry to the party. To claim otherwise is either incredibly naive or disgustingly disingenuous.

Bingo.

You know, the funny thing is that the main achievement of te task force on that evening was to destroy the respect for law enforcement among the partygoers and parents...at probably the only graduation party in the area code that night where people tried to do right and *not* have underage drinking. Great job.

[c_yeager]

Not to mention that now we have one more class of highschool graduates who will never become cops themselves. A lot of these students are going to find themselves in a college atmosphere where police are routinely demonized. Thanks to this experience they will have no reason to doubt what they hear in that environement.

Was sticking it to some lady that refused a search REALLY worth creating an entire graduating class of future cop-haters?

[Leatherneck]

Montgomaery county po-po are still exhibiting the kind of arrogance made public by their ex-chief Charles Moose (of the DC "sniper" case fame.)

TC

[BryanP]

The state may have one of those anti-drunk driving laws that specify if a breathalizer is refused, the drivers license is confiscated on the spot pending further investigation.

In Tennessee (and presumably many other states) it's called the Implied Consent Law. You agreed to it when you signed the paperwork to get your driver's license. If you refuse the breathalyzer (or other requested test) you will be charged with with violation of the implied consent law.

And those of you who are bashing the cops in this one, hey, c'mon. What do you think we have in this country? Some sort of right to peacably assemble? Jeez ...

[MLH]

How in the world would they know if it was empty or not unless the top was off? If the top was off then they would know there was nothing in there your trying to hide! Does this mean that if you go buy coffee you've given up your rights? :banghead: :cuss: :scrutiny:

[buzz_knox]

How in the world would they know if it was empty or not unless the top was off? If the top was off then they would know there was nothing in there your trying to hide! Does this mean that if you go buy coffee you've given up your rights?

No, the current mantra is that you never had any rights to begin with, and even if you did, you should have immediately submitted to authority and waive those rights.

[K-Romulus]

I have been following this story with some interest. Michael Graham of WMAL had a whole show on this incident because he knew one of the families.

My experience with individual officers here has been positive, but the leadership totally blows. Between Chief Manger's anti-gun-owner tirades, to the County Council's PC-crap, like tying the hands of the police concerning "undocumented workers," it must be tough for the individual officer to keep their sanity. It's tough for me, and I'm not on the force!

MoCo police need to be putting their efforts into finding the home invasion suspects that are plaguing the county, instead of ticketing minivans . . . :mad:

http://www.gazette.net/200520/montgomerycty/updates/276309-1.html

http://www.gazette.net/200521/montgomerycty/policereports/276824-1.html

http://www.gazette.net/200518/montgomerycty/policereports/273885-1.html

[captain obvious]

:scrutiny:
Does implied consent apply when you are OUTSIDE AND AWAY from a vehicle? Why couldn't the partygoers just see the cops and wait until they left - so long as they were not doing anything with regards to driving, logic [strange choice of words for dealing w/cops sometimes] would dictate that could flatly refuse both ID demands* and breathlyzer tests, right?

*damn SCOTUS


EDIT:

Situations like this are exactly why my drivers license lives in my car

[mfree]

You do not have a right to a driver's license, hence implied consent applies. Social contract, etc. etc.

You do however have the right to walk down a public street without having you're 4'th amendment rights violated by a cop demanding you give him a breathalyzer reading. There's a line.

[jefnvk]

And jefnvk, you really do make me sick. I have been watching posts by you for about a week and have not seen one thread involving a police abuse of power were you didn't bend over backward to give the benefit of the doubt to cops who were clearly abusing their authority, or to people who were on the side of trampling the rights of citizens. What is wrong with you? Why do you have such a thing against individual rights? Why are you such a statist? Do you really think that the government and the police know what is best for all of us, and act in our best interests at all times??

Why don't you really tell me how much you love me then :rolleyes:

From what I understand, everything the cops did was legal.

So police stationed patrol cars at each end of her street, six in all, and began giving the tests to guests as they left the party, she said.

