Blah blah blah. The police were wrong in what they did and hopefully the kids take it to a jury. Not because I don't appreciate the police, I do. But these people's fourth amendment rights were violated, and as Americans we should not stand for it!
One case like this will quickly turn into three hundred, then everyone defending these cops will wonder why it's their house they are breaking into!

I thought it was in Badger and thought it didnt take these kids long to have another underage drinking party after a fellow student just killed a man from doing the same thing. but if it was Big Foot maybe they didnt know about what happened even though it happened in the next town over. (yeah right)

Part of Linn township is in Badger and part is in the Big Foot School district. I think the address of the party is in Big Foot. What does that have to do with anything?

weezer
explain what an underage party is, last time i knew it wasnt illegal to throw parties, and many kids told there parents where they were going so they knew where they were and when did anything get vandilized there was beer being drank nothing vandilized so keep your comments to yourself

weezer: It is possible that these kids (the 17 & 18 year olds) might not live at home with their parents. Therefore the parents might not have any say in what they do. I know at age 17 I didn't live at home, I had my own place. This may or may not have anything to do with the parents.

parents need to keep better track of their children and not let them break laws and have underage parties and walk around and vandalize at all times of the night!!!!!!!

pigbrain you are correct. The police do have "an obligation to try and make contact to see what's going on" but the citizens have no obligation to talk to you.

I'm not defending their actions either, I just want to clarify for those who think their rights have been infringed upon. This is taken from one of my Con Law textbooks that explains how the police are to make contact when dispatched to a residence, as you have correctly pointed out, is not public grounds, so a terry stop will not suffice. This is splitting hairs, but should answer some questions as to why you have to talk to the cops when they come to your door after being dispatched there:
PC is needed to make contact at residence.
How is PC established?
If you (officer) develop PC, arrest is good.
If another directs you, as an officer, (in this case, the dispatcher) to take action, but doesn't inform you of all facts, your actions are still good (good faith doctrine) because of:
1. Dispatched Information, which is considered PC for police action.
Examples:
1.Dispatcher receives info from complaintant
2. directs you to scene
3. Dispatched info established PC.
Again, I am not standing up for them, only trying to help you understand that when an officer is dispatched to a residence, he has an obligation to try and make contact to see what's going on, as another citizen who has rights directed them to do.

If stupidity was painful, you people would be in agony!
The police in this case, and the one in Rock County, overstepped their boundaries and infringed the rights of American Citizens! You should all be worried. You are taking your rights for granted. Yea the kids were wrong, but you all know, two wrongs do not make a right. The information is not all here so it's hard to speculate, but the police were definitely wrong.

dub190 you are 99% correct. The only thing I would disagree with is "The police can never keep up with the real criminals because they are too busy busting kids for drinking." For the most part I think the police are out there doing a good job. But when situations like the recent "fine-line" searches occur, questions need to be asked! If the police can't accept the questions then they need to find a new line of work. I also would like to give credit to the Gazette for asking some questions.

who cares?? Does anyone really know the true story?? NO Thats what happens when you live in a small town, people start up rumors. Will we every know the whole story, of course not. People will lie.(probably already have) especailly since theres lawyer(s) involved. If you are going to play make sure you can pay, wether it be a fine or a lost of a scholarship. It was the kids CHOICES to go to that party and drink. Start taking responsibility for your own actions!

As you can see in my previous post the "Terry Stop" must occur in a PUBLIC PLACE not someones house. And the person stopped does not have to tell the police anything. The police may detain the subject until properly identified but that is it. Would you like to try again pigbrain?

Again from the Criminal Law Handbook issued to every WI police officer by DOJ.
STOP AND FRISK

All law enforcement officers should be familiar with this term. It should be noted immediately that a proper "stop" will not automatically authorize a "frisk." Officers must be able to articulate the "reasonable suspicion" required for a "stop" independently and separately from the "reasonable fear" required for a "frisk."

THE STOP

Under the statute, there are six rules for the stop:

1. It must occur in a public place. This includes a person's car if on the street, but a person's backyard or home or his/her host's backyard or home are not public places.

2. The officer must identify himself/herself as a law enforcement officer.

3. The officer must reasonably suspect that the person is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. This quantum is not the same as probable cause to arrest; it is less than that, but more than "mere suspicion." A person loitering in a high crime area late at night or jogging near a building site already burglarized might, in view of the officer's experience, produce reasonable suspicion. The United States Supreme Court in 1972 said that the tip of an untested informant, while not giving reasonable grounds for arrest, would give reasonable suspicion for a stop and frisk.

4. The officer may demand the person's name and address and explanation of his/her conduct. However, if the person quietly states, "I do not wish to say anything to you, even identify myself," and causes no trouble at all, and there is no further information or facts which could lead the officer to "probable cause," the officer must allow the person to go on his/her way. Refusal to answer an officer's questions in itself is not "obstructing an officer."

5. The temporary detention for questioning must be in the vicinity of the initial stop. It may, for example, be out of the rain, but not at the station house six miles away.

6. The questioning may only be for a reasonable length of time. This will vary in different circumstances, but will include enough time to call in a stolen car inquiry or identity check...........

No the minimum required education for a WI police officer is 60 college credits. That may be an associates degree and it may not. That requirement took place in the mid 90's I believe so there are plenty of grandfathered officers still working that only have the police academy and continued education(24 hours in-service yearly).

Officer, that was the stupidest thing I've ever read on here. Zero truth to your statement. I can't devote nearly the time needed to clarify, but the short version is this: Citizens Are required to talk to the police when dispatched, it's called a terry stop, or investigative detention, and is not an option. What do you think leads up to an arrest? They have to make contact at some point. You are thinking of a consensual encounter. Miranda has Nothing to do with this, since that doesn't come into the equatuion until the consensual encounter, which establishes whether there is probable cause to make an arrest.
I also have no idea how they hire cops in Mayberry, but here in Wi the Minimum education requirement is an Associate's degree to even be called for an interview at any PD. To actually be hired a Bachelor's is the norm.
And as far as common sense, you displayed your lack of it by posting your misleading interpretation of the law and your rights to those who know the correct interpretation and called you out on it.

"Why wouldn't you answer the door unless you were doing something wrong or had something to hide?" Maybe they don't like/trust the police for whatever reason, hmmm like unlawful search and seizure?. It doesn't matter! People are not required to talk to the police in this country. Ever heard of Miranda? If your going to go into someones house get a SEARCH WARRANT. The police are not attorneys or Judges. Some offficers don't have a degree in anything. Now I'm not saying education is the cure all for everything because there are a lot of educated idiots out there. Education does not give a person common sense.

isnt linn township in the badger school district?

Um, Duh. The police knock at the door. They know you're there. You don't answer. YES that's 'hiding' from police. Why wouldn't you answer the door unless you were doing something wrong or had something to hide?
The Nazi/Jew analogy is overused and uncalled for. There were no 8 million children being murdered. Give me a break.

pigbrain wrote:"once commands aren't followed or entry is denied it becomes a new game." I bet that's what the Nazi's told he Jew's too! So let me get this straight. If someone refuses to open the door to their house by COMMAND OF THE POLICE, the police can bust the door down without a warrant? Heck they don't even have to come to the door and speak to you if they don't want to! pigbrain, is it really your contention that if someone is inside their home refusing to answer the door that they are "hiding" from the police?

Citizenmom, you get it.
What star_scream1 was saying about not listening to the Lt and going by the book made me laugh a little, but to clarify, going by the book involves listening to the advice and orders of superiors, same as any job. I work in a large city and have experience and still rely on them for advice, the job is always evolving and we draw from our collective experience.
One more thing: the party bust call, in all honesty, would more than likely have been handled without writing a single citation since some of the kids were not drinking and had plans to stay overnight anyway. The police could have made contact, seen noone was in any danger, lectured them about making sure nobody left, that officers would be patrolling the area all night to ensure they don't leave, and been on their way. Have you heard the expression that some people write their own ticket? Officers have discretion in cases such as this, but once commands aren't followed or entry is denied it becomes a new game.

I still say in a case like this the cops should've waited to bust the one's who came out and attempted to drive (since they can bust you as soon as you put your keys into the ignition). As far as parents being concerned, well I can almost bet that some of these 17 and 18 year olds probably don't even live at home anymore (I didn't at that age) and if it were my kid I would rather them get a DUI rather than just a underage drinking ticket. A DUI might just scare them straight rather than just having to pay a fine.

in_it12
I am entitled to my opinion, as you are yours, and your right to disagree.

Why do people keep saying the Linn police are sneaky and so forth? Tell us some cases that they were proven to be.
I don't see any reason to bash the police over a story written, where all the facts aren't given. If it turns out the police were wrong, then they owe people something, but I hope it's not money. People are too sue happy these days, about everything.
But I do not think anyone commenting here has all the facts.
dub52, you can't be certain no one was going to drive away drunk. And my speculating that they could have gotten in theirs cars and drove, is not far fetched.
And I don't think my opinions make me a close-minded or inconsiderate person.

Hey "pigbrain" it might be your job to seeze and search, but isn't that kind of hard when you dont even have a search warrent. You must of just forgot about that didn't you. Well either way the way it sounds like is that the LPD, will get into a hole with the angry parents of the kids. This is an easy case, I personally think that the police gota stop asking there Lt. what to do and just go by the book. This is what gives people the idea to think cops are bad people. Not following the rules abusing there athority.

"Fleeing and hiding...." not fleeing or hiding. Kind of hard to flee when your inside a locked house.

94-1045. (1996)
Fleeing and hiding from an officer may constitute obstructing.

946.41(2)(a)
(a) "Obstructs" includes without limitation knowingly giving false information to the officer or knowingly placing physical evidence with intent to mislead the officer in the performance of his or her duty including the service of any summons or civil process.
Refusing entry into a house is not obstructing!

The taxpayer pays our salaries, too. Your points are valid if this were a contraband search and officers not dispatched there and refused entry, that combined with the sleeping saint and his buds ignoring commands to open the door gave authorities PC to act as caregiver. Once in, the drinks and kids were in plain view, and all involved were obstructing. Flimsy case, and I wouldn't want my name on the report, but I still see both sides. One word of caution, don't believe everything written in newspapers or told to you by the hired attorney.

Wow pigbrain! How do you sleep at night? Worst case scenario is the police getting sued for illegal search and seizure. Who pays for that? The taxpayer!

I think its incredible how much the story was changed from that night. The police didn't knock on the window and it "just happened" to open. They busted the window, the window shattered on the ground. There were no people that were "passed out" or even seemed to be pased out. Each one of the kids there made sure they got up and walked away so the cops knew that they were okay. It was certain that they were making up excuses to enter the house because they were upset that no one was ansering the door. Therefore the cops didn't actually have a reasonable cause for entering the house. People also fail to realize that with the new code at the highschool of guilty by association, there is no way even a sober kid is going to risk getting into trouble for something they didn't do. No one was planning on getting waisted and driving home so stop using that as an excuse for saying the cops did the right thing. Obviously if there were sober kids there, there would have been sober drivers. Think about it, there were kids that blew .00. When the cops entered the house and they were asked who was going to pay the broken window and the broken door, they responded by saying it wasn't their problem and they wen't going to pay for it. For making up an excuse to enter the house in the first place, and giving out thousands of dollars worth of tickets... I think they may have been able to pitch in a little bit at least. However, for all of those closed minded, inconsiderate people who believe that every entention of the kids who were in there was to get drunk and drive away, which was most certainly not the case as I have stated before, just stop with the "what ifs". There is no what ifs, there are facts. SO, for all of you, you might as well just say, "If kids are doing something illegal, it gives cops the right to break the law as well." It's pathetic and wrong.

Yep. Worse case scenario here is a dismissed case. The refusal of an order and possible failure to intervene and render aid to a citizen is a bit harder to accept responsibility for.

pigbrain, If your Lt. gives you an unlawful order you have to follow it? I'd refuse the order myself because when the lawsuit comes down my name wouldn't be on it!

Over the hundreds of search warrants, I have never seen one telephonically. They just dont do them in Walworth County. Judges and DA's want to proof read them first. Cops had every right to enter home once they were denied entry IF (big if) a reasonable police officer believed someone was in danger. If it was an excuse just to write a few tickets then we will all find out soon enough. Once in the house and a protective sweep was made and this "danger" was determined or not determined then time should have froze at that point. Gather children together in a common area. Then get a search warrant or permission to search from someone who has LEGAL authority over the premises if the cops wanted to continue searching for contraband. Waiting for a drunk kid to get in the car first and drive away.......are you kidding me? All these ambulance chasing attorneys who couldn't make it in the real world are doing is enabling and educating kids to think that its ok to slam the door in the face of the law and try to wait it out. I think cops would much rather be "bored" than babysitting self righteous teenagers. Especially in light of the recent happenings around Lake Geneva with a drunk and high teenager killing a man in a car. I bet her parents, the victims family, and maybe even the defendant herself would have given anything now if only one of these "BORED, OVER ZEALOUS, LAZY" cops would have been given the opportunity to intervene???? Think about it. Or just keep living by your own words..... “Nothing lasts forever, so live it up, drink it down, laugh it off, avoid the (expletive), take chances and never have regrets because at one point, everything you did was exactly what you wanted.”

Star_scream1, the looking in the closets thing, from what I remember from Cop School is called a protective sweep. It's legal and required of us, from what my cop teachin' tells me. The underage drinking, to me, wouldn't be as pressing as the kids prohibiting me from conducting my investigation. I'd have been inclined to issue the ones who refused my requests with abstructing, for interfering with a police investigation by lying to police and citing the ones with any level of intox with the underage ticket. Also, per dept. policy, the Lt is the one who Commanded the patrol officers to make entry, at that time it was not up to the officers on scene.

The reason why they didn't get a search warrant is already stated in the article by the attorney who is a former police officer: “It’s another situation where police are too lazy to go and get a warrant, so they come up with some pretextual situation,”. This and the fact that probably no Judge in the State of Wisconsin would issue a search warrant for an underage drinking party! It's to bad it takes a law suit for the police to do the right thing! Why do you think the police have to give Miranda Warnings? Because some overzealous police officers took it too far during the questioning of a suspect. A law suit ensued and guess what? Now they are required to give Miranda. Obviously the use of the community caregiver excuse/exemption is being abused in this case and the recent case in Rock County. Did an ambulance come the the scene in either case? Was anyone transported to the hospital for alcohol poisoning?

citizenmom just shut it and find out the facts before you speak again

Myself, and my attonreys, would have a field day with this. Please, a boy passed out on a BED, could they be any more desperate. It would be a cold day in hell if the Janesville Police Department pulled that with me and got away with it! Actions of audacity such as that on behalf of the police should not be taken lightly, as the artical says, if they do it once, they will do it again! I encourage the community to speak out against this, I encourage people who are in situations like this to get attorneys, get good ones, and fight fight fight, take non of their "protect and serve" BULL!
Thanks :)

Seems to me the lawyer for one of the kids said the police broke down the door and started issuing citations. Could that really be true? Wouldn't their first order of business be to round up all the kids, so no one snuck out and ran? What were the citations for? Wouldn't they have been issued a breathalyzer first? I doubt they had pad and pen in hand when they went in.
And unless anyone can name a specific occassion of Linn police doing something out of boredom or just to meddle, how can you say that? Just because they are small town? They have quite a large area to be responsible for, which includes the other side of the lake.
Why does everyone seem to think the police are some sort of conspirators?
People should be more concerned to keep kids from drinking in the first place. When they do, in a house or not, they should be fined when caught.
Underage kids were involved here...immature, underage kids, and there was, never is, a guarantee they will not get in a car and drive. Even at someones house, something could easily have happened, alcohol poisoning, getting violent, passing out and so on. If the kid who looked to be passed out wasn't, why didn't he answer the police?

I am pretty sure that everyone can agree that cops were wrong in this situation. The cops should have no right to breakdown a door, threaten to tazer kids and go searching through out the house multiple times. Staying in the living room or kitchen is one thing, but when cops go seachering in closets without warrents, that is bs. So i would hope that the towm of linn police go back to cop school and learn some rules.

there were no 15 year old kids there but 17 and 18 year old kids could put down around 20 beers in 2 hours probley more though

I'm familiar with telophonic search warrants. Having not been there, I can only speculate as to why the officers didn't make an attempt to obtain one, could be the inability to record the conversation. Land line phones, to my knowledge, have no built in record button, nor does every cell. This could be why. Even in small towns the LT knows all these laws, so there is a reason it wasn't used. Keep in mind you're playing Monday morning QB and have the facts delivered to you by a 3rd party. This is why we have a court date listed on the citation. This one is too fine line and is sloppy, but that's part of the game.

Straight from the Criminal Law Handbook that every police officer in the State of Wisconsin is given. Pay special attention to the very last sentence!

Telephone search warrant
Wisconsin provides for the issuance of a search warrant based upon oral testimony.
The normal procedure would be for the officer requesting the warrant to call the judge, identify
himself/herself as a police officer and indicate that he/she was requesting an oral or telephone
search warrant. He/she must then supply the judge with sufficient information so the judge may
determine that: (1) the procedure to obtain a written search warrant cannot be done promptly; and
(2) prompt execution of the search warrant is necessary.
If the court finds these two requirements to have been met, the officer should then advise the court
of the information he/she would normally put in an affidavit; namely, the probable cause for
his/her warrant. If the court finds the probable cause to be adequate, the officer may then proceed
to completing the actual warrant. It is necessary that he/she have a duplicate original of the
warrant in writing and that he/she read that duplicate original verbatim to the judge. The judge
25
may modify the warrant if he/she feels it appropriate or may indicate it is satisfactory in its original
form. The judge would then direct the officer to sign the judge's name to the bottom of the warrant
and also sign his/her own name. The officer may then execute the warrant by using that duplicate
original for the purpose of execution. The judge, in the meantime, shall have completed the
original warrant, signed it and filed it with the court file.
It is necessary that the telephone conversation, subsequent to the officer informing the judge that
the purpose of the call is to request a warrant, be recorded by means of a voice recording device.
This recording can be at either end of the conversation (at the judge's residence or telephone, or at
the phone from which the officer is making his/her call, whether it is in his/her department or
someplace else). If no such voice recording device is available, this procedure may not be used.
The fact of this statute being in existence makes justification of a warrantless search of someone's
home or other property more difficult to justify. The necessary requirements for warrantless search
are that there be probable cause and, in most situations, exigent circumstances.
In many situations, the showing of exigent circumstances may be difficult, unless an attempt is
made to obtain a telephonic warrant. If a warrantless search is made, be prepared to answer
questions as to why a telephonic warrant was not requested.

The whole search warrant thing is still extraneous. IF THEY CARED ABOUT THE "SUFFOCATING" TEEN, THEY WOULD HAVE CALLED AN AMBULANCE, OR WENT TO HIS AID RIGHT AWAY, NOT ISSUING TICKETS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DOOR WAS KICKED IN.

Diddo Pigbrain!

They all think cops just can order up a search warrant like a #3 at the drive thru of Mc D's! From start to finish (after hours) a search warrant is going to take anywhere from 1 to 2 hours to get. Usually closer to 2...how many beers can a 15 year old drink in 2 hours???? Get it typed up, get it authorized by the district attorney and then wake up one of only 4 judges in the county. "Just go get a warrant"..... That's why the Supreme Court authored Exigent Circumstances.

Citizenmom- "You're talking about small town police officers, I don't think they are out to get anyone or cause problems for people."

Case and point. Small town police officers have nothing to do but meddle. A search warrant should have been requested.

I know it seems like our jobs are so simple on tv, but in the field decisions are made in a matter of seconds with no script and most everyone we meet lying to us. Had the police shown up on their own and barged in, your points would be valid, but they were dispatched there, upon arrival had obligation as well as PC upon witnessing teens drinking to establish contact, were denied contact and observed unresponsive teen, which mandated them to act as community caretaker, which requires no warrant if totality of circumstances are such as to put protecting the welfare of a person above providing warrant. A felony or contraband warrant is a different story, as warrants are required and applied for in advance based on investigation establishing PC. This case was not the result of a planned police investigation. Upon entry, teens were observed in Plain View with alcohol so tickets were issued. Fine line? Yes. Correct police action based on TOC? Yes. Will it be thrown out? Probably. But the kids had no chance to drive home that night, so good police work.

When I was in highschool there were quite a few drinking parties thrown at houses and at every one I had went to no one was in danger. There were people SLEEPING on couches, on chairs and on floors because no one was going to be driving. It was usually planned that everyone would just stay over. I don't think it's right for teens to be drinking but the officers should have gotten a warrant if they felt that it was necessary to enter the house. In my opinion, they should have sat outside the home and busted the one's that attempted to drive while intoxicated. I don't want to hear anyone say that the police would be wasting their precious time if they had to sit and watch for people to drive. They sit outside of bars and wait to bust people all the time so this wouldn't be any different.

Taxpayertoo.....this has everything to do with the fourth ammendment. Yes the kids were wrong, but one of those kids must have lived at that house to have let all the others in correct? Therefore, whether he/she is a minor or not, the mere fact that it was his/her legal residence he/she is protected by the fourth ammendment from illegal SEARCH and seizure. The rest of the kids were "guests" there and are just collaterals. Did police call for an ambulance? Did officers go directly to the passed out individual or did(as I suspect) they start rounding up drunk teens before attending to him? This whole situation reeks of a bad decision on the part of the police. And if they get away with it this time it will set a precedent for the future.

I think there is one HUGE thing everyone is overlooking here. In case you wern't informed, Linn isn't exacly the most exciting town on any particular night. So, as you can imagine, cops get pretty bored. I used to go to live around there, and I know that cops there will do anything and squeeze through the law in any way that they can to bust teenagers, innocent or not. I guarentee that cops could have cared less about the "passed out boy" who just so happend to get up and walk away, but they were looking for any way to get in that house. It doesn't help that the county is already on their side, and automatically teens are the underdog. What about these kids' futures? I dont think its right to issue 11 tickets, an possibly ruin futures just to meet their quotas.

officerfriendly1...perhaps they felt there wasn't time to get a warrant if they felt someone could be in trouble. You're talking about small town police officers, I don't think they are out to get anyone or cause problems for people. The kids should have opened the door when the police knocked. Actually, the kids shouldn't have been drinking, let's not forget that.
I never said anything about not being concerned for my civil liberties, but I will say it's not a huge concern when children could be in trouble.
And let's see, the kids got caught, so they 'say' they were going to have someone sober drive them home, or they were going to stay there...hmmm. Then why were they parked in a field? If anyone was sober there, why didn't they answer the door?
Kids don't think clearly when drinking, they could have easily decided they wanted Taco Bell or something, or to go pick up another friend, or get more alcohol. There was nothing responsible about any of it.

pigbrain, How long does it take to call a Judge and get a search warrant? Everybody has cell phones these days.

According to the article, police "kicked in the door, and started issuing citations." If the police truly had a concern for the "un-responsive male" they would have gone right to him, and possible even waved the underage tickets...this is a situation that involves a call for an ambulance right away, not to break down the door with intent of saving "a suffocating minor" and issuing underage consumption tickets right away. If in fact in_it12 is correct with the 0.0 blood alcohol level, he could have easily been asleep.

I am an 18 year old in highschool, and by no means do I agree with underage consumption; however, I would like to inform you all that every one of your kids will be exposed to alcohol in highschool just as you were, and most likely will choose to partake. Everybody is just as dangereous behind the wheel as a teen is. I agree with the towing of the cars, but not with the breaking and entering.

dub190, The pilgrims left England because they were opposed to the Church of England and their church was illegal there. But what does that have to do with this story?

My children know if the police knock at the door, you answer it. You don't hide in the basement and pretend that they will just go away. According to the story, someone told them there was drinking going on. And where is the proof that the teenager, sleeping through the party, 'blew' a .00?

I don't work there, but if I were dispatched to a call like this, due to the totality of circumstances, acting as community caregiver, being obligated by state statute and my superiors, I would make entry into the home. I'd be ensuring the safety of citizens, so the warrant is not for contraband, only a welfare check, which officers cannot predict needing a warrant for, so it's really needed only to protect the dept. from civil action. The officers did what was necessary to ensure public safety and protect themselves from the flood of lawsuits that would follow if they hadn't made entry to the home and a kid was in need of medical attention. We can't please everybody, and the ones who complain the most about how we do our jobs couldn't handle most of the things we do, much less do it better and without being sued by everybody.

The opinion is from the kids defense attorney. That, and a buck, will get you a cup of coffee. I'll be more impressed when a court actually rules the same way.

dub190 that is not the amendment I was asking about. I want to see the amendment granting children the right to drink and get drunk in and on the property of ANOTHER and hide from the cops. 4th Amendment has nothing to do with this. 4th Amendment gives rights to people who are in and on a property where they are due that expectation of privacy. Let them dismiss all the tickets. The kids didnt get away with it and they didn't kill anyone that night. But theres still time......maybe you will think about that when someone's body close to you is being extricated from a wreck. If kids are ever having a party at my house and the cops come. They better answer the door and deal with it before I come home to deal with it. Not to mention the civil liability the homeowner will have if these kids kill someone.

in it12,
The police may be guilty of everything you accuse them of but....

It's not possible to break the law "responsibly." Get that silly notion out of your head. Breaking the law is irresponsible by it's very definition. Responsible behavior is that which abides by laws.

adding to that the kid who was "unconcious" was one of the kids who blew .00

at least the kids were being responcible about doing what they wanted to do, they could have been driving around in a car and drinking but they decided they would do it in a confined area which was safe for them,every kid there was either staying or leaving with a person who wasnt drinking that night. And about the "unconcious kid laying on the bed" when the cop put his head through the window he got up off the bed and walked upstairs, they just made up these lies so they could use the caretaker law insted of getting a warrent, also when the police busted throught the front door the cops came walking through each room in the house with tasers pointed at everyone ready to shoot if you were not following exactly what they said.

citizenmom wrote-"As a parent, and citizen, I would only hope the police can do something in that situation." They can. They can get a search warrant! I have no problem with underage kids getting arrested for underage drinking. All I'm saying is the police need to get a warrant before going into someones house without permission. What happens when you have company over for the holidays and there are several cars in your driveway. One of your neighbors who has a grudge calls the police and says your having an underage party. It's 1 a.m. and everyone is sound asleep so no one answers the door and maybe the phones are turned off so not to wake anyone. Do you want the police kicking in your door to make sure there is no one "passed out and possibly suffocating" in your house? Sorry folks. I don't want to live in Russia or China or any other communist country.

Anyone who believes that their civil liberties are not in jeopardy needs to wake up????

Show me which amendment gives 15 and 16 year old kids the right to get drunk and have parties in someones home while hiding from the cops?

Kids are no different then they were when you were growing up?? What rock have you been hiding under?

Baymom, you should be ashamed of your comment. What if that person had died? What if it was someone you knew? Your son? A nephew? Maybe he was there of his own free will, but when they start drinking, they no longer have a sober view of any situation, and who there was going to judge whether or not he had too much and was in danger? Teens make irresponsible and dangerous choices, and if an officer steps in, more power to them.

First of all, police were dispached, meaning they got a call...someone was concerned. If my son or daughter had been there, I would have seen 'the big picture' on this, and been grateful they only ended up with a ticket that night.
officerfriendly1...read your comment. Police aren't going to start 'seeing passed out...' at every house with more than five cars in the drive. No one responded when the officers knocked on windows and doors. If a parent went to find their kid there, knocked and no one answered...wouldn't they be concerned? I know I would. And I am smart enough to know I could be arrested for entering the home w/o permission, as I am, afterall, only a concerned parent. As a parent, and citizen, I would only hope the police can do something in that situation.
People wake up!!! We are talking about minors. There are more important concerns here than whether or not you agree with what the police did. One of those kids could have been killed driving home later, or killed someone. Someone in that house COULD have passed out and suffocated.
The fact is, police were called, saw a situation they could not ignore, and handled it.
Maybe if more people did make calls to the police when they know something is going on, maybe there would be less tragedy on the roads involving drunk teens.

danceswithbees I will consider your comment. ok i'm done. I wasn't writing an SA i was making my opinion known that seems to be the reason this is here.your comment was read and forgotten. if my grammer and spelling isn't to your stanards i'm sorry but you don't need to be a bee to an inperfect stranger do you. oh and i type with one finger i'm sorry about that too.

Anyone who believes that their civil liberties are not in jeopardy needs to wake up. It started with "the politically correct" movement and has blossomed into highway checkpoints and home invasions like the two recent events here locally. Get ready people.....next you will have to show the police your "papers" to cross state lines.

jonztwo- You should go back to school. How can ANYONE take your comments seriously with such ROTTEN spelling and grammar?! I sure don't!
Better check into- their, there, they're and they are! technocality?? investacate?? Do you own a dictionary? Do you know your computer has a "spell check" function??! These officers are doing THEIR jobs, PERIOD. Don't make it any more difficult than it already is for them!

tthat was my point in earlier posts on these parties since when does vehicles parked at a house or a field near a house warrant a police investigation,did the see illegal activity before they stopped , no just cars last i knew it wasnt illegal to have car s at a house

Even if all of the charges are dropped, I think that the officers have done a service to the community by not allowing these underage kids to drive away from this party, possibly impaired. This action could have prevented a serious accident that could have injured or killed innocent people. You do not have to look very far in the past to see an unfortunate incident with an underage person that had consumed alcohol and caused a fatality in the Town of Geneva.
I commend the Town of Linn Police Department and Chief Wisniewski for their commitment to protect our citizens.

One last thing before i go off to work I hope if these kids do get off on a technocality they atleast get to see the accident photos of the kids that wern't lucky enough to get busted.

I'm not saying the police handled this by the book but there first concern seemed to be protecting the kids and public by disarming the kids{having there cars towed}they had a reason to investacate from the kid next door. the kids will probly get out of this because of no warrant only to do it again then we'll find out there names from the obituaries like so many others over the past few years. maybe thats why the police are on these kids to keep there names out of the papers. I don't think calling the parents is wise because thats inviting a domestic dispute police are called into homes to stop them not start them.let cooler heads handle this{police}.I'm all for rights but how tight do we tie the police hands and expect them to keep us safe.I'ts not like there going to random houses kicking in doors.

Lets say hypothetically that the police did the right thing and called the registered owners of the vehicles at the possible underage party so the vehicles could be removed. One of the registered owners shows up and is upset because his son "Johnny" might be inside the house refusing to come out or he might be inside passed out. The father then busts the door down to go in and get "Johnny". Guess what, dad is arrested for Criminal Trespass and probably Child Abuse after he finds "Johnny"! How come it's OK for the police to go in without a warrant? That's all I'm saying. Get a warrant! The police know darn well that a judge is not going to issue a search warrant for an underage party so they use the "caretaker" exemption.

I for one a'm happy for the police looking after our young people. my son was at a drinking party {he told me he was sleeping at a freinds house}yes i talked to the parent but kids find away and no it wasent at that persons house. so i feel i did what i could as a parent. but anyway what i saw the next morning broke my heart my son on a hospital bed with his collar bone about to break the skin and his skull through the cuts in his for head. i was lucky he survived and no one else was hurt. he drove a moped after the party to get back to the house he was supposed to be at.no matter how you look at it these kids are doing something illegal and dangerous to them and others.people have got away with murder because they wern't read there rights. so the police doing what they did those nights may have saved lives maybe your sons or daughters.criminals use rights to get away with crimes way not the police to prevent them.

So the police are allowed to trespass on private land and peer through windows, then invade if someone "might be in trouble"? There's a problem with this. Most of us sleep every night. Will the fact that we are "unconscious and might be in trouble" be able to be used for future home invasions by police? They could always say they suspected someone might have been drinking, or taking drugs, or have have had a heart attack, or ???

What these kids were doing was clearly wrong, but trying to wipe out the fourth amendment -- our basic civil rights -- to solve it is even worse. There are reasons that warrants are required, and a warrant should have been requested. If the person had actually been unconscious, and even if the person had died, it's not the responsibility of the police; the person was presumably there of his or her own free will and those around would be responsible for summoning help, if necessary, not the police.

When the cure is worse than the disease, a different cure is called for.

And all you tree hugging libs would be screaming for the cops heads on sticks if the kid had been dead and the cops did nothing. What expectation of privacy do children have in a home that isnt theirs? No wonder kids are so messed up these days!

So what happened to the kid that was "passed out and possibly suffocating"? Maybe instead of calling his Chief the officer should have called a Judge and got a search warrant. Another classic example of the police over stepping their bounds. People wake up! If you allow this to happen there will be "passed out and possibly suffocating" people at every house with more than five cars in the drive and a possible underage party going on. At least in this case there is a lawyer involved!

Hey, this is classic Whitewater PD behavior!