I understand your point officerfriendly and to significant extent I agree but tell it to the parents of the two dead children and those of the three young adults headed to prison. Then tell it hundreds of times over. Children are killing themselves and others.

However I hadn't meant to suggest I support warrantless searches.

Thekai, the reason more than one JPD officer was on scene is for officer safety, it's a tactical move, regardless of your level of cooperation with the primary. Officers are always aware of the location and nature of their fellow officers' calls and naturally gravitate to their location just in case. Believe it or not, some folks hate cops and try to fight and run from them. And yes, some days are a bit slow, say in the winter, but that's everywhere. Summer is a whole other story, not many people could keep up with them.

In a seperate Waunakee incident two high school seniors are dead after attending an underaged drinking party and shortly afterward wrapping their car around a tree.

Unfortuantely the police were unaware of the party so there was no intevention. Perhaps if there had been two 18-year-olds would be alive today, two families wouldn't be grieving and two of their friends wouldn't be on the fast track to prison.

thekai:
Not to get off the subject or anything but I'm kind of curious how you get arrested over the phone. I'd love to hear that story.

fldpan. man, you need to go back on your meds. Those black helicoptors you keep seeing will disappear.

sluggo I don't think you have your facts right... nor do I believe that you've ever been a teenager...

People your dreaming. All they needed was a mix of things. 1. a idiot calls 911 as a "joke"
2.calls to the police about the party 3.to see the beer cans 4.to hear the kids 5.to see a person passed out(weather drunk or not). Mix this all together and you have a "please knock down our door and pepper spray us because we are to stupid to control our own ILLEGAL party. You kids thought you were mature enough to drink beer now be mature enough to accept the fact that they did there job and you have to pay for it.

I'm glad that police are cracking down on underage drinking but the rest of this does sound a little extreme. First I have to say that I would never give alcohol to anyone underage nor would I be at a party with people underage (probably because I am 30) but I would be EXTREMELY PISSED OFF if I had police peeping in my windows!
I highly doubt there were firearms "strewn" about the home (unless this was a home of someone who was just out hunting with a bunch of buddies). Even if there were firearms laying around, the last I checked it wasn't illegal to have guns as long as they are registered and "even though they should be locked up" you can place your guns anywhere you choose to in your own home. Another thing I find amusing is the part about Cody Hinkle. Yes, making a false call to 911 is a very serious thing but why do the police care if he threw ketchup on the walls, lit bottle rockets and emptied a fire extinguisher inside the house? If anyone should be concerned with that it should be the owner of the house. If the home owner doesn't care neither should the cops. I don't care what shape the house was in or what else they saw while they were "peeping" in the windows, unless they witnessed someone being murdered, they shouldn't have forced their way in (try knocking first). I was at a party that got busted when I was about 15 (luckily I didn't drink at that age) and the cops didn't force their way in. They banged on the door (in that annoying way that cops do) while everyone who had been drinking ran around in a panic trying to figure out how to get out of the house without being caught (you'd have to be drunk to think you can slip out of a house without the cops noticing you). Come on, peeping in windows and forcing your way into someone's home, did they really have to go that far?

So I'm reading through this article and wow...once again the gazette has published something so far from the truth its borderline slander. You mean to tell me that one kid destroyed the whole house while everyone else looked on? Give me a freaking break. Anyone who has ever been to a house party knows better.

Interesting case, but that sounds nothing like this situation. In that case, there was no clear danger to the kid involved, other than the fact that he *may* have been drunk driving. I do not disagree one bit that the officer in the case you cited overstepped his bounderies. Following one guy home and busting into his house is a bit different than going into a house with underage drinkers who are shooting off fireworks, damaging property, and supposedly had firearms. I know that if this were my home that was being destroyed or if it were my kid who was at the party drinking before they were 21, I'd absolutely want the cops to break up the party.

pudsweetie.
I absolutely do know my constitution. Maybe instead of trying to insult others and using google as your only source of information you may want to dig a wee bit deeper. Here is the result of a case of an illegal search under similar circumstances as the one in Edgerton.
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/searchse...
Here is a quote from the article:
"The constitutional requirement that police obtain a warrant from a neutral magistrate before entering a person's house is an extremely important bulwark against police overzealousness," said Steven Brown, Executive Director of the ACLU of Rhode Island. "The fear experienced by the Theberges family that night is precisely what the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent."

I've been arrested by Janesville police four times. The first time I was 13, and it was 2 AM. In that instance, two patrol cars showed up. I'm not sure why. The second time I think I was 15, and I was with my friend who was 18. Two cops showed up that time as well... we weren't being violent. One cop was very nice to us, because we were cooperating with them on everything. The other cop was being a prick. (It wasn't the good cop bad cop thing either, because we were being completely honest from the start.) The third time that I got arrested the cop seemed to be by the books, not very kind, not very mean, either. The fourth time I was actually arrested by a detective, and it was over the phone. (I love telling that story.) I'd say that from all of my personal experiences with the police in Janesville, they're not that bad. I think when something comes on the radio, they are so bored that more than one shows up just to see what's going on. It is true that some cops seem to be on a power trip though, and they can be a little too mean sometimes. In every arrest I was calm and honest, there was never a reason for any cop to be mean or rude to me.

Those are pretty bold and blanketed statements from people who obviously aren't cops. A few bad seeds seem to make everybody think all of one particular group is terrible, in this case it's cops.

TOOSHOES,you are right, i have had run ins with the police but my family and my girlfriend have not. the police around here are not too busy to be hassing people,why do you think that you can see the cops in janesville parked side by side for hours literally hours talking to each other?today,for instance me and my kids pulled into the gas station and the guy next to me had been in the store before i got there but two cops whipped into the parking lot when i was coming out of the store to ask the guy about his license, what do they need two of them for? the guy was not a threat.anyways back to my point, i was being watched by the police a few years ago,however the mother of my kids who i was not living with was not,and would be followed numerous times and pulled over numerous times for bs reasons until finally she went down to the station and filed a complaint because she was a hard working MOTHER who was being harrassed by the police for my mistakes.so until youve been on the otherside of the law dont tell anyone what you know for a fact!!!

Pudssweetie:

You gave a wonderful accounting of probable cause. However probable cause alone doesn't authorize an officer to enter a home. He/she must take that PC to a judge and have a warrant issued to enter. Unless exigent circumstances exist, see my last post.

JCK

Officers seeing or believing that a crime is being committed inside a residence is not enough, in and of itself, to allow them to force entry without a warrant. Exigent Circumstances must exist to make a warrantless entry.

Exigent Circumstances:

A search is reasonable, and a search warrant is not required, if all of the circumstances known to the officer at the time, would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry or search was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officer or other persons/the destruction or concealment of evidence/the escape of a suspect, and if there was insufficient time to get a search warrant.

Exigent circumstances operates in the realm of "what's happening now" not what might happen, could happen, usually happens etc. Police must have a reasonable belief that the above circumstances are present, based on an articulate set of facts, rather than gut feelings or past experiences.

IE police can't say we know juvenile parties can be dangerous to some under age drinkers. So we will enter without a warrant. Not enough to rise to exigent circumstances.

Police look through a front window and observe a young person appearing to have a seizure on the floor, bleeding or other obvious need for medical care, entry would be lawful.

Exigent circumstances is a tricky exception to the constitutional protection of a warrant. Even the courts have a hard time sorting it all out at times.

thekai-
I don't think we have to assume that the people involved in this incident were being irresponsible. Is spraying ketchup on the walls of the house responsible? Is lighting off fireworks inside the house responsible? Is driving through other people's yard (while intoxicated) responsible? Is a 21 year old who gives a 16 year old booze responsible? Not only are all these things stupid and irresponsible, they are also illegal (ok, spraying ketchup on the wall isn't illegal).

Badgerbacker,
I agree with you that most people under the age of 25 are not responsible drinkers. I will not, however, just automatically assume that a teen is an irresponsible drinker. I will let them prove to me how responsible they are. I do strongly believe in innocent until proven guilty.
________________________________________________
If you notice from my earlier posts, I believe that if these teens were being irresponsible, they definitely deserve to be burned (figuratively speaking, of course.) But, if they were doing all the right things (besides drinking under age,) then they should be left alone.

thekai:
I'm glad you were a responsible underage drinker. I too drank underage and was responsible. But honestly how many teenages do you really think are that responsible? There aren't many in my opinion. There are very few people under the age of 25 that are responsible when it comes to drinking.

The officers may have witnessed a crime before entering the home however it was not underage drinking. Underage drinking is a forfeiture and not a "crime."

Interestingly a similar incident happened recently in Dane County and the Dane County Sheriff Department's spokesperson, Lt. Jan Tetzlaff is quote stating, "An underage drinking party itself would not give the officers authority to enter."

However, in both instances, officers reported seeing other activity which they believed to be criminal and use that justification for entering.

SXGDSS, you obviously do not know your constitution very well because if you did you would know that in the Fourth Amendment it states about Police having to have Probable Cause in order to go into a home and do a search. It states that if police believe there is any kind of illegal activity going on in ones home and the Police know for a fact that it is going on they then have probable cause to go into that home and break up any illegal activity that is going on. Here is the actual Amendment.
Probable cause to search

When police do conduct a search, the amendment requires them to have probable cause to believe that the search will uncover criminal activity or contraband. In other words, they must have legally sufficient reasons to believe a search is necessary. The Supreme Court has stated that probable cause to search is a flexible, common-sense standard. It merely requires that the facts available to the officer would 'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief,'[11] that specific items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A 'practical, nontechnical' probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required.[12]
Underage drinking is a crime therefore the police were within their rights, broke no laws and went according to the constitution. Don't believe me then Google Probable Cause.

Breaking the law is not responsible behavior. The children and the police both broke the law. The biggest crime here however is the violation of the constitution. Every dicatorship began by the citizen slowly and without protest giving up their civil rights. Private property is just that private and the police do not have the right to violate this provision of the constitution.

Badgerbacker, when I was 16 myself AND my friends all drank responsibly. We would never drink and drive, and we rarely got so drunk that anyone puked. If we wanted to go somewhere, we walked. At the end of the night, we always cleaned up any mess that we made and you couldn't even tell that we had been drinking. We didn't get violent and we definitely didn't do anything at all to attract extra attention.
________________________________________________
I know several adults who do not drink responsibly. I could even say I know several adults who aren't very responsible period. If you don't believe me, then look at the parking lot at a bar. Very few people actually use a designated driver, and with the legal limit to drive being as low as it is, hardly anyone ever leaves under that limit. Surely you can not suggest to me that all people at that bar are under 21.
________________________________________________
Responsibility usually comes with age and experience. How responsible do you really have to be to know not to drink and drive, though? It should be something that you just know is wrong. The fact is, if you've been drinking and you get behind the wheel, you could end up killing someone. You wouldn't hold a gun to someone's head and pull the trigger, so why would you drink and drive? I believe 16 year olds possess the responsibility not to drink and drive already, it's just that many see it happen all the time and don't think about the very real consequences.

How many 16 year olds are responsible period? Add drinking into the mix and it's just an accident waiting to happen.

I think the deputies in this case lied. Basically, there was no reason for them to do what they did. They're just covering their butts. If you remember this party in Brookfield, the son of an atty, the kids locked the doors and refused to let the police in, even they couldn't get a warrant to break in the home. In this case, obviously the Deputies made up urgent need "story" to break in when really, there was none. There has to be some other reason, maybe reputation of that house or known person's vehicle(s) in the driveway or street or some snitch who was out for revenge?

wooduckhunter-
did they mace the first floor or the second floor? Because it seems you are getting confused on that fact.

My point was that usually in these cases, the police make their presence known and the people who are (illegally) drinking in the house lock themselves inside. From the story above, it was at this point that the 911 call was made in an attempt to divert the police to another location. The fact remains that there were several illegal activities going on inside this house, and the officers made the right call. And for anyone who thinks that underage drinking at someone's house is an innocent activity, look no further than the 16 year old girl who was drinking with friends and decided to get behind the wheel and ended up killing someone. This is why the police break up parties like this.

Badgerbacker, please remember that just because someone is 21+ doesn't mean they act responsible all the time. Likewise, just because someone is UNDER 21 does not mean that they are unable to act responsibly. I honestly see no problem with drinking at the age of 16 as long as you are smart about it.

andypt7 -
What do you mean by ambushed? Maybe you are thinking of a wrong word perhaps?

As in breaking a door, window and multiple screens? Macing the first floor? (remember according to the police there was someone passed out on the couch! Maybe they thought pepper spray would wake the non-existant person up?) I mean come on, they said that they were concerned about the saftey of the people inside the home!

The next time that you are sleeping on your couch and have a few beer cans on the kitchen table, i guess its ok if they mace your home because they "care" about you!

How'd they know the police ambushed the house? Seriously, think about that. When was the last time you were at a party and actually knew anything was happening outside of your 3 foot personal bubble?
I know "everybody's doing it" but underage drinking has become out of control. People use the excuse that it wasn't out of control it was a small party and everybody was going to stay there. It doesn't matter. What if somebody had gotten alcohol poisoning? What if somebody took the bow off the wall and accidently shot somebody with a projectile? I know neither thing happened, but thats why underagers shouldn't drink. They do what they think is funny and fun at the time, and then later regret some of those things. Drunk isn't an excuse. It doesn't fly in court when something happens. Kids only think getting drunk every weekend is a good time until something bad happens.

Tooshoes.... that topic actually isn't so black and white. I agree with you that sometimes it's ok to be flexible with your rights if it means more protection for you and those around you. However, it is still a big hassle, and maybe you have nothing illegal to hide, rather something embarrassing that you don't want others seeing. They are called civil rights because every civilian deserves them. If you infringe on those rights too much, then it becomes something more than just being flexible.
________________________________________________
Honestly, I believe that IF there were no firearms present, and none of the kids were acting stupid while drunk (which is rare, but believe it or not, responsible drinking DOES happen sometimes), then the police had no reason at all to enter the premises. No, the fake 911 call doesn't give them any right to enter, either. It was obvious that even though it was a prank, there was absolutely no one in that house who could have been in danger (using the evidence of the call).
________________________________________________
If the kids really were being stupid, then they deserve every thing that they will get, assuming they're guilty. So they might have to go without driving for a while, get kicked off of their teams, and deal with public scrutiny.... they should have never gotten out of control in the first place. Obviously, MOST of us drank under age. Some of us did things that we could have and should have got in trouble for, but we got away with it. That doesn't mean that everyone should also get away with it. Drink responsibly, LIVE responsibly.

I'm pretty sure a 911 call orginiating from inside the house, whether from a land line or cell phone, opens the door for the officers to investigate the safety of the people in the house. Furthermore, I highly doubt that the police ambushed the house as described by posters who claim to have been there. Usually in these situations, they give the occupants of the house plenty of notice that they are there. Obviously the people in the house knew they were there, as evidenced by the fake 911 call to try to get the police to leave (brilliant thinking there).

Whythink, I agree with you except I would change one thing. A prank is a joke, a humorous action,a "funny". A call to 911 with a false report is not a prank. It is a crime.

" That is why GW must go because he continuously violates our consitutional rights. We don't want the police and government free to search whomever they want - that would be bad." We have more constitutional rights than any other country in the world. Be happy and feel lucky to have what we have. I understand you feel it is a right to privacy, but if you have nothing to hide, why do you care? I like my privacy as much as the next person. But if the police, government, or deputy needs to search my lugguge, house, car, etc in order to keep me safe..have at it! If that is what is policy, and the policy was designed to keep people safe, then I am for it. I am certain they are not pulling people over or picking random houses to search for lack of better things to do. I am sure they have just cause. Those people that get upset and feel everyone is "out to get them" or that the "police are constantly hounding" usually have had run-ins with the police. I know, FOR A FACT, that police are busy people and do NOT just pull people over to harass them for no reason what-so-ever. They won't find anything wrong with me or my things, but maybe the next person they pull over to search will be a drunk driver that could have crashed into me and my children. Thanks, I will give up a few "rights" to ensure my childrens safety.

hey etown, why are you bringing edgerton police into this? the house was in the county. sounds like youve had run ins with edgerton law and taking a chance to vent. wouldnt surprise me if you were in the paper recently

tooshoes, NO NO NO! That is why GW must go because he continuously violates our consitutional rights. We don't want the police and government free to search whomever they want - that would be bad.

As for the Edgerton situation, yes there are bad police officers just like there are bad Dr.s, teachers, lawyers, and CITIZENS.

Perhaps the Edgerton police need to be investigated for unlawful search and seizure. Perhaps that is a bad police department.

My experiences prove otherwise. I have worked with adults and juveniles on probation and they always seem to blame the police. The weird thing is, they also (almost) always admit they did break the law. They just add a "but" to the description of what happened to them. The "but" involves blaming others - the police.

I want the police to follow the laws like everyone else and until it is proven they didn't follow the law I STRONGLY believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Certainly in this situation involving a prank 911 call and a drunk driver.

Only people that have something to hide are worried about their civil liberties and right to privacy are being violated. If you are not in violation of anything, you have nothing to fear. Why should you care so much about someone violating your privacy unless you have something to hide? If it keeps just one person safer, I say to the police, "search away! Do all the investigating and digging you need to." You never know who's life may be saved by that search. It could be yours. I guarantee you, if they wouldn't have busted in on that party and a drunk driver left that party and crashed into YOU, you would be saying "Where were the police? Why weren't they patrolling that area!" You can't pick and choose the times you want the police protecting you.

well if they dont have the firearms in evidence, you would think their case would go right out the window, with a bunch of drunk teenagers around who would leave the firearms there

Why did the police not mention that mace was used in the press release? Why did they not mention that they broke screens, windows, and a $600 door? Why did they not mention that not one "weapon" was recovered? (when "firearms were strewn about the home")

alsonetown...i never defended these kids , what i said was this is the new thing , its not just that party, but at times they are making excuses and crossing the line violating peoples rights , their is a reason why they have laws , but we still have rights, my point is how is the younger generation every gonna learn to respect the police officers if they are lying to make a traffic stop , check a party that might have minors, do you want them knocking on your door if you have more then one car in your driveway? did they have reason to go to this place, yes i think they did , did they really need to use mace,i doubt it they had no reason to believe any one there was using a firearm or any other dangerous weapon, finding a drunk person driving through lawns doesnt mean there s a weapon involved , the truth will come out sooner or later , if there was a weapon in sight , i would imagine they took it for evidence they wouldnt of left it there guess time will tell, and the next time you drive by a kid being pulled over in edegerton , stop and watch , i will bet you they search their vehicle

I find it quite ironic that the two most commented stories on this website are this one and the one about the 16 year old who drove drunk and killed an innocent man. This community needs to wake up and stop being in denial that alcohol is a huge problem. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against drinking, but I'm also old enough and responsible enough to do it in moderation, and when I do happen to over-indulge, I always do so when I know I'm not going to have to drive anywhere. Obviously the people involved in this party are not responsible enough, as evidenced by the prank 911 call, driving through people's yards to try to elude the police, and the general disregard for the property they were at. Anyone who thinks these kids weren't doing anything wrong and had their civil rights violated needs to her their head out of the sand and realize that maybe getting arrested and fined for underage drinking is the wake up call these kids need to be a little more responsible. Unfortunately, the stories like the 16 year old drunk driver are all too common in this community.....

to: etown
Give me a break. I live in Edgerton, and have never ever had a problem with the cops. I also am very happy that this party was busted and kids got in trouble. Obviously, with the false 911 call and the drunk driver going across lawns the police had every right to go in that house and check things out. I for one wish that everyone would stop placing the blame on someone else. These kids messed up, they have to pay the price. Nothing more, nothing less. It's the law.

im an example of it? tell me why when they make a traffic stop are they drumming up reason to stop them , and even if it is a legitimate stop then why do they need to search every vehicle they cant have probable cause 100% of the time, but when your sitting on you porch and you see edgerton finest pull a kid over that just stopped at a stop sign, and then you ask what did they pull you over for and they go, they said i didnt stop all the way, and you saw it with your own eyes and they did, they search the vehicle and let them go without a ticket, something tells me they just wanted to search the vehicle, just for the record the things im talking about do not involve my kids so im not making excuses for things my kids have done wrong, but how do you teach you kids to respect the police department if they lie, and violate their rights

We must first remember that the kids were doing something wrong. We have police officers to uphold the law and enforce it, we may not always agree with them but, it is there job and they risk their life everyday for us the people. I am thankful for our Police Dept. and trust they will protect and sever the community with honor and justice for all. If I do something against the Law I guess I have to take the responsibility of the facing the punishment that I have decided to accept by breaking the law.

Obviously you choose to live without security OR liberty.

I cannot believe what some people are saying on this message board. First off the police had every right to enter and break up the party and had probable cause to do so. They had a false 911 call which I can bet was made from the house where the party was at, they also caught a person driving erratically through people's front yard's, right next to the house party, had open intoxicants in the vehicle as well as a drunk under age person. The police more than likely asked where they came from and they told the police. Police went over to the house looked in the window and saw beer cans all over the place, people who looked under age and a person who looked passed out on a couch, how much more probable cause do they need to break into a house and break up the party? If you break the law you're going to get busted it is that plain and simple. As for the ACLU, they are not going to do anything because no civil rights were broken and they have better thing's to do than to listen to a bunch of whiners. That is the problem with kids today, they all think they are invincible and nothing will hurt them until it's too late. I for one am glad the police did their job and helped to prevent what could have been a night of tragedies. Instead they helped by preventing people driving drunk and prevented sending someone to the ER with alcohol poisoning.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -- Benjamin Franklin.

Call the ACLU they will care about the government overstepping their boundries.

"The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees: ...
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs."

http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html

The government clearly overstepped their boundries here.

Let me try this again. Most kids and adults that get in trouble with the police look to blame the police. Etown is the perfect example of that.

The police are looking for criminals. If you are being pulled over multiple times it is because of your behavior.

I guess this entire discussion can be summarized by 2 points of view...

The police are evil and "out to get me/them". They break the law too - what gives them the right to...?

Basically blaming the police.

or

Those who break the law are going to have more police contact than those who don't. Even if the police were wrong those who are breaking the law (providing alcohol to those underage, driving drunk, etc...) deserve the consequences even if the police didn't do their job correctly.

Bascially, blame the criminal.

Just wondering, was it the quote from Liar Liar that prevented my last comment from being posted.

well if you actually lived up here they cross the line all the time , everytime a kid is stopped in this town their vehicle is searched, the repeatedly stop kids for failing to stop all the way at a stop sign,tail light out that magically seems to come on after they let them go ,you name it they use it then they search their vehicle, if this was a one time incident, but rock county has done this several time s over the past month and a half , officer driving by saw party , goes gets posse , maybe they dont break down a door every time ,but they are crossing the line

Only 2 questions from me. Are the officers Drs.? How could they tell the person on the couch was passed out not sleeping>

comeon people your missing the point these kids gave them all the reason in the world. I only have to mention one.... someone prank called 911 how absoloutley stupid do you have to be!!!!!!!!!!!!!

there is a huge difference between being illegal and being wrong. if these kids denied ever drinking that would speak to their accountability. and yes, police do enter homes illegally all the time. sometimes they mishandle evidence. sometimes they even botch murder investigations. they are no more infallible than the lawmakers who arbitrarily set a drinking age

just recently the bars in this area got letters telling them they will be doing bar checks , so if their serious about cracking down , then why the letters to warn them ? and how dumb do you have to be to get caught after they warn you

this is not the first time they have done this, about a month ago they claimed and officer was just driving by a house and saw some cars and a fire and decided to see who was at the house, they entered through and unlocked door in the back of the house, most of the people their were 18-22, maybe a couple of 17 , they gave tickets to every one , the over 21 got tickets for allowing minors to drink ,so now when you go to someone s house and you over 21 youve have to check id s i guess, and what gives them the right to enter a house because their were cars in the driveway?

red58 - You are exactly correct, people don’t want to be held accountable for their actions do they. Do you think the rock county sheriffs department would have broken the law by entering the home illegally if they thought they were going to be sued or held responsible? No.

Dealing heroin is illegal too, but the cops wait and get a search warrant to enter the home like they should.

crazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

I did wonder a little about rights and what law enforcement really "saw" as concerns for safety. However, what this all boils down to is that people don't want to be held accountable for their actions. The underage drinking party was illegal--end of story.

1.) I was at the party
2.) The police opened a window and maced the upstairs of the house. There was no one passed out on the couch. (Even if there was, and the police were concerned about the safety of the people inside the house as stated in the news release, why mace a person passed out?) By macing people they are not going to want to come out of the home, because they are going to think they are going to be maced again when they exit the house.
3.) There were no firearms anywhere in sight, unless they seen though 3 walls and into a closet where they were locked in a gun safe.
4.) Breaking down the door and entering the home without a valid search warrant and/or the consent of the home owner is illegal regardless.

give it a rest they were drunk and thanks to a couple morons who did some very stupid stuff they got busted.It is there own fault for not checking the guest list. Maybe they learned a lesson... lets hopeso. Gosh I hope the house is ok.

Once a drunk driver and passenger were arrested the police has the responsibility to follow-up. If we don't assume the police are the enemy; we can guess they approached the house and did look in the window before entering. Once they witness the more illegal drinking they entered the house unannounced.
The police did nothing wrong the adults at this house and the CHILDREN are the problem.

Come on people.

whythink?

officerfriendly1 said "...or pretty soon we're living in a police state." Since GW Bush has been in office, I thought we were... ;)

The basis for entry seems like a bit of a ruse. While the police may force entry where an obvious emergency and need to protect life exists, a person laying on a couch, with their eyes closed, doesn't seem to rise to the standard. Who says they weren't just sleeping? After all it was 12:30AM. Generally police can't force entry even if they do observe under age people present. It can become a difficult situation. Many times the police will elect to try to contact the parents, if not at home, and have them effect entry. Most of the time parents are worried about damage to the home that can occur as a result of these type parties and aren't resistant.

woodchuck, you must be kidding, teens do NOT have the right to drink. Get with it people, these are kids like the 16 year old girl who was charged last week.

Also, bravo ! to the police department. I hope that one of them are watching my house when I am sound asleep or away at work or vacation. They were doing their jobs and I am proud of them.

WOW! I am so shocked, anyone who has lived in Janesville for any length of time knows Wedges is trouble. Go by and see how many cars there are on a Saturday night. Not many, the word is out I only wish the Health dept. would take as much interest as the Police. I say good job JPD.

This is nothing the ACLU would be interested in.
Their primary youth activism issue is racist/ageist legislation against youth gatherings in public in the City of Milwaukee.
A house full of unattended kids,alcohol in plain view, one in view passed out on the sofa, drunken driving, a fake 911 call- the cops only need one "Probable Cause of Crime in Progress"reason to enter. These youths gave them a laundry list.
"how drunk were the teens when they drove?" IT DOESN'T MATTