Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 06/17/2005 8:47:31 AM PDT by Millee
A routine call to check a loud party complaint at a home in one of this Fort Bend County city's swankiest neighborhoods has mushroomed into a full-fledged legal battle, with a squad of seasoned criminal defense attorneys lined up one side and the city on the other.
The dispute centers on citations police issued to 37 teenagers for possessing alcohol. Many of the teens say they were not drinking at the April 14 party. The parents were not home.
Some of the teens have pleaded guilty, but others and their parents are fighting the charges. They say police walked in without a warrant and simply issued citations to everyone in attendance, paying no mind to who was drinking and who was not.
On the other side of the dispute are city leaders and police who say officers had a duty to curtail underage drinking.
The attorneys, many of whom work felony cases in district court, met with the prosecutor and judge in municipal court Thursday to hash out details about an upcoming hearing on the case.
A parent, Rene Woodring, said she is fighting the charges because her daughter was not drinking.
"The police came in. They didn't check to see which kids were drinking. They just said everybody is getting a minor in possession" citation, she said.
Woodring went to the house in the 800 block of Sugar Creek shortly after the 10:47 p.m. raid and asked police to give sobriety tests to determine who had been drinking.
"They said, 'No, everybody is getting a ticket and you just have to go to court and we will sort it out there,' " Woodring said Thursday.
Woodring and other parents are also angry because those who received citations were not allowed to take part in extracurricular activities at school.
Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace said despite the view of defense attorneys and some parents, city officials think the officers had legal cause to enter the house and issue citations.
"We take a very strong stance on minors in possession and we take a strong stance on illegal and underage drinking," he said.
Wallace said some of the teens and their parents have filed complaints against police for what they call unprofessional or abusive behavior.
"We are working those and continuing to investigate those" complaints, he said.
While many are fighting the charges, Sugar Land prosecutor Jan Baker said 14 of the teenagers have pleaded guilty.
At the pre-trial conference Thursday, defense lawyers filed motions saying officers entered the house illegally because they did not have a warrant or probable cause.
The attorneys want the search and all evidence seized to be suppressed.
Municipal Court Judge D. Craig Landin said the legal issues regarding the entry and search of the home will be argued during a June 30 hearing.
Attorney Keith Hampton, who is representing one of the teens, said circumstances did not give police cause to enter the house.
Police can enter a house without a warrant or consent from the owner under certain conditions, such as a life being in danger or evidence being destroyed.
Although there were no indications of serious felonies being committed in the home, prosecutor Baker thinks there is sufficient case law to permit the actions the officers took.
The episode began when police were sent to the Sugar Creek house to investigate complaints about a party, said Sugar Land police spokeswoman Pat Whitty.
As officers pulled up to the two-story home, several partygoers ran away.
Officers went inside where they corralled 37 people younger than 21. They also found dozens of beers and other alcoholic beverages. Whitty said police issued citations for minor in possession of alcohol and arrested two people.
Oh so you have conclusive proof everyone of these kids were drinking do you? Well I suggest you give it to the police because they sure as hell don't have.
But never mind, convict them all, we don't want a little thing like evidence, proof, or due process to get in the way of your pre-concieved bias.
Evidence.
Positive Breathalyzer + alcoholic drinks present + minors = drinking underage.
If this went to trial and you saw that evidence, what else would you need to know?
It amazes me to hear people on FreeRepublic cheering the death of liberty and the rise of the police state. The police ADMIT they don't know which kids actually violated the law so they simply charged everybody like all good police states do - guilty until proved innocent.
I bet you won't cheer the loss of liberty and the rise of the police state when the police come for you - but by then it may be too late.
So if one person is guilty - all 37 must be guilty too - great police state logic - guilty until proved innocent. All hail the death of liberty and the rise of the police state.
So next time you are at you favorite Red Neck bar and some Billy-Joe-Bob starts a fight - be prepared to go to jail - using your logic:
Bar + fight = everybody guilty
Or when you are driving home and Speed Racer beside you is clocked at 100MPH+ and you are ticketed (even though you weren't speeding) remember:
Car + Speeding = everybody nearby must be speeding.
Who needs evidence when the police can just use assumptions. Makes police work much easier and gives them more donut time.
All hail the police state and the death of liberty.
Remember - if you are in a subway car and some Cat is in possession of heroin - you too are in possession of heroin - if one person in the room is guilty - everybody is guilty - no need for evidence or tough police work - just go on assumptions.
No, that's not what I said in my original post. Without breathalyzer tests or photos of minors with liquor, they don't have a case. With a positive breathalyzer test and evidence of liquor present, I think they do.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning a "police state;" what I abhor is adults covering up for "kids" when they break the law.
Sorry - my speed-reading failed me - I read only part of your message. Drat, another rant ruined!
In the words of Emily Latella: "never mind"
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Funny, my parents would have said "what were you doing at a party like that in the first place, that's what you get, pay the ticket."
Really? I don't care whether the kids are black, white, green, yellow,checkerboard, or pokadot. I have a big problem with cops busting into a house without a warrant and indiscriminately arresting adults for something that should not even be a crime in the first place.
No, you were run over by a power crazed judge and rather than being upset about your rights being violated, you thanked them. Basically, you suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
Don't you think that as American citizens, people should only be punished for crimes that they ACTUALLY commit? Also, don't you think that the Bill of Rights should be followed - even when dealing with underage drinking?
What do you think about government officials covering up for police when they break the law?
that's what this is all about....parents afraid of a lawsuit.....
in our school district, even if you are at a party where there is alcohol or drugs, and even if you aren't doing any of that yourself, you still loose your right to participate in sports.....
we've lost prime athletes at the worse times over this, but in the long run, its worth it....
You misunderstand the question. What would be your basis for seeking a breathalyzer test? The fact that a kid was there wouldn't be a basis for seeking the test.
The dumbass cops should have simply charged them all with disorderly conduct, a crime for which there is no defense.
Why would you have your children plead guilty to a crime they didn't commit? If someone snuck in some GHB, which there is a very severe penalty for, would you have them plead guilty to that as well?
Maybe that is the way you would raise your children, but that goes against what most reasonable parents would do. When dealing with the justice system, NEVER plead guilty to a crime that you didn't do. This is especially true for a young people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.