Loud teen party becomes a high-profile legal battle

Houston Chronicle ^ | June 17, 2005 | Erik Hanson

[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.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

It's so funny how many people on this thread don't even try to hide their hatred of these kids because they are rich. Class bigotry is widespread and no one even bothers to hide it like they would if they were racists. The rich are not a protected class in the politically correct world. They just have to shut up and take it like white people or men or Christians.

 

This is by far the most ridiculous statement in this whole thread. How in the world do you come to this conclusion? Because the majority of us believe you should stand and take responsibility for your actions we are bigots? You really don't have a clue do you?

 

I suppose if you drove up to a crowd of teens and some of them immediately turned tail and ran, you would just think it was normal behavior, and all was right with the world, huh?

 

If these kids were at a party where alcohol was avaiable to all, they were minors in possession, period. I didn't see anywhere in the story they were ticketing kids for consumption. I doubt any of these little angels stood up and admitted the alcohol was theirs and thereby relieving the rest from responsibility. That their parents are trying to turn the tables on law enforcement is pure BS. The cops pulled up and immediately observed kids running away. That in itself suggests illegal activity. What would you suggest the cops do, just get back in their cars and leave?

 

Is this how you would teach your children? I taught mine to stand up and take what they obviously deserve when they ask for it. How in the hell does that make me or anyone else here a bigot? Your logic belongs over at the DUmpster not here.

 

If hating the fact that some of our citizens feel they and their children are above the law makes us bigots then I guess we are.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

Anyway - high school seniors drinking - the horror!

 

No, high schoolers are going to push the limits. It is part of becoming an adult and testing authority.

 

The horror lies in the fact that every year thousands of them drink, drive and kill themselves and innocent people because they are not adult enough to know when they have had entirely too much to be driving, and their "friends" let them leave. I have personally seen this first hand from one of my wife's friends. It is a complete tragedy.

[Lou L]

What would be your basis for seeking a breathalyzer test?

Here's my logic. Police get called because of loud disturbance...police investigate and find party going on. They knock on the door to inquire (or perhaps observe comings and goings of teenagers with alcohol), and see alcohol present. Perhaps they don't even see the alocohol, but at the door, perhaps they can smell alcohol on the person answering the door. They have evidence of a crime (the alcohol), so then check the kids out. I'm no law enforcement officer or lawyer, but I assume that police may then proceed with a breathalyzer test. Test is positive, underage suspect is charged with possession and use of alcohol.

[Lou L]

Post # 61 is brilliant!

[motzman]

Why do we have to give every kid a criminal record?

Fingerprints. DNA. Give 'em a doughnut and tell them to stick closer to church-oriented social activities.

It's an industry, too. They just have to literally go get their customers.

[Sloth]

Yeah, the U.S. Constitution sucks! Cops rule!

[motzman]

Police get called because of loud disturbance...police investigate and find party going on. They knock on the door to inquire (or perhaps observe comings and goings of teenagers with alcohol), and see alcohol present.

In Sanity County, New Jersey circa 1985-89, when the Police came to a party we were usually told to keep the noise down. On a rare occasion, we might have been asked to leave. No one got arrested. Sometimes Parents were informed (horrors!)

Why don't we just bubble-wrap everybody and round-off every sharp edge and get it over with.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

Why would you have your children plead guilty to a crime they didn't commit? If someone snuck in some GHB

 

First of all, what the hell is GHB? We're not alking about something an individual has in his/her pocket. Certainly you can see there is a great deal of difference.

 

Second, the cops said they observed the alcohol sitting around in plain site. Unless my child was blind he/she knew it was there. If you don't want to be included with those getting an MIP, leave. It is as simple as that. You are not going to convince me every single teen at this party knew having alcohol there could result in a run in with the law.

 

Common sense is and should be pretty evident by the time you are 15. To suggest anything else is trying to protray them as victims. Which in my opinion is one of the things wrong with society today. It is never "my" fault. Tommy brought the beer. I wasn't drinking. It's all Tommy's fault we got cuaght.

 

You cannot tell me they don't know any better.

[conservativeharleyguy]

I don't suffer from anyone's syndrome, Jeff (except maybe my own), and take umbrage at your suggestion. To say otherwise would lead one to believe that I am unwilling to take personal responsibility for the consequences of my decisions because of some "debilitating, stress-induced connection with my long-term captors".

Hardly the case.

The only connection I had with my captors was that I knew all of their kids from school, and knew that most of those kids were probably heading to the mountains with at least as much beer as we had. We just got caught.

Plain and simple, I chose to be in a vehicle where the law was being broken, and I accepted the consequences. About the only possible claim I may have had to any mitigating circumstances was that at 19, an excess of testosterone clouded my judgment. I'm sure there would have been some scantily clad girls involved somewhere.

The judge (actually the father of a friend, and a friend of my father's) was constrained by state statute, and not wanting to show favoritism, did what he had to do.

A night in the hoosegow (probably just to keep us off the streets), was enough to convince me I didn't ever want to repeat that experience.

And a $15.00 fine (the minimum the state allowed), was really pretty soft.

And, I learned to choose my associates wisely.

[eastforker]

You said:Also, the fact that they refused to offer Breathalyzers after being asked means that these cases go bye-bye. Not true in Texas, you can get a night in jail for public intoxication just on an officers observation, no BA needed and it will stand up in court.

[Lou L]

However police handled this situation in Sanita County 15-20 years ago is their business. Under some circumstances--maybe a quiet party involving a dozen or so teenagers in a small town--maybe a stern warning is all they need.

However, the officers in this case were just doing their jobs. Too severe? Perhaps. But you can't fault them. The issue in this post is not whether or not jail time is appropriate for teenagers who choose to party. The issue is that teens should learn to deal with the consequences of their actions. Too often, particularly with affluent parents, the police are threatened with lawsuits because they don't want their kids to spend a night in jail.

[cajun-jack]

That might just be what's fixing to take place. I used to have the utmost respect for Law Enforcement Personnel, but with the shaved head lil nazis running loose nowadays, I don't care one whit about 'em.

I hope they get sued into working 5 or 6 minimum wage jobs to earn enough money to be able to say "I'm broke".

[TChris]

Aw fer cryin' out loud. How hard would it have been for these lazy LEOs to give each kid a quick Breathalyzer test? That's the way we used to do it when I was a LEO. There's absolutely NO legal foundation for citing every person present. No probable cause. I'm surprised the prosecutor is even pursuing the case.

[TChris]

[ExcelJockey]

Good to see some sense popping up on this thread. A lot of these posters seem to have no idea that an MIP is much more than a simple fine these days. No way I am letting the system get their hands on my kid if there is an ounce of breath in my body and a $ in my bank account. In a situation like this I would hire the most bloodthirsty lawyer that I could afford to put these local brown shirts through the wringer and then kick my idiot kid's ass myself. The kid can pay me back with yard work.

[JeffAtlanta]

If you don't want to be included with those getting an MIP, leave. It is as simple as that.

The way to not be included is to not possess it. It is not clear why how is makes sense to charge a minor with a crime that they did not commit. Simply being at a party with other minors that may be drinking is not possession.

The repercussions on a child's life is too great to allow them to be charged with crimes that they didn't commit. If the parents have problems with a child's judgment then they can punish the child themselves.

[JeffAtlanta]

Plain and simple, I chose to be in a vehicle where the law was being broken, and I accepted the consequences. About the only possible claim I may have had to any mitigating circumstances was that at 19

Actually, the overriding mitigating claim would be that you didn't commit a crime. You may be disappointed with yourself that you put yourself in that situation, but the point still stands that you did not commit a crime.

To thank the police and judge for charging you and finding you guilty of crime you didn't commit is a form of police state boot licking. I don't mean to offend you with this, so please don't take it that way.

It is just a very disturbing situation when the justice system charges people with crimes they didn't commit and conservatives cheer them on so they can be taught a lesson.

[lOKKI]

OK - Here's the scenario -
You're a cop and you're called to a 'noisy party' complaint. You gotta go; it's a rich neighborhood and they'll bitch if you ignore the complaint. You pull up and a bunch of kids start running away. You go to the door and it's open (or opened) and you see a bunch of kids and bottles.

Your choices are:

a. Pretend the whole thing never happened. This is OK until one of the little darlings gets in a car, drunk, and kills himself. Then you knew all about it and didn't act. Bang! you get sued.
b. Breathalyzer everybody at the party. Half of the kids get it on their records forever, since they've been drinking illegally. Parents mad because their children have permanent criminal records.

c. Ticket everyone, with no Breathalyzer. Everyone's mom and dad will have to find out that way. The judge will toss everything out, after a big deal for the kids, because of lack of evidence against the individuals. Kids learn to keep the music down and be more careful. Mom and Dad remember that teenagers have little common sense. Neighbors happy that neighborhood parties are quieter.

Your choice, your career.

[JeffAtlanta]

Your choice, your career.

What is so hard about just following the law, especially the Bill of Rights? In your scenario, if the police witness a minor with alcohol then charge them. If the police have sufficient cause to the search the home then they could do that.

In scenario #1, the police aren't going to get sued.

I've observed a lot of unhealthy hate for teenagers in these threads - especially wealthy ones. Your phrase "little darlings" is another example of this.

It is never right for the police to charge someone with a crime that they didn't commit. Many here see nothing wrong with that as long as it is wealthy or urban teenagers. Somehow, boot licking is good for them.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

Simply being at a party with other minors that may be drinking is not possession.

 

Ah, ah, ah, ah BS! Do you have children that are this age or have surpassed it? Were you not involved in this same behavior when you were in HS? If your going to do the crime, ya gotta do the time.

 

When I was young I participated in exactly this same thing. Did I think if the cops busted one of our "keggers" just because I didn't have a beer in my hand they would not cite me along with everyone else?

 

PLLLLLLLEEEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEE! You can't be serious! These kids more than likely knew exactly what this party was going to be, knew before hand there was going to be alcohol, and most likely thought they were going to get away with it.

 

THE PARENTS WERE NOT HOME! Are you trying to convince me these kids did not know this?

BBBBBBBBBBB. SSSSSSSSSSSSS. I am not naive enough to think HS kids are dumber than rocks!