Monday, June 29, 2009
Students planning to host parties may want to channel their inner bouncers. The City Commission passed a new ordinance June 23 that will make it easier to fine party-throwers who serve alcohol to minors.
The new ordinance is an amendment to the city’s existing policy on fining people who allow minors to consume alcohol on their property. Before the change, people hosting a party could avoid fines by claiming that a minor caught drinking at their home was not invited. The new ordinance states that any person attending a party is automatically assumed to be an invited guest of the host or property owner.
Mayor Robert Chestnut said the change was made to the city code to “make it have more teeth in it.”
“It sounds like a small nuance, but it certainly will hold the property owner to a higher accountability,” Chestnut said.
Chestnut said the change was spurred by low conviction rates for party hosts accused of providing alcohol to minors. He said city attorneys met with the Lawrence Police Department to create a solution.
He said police would continue their enforcement of party violations as they had in the past. In most cases in which an officer enters a party, it is because he was called to the scene for a noise complaint. The officer then checks attendees’ IDs and can cite minors and party hosts accordingly.
Chestnut said that police officers on routine patrols could inspect parties without receiving complaints first.
“If they have evidence that they see a party, they have probable cause and can enter,” Chestnut said. “But for the most part, it will be complaint-based.”
Sergeant Bill Cory of the Lawrence Police Department said officers could inspect house parties without receiving a complaint if they happened upon them while on patrol.
“If they see someone hosting a party and basically running an open saloon, they can check it out,” Cory said.
Pantaleon Florez, Topeka senior, said police officers broke up a party at his apartment complex in August of 2008. Florez said he was cited because minors were in attendance.
“They gave me a ticket for the hosting of minors when people I didn’t even know were there,” Florez said.
Florez said he received no fine after going to court where he stated he was not aware of minors attending the party.
“I got out of it completely,” he said.
Florez said he had mixed feelings about the new ordinance because parties often get out of control and draw in several strangers.
“I think it’s kind of ridiculous that someone can get in trouble if people just show up to their party,” Florez said. “If they’re in your home, it may be because you invited them, but if the party is outside it’s harder to control”
According to the ordinance, which can be found on the commission’s Web site, party hosts can take steps to avoid fines including checking all attendees IDs and limiting access to alcohol. The minimum fine for hosting minors who consume alcohol is $1,000. The court may sentence hosts to perform community service by working in an alcohol treatment facility if they are put on probation.
Chestnut said the commission’s decision to crack down on underage drinking was partly inspired by the University’s similar attempts. The University recently added a provision to its alcohol offense policy that involves notifying students’ parents if they are involved in a drug or alcohol violation on campus.
“With the university becoming more aggressive with their standards, our policies will be commiserate,” Chestnut said.
The new ordinance goes into effect Thursday.
How would Obama reflect on the past year?
1 comment
Mallot and Haworth Halls, two of the larger ...
1 comment
Mallot and Haworth Halls, already two of the ...
1 comment
It was the symmetry of this sidewalk that ...
1 comment
Texting while driving is the cause of many ...
1 comment
Comments
5ive (anonymous) says...
This should stop any future Jason Wrens from legally drinking themselves to death in private...oh wait.
June 30, 2009 at 7:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
redcoalcarpet (anonymous) says...
Does this include frat houses too? If it doesn't it certainly should!
June 30, 2009 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayb1rd (anonymous) says...
Yeah, this should DEFINITELY include frats.
July 2, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
andrewl85 (anonymous) says...
"Chestnut said that police officers on routine patrols could inspect parties without receiving complaints first."
So no need for a warrant, noise complaint, or approval from the owner or tenant of the house. A police officer can just walk right into any party and start checking IDs. How does this not violate property rights? How does it not violate the Fourth Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Sure, you can argue that a cop has probable cause to enter a party, but that probable cause is just a whim that underage drinking is going on. I'm sorry, but this law is BS. It might be the worst thing the City Commission has ever enacted.
July 10, 2009 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )