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.
"What ever happened to just telling their parents?"
I think the actions of the parents in this instance answer that question. It is the equivilent of doing nothing.
Maybe, but the kids will all be going away to college in the fall, and the parents are well off and will probably be glad just to see it go away after the police have been put in their place.
SO9
The parent in this incident is nuts. She is the problem.
Spoiled, wealthy little sociopaths who are above the law. Obviously this neighborhood is a breeding ground for future lawyers.
Yeah, if Johnny or Janey had an accident after leaving the party, you can bet your booties that mom and dad would be outraged and suing the owner.
Great point!
You have a point.
In my case, if my 19-year-old daughter continues to live at home, she has to follow dad's rules. If she doesn't like dad's rules, dad can have everything she owns out in the front yard in about 15 minutes.
Upon what would you base administering a breathalyzer test, a field sobriety test? I feel that action would be thrown out of court.
I think that every kid in the house could be charged with being a minor in possession since none of them were of legal drinking age and willingly placed themself in the situation by remaining were alcohol was being consumed illegally.
Furthermore, the fact that people were seen fleeing the site when police arrived certainly gave the police a sound reason to enter the house to determine what activity was taking place that compelled people to flee when police arrived.
As far as the possession charge, again, the 'everyone in the house' theory won't fly. It works in a car. But in a house, there is no way to establish that any given kid even knew the alcohol was present, or that they had any access to it.
What if their 12-year-old sister was upstairs listening to records? Charge her, too? See, it just doesn't work as a blanket assertion.
Anyway - high school seniors drinking - the horror!
I can't imagine a bunch of kids standing at the door telling the cops that they cannot enter without a warrant. I'll bet the kids probably just let them in.
If it is an open party, it's an open party. That's why college frat parties have lists now. No undercover cops can attend.
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?
well, that's saying a lot
Sure, a sociopath is the alternative term for "lawyer."
but it's the RISK the kid takes by being somewhere where there is drinking and getting busted for being there. Cripes when I was underage I was doing it but you can be DAMN sure that if I were to get busted it was my own damn fault. Plain and simple..SO much for personal responsibility..and these parents are teaching their kids that being there is okay (it isn't because it's possession!). And for all of you that are OKAY with this....maybe you shouldn't be having kids! It's always the cops fault!! My gawd you people are disgusting and just as BAD as any liberal when it comes to this subject!! It's about RESPONSIBILITY! But then, from what I've seen here, a whole bunch of you are just as pro-gov't-baby-sitting as any lib!
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.