Tells me in all likelyness that they were testing the people driving away. When I signed for my licese, I agreed that if I refuse a breathalyzer while driving, I give up my license for 6 months.

Parking tickets? Yeah, probably mad now. But if they were legitiment parking tickets, all I can say learn to park properly, so it doesn't happen.

As for probable cause, its 9:30 on a friday night at a graduation party, and the cops have been called on a noise complaint. There is probably some suspicion of alcohol.

As for that post, it is posts like that are driving me away from L&P. I've been giving thought completely forgoing it. I can't understand why people post these stories, and get pissed off when someone disagrees with their point of view. Do you really just want people to tell you that your opinion is right, that you are wise and smart? Obviously if I don't see the impending police state, if I don't agree to every conspiracy that some people cook up, if I disagree on some points, I am the enemy in disguise. Obviously there is something wrong with me, and obviously people like you have to show me the way.

EDIT: I direct you back to post #40:
Moderator Note

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Awright, you kids. No more personal comments about the other posters, please.

For those who need a refresher, you can find the forum rules here.

pax

[buzz_knox]

As for that post, it is posts like that are driving me away from L&P. I've been giving thought completely forgoing it. I can't understand why people post these stories, and get pissed off when someone disagrees with their point of view. Do you really just want people to tell you that your opinion is right, that you are wise and smart? Obviously if I don't see the impending police state, if I don't agree to every conspiracy that some people cook up, if I disagree on some points, I am the enemy in disguise. Obviously there is something wrong with me, and obviously people like you have to show me the way.

The problem is that instead of stating a different opinion, you assert things that are rather concerning. You've asserted that the police shouldn't have taken her word for it, especially where they couldn't see that there was no alcohol. Apparently, the concept that absent probable cause (i.e. illegal use of alcohol in plain sight), the HAVE to take her word for it. Anything else is illegal. So the issue people are having is that your arguments fly in the face of the Constitution. But hey, maybe there's something wrong with us.

[stevelyn]

I'm about speechless. We would never be allowed to get away with taking actions like that regardless of the original complaint or the homeowners level of cooperation. :scrutiny: The chief would have our heads on a stick and the city gov would be showing up with torches and pitchforks.
The state dosen't even allow us the authority to conduct business this way.

[TinCup]

This incident goes to further the "us verses them" attitude in todays cops. In the eyes of todays cops they are not public servants, but rather see themselves as "government enforcers" and the citizenry be damned. Hence the growing trend of police departments changing over to military BDU type uniforms, cops wearing masks, and the use of tactics such as roadblocks for "stop and fish" operations.

When I was kid and this was a free country, the cops commanded your respect because of their exemplary behavior and the examples they set in the community. Todays cop demands your respect by exhibiting the behavior and poor judgement such as in this incident.

[Steve in PA]

PA has implied consent also.

I still need a reason to stop you and another reason to administer a breath test.

[Control Group]

From what I understand, everything the cops did was legal.
"Legal" and "ethical" are not synonyms. Nor are "legal" and "decent," or "legal" and "right." As the old saying goes, just because you have a right to do something does not mean you are right to do it.

Police officers are granted extraordinary authority, as is required for them to do their admittedly difficult and dangerous jobs effectively. But like anything else, with granted authority comes expected responsibility. A citizen having the gall to believe what the Constitution says about unreasonable search (as interpreted by the courts to mean the requirements for probable cause, warrants, and the like) should not result in harassment, even harassment with a stain of legality.

I can understand the road blocks, and testing the kids as they come out of the party. I even understand not trusting the parent's word that there's no alcohol being served. I begin to object when kids are randomly breathalyzed without any PC, but I'm even willing to let that slide, because we know what would happen if the cops didn't test the kid and he killed a family while driving home drunk.

However, after finding absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing whatsoever, bludgeoning residents with petty laws that haven't been enforced with a citation in the last decade is petty, spiteful, and an absolute abuse of the authority with which the police have been entrusted. That the laws exist such that they can be used to harass and arbitrarily punish otherwise law-abiding citizens is a travesty in itself, that the police would go ahead and use them for just that purpose is an offense against any standard of decent behavior. It makes them nothing more than bullies.

Defense of law enforcement as a profession or as a group of people is admirable. Specific defense of bullying egomaniacs like these sounds of closing ranks against "the other side," and just might be the sort of thing that fosters an "us vs them" mentality.

[buzz_knox]

Control Group raises a good point. Is it legitimate to ticket illegally parked cars? Yes. It is legitimate to do so in retaliation for the exercise of one's rights? No. Such otherwise legitimate actions lead to a chilling effect on the exercise of one's rights.

[Harry Tuttle]

http://www.trond.com/brazil/images/brazil46.jpg

On a related Montgomery County MD note

The MD State Police were out in Rockville last weekend using night vision they borrowed fro the .mil to spot evil non seatbelt wearers

The Governor has now put a stop to that little effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Night vision nixed on seat belts
by Steven T. Dennis
Staff Writer
June 8, 2005
http://www.gazette.net/200523/montgomerycty/state/278696-1.html

Maryland State Police used high-tech night vision goggles borrowed from the military to nab 111 criminals last week on Rockville Pike.

The lawbreakers were not terrorists, burglars or even drunken drivers. They were violating the state's mandatory seat belt law.

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R), who was not aware of the high-tech dragnet, put the kibosh on it Monday after news reports sparked a backlash.

"He wanted to nip it in the bud and make sure this wasn't a continuing practice," spokeswoman Shareese N. DeLeaver said. "He feels there is an appropriate use for night vision goggles but didn't feel that safety belt laws rose to that level."

Ehrlich said in a statement the police should continue to enforce the seat belt laws.

"State troopers will continue to use all appropriate resources to ensure that Maryland's drivers are buckled up," Ehrlich said.

Police spokesman Greg Shipley said the pilot program was thought up by the Rockville barracks commander, Lt. Dan Cornwell, who borrowed the goggles for free from the Maryland National Guard.

Over a three-hour period Wednesday night, 3,200 cars were scanned and 111 $25 citations were issued.

The technology worked successfully, Shipley said, but "you have to consider other factors," such as public perception and the amount of manpower needed to mount the operation.

Although the governor ordered the police to put a stop to the practice, the citations are still valid.

"They do have a right to come to court," Shipley said.

Shipley said that the motivation is to save lives.

Last year, 315 out of 643 people killed on Maryland roads were not wearing a seatbelt. About 80 percent of Maryland drivers abide by the seatbelt law.

State police have issued more than 30,000 tickets and warnings for seat belt violations so far in 2005, Shipley said.

"Obviously the vast majority of those were done without night vision and we will continue to do that," Shipley said.

State law requires drivers and right front seat passengers as well as rear seat passengers 15 and younger to be buckled.

The pilot came as state troopers have been increasing traffic enforcement efforts, according to the governor's office. During the Memorial Day weekend, drunken-driving arrests increased 50 percent and traffic citations jumped 54 percent while crashes dropped 10 percent. Criminal arrests also jumped 22 percent and drug arrests increased 92 percent.

[Roadkill]

"From what I understand, everything the cops did was legal."

This applied to both Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Being legal doesn't make it right.

rk

[Hawkmoon]

I sincerely hope the "neighbors" who called in the complaint received some of the parking tickets.

However, as usual I am confused. The complaint was about ... let me see if I understood this correctly ... NOISE? So the police department dispatched the alcohol squad, who went to the door of the house and instead of simply asking the parent to please tone down the noise (a possibly legitimate request, if the noise level was in fact excessive), they asked to interrupt the party and run breathalyzers on all the kids?

Cognitive dissonance alert! (i.e. logical disconnect)

[shield20]

Cops were jerks - not doubt about it. We had 'em in our dept., as I am sure there are in most depts. Power hungry or whatever - they forget (or worse do not care) how their actions can effect the civilians, the very ones we are supposed to serve and protect, for the rest of their lives. Use a little intelligence boys, and come down here with the rest of us - who would love to support you in doing a really tough job, but only if you earn our respect by doing the RIGHT thing.

[centac]

".....by doing the RIGHT thing."

Of course, the right thing is whatever
you decide it should be.

Don't want a parking ticket, don't park illegally, sorry, it is just that simple.

[Mr. X]

Not to mention that now we have one more class of highschool graduates who will never become cops themselves. A lot of these students are going to find themselves in a college atmosphere where police are routinely demonized. Thanks to this experience they will have no reason to doubt what they hear in that environement.

Which is why I believe that we're scraping the bottom of the barrel for LE personel and coming up with a majority from the lower echelons of society who have a massive (but probably not unwarranted) inferiority complex.

[Strings]

Centac: nobody's arguing that the tickets were bogus. But are you paying attention to the fact that it was the "alchohol inforcement squad" tht was writing tickets [b]AFTER THEY COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING ELSE{/b]? That smacks of "retaliation", and a Cartman attitude...

If police want respect, they need to earn it, just like anyone else. Sounds like this crew went a long way twords earning nothing but contempt...

edited to fix typos

[centac]

So what difference does their assignment make? They saw violations and acted on them. Unless they had other calls to handle, what else do ya want'em to do - ignore them? Why should they? Suppose they observed a minor traffic accident while there, should they not get involved in that either?


Using "South Park" to buttress a position speaks volumes about the quality of the thesis.

[odysseus]

Centac:
I dont get paid to lose or walk away.

Wow. I thought this was about a party of graduating high school students. Reading that makes me doubt you are a LEO. It's not a game. You are hired by the people you are to protect. Ideological fancy talk? No. I am sure other LEO's here cringed when they read what you wrote.

[jefnvk]

SO, the real problem everyone is having is with the parking tickets?

I thought I mentioned earlier that that was something I thought their boss should have talked to them about. Post #13:
The parking tickets? Sound like they were mad, but if the tickets were legit, I can't really be mad over that. If I were their supervisor, I may have a talk about decision making, though.
The parking tickets were probably a bad idea. Like I mentioned, the officer should be talked to regarding his judgement.

And just a question for those that have been at parties that have been broken up for underage drinking (if there are any here), how does that work? Do they need a warrant, or if they have calls, are they legally allowed to enter? Just trying to figure out how a real case where they know there is underage drinking going on would compare to this one.

[scottgun]

And just a question for those that have been at parties that have been broken up for underage drinking (if there are any here), how does that work? Do they need a warrant, or if they have calls, are they legally allowed to enter? Just trying to figure out how a real case where they know there is underage drinking going on would compare to this one.

Parents are usually out of town when underage house parties occur. So if a cop knocks on the door and no adult is present, that would be a good indicator. Also when the front door is open and you seen teenagers doing keg stands or beer funnels in the background, thats another indicator. Also, at underage drinking parties, when the cops show up at the door, teens are scrambling out the backdoor to leave. That serves the purpose of breaking up the party, but now you have drunk teens on the loose to drive or go somewhere else and cause trouble.

I wouldn't know about teenage parties where the parents were home and the teens were drinking. But the above is my experience.

[Yowza]

Don't want a parking ticket, don't park illegally, sorry, it is just that simple. No centac, it is not just that simple. There is no reason to assume that it's illegal to park with your tire touching the curb. In fact, in my state when you park facing downhill, you're supposed to turn your wheels into the curb, thereby making it almost a certainty that you would have a tire touching. If an act involving something so everyday as parking isn't obviously wrong, then why would anyone know it's against the law?They saw violations and acted on them. No, they didn't. They saw parked cars that no cop not bent on being a total jerk would have even thought twice about. Violations! :rolleyes: :barf: :fire: I dont get paid to lose or walk away. So have you ever planted evidence? What else could you do if you don't find anything if you can't "lose" and walk away?

Rick

[HankB]

Ryan Hamm, 17, said he was tested as he walked from the house to his car. No alcohol was detected, he said. THIS is the part of the story that saddens me most - that today's teens are SO meek and compliant they'll do ANYTHING a cop tells them to.

Back in my high school days, there were a couple of incidents where cops pulled over a car full of teens, and tested the driver for DUI under the "implied consent" law . . . when the driver blew 0.00 (we early on learned about designated drivers) the few occasions where they tried to get the passengers to blow into the breathalyzer, they were politely (sometimes not so politely) told to get bent.

They didn't like this at all, but we KNEW the I.C. law pertained to DRIVERS, not PASSENGERS.

You know, once people found out a bunch of cop cars were staking out the neighborhood, someone should have called the news media. If these LEOs wanted a circus, they should have been given one. Cameras, floods, and maybe a news chopper or two would've been a GREAT response. And maybe this would get the NAMES of these fine upstanding representatives of the law published.

[CleverName]

Maybe it's just me, but couldn't the Rotgut squad find some other party to break up? I mean, if everybody they stop blows a zero, they really should try to find some other party. As somebody noted, 9:30 on a Friday, there are other parties with other, probably much more drunk people than party with a band. It seems like they were bent on punishing people for obeying the law and (Heaven forbid!) exercising their constitutional rights.

And in CA, a license implies consent. In fact, a refusal to take a BAC test is a crime with jail time/fine here.

[2nd Amendment]

The parking tickets are NOT what everyone is upset about. At least not me. When the mom, the property opner, the person in charge(the cops were NOT in charge here) said no the po-po needed to leave. Go away. Get lost. Stay lost...or get a warrant if they actually believed there was a problem.

As for submitting to a breathalyzer while walking? Not a prayer, and I do hope you arrest me Mr Officer because I'd like to have my college paid for by the city.

Roadblocks...It's offensive but I can see the reasoning and even the legitimacy...maybe.

Tickets after the fact...sour grapes. They carved in stone the perception that was already being established with the demands to enter in the first place. The fact is, though, that in the end the only people who lost here were the police. The kids will have a healthy suspicion from now on and with the way LE is heading in this country that's a damn good thing.

[2nd Amendment]

And in CA, a license implies consent. In fact, a refusal to take a BAC test is a crime with jail time/fine here.

IF you're in a car, correct? It's not a free pass for the police to stop you on the sidewalk or sitting on your front porch and make such a demand, right?

[buzz_knox]

So have you ever planted evidence? What else could you do if you don't find anything if you can't "lose" and walk away?

He probably carries empty coffee cans . . . just in case.

[MechAg94]

Of course, the right thing is whatever
you decide it should be.
I certainly hope Centac doesn't decide what is the right thing.


My main problem with this is that (according to the article) you have a party here where the parents are doing the right thing and teen are not drunk, yet these LEO's harass them anyway. Even after confirming that nothing is going on, they still stick around. Surely they had better things to do. The statement above about legal vs right is a very good.

I wonder if the response would have been different if they only asked if one or two of them could come in and confirm the alcohol was under control? Rather than just coming right out and asking if they can give everyone a breath tests. They could have done the first in about 2 minutes and probably not bothered anyone. I think asking if several LEO's can come in and test everyone is a bit more threatening to normal law abiding citizens.

On the parking tickets, laws cannot be selectively enforced. I would like to know when the last time it was these LEO's or that department has written a ticket for a tire touching the curb. Just curious.

[CleverName]

I'm not sure of that. I'm not a lawyer, just remembering what I can from driver's ed, which wasn't too long ago. I do know that if you test .01 or above, and you're under 21, you lose your license.

EDIT:
http://www.california-drunkdriving.org/drivers_license_suspensions.html
Seems you get a 1 year suspension, not a revocation. Also, if the cops think you've been driving you're required to take a BAC test.

[buzz_knox]

Laws can be selectively enforced. It's called discretion. But that discretion can't be abused so as to coerce people to give up Constitutional rights, nor in retaliation for the exercise of said rights.

[kbheiner7]

"We're trying to prevent teen deaths."

By writing parking tickets.

Gotcha.

Idiots.

[Marko Kloos]

On the parking tickets, laws cannot be selectively enforced.

They can, and are. The Germans even have a special term for an official who does duty "by the book", intentionally writing up every little infraction and obeying every single directive scrupulously: "Dienst nach Vorschrift". It's usually done when the police force wants to protest something, since "Dienst nach Vorschrift" absolutely kills efficiency and results in huge paperwork backlogs. The point is that no cop, whether here or in germany, ever does his duty 100% by the book. There's a latitude present that is a necessary lubricant when applying rigid legal code to everyday life.

[XLMiguel]

Well, I guess they won't be selling too many tickets to teh Policeman's Ball in that neighborhood.

Oh, wait, nevermind. The MoCo police don't have balls :neener:

[Strings]

>So what difference does their assignment make? They saw violations and acted on them. Unless they had other calls to handle, what else do ya want'em to do - ignore them? Why should they? Suppose they observed a minor traffic accident while there, should they not get involved in that either?<

Yeah... I suppose. What if they had noticed a shooting, or someone planting a bomb, or several members of MS13 gang-raping a 3 year old. Whay not take it to the outer reaches, Centac. They saw a way of retaliating against the party-goers because they (in your terms) "lost". It's that simple. The whole thing should have been over after the first couple of "checkpoint stops"...
And even those were pushing it...

>Using "South Park" to buttress a position speaks volumes about the quality of the thesis.<

Using it to describe an attitude. Nice try though...

[Strings]

Low blow, Mike. You're not supposed to reveal things like that... ;)

[50 Freak]

Centac, I have to ask... Which mall do you work at? Because I really doubt you are really LE. I've watched your assine responses for many threads now and I think your either a TROLL or some 19 year old drop out working as mall security hoping to one day become a cop so that he can give out some "payback".

It's no doubt you worship the LE community and there is no problem with that. But you must remember the power that trumps them is the consitution. Never forget that.

The only reason that the police have power is because the public chose to give them said powers. Remember it is not the public that are beholden to the LE's but the LE's that are beholden to the public.

The LE's that gave out those tickets out of retaliation should be ashamed of themselves. And some kind of displinary action should be noted on their record. Shows a lack of judgement on their part. Hand out some weinie parking tickets and in return turn the communitie's good will against the law enforcement community. Great freaking job. Bunch of Einsteins. :cuss: :cuss:

[tech]

I wonder what a check of the records to see how often the alcohol squad writes parking citations would tell us.

[kbheiner7]

>So what difference does their assignment make? They saw violations and acted on them. Unless they had other calls to handle, what else do ya want'em to do - ignore them? Why should they? Suppose they observed a minor traffic accident while there, should they not get involved in that either?<

These officers were assigned to patrol teenage drinking, right?

Do you think maybe there were other graduation parties going on that 4 or 5 of the 6 units could have checked out rather than harassing these kids?

I have no problem with an officer sitting and waiting for party-goers to leave to see if anyone's intoxicated.

For 6 units to sit and wait out what appears to have been a dry party is a huge waste of money. Writing the tickets was childish. How many of us get upset when a neighbor has a party and parking gets a little nuts? Who cares?

The actions of these officers are not helping public perception of the office they hold. I would think they should be interested in creating good will with good folks like the ones at this party, rather than pissing them off.

Cops can't afford to have egos. Too many of them do and it tarnishes the badge of all LEOs, which is unfortunate. There are a lot of good cops out there.

[pax]

Closed.

For those who need a refresher, you can find the forum rules here. (http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html)

pax

If you can not answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names. -- Elbert Hubbard