Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Loud teen party becomes a high-profile legal battle
Houston Chronicle ^ | June 17, 2005 | Erik Hanson

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 5thamendment; donutwatch; govwatch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 last
To: JeffAtlanta
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.
 
What?! Have you never been in contact with the cops? The alcohol was in the car. He was in the car. He was under age. Nothing else matters. If it is within his immediate reach, it is Minor In Possession! It was available to him whether or not he was drinking, that is the charge. That is how the law states it! How is it you cannot comprehend that?
 
Were you ever a teenager or were you just born "of age" and never had to worry about it?
 
Okay, lets try to make it a little easier for you to comprehend......
 
Lets say you are 16. Your beard comes in earlier than most of your buddies. Because of this you can get away with buying beer easier than everyone else. You are not a drinker but your buddies are and they convince you to buy them a beer. Upon leaving the store you are pulled over. No one in the car has even had a sip of beer yet. There are 4 of you. Who gets the ticket for MIP?
 
Answer: EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU!
 
If you know of someplace in the US this is not the law I would like to here about it.

81 posted on 06/17/2005 7:42:09 PM PDT by Allosaurs_r_us (for a fee........I'm happy to be........Your BACKDOOR MAN!....Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
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?
 
This is getting monotonous.
 
Okay, you're the cop. There are thirty kids at this party. How do you decide who is in possession? Are you psychic? Of course not! When I was growing up there were guys who bought beer that never drank a sip. They were still in "possession". Do you not write them a ticket merely because they don't drink it? How does a cop make this judgment on the spot. Do you suppose the kids who did not have the alcohol in their system were the only ones involved with "possession"?
 
Surely you can understand the cops point of view. You just write everyone who had access. How else do you do it?

82 posted on 06/17/2005 7:49:59 PM PDT by Allosaurs_r_us (for a fee........I'm happy to be........Your BACKDOOR MAN!....Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ExcelJockey
These parents will win - we're talking about an extremely wealthy neighborhood - This house is on the street where the party was held - it is on the market for $2.5 million


83 posted on 06/17/2005 7:56:08 PM PDT by WhyisaTexasgirlinPA (Prayers for healing and relief from pain for Cowboy...........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Allosaurs_r_us
This is getting monotonous.

You're right...you just keep posting the same thing. Your basic point is that if the cops can't easily decided who is actually in possession of a controlled substance then everyone in the general area should be charged. We all got that point the first time you posted it.

The point still stands however that not every person in a grouping of people is responsible for what others do. Sure, sometimes people can get railroaded when the cops are lazy and the judge just rubber stamps it, but that doesn't make it right.

In many situations, especially with teen parties at a private residence, many people at the party may be totally unaware of what another is drinking. If you've ever been to a college football game as a student this should be crystal clear. I saw many students sitting near me drinking alcohol that they snuck in...that doesn't make everyone in the student section guilty of possession.

The same thing happens at teen parties...a few people bring in their alcohol and others are unaware or or uninvolved with what they are drinking.

In regards to your alcohol in the car scenario, if one beer was in the car and one person was drinking it, it is truly doubtful that others would be charged.

84 posted on 06/17/2005 8:04:33 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Allosaurs_r_us
Surely you can understand the cops point of view. You just write everyone who had access. How else do you do it?

Sometimes, the Bill of Rights trumps the cops' convenience. If a cop can't ascertain who truly committed a crime, then no one should be charged. Why should people that have committed no crime be punished just so the cops can take short cuts?

85 posted on 06/17/2005 8:07:00 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: tahiti

what rights were these kids deprived of? all I see is that they were cited with 'possession' of a substance that by law is illegal for them to possess by virtue of their age(s)?


86 posted on 06/17/2005 8:19:14 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

The same thing happens at teen parties...a few people bring in their alcohol and others are unaware or or uninvolved with what they are drinking.

I agree, if  the cops hadn't already stated the alcohol was sitting in plain view. After that you cannot say the other teens were unaware. If by chance there are teens there that are blind then I would give them a pass. All of the rest of them get a ticket. If it is sitting around in plain site they cannot say they had no idea and were unaware there was alcohol, and therefore, are in possession.

Unless of course one of them or some of them step forward and take resposibility for the contraband. Which, by the way, is the ethical thing to do. Don't know if it happened in this case, but by the way the parents are reacting, I doubt it.

I realize you are trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I raised two teenagers and for me to think they were all not in on the conspiracy is ludicrous. It just don't work that way with teens and their peers. I have two really great kids but like every one of their freinds they tried to get away with as much as possible. They are just now admitting to antics we did not know about. It is a good thing too, cause they'd still be grounded 10 years later.....LOL


87 posted on 06/17/2005 10:48:46 PM PDT by Allosaurs_r_us (for a fee........I'm happy to be........Your BACKDOOR MAN!....Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Millee
"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. "

Did they wreck the place?

88 posted on 06/17/2005 10:57:36 PM PDT by BobS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allosaurs_r_us
I realize you are trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I raised two teenagers and for me to think they were all not in on the conspiracy is ludicrous.

I think we agree on a lot. What I am pointing on in this situation is that it is not the party goer's responsibility to police the party for alcohol. It is very true that sometimes the cops just charge everyone in the general area and the judge just rubberstamps the charges. This doesn't make it right, however, and really shouldn't be applauded. It's lazy police work and reckless behavior judges.

Police do this all the time and its reprehensible. It occurs with motorcycles where one group might be driving recklessly, and the cops ticket every rider they see - even if it is the completely wrong group. It basically reverses the system and presumes the charged to be guilty and must prove their innocence.

Going back to the case in the article, depending on the laws in the state, if the police can't pinpoint the possession then no one should be charged.

89 posted on 06/18/2005 5:52:02 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: monday
All the bigots on this thread should be ashamed of themselves, but I expect they aren't.

You must be bigoted against those that are bigoted... Makes you a bigot in my opinion... /sarcasm

Good grief... lets just have a discussion here without resorting to name calling... We all are bigoted in some manner or another.. it is human nature... get over it.

90 posted on 06/18/2005 6:33:47 AM PDT by LowOiL ("I am neither . I am a Christocrat" -Benjamin Rush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: All
To all of those that saw no reasonable cause... It complaint was called in from a neighbor... Kids scatter like rice dropped in front of a fan when the police arrive...

If you don't see probable cause from this senerio, then you are just making a mockery of God's eye He gave us. Lets just blindfold police officers and be done with it /sarcasm

91 posted on 06/18/2005 6:38:11 AM PDT by LowOiL ("I am neither . I am a Christocrat" -Benjamin Rush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

You know that if this were a story about black kids carrying on in Gary or Indianapolis, these same swanky parents would be supporting the cops 110%.

52
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.

YOU DON’T NEED A SEARCH WARRANT FOR DISTURBING THE PEACE CITATIONS. WHAT, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO “HOLD OFF” AND GET THE WARRANT WHILE THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THIS S**T FOR ANOTHER TWO HOURS?
AND, THEY WEREN’T ADULTS. AND IT IS “POLKADOT”.

43
It amazes me to hear people on Free Republic 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.
LOSS OF LIBERTY? OH, PUHLEAZE. WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT IS HOW FOLKS ARE SO WORRIED ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS AND SO LITTLE CONCERNED WITH THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES. THIS IS A UNIVERSAL PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY THAT SPANS AGES, DEMOGRAPHICS, RACE AND, JUDGING BY THE RESPONSES HERE, POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS.

41
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.
YEAH, I MUST BE WRONG. I AM SURE THESE ARE ALL CARD-CARRYING EVANGELICALS WHO WERE ERRONEOUSLY SWEPT UP IN A DRAGNET. WE WONDER WHY SOME KIDS WILL OBSERVE A GANG RAPE AND NEVER DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT (A SUBJECT ON SOME PAST POSTS I BELIEVE). OH, THEY WERE JUST THERE (SO THEY SAY), BUT “THEY DIDN’T PARTICIPATE.” IT STARTS HERE – MAKING CHOICES, MAKING THE RIGHT CHOICES, STARTS HERE.

16
You are painting with an overly-broad brush. In the same breath you are calling the parents racists (without any evidence whatsoever) and stereotyping the behaviors of "evil rich people". NO, I AM CALLING THEM HYPOCRITES, FAILING TO BE INVOLVED IN THEIR CHILDREN’S UPBRINGING, AND FORCING THE NANNY STATE TO DESCEND UPON THEIR KIDS AND DO IT FOR THEM, AND THEN WHINING ABOUT IT.
Are you a Democrat? I HAVE BEEN A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN PROBABLY LONGER THAN YOU AND I DESPISE “PRIVILEGE” OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING THAT AFFORDED BY WEALTH. GIVEN THE WAY YOU ARE CHARACTERIZING THE POLICE, SOUND LIKE YOU BELONG TO ACORN OR ACT OR THE SDS OR SOME OTHER ANARCHIST GROUP.

12
All these little rich brats think they have a God-given right to screw off just because Daddy has money.

My guess is they've been paying attention to how the system works.
YEP.

7
"You know that if this were a story about black kids carrying on in Gary or Indianapolis, these same swanky parents would be supporting the cops 110%."

Bingo. Same applies to certain FReepers.

I LOVE HOW EVERYONE IS JUMPING TO THE DEFENSE OF THESE KIDS AND AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMING THE COPS HAVE RUN AMOK. I DIDN’T SUPPORT THE RAISING OF THE DRINKING AGE TO 21 (I REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS 17), BUT MY KIDS SURE AS HELL BETTER ABIDE BY IT SO LONG AS THEY’RE UNDER MY ROOF (EVEN I’M NOT NAÏVE ENOUGH TO PREDICT HOW THEY’LL BEHAVE IN COLLEGE-ALTHOUGH I CAN HOPE).

FRANKLY, I AGREE WITH A POSTER WHO SAID THE COPS WILL HAVE TO DROP AT LEAST SOME OF THE CHARGES; PART OF THE GIVE AND TAKE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. I ALSO AGREE WITH ANOTHER POSTER WHO SAID WE COULD HAVE A BETTER PROCEDURE THAT PUTS THE FIRST OFFENDERS ON A DIFFERENT TRACK, MAYBE EXTRAJUDICIAL.

BUT IT IS BOTH AMUSING AND SAD TO SEE HOW SOME HAVE ASSUMED THAT THE COPS ARE ON SOME CRAZED POWER-HUNGRY CRUSADE AND THESE KIDS ARE JUST A BUNCH OF INNOCENTS. WE DON’T KNOW IF THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THE COPS HAD COME TO THIS HOUSE. WE DON’T KNOW IF THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THE COPS DISCOVERED ALCOHOL. NO, WE ONLY KNOW WHAT THE “NOT MY LITTLE MUFFY” PARENTS ARE TELLING THE PRESS.

I AM AN EQUAL-OPPORTUNITY ENFORCER. NO PLEA BARGAINS UNLESS YOU CAN GIVE UP SOMEBODY HIGHER UP THAN YOU. IS THERE AN RACIAL IMBALANCE IN DEATH SENTENCES? MY ANSWER: EXECUTE MORE WHITE MURDERERS. I AM FOR THE UNIVERSAL DRAFT AND A FLAT TAX. I BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE TO GIVE BACK TO THIS COUNTRY AT LEAST AS MUCH AS YOU GET. AND NO, I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR COUNTRY-CLUB REPUBLICANS (AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THESE KIDS AND THEIR PARENTS AREN’T SOME NO MORALITY, PRO—ABORTION, I-LOVE-THE-STATUS-QUO-SO-LONG-AS-IT-BENEFITS-ME ELITISTS). IF YOU DON’T WANT THE GOVERNMENT (OR HILLARY’S “VILLAGE”) RAISING YOUR KIDS, THEN GET INVOLVED AND RAISE THEM YOURSELF, AND RAISE THEM EFFING RIGHT.


92 posted on 06/18/2005 9:40:29 AM PDT by opocno (France, the other dead meat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: opocno

"IF YOU DON’T WANT THE GOVERNMENT (OR HILLARY’S “VILLAGE”) RAISING YOUR KIDS, THEN GET INVOLVED AND RAISE THEM YOURSELF, AND RAISE THEM EFFING RIGHT."

Once again, Bingo.


93 posted on 06/18/2005 10:03:48 AM PDT by L98Fiero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

As is usually the case in an incident like this, there are many conflicting accounts and the full facts and circumstances are hazy at best. Nevertheless, I think there is one point on which there can be very little doubt and upon which I think we can probably all agree and that is that none of the cops's kids were invited to this party...;-)


94 posted on 06/18/2005 10:10:37 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Millee
OTOH, I remember a teacher saying "until I find out who (fill in blank with infraction du jour)_________, no one goes out for recess."

Police have screening breath testers (The Alert Device is one) and if there is a no alcohol policy, the test would have been able to sort the crowd out pretty quickly.

"Punishing the group for the actions of a few stinks, always has. Forcing everyone to 'prove their innocence' doesn't cut it either, but the ones who would volunteer to be tested probably are not the ones who should be cited, either.

Then there are age and other issues involved.

Without proof that they were consuming alcohol, however, they have no case. O'Doul's smells like beer, but it ain't.

95 posted on 06/18/2005 10:14:16 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (Grant no power to government you would not want your worst enemies to wield against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LowOiL
If you don't see probable cause from this senerio

Probable cause to get a warrant--yes.
Probable cause to enter the home--no.

96 posted on 06/18/2005 12:20:52 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Allosaurs_r_us
"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 came to the conclusion that the thread had lots of class bigots by observing statements like;

"All these little rich brats think they have a God-given right to screw off just because Daddy has money."

"Spoiled, wealthy little sociopaths....."


No one on this thread know these kids personally, yet because the article says they come from a rich neighborhood, the hate just pours out.

I don't much care that a bunch of kids got ticketed for possession of alcohol. It's pretty clear they deserved it. I was just commenting on the class prejudice I observed on this thread. If that makes you uncomfortable, I am sorry.
97 posted on 06/20/2005 6:31:18 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson