When I was growing up in San Luis Obispo and later attended Cal Poly, the city always had a love-hate relationship with the students. The businesses liked the business they got from students, but the residents of the community considered the students an annoyance who made noise, drank and partied.
Moving to Davis, that element seemed less pronounced. There were active efforts here to make students a greater part of the community, whether it was their inclusion in Neighbor’s Night Out Parties or the UC Davis Liaison Commission.
But listening to the debate over underage drinking and the continuing debate over the noise ordinance, along with lingering anger and concerns about Picnic Day, have made it clear that there is perhaps a growing divide.
From my standpoint, as one who arrived in this community as a student, who works with students on an everyday basis, but who is now a resident in this community with a wife and family, I understand those who do not want their lives disrupted by student parties and drunken noise.
At the same time, I am very concerned with three aspects of the Minor Alcohol Preclusion Ordinance. First, I do not believe it was brought forward to the council properly. Second, I do not believe it is necessary. And third, I do not believe it will work to accomplish what people think it will – and worse yet, it will produce unintended consequences.
I do not know who was responsible for bringing the issue forward on Tuesday. However, and this was actually the second time this issue came up during the meeting, it was not sent to the proper commission who should have heard the item, and weighed in on it.
Adam Thongsavat is not only the chair of the Student Liaison Commission, but also the ASUCD President, and he had only seen the ordinance for 24 hours.
Mr. Thongsavat requested that the council allow the commission, as the body representing student interests, thoroughly to review this matter before they approve it.
“Unfortunately, I have only seen this in the last 24 hours, the actual content of it,” he told the council during public comment. “I have some serious reservations on the enforcement policies, how that’s going to be done.”
Likewise, Councilmember Sue Greenwald expressed a bit of surprise that this was the first the council had heard of this matter. She had only found out about it when she read her material the weekend before the council meeting.
Clearly, this was an item that needed community discussion before the council weighed in on it. I think the council acted appropriately with regard to allowing the commission to review it, preserving the timeline, and bringing it back for another hearing.
Without student buy-in, I think this measure is only going to exacerbate the divide. Students believe that this will give the police the license to pull over and harass students who are simply out walking at night.
I listened very carefully to the concerns of residents like Elaine Roberts Musser, who not only spoke at the council meeting but posted extensively on the Vanguard.
The problem is that I still do not understand what problem that she is describing that this ordinance will solve.
She writes, “Underage drinking is a problem in my neighborhood. We have an alleyway where minors hang out and drink, defacing property with ugly graffiti.”
Later she would elaborate, “Public school students congregate in an alleyway across from my home. They imbibe freely of alcohol, and often deface property with ugly graffiti. If they get rowdy enough, they will wander the streets in a large group (as many as 20 teens), being loud, raucous and belligerent. This has literally been going on for years. If approached by police they suddenly either run, or become docile and polite, deny any wrongdoing, and are essentially free to go on their way. It is a constant cat and mouse game, played over and over again.”
She added, “Frankly, I have grown impatient with the problem in this town of underage drinking and its infringement on my rights as a citizen to walk on the streets and feel safe.”
Further, “I have to tell you, I was angry that night, listening to the students. They talked about their civil rights, but what about MY RIGHTS to feel safe on public streets?”
What is interesting, first, is that she argues, “The UCD students have had years to address the drinking problem, and have not done much to fix it.” But at the same time, she acknowledges that the problem that she is describing is either exclusively or additionally public school kids. If that is the case, there is little that the UC Davis students can do to stop high school kids from drinking.
If we take her at her word as to what is happening in her neighborhood, and the problem has been going on for years, then why has this not be taken to the city council, the meetings of which she has attended for years, brought to the attention of the police chief and the city, to figure out how to solve this problem?
There are existing laws that are being broken – drinking in public, drinking by underage people, disturbing the peace, and vandalism. We do not need an additional law to solve this problem, what we need is a plan to enforce the law in that location.
That is my problem here, this law aims to target any minor who has consumed alcohol at the .01 level. But the rationale for that law is that they are getting drunk and causing nuisances. There are existing laws against causing a nuisance and being drunk in public.
We should be aiming our policies against the people actually causing a problem, not the people who are not bothering anyone but happen to be walking home after drinking when they were not supposed to be drinking.
People can argue “an ounce of prevention” – but in fact, this is not even a gram of prevention, because the chance that anyone gets caught even with the new rules is remote.
But it is largely unworkable and can have drastic unintended consequences.
The most obvious problem is profiling. Students already believe they are being unfairly targeted by police, and this will simply add fuel to the fire. But while the objections were couched in civil liberties concerns, frankly the practical problems outweigh these concerns.
There are three serious problems that make this ordinance unworkable and potentially dangerous to the community.
In the ordinance it states in section (B): “An officer detaining or arresting a person for a violation of this article shall request the person consent to a preliminary alcohol screening test, or other evidentiary breath test if a preliminary alcohol screening test is not available, for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol in the person.”
Notice is says, “shall request.” The reason is uses the word “request” is that they cannot order a person to submit to a blood alcohol test, they must “consent” to it. This differs from when driving a motor vehicle, because written into the vehicle code is language that contains the “implied consent,” which means by getting a license and operating the motor vehicle, an individual implies their consent to be tested for drinking. Such does not exist in other circumstances covered under this law.
Without a test, the officer is left with having to testify to evidence of the individual drinking, and that makes getting a conviction more difficult. While students may not be aware of their right not to take the test, it stands to reason that word will get around quickly and if the student body is angry enough, they may facilitate that understanding.
The second problem is one we described in our original article. The language of the law is a preclusion in “public places.” That means it is not enforceable at a party held on private property. Police often have to rely on parties to voluntary disperse. But if they then attempt to arrest people they suspect of having been underage and drinking, parties are unlikely to voluntarily disperse.
The third problem was raised at the council meeting by Mayor Joe Krovoza.
He raised the concern that someone under 21 attends a party, realizes that he or she has consumed too much alcohol, then decides to walk home. “That’s actually behavior that we would want to encourage,” he said. “We don’t want them to get behind a 3000-pound piece of metal and endanger everyone including themselves.”
“Is that someone we’re going to pull over and say that’s reasonable cause, you’re clearly drunk? Even though they’re not bothering anybody, they’re just trying to get themselves home.” he asked.
Chief Black really dodged the implications of this point. He focused on the drinking behavior, “The issue that I have personally as a professional and should have with the city is the decision-making that took place before the first drink was taken.”
“If the person has made a good choice to not drive,” he continued, and they do something that draws attention to themselves, “then legally I suppose we have the right to approach them and talk to them and test them for alcohol content on their breath.”
The problem here is that you may now encourage people to attempt to drive home rather than walk home, because it may be less likely that they get pulled over in a car than on foot.
There is one additional problem – it is not clear to me that the problems that we associate in this community with students drinking is limited to underage drinking. It seems the issues are being conflated here, and that giving law enforcement this tool is really a band aid for a small problem that covers up the huge and festering wound.
I would much rather see this process begin with community discussions between residents and students. I would like to see a firm listing of what the problems are, how widespread they are, and what we can do under existing laws to combat those problems.
Some have put the onus of this on students. In contrast I put the onus of this on everyone. This is something that neighbors, residents, the city leadership, the police and the students need to work on together.
I have not seen an example of a single problem that would be solved by this law. I think this law is unenforceable as to the target population. It could make things more dangerous by discouraging more responsible post-drinking behavior. And it will produce additional charges of profiling that will undermine student, if not community, trust in the police.
In short, this is a bad idea, it has sparked a good discussion, and discussion is the path that we should take.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
vanguard” He raised the concern that someone under 21 attends a party, realizing that they have consumed too much alcohol they decide to walk home. “That’s actually behavior that we would want to encourage,” he said. “We don’t want them to get behind a 3000-pound piece of metal and endanger everyone including themselves.””
or maybe, we can stop them BEFORE they get behind the wheel or hitch a ride with friends who are drunk and get behind the wheel with this ordinance. which is the more likely scenario? the latter.
Vanguard: “I would much rather see this process begin with community discussions between residents and students.”
the students in question cut the discussion off. when the ordinance was suggested, the students responded simply by saying their rights are violated and left it at that. they don’t want to have a conversation about underage drinking because they consider it a rite of passage which is why they don’t like the ordinance. they did not show signs of a desire to do something about the problem, let alone a plan to fix it. let us dispense with the bull.
I doubt that we will stop them before getting behind a wheel with this ordinance. We simply do not have the personnel to do that.
No one has explained to me how this ordinance fixes the problems that they have cited in the community.
The students are now on notice right now – we really need to have a better understanding of what the problem is and how deep it goes. At that point, I think students will have to confront the possibility that if they fail to work with the other stakeholders in this process, there may be a backlash and more sympathy for a draconian approach. We’ll see where this process goes.
I also think this discussion has a lot of disingenuousness behind it because the vanguard has advocated in favor of legalizing marijuana – in other words I think the vanguard would like to see underage drinking legalized. or if not “officially legalized” students who do so not have to face any consequences for drinking making it unoffically legalized.
I agree with Elaine about the scope and seriousness of this problem, and with David that this particular approach will be at best ineffective and at worst make the problem worse by undermining further youth police relations.
Because of my job, it is in my nature to prefer prevention to cerrection. I do have some suggestions regarding prevention. Some are items that can be addressed directly, others only by change in the society as a whole.
1) Provision of alternative activities. I considered the loss of the Teen Center a step backward in terms of supporting non destructive teen
activities. I think fostering public youth activities would be more productive than the threat of alcohol level testing.
2) a solution for Elaine in particular. Have you considered turning their technology against them ? True the police will likely lose the” cat and mouse game” you describe. Have you considered using your cell phone to film the illegal activities while they are occurring and either turn the
Video over to the police, or in terms of direct prevention, just post it with the location and date on YouTube, Reddit, wherever…. I think they would very rapidly get the point that this is not a good party location. Should you have to do this ? Of course not ! But since it has been going on for years without solution, perhaps an entirely different approach might be in order.
3) Finally, a previous comment had questioned, facetiously I believe, whether or not we should do away with the drinking age limitation.
I take this suggestion quite seriously. From Elaine’s own comments, the existence of underage drinking restrictions has not worked to curb the problem. From my own teen’s ( never involved in this kind of nuisance drinking thank goodness ) observations, as recently as two years ago, part of the drive to drink is precisely the fact that it is illegal. The existence of the law itself promotes a feeling of excitement, rebelliousness and “putting one over” on those in authority. In my opinion, doing away with the minimum drinking age while continuing to stress responsible drinking behaviors would probably do more to address the issue than another unenforceable ordinance.
On another point, what happens if a teen who has been stopped for “reasonable cause” simply and politely refuses the test ?
Octane: Why don’t you try actually arguing with the points made here, rather than attempting to guess why I oppose this law.
“On another point, what happens if a teen who has been stopped for “reasonable cause” simply and politely refuses the test ? “
That was the point I was trying to make here, there is not implied consent and therefore there is nothing they can do, a person on foot has the right to refuse the test.
If we take her at her word as to what is happening in her neighborhood, and the problem has been going on for years, then why has this not be taken to the city council, the meetings of which she has attended for years, brought the attention of the police chief, and the city figure out how to solve this problem.
LOL, so the vanguard is arguing elaine should have pushed for and gotten the ordinance passed earler? elaine might agree on that!
but if I understand this correctly the vanguard is saying if a problem goes unaddressed for a number of years, it should not be addressed ever?
People can argue an ounce of prevention – but in fact, this is not even a gram of prevention, because the chance that anyone gets caught even with the new rules is remote.
that is speculation on the vanguard’s end without an ounce of data to back it up. the vanguard is in love with its own talking points.
Yes, but then what is the officer’s response to that refusal? Have a nice evening and that is it ? Collection of name and address ? Parental notification ? What, if anything happens upon refusal ? A trip to the police station if the stop results in obvious additional evidence And why, if there is no consequence to refusal, would anyone agree to take the test ? And if the test is refused will that not in the eyes of the teen be a further demonstration of the ineffectiveness of the law ?
Can any one who supports this proposal address this specific issue ?
The students are now on notice right now – we really need to have a better understanding of what the problem is and how deep it goes. At that point, I think students will have to confront the possibility that if they fail to work with the other stakeholders in this process, there may be a backlash and more sympathy for a draconian approach. We’ll see where this process goes.
which is why putting this ordinance on the table has a positive. it is going to force students to come to the table, not simply ignore it. in regards to your comments:
“we really need to have a better understanding of what the problem is and how deep it goes.”
the students know fully damned well how deep it goes. this language in addition to
“I would much rather see this process begin with community discussions between residents and students.”
are code words for paralasis by analysis.
Medwoman: The officer would have to weigh whether they have enough evidence to arrest and get a conviction without the test. So if they smell alcohol on the breath and the individual appears to be impaired, they can probably arrest them. If not, then they probably warn them and leave.
91 Octane
I do not believe that The Vangard or anyone else is arguing that if a problem has existed for years that it should not be addressed.
The concern is that the problem be addressed effectively. The burden of proof for a new proposal is on those advocating for it. So, once again:
1) What exists in this proposal that would make if more effective and more enforceable than the existing laws that cover all of the activities that
Elaine cites rightfully as objectionable ?
2) If we do not have enough officers to enforce existing laws, how will an additional law, including a right to refuse help?
Rather than address various points made by the Vanguard, most of which I strongly disagree with as wrongheaded, I would make the following point: basically nothing was being done about underage drinking and its repercussions, including having “community discussions”, until Chief Landy Black brought forth this ordinance. [i]Good for him.[/i] If the students (public school and UCD) have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the discussion table, so be it. At least they will be forced to address the issue or have a stricter ordinance forced on them.
Secondly, this is not an issue of “hating students” as the Vanguard and others have irrelevantly stated/implied. I had three students of my own go through UCD. I love kids/students. UCD and its students are what keeps this town going/makes it alive and vibrant. However, WE HAVE A PROBLEM HOUSTON! Underage drinking has gotten out of control, AND NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, as evidenced by the Picnic Day debacle. At this point, I am so fed up, that I don’t much care how the community addresses it, just get something positive done about it.
Thirdly, I was told by the police to contact them when I saw students congregating in our alley. The police are spread too thinly to respond/respond timely. So this time I resorted to a little “self-help”. It worked in this particular instance. Next time I may get assaulted. Medwoman made an excellent suggestion to bring my cell phone and take pictures. However, who is to say if I do that, that I won’t have my cell phone taken from me?
Fourthly, this is not just a public school student problem, it is just as much if not more a UCD student problem, as the Vanguard well knows…
[quote]At that point, I think students will have to confront the possibility that if they fail to work with the other stakeholders in this process, there may be a backlash and more sympathy for a draconian approach.[/quote]
And its high time! This is about the only point we agree on!
“I would make the following point: basically nothing was being done about underage drinking and its repercussions, including having “community discussions”, until Chief Landy Black brought forth this ordinance. “
I think this is a good point, I just think the issue should have been raised in the Commission first.
“I was told by the police to contact them when I saw students congregating in our alley. The police are spread too thinly to respond/respond timely.”
If that’s the case, then how is this ordinance going to change that?
Elaine
I agree with you in your appreciation for Chief Black’s attempt to address the issue. I share David’s concerns about the specifics of the measure.
I would be interested in hearing your take on the specific weaknesses that he and I perceive about this particular measure, especially if, as you say, the police are already stretched too thinly to respond in a timely fashion to specific citizen concerns.
Do you have time to respond to the specific issues ?
[quote]I would be interested in hearing your take on the specific weaknesses that he and I perceive about this particular measure, especially if, as you say, the police are already stretched too thinly to respond in a timely fashion to specific citizen concerns. [/quote]
I’m not too caught up in the specifics of this ordinance per se, bc I don’t think in the ultimate end it will be determinative. The proposal of this ordinance is going to force the students to the discussion table. Either students are going to come up with some of their own solutions that are less draconian, or the “reasonable cause” element of the ordinance is going to be properly vetted/hashed out to address all the concerns expressed here.
The irony is that the police have the right to stop someone if there is “articulable suspicion”, which means probable cause they are committing a crime. All this ordinance does is apply that “articulable suspicion” standard to underage drinkers. In other words, the police could not stop the student unless there was probable cause to believe the person was 1) underage; 2) drunk.
So I have to assume that those who object to this ordinance are objecting to it because they don’t have a problem with underage drinking, as long as the minor is minding his/her own business and not bothering anyone. Or to put it differently, if they are showing the signs of being inebriated, such as not being able to walk in a straight line, those in opposition to this ordinance think it is okay for that student to be on a public street drunk. I would argue let’s get the student off the street and home to his/her parents, before the drunk minor does something stupid, like step out in the street in front of a car…
There is obviously a drinking problem with the campus students. You have only to look at the data released by the campus as well as the various incidents that have occurred during events (e.g., picnic day). Whether these are underage, I have no idea.
On the underage (high sch/middle sch) kids drinking, Greenwald obviously has NO CLUE about what kids are doing these days. Our kids (jr high/highsch) tell us amazing stories about the kids drinking on site, yes Harper, drinking under the bridge, drinking around Holmes, buying pot from campus students, etc. Too much money and too little parental oversight.
“Greenwald obviously has NO CLUE about what kids are doing these days.”
What do you base that on?
And by the way, aren’t those activities already illegal? My position is not that there are not problems, though I do prefer to have a fuller understanding of those problems rather than relying on anecdotal hearsay. My position is that this law will not solve these problems and in fact most of these activities are illegal under existing law.
@Murphy: The issue needs intensive community discussion, which is why, despite my reservations about this particular approach, I voted to introduce the ordinance. I want to hear what parents, students and residents have to say about the problem and this and/or other proposed solutions.
I was surprised that the Davis Enterprise didn’t give the topic more coverage. I will call the reporter and Debbie Davis and suggest a big headline story on this in order to launch the discussion.
ERM
“So I have to assume that those who object to this ordinance are objecting to it because they don’t have a problem with underage drinking, as long as the minor is minding his/her own business and not bothering anyone. Or to put it differently, if they are showing the signs of being inebriated
And I would have to say that this is a huge and erroneous assumption which totally ignores previous posts. I am sure you are aware from my previous posts that I am opposed to this particular ordinance. I am also sure, if you have read my previous posts, that I have agreed that there is a problem and have stated safety, both that of the inebriated individual and that of the community, as my major concern. It is not, for me a matter of showing signs of being inebriated. It is impairment, whether visible or not that is the issue. This ordinance, as best I can tell, is entirely dependent upon the luck of an officer being at the right place at the right time to observe the suspicious behavior, makes a change that is entirely dependent on the cooperation of the detained individual and does not truly add anything new ( and compulsory) to the existing laws that you have already noted are unenforceable. I think that yet another unenforceable statute does more harm than good by further eroding already tenuous respect for the police in this age group.
I do agree with Murphy’s point about parental supervision. I am hard pressed to see how even families where both parents work can miss some of the behaviors described to me by my kids when at the junior high let alone the high school level. I also believe that the behaviors displayed by adult family members around alcohol use are probably a major part of the problem. Too often, I see bad behavior justified on the basis that the individual had had to much to drink. Being over 21 does not make abusive use of alcohol acceptable. But our society as a whole has been very slow to accept this idea. We expect our children and youth to adopt our values and emulate our positive attributes. It seems to escape our attention that they are also emulating our excesses and flaws.
MIght it be time to bring back Davis’s Youth Substance Abuse Commission? It was still around in 1993, when the City Council had it review the Davis smoking ordinance, but I don’t know when or why it ceased to exist. Lea Rosenberg was chair in 92/93.
“If the students (public school and UCD) have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the discussion table, so be it. At least they will be forced to address the issue or have a stricter ordinance forced on them. “
This seems to assume that students have some sort of organization that represents them. Sorry to disabuse you of this notion but none exists.
My problem is using the police to address a public health issue. Criminalization is the wrong approach.
A friend told me her husband was pressuring her son to get better grades. “At least I’m not using drugs like the other kids,” he said. So its much more complex than the simplistic hang em high attitudes expressed here.
As for why parents don’t know what their kids are up to, perhaps the parents are working to make ends meet. Maybe in their effort to get the kids into good schools, they have fallen into the two working family trap. Another consequence, i might add, of growth restrictions leading to higher housing costs.
I’m personally upset that, because of Prop 13, many senior citizens pay negligible property taxes. It helps make my prospects of buying a home very challenging. So, should I propose to demolish the senior center, or craft some underhanded tax measure aimed at people 65+ to take out my frustration? This has been going on for a while. If seniors need to be brought kicking and screaming to the table… so be it.
For people who don’t trust law enforcement and the rest of our legal system, any additional authority is a terrifying thing to contemplate. For those who think that existing laws are simply tools used by cops to unfairly harass the unfortunate in our society, even the most minor requests for help from our police chief are fodder for exaggeration and ridicule. It’s sad that some are so fearful to be living in our society.
Some comments above have hit on a very vital point, that I have made several times before. We really do need a separate commission that represents our youth. Seniors have one (a city commission), bikes and trees have one. Why shouldn’t our youth be represented?
Secondly, (like it or not) the introduction of this ordinance finally got a needed discussion going, to address the unbridled underage drinking problem in this town, when nothing else has. I strongly encourage students/others who are concerned about the ordinance, to step up to the plate and offer less draconian/better solutions than the proposed ordinance.
Thirdly, all this ordinance does is extend the already existing “articulable suspicion” standard to underage drinkers. So I see the ultimate goal here as getting the underage minor who has been drinking off the street before they do harm to themselves or others, and if possible educate them as to the dangers of irresponsible alcohol consumption…
[quote]And I would have to say that this is a huge and erroneous assumption which totally ignores previous posts. I am sure you are aware from my previous posts that I am opposed to this particular ordinance. I am also sure, if you have read my previous posts, that I have agreed that there is a problem and have stated safety, both that of the inebriated individual and that of the community, as my major concern. It is not, for me a matter of showing signs of being inebriated. It is impairment, whether visible or not that is the issue. This ordinance, as best I can tell, is entirely dependent upon the luck of an officer being at the right place at the right time to observe the suspicious behavior, makes a change that is entirely dependent on the cooperation of the detained individual and does not truly add anything new ( and compulsory) to the existing laws that you have already noted are unenforceable. I think that yet another unenforceable statute does more harm than good by further eroding already tenuous respect for the police in this age group. [/quote]
As I said above, this merely extends the already existing “articulable suspicion” standard to underage drinkers. It is just one more tool in the arsenal of tactics police officers can use to address criminal behavior. If you have a better solution, I encourage you to voice them at the upcoming discussions which are bound to take place some time soon. I’m just thankful a discussion is taking place, bc up until now nothing was really being done at all. As a result, we had the debacle on Picnic Day…
[quote]My position is that this law will not solve these problems and in fact most of these activities are illegal under existing law.[/quote]
My understanding from what the Police Chief said is that if a drunk minor is walking along, even if stumbling (stumbling along while one walks is not a crime), s/he cannot currently be arrested for drinking alcohol. With the proposed ordinance in place, the minor can be arrested for underage drinking, before the student steps in front of a car…
Which brings up one more point. If the “civil liberties” of underage drinkers had not trumped everyone else’s right to be free from “assault” (using that term in its widest (not necessarily legal) sense) in this town, then perhaps the Picnic Day debacle would not have ever happened. But because this enabling municipality has refused to address the underage drinking problem we have, we are where we are now…
Children are treated by law enforcement and our courts with special consideration than takes into account their tender years and lack of full responsibility their actions. This is just one more tool for our police to use in helping our kids deal with their unevolved judgement capabilities.
David claims that the rationale for this move simply is rowdy behavior already covered by laws that don’t work. There is a much stronger case being madadding, and it’s adding a way to help police deal with our children who get caught up in their poor decisions about drinking. That our police have the desire, time or interest to get this passed so they can “pull over and harass students who are simply out walking at night” defies credibility. And to say an “unintended consequence” will be to force drunk children into driving their cars instead of making their usual decision to walk instead is just laughable. If this is the kind of “community discussion” we’ve seeking, it doesn’t bode well for efforts to help our kids.
Let’s not panic; there is no slippery slope to clubbing our youngsters involved here.
And, medwoman, who is more likely to have a better handle on whether this would be helpful and enforceable? I’d have to go with Chief Black rather than David (given the opinion track record each has established). I’m also curious about where your data come from to state there’s an “already tenuous respect for the police in this group” and David’s various contentions about how underaged people will behave if this goes into effect.
Just ask any teenager, male in particular, if the Davis police have a tendency to stop them for no particular reason when they are out walking at night.
ERM
“My understanding from what the Police Chief said is that if a drunk minor is walking along, even if stumbling (stumbling along while one walks is not a crime), s/he cannot currently be arrested for drinking alcohol. With the proposed ordinance in place, the minor can be arrested for underage drinking, before the student steps in front of a car…”
And if the result is that the teen in question is detained either at the police station until unimpaired and then released, or taken directly home to the custody of their parents without further legal repercussion, then I would agree since this truly protects the safety of the individual and the community. The wording I was concerned about is the “ability to charge”. This implies to me an imposition of legal ramifications that are geared towards punishment, not prevention or aid with developing better life skills such as resistance to peer pressure and positive interactions with other community members instead of defiance.
Just Saying
“And, medwoman, who is more likely to have a better handle on whether this would be helpful and enforceable? I’d have to go with Chief Black rather than David (given the opinion track record each has established). I’m also curious about where your data come from to state there’s an “already tenuous respect for the police in this group”
With no disrespect to Chief Black, who I am sure has a much better grasp of law enforcement issues than any of the rest of us, I would flip your argument to say that if the police had a good handle on what would be helpful and enforceable with regard to the issue of underage drinking, it would have been effected long before now. I think what is really needed is not a crime and punishment approach even by extending it to a younger age group, which has as Elaine has eloquently pointed out been ineffective, but some fresh thoughts on the issue.
As for my data to support my contention that there is a tenuous respect for police in this age group, it is nonexistent, but is based on many years of personal experience.
49 years ago, my sister’s boyfriend was killed in an alcohol related accident. My sister was not in the car but knew that this activity was rampant and that part of the “fun ” was felt to be evading the police while racing and playing chicken.
When I was in that age group, I did not see the police as my friends and protectors, but rather as part of the government involved in trying to suppress my right to freedom of speech since I was opposed to the war in Vietnam Nam. My own kids, now 19 and 22, did not during their early and mid teen years ( although neither was ever involved with the police in any significant way ) respect the police who they saw as needlessly harassing people in their age group while being totally ineffective in preventing dangerous behaviors which they were aware were very common amongst their peers. I would argue that if there were greater respect for the law, and greater respect for the police, then the longstanding problem of underage drinking (and tagging, littering, and general disrespect for the rights of others) would not be the problem that it clearly is.
I also feel that your assertion that ” the police want to get this passed so they can……”pull over and harass students”… Defies credibility.” is a straw man argument. No one is claiming that this is the police intent, merely that it is a potential outcome, which on the basis of direct personal experience, I can attest not only can, but does happen as it did to me in 2009. Did the police intend to harass a 58 year old woman peacefully and legally going about her business? Of course not, but that was the outcome of their actions.
[quote]”Just ask any teenager, male in particular, if the Davis police have a tendency to stop them for no particular reason when they are out walking at night.”[/quote]Don, I figure you’re kidding, but I asked two so far. One male and one female responded that they’ve [u]never[/u] been stopped by Davis police either on foot or in a car at night or during the day.”As for my data to support my contention that there is a tenuous respect for police in this age group, it is nonexistent, but is based on many years of personal experience.”Well, that’s data. My own personal observations in close to the same experiences are different. My sister was struck by a drunk driver who had been ticketed and removed from his vehicle not 15 minutes before he roared through a red light. She barely recovered and never was the same physically or emotionally. Society and times have changed, however, and we don’t want to allow this kind of decision to endanger others if there’s any way to stop it.
I’m sorry that your contacts with police haven’t left you with a more positive view of their role. In my own Vietnam demonstrating (as well as covering more than two dozen of these events as a newspaper reporter), I always observed the police on good behavior. (I’m not minimizing Kent State, Chicago and other horrendous events in pointing out that it’s likely that hundreds of these demonstrations were held during those years with authorities doing their jobs appropriately.)
The “straw man argument” is a direct response to specific fears David and others have offered in the two articles about this proposal. I’m saying Chief Black is providing this to help fix a small “loophole” issue in dealing with minors and drinking in our community.
While it’s true that rogue cops in a drunken stupor, angry at kids, could fire off a round by accident and hit a baby down the street while enforcing this law, I just don’t think that “potential outcome” (or any of the others I mentioned) or other “unintended consequence” is worthy of serious discussion.
P.S.: You can be assured this won’t be used against any 58-year-old women at all. Or, even the minors at which it’s directed without reasonable cause.
JustSaying
I am sure that you realize that I do not fear this specific statue would be used against me. What did happen to me was that I was ” invited”‘ to take not one, but two breathalyzer tests when I was the passenger in a car in Sacramento. If you think the police never act without “reasonable cause,I would beg to differ. And if it can happen to a 58 y/o, why would you think it could not happen to a teen ?
EMR
I would like to do what you have suggested, put forth some alternate ideas:
1) Since I have no expertise in the area of teen behavior, I would suggest consulting the experts other than the police whom we agree have not
.been very successful to date.I would recommend eliciting ideas from teachers, pediatricians, adolescent behavioral medicine specialists,
and substances abuse specialists regarding effective prevention strategies.
2) I would recommend enlisting experts from the university in fields such as sociology and anthropology to share their ideas about why different
societies and social groups seem to have disparities in their rates or problems associated with underage drinking, for suggestions about how
we might better approach this issue.
3) As I stated before, perhaps focusing on providing alternative activities, like the teen center used to provide might be
helpful.
4) A more proactive approach to neighborhood safety using newer technologies. As I suggested, one way would be to film the unlawful behavior
and turn it over to the police or make it public on line. I read your concern about having your phone taken away. I think this could be a real
concern if not for the fact that most phones will provide discernibly pictures from quite a distance today. I think it might be quite feasible to film
without being detected.
5) I would also suggest starting responsible behavior training and duscussing social expectations at a much younger age than is now the case.
I don’t believe that my kids had any mention of this at all until the fifth or sixth grade by which time in my opinion, the
drive to fit in and “look cool” is already in place for many. My evidence for this assertion is 15 years of experience volunteering at the
elementary school level.
[quote]”And if it can happen to a 58 y/o, why would you think it could not happen to a teen?”[/quote]Sure, I do realize this won’t be used against you. I also realize that the likelihood that Davis police take their jobs seriously (and the odds that they’ll follow the law) are overwhelming.
I don’t see it as a big problem that a breathalyzer test could be given to someone (teen or otherwise) who turns out not to have been drinking. After all, it’s a [u]test[/u], and it’s one that exonerates the innocent with a minimum of disruption in their lives.
Again, there’s “reasonable cause” that’s required before it gets underway. As has been observed, this is not a perfect standard that will eliminate “requests” aimed at innocents.
A misidentified vehicle, a few swerves, an offended contact, a handicap, youthful exuberance or other differences in appearance or behavior or honest mistakes are all part of our own world. Why not allow law enforcement to live in the same world while they “serve and protect”? Police who violate the law while they’re on the job should be investigated and punished, as well.
I pretty much agree with your list of other ideas. They would be good companions to this one.
JustSaying
“with a minimum disruption in their lives”
That is a fairly subjective comment. Although the entire episode lasted less than one hour, I did not perceive it as “a minimum disruption in my life.” It was clear to me that although I had broken no laws and had told the truth about the quantity and timing of my alcohol intake, they did not trust or believe me. So much so that although they had already tested my companion with two different breathalyzers with identical results, they decided I needed to be tested twice also, even though the first value was 0. In my experience trust and respect are a two way street. I guarantee you that I did not leave that interaction with increased respect or trust in the police.
I understand your point and appreciate that the event you describe could leave anyone with a negative view of the people who imposed such an indignity on you. I’m sure you will appreciate, as well, that I’m not minimizing your personal experience when I suggest that it’s atypical and shouldn’t weigh very heavily when considering this city ordinance.
JustSaying
I do not know that it is atypical. Do you? Or are you asserting this on your seemingly generally favorable view of the police ?
One comment made by my son when we were discussing this tonight rang true for me. He has been stopped by the police three times, all for minor bicycle related issues. His take was that the police attitude is generally one of being authoritative and condescending. When I asked him what would, in his opinion be likely to garner more respect, his comment was for them to emphasize that they are there to help, not to intimidate.
[quote]And if the result is that the teen in question is detained either at the police station until unimpaired and then released, or taken directly home to the custody of their parents without further legal repercussion, then I would agree since this truly protects the safety of the individual and the community. The wording I was concerned about is the “ability to charge”. This implies to me an imposition of legal ramifications that are geared towards punishment, not prevention or aid with developing better life skills such as resistance to peer pressure and positive interactions with other community members instead of defiance.[/quote]
So it would seem to me your concern is more with the outcome of a student being stopped, then the actual ordinance itself (I don’t want to put words in your mouth). So let me ask you a question: Would you have a problem with this ordinance so long as the student was not given a criminal record; but only had to do a bit of community service for being caught drinking as a minor? Actually I’d be all for that, and let these underage drinkers be placed on a work detail that required them to clean up the graffiti and litter that result from the crime of underage drinking…
Just as an aside, what is at stake here is not only the rights of citizens like me to enjoy their property, but the safety of the minors themselves. Isn’t it worth a bit of inconvenience, if the minor is clearly showing signs of being inebriated, to get them off the street and home BEFORE they hurt themselves or others? As in anything else, where to draw that bright yellow line is the million dollar question. I favor drawing it in a way that gets the kids safely home, even if it means they may be inconvenienced a bit by being asked to take a breathalizer test, if there is probable cause to believe they have been drinking…
ERM
I actually have both concerns. I am with you with regard to the community service aspect of cleaning up after themselves and would see this as far preferable to establishing a criminal record for this kind of activity.
My concerns about the ordinance itself are:
1) Effectiveness. It would seem to me that if the police are already “stretched too thin”, tying them up even further with a process that can
simply be refused is unlikely to provide them with an effective tool.
2) Cost effectiveness both on the local level with potential additional costs to our local police force and in terms of legal costs if these kids are
going tp be charged.
3) Apparent emphasis on catching and charging individuals instead of prevention and perhaps catching and charging the adults who are
providing the alcohol to minors.
4) The apparent adversarial ( cat and mouse ) nature of this approach. As my son put it, I probably would have respected the police more if they
had acted like they really wanted to help instead of “hassling me”.
5 ) Appearance over substance – since it would appear that there is not extensive experience with this approach, I am concerned that putting it in place may give the appearance of doing something while actually just diverting resources from what could be more effective strategies.
I would not be opposed to a trial period of the ordinance within a strict time frame with a reassessment for efficacy under the following circumstances:
1) Prior to implementation, the police define precisely what will constitute reasonable cause.
2) The police will define precisely the goals in terms of increased number of apprehensions to be judged effective.
3) The police will provide an estimate of additional costs in terms of increased officer hours to be compared with the actual costs at the end of the trial period.
4) The community would develope a means for assessing the overall impact of the ordinance in terms of positive changes within the community,
For example, decreased numbers of complaints such as yours, decreased tagging and therefore decreased clean up costs.
If after the trial period, the ordinance were found to be cost effective and effective in providing improved safety, I would have no problem supporting it.
[quote]I would not be opposed to a trial period of the ordinance within a strict time frame with a reassessment for efficacy under the following circumstances:
1) Prior to implementation, the police define precisely what will constitute reasonable cause.
2) The police will define precisely the goals in terms of increased number of apprehensions to be judged effective.
3) The police will provide an estimate of additional costs in terms of increased officer hours to be compared with the actual costs at the end of the trial period.
4) The community would develope a means for assessing the overall impact of the ordinance in terms of positive changes within the community,
For example, decreased numbers of complaints such as yours, decreased tagging and therefore decreased clean up costs.
If after the trial period, the ordinance were found to be cost effective and effective in providing improved safety, I would have no problem supporting it. [/quote]
Very reasonable approach. I, like you, would prefer minors not have a criminal record over underage drinking, but cleaning up after themselves would be a perfect “punishment”…