Police denied entry to party so they ticketed party-goers

[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...

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... (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

 

[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??

-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. '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]

Empty coffee can

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:

 

[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.