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

Skip to comments.

Party Patrol relaxes rule
The Albuquerque Tribune ^ | 1/14/06 | Maggie Shepard

Posted on 01/15/2006 3:23:55 PM PST by elkfersupper

Though cold weather means fewer rowdy parties, the Albuquerque Police Department's Party Patrol still makes its rounds - but it is citing fewer minors.

The patrol and all other APD officers have stopped enforcing part of a city ordinance passed in 2001 to curb teen drinking, according to a Nov. 17 memo from APD attorney George Heidke to the city attorney's office.

The controversial "constructive possession" provision in the Offenses by Minor ordinance allowed officers to cite any minor with possession of alcohol, just for being at a party where alcohol was served - whether they drank or not.

The city stopped enforcing the constructive possession ordinance after discussions with the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and defense attorney Mary Han, who is representing a high-profile complaint against the patrol.

Instead, officers will "only cite minors in actual possession and those that have allowed themselves to be served," according to the memo.

That pleases the ACLU, said co-legal director Jane Gagne.

But "constructive possession" is only one of the ACLU's concerns. Its other complaint - warrantless entry - is also on Han's target list.

Han represents a party host who says the patrol last year entered his home without a warrant and made the all-adult partygoers drive home - including County Manager Thaddeus Lucero and 14 other people. She has filed the initial paperwork for a civil lawsuit against the city claiming civil rights violations.

Han joined the ACLU Friday for a meeting with city attorneys Kathryn Levy and Heidke, along with Party Patrol Sgt. Harold Medina.

The meeting is part of ongoing, cooperative negotiation between the parties, Levy said.

"Party Patrol is such an important unit for the community, and we just want to make sure everybody is happy," Levy said. "Everybody agrees that the goals of the Party Patrol are important to the community."

She said the group will continue to meet and hopes to resolve all the concerns in a few months, though no timetable has been set.

Even if a change is made in the patrol's method of entering homes during parties, officers might prepare for even more change.

Heidke's memo mentions he is exploring the possibility of drafting new city ordinances similar to those that address underage drinking and unruly parties in Arizona's major cities, Tucson and Phoenix.

Tucson's unruly gathering ordinance allows police to put red stickers on homes where a loud party was broken up, according to the city's Web site. A $500 fine is levied if police respond to the tagged house a second time within 180 days.

In Phoenix, a party is considered large if five or more people are determined to be a threat to the peace, health, safety or general welfare of the public, according to the city's Web site. If police respond to the party a second time, the responsible party must pay the cost of the officers' time while at the event and any damage or medical treatment.

Heidke's memo said only that he would be "investigating the possibility of enacting new legislation."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: aclu; aclulist; donutwatch; leo; libertarians; madd
Here's the real problem.

"Proposed law would allow the city to condemn any nuisance property, not just commercial, meaning eminent domain isn't required to take your house."

Overprotective ordinance, nuisance property

1 posted on 01/15/2006 3:23:57 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Ping.


2 posted on 01/15/2006 3:26:28 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Check this out.


3 posted on 01/15/2006 3:34:41 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
Good lord,

What line will the cross next in NM?

4 posted on 01/15/2006 3:40:24 PM PST by vrwc0915 ("Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vrwc0915
What line will the cross next in NM?

It's not just us.

Keep a watch out in your own town.

5 posted on 01/15/2006 3:46:36 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Thats why I live in unincorporated county outside of city limits


6 posted on 01/15/2006 3:49:03 PM PST by vrwc0915 ("Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: inneroutlaw

Marty Chavez ping.


7 posted on 01/15/2006 3:50:31 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vrwc0915
Thats why I live in unincorporated county outside of city limits.

Me, too. But now, they're talking about "consolidating" Albuquerque and Bernalillo County.

It just creeps and creeps, until they get you.

8 posted on 01/15/2006 3:52:47 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
Tucson's unruly gathering ordinance allows police to put red stickers on homes where a loud party was broken up, according to the city's Web site. A $500 fine is levied if police respond to the tagged house a second time within 180 days.

If they put a big red sticker on my house, after the 180 days they better be prepared to pay for the removal of that sticker.
And that's only the first thing that comes to mind.

9 posted on 01/15/2006 3:57:03 PM PST by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
they better be prepared to pay for the removal of that sticker. And that's only the first thing that comes to mind.

That was the first thing that came to my mind also.

Then, I thought "SWAT Team calling".

10 posted on 01/15/2006 4:00:24 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Party Patrol = Revenue enhancement


11 posted on 01/15/2006 4:12:00 PM PST by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan

Yup, sometimes with a big payday if they succeed in confiscating the real estate.


12 posted on 01/15/2006 4:14:32 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

self ping


13 posted on 01/15/2006 4:34:30 PM PST by lesser_satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

What? No ping?


14 posted on 01/15/2006 5:42:28 PM PST by JTN ("I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum. And I'm all out of bubble gum.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JTN
What? No ping?

Connection got stomped on last night before I could get it out.

Sorry.

15 posted on 01/16/2006 8:04:37 AM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: albertp; Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Americanwolf; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
16 posted on 01/16/2006 8:42:23 PM PST by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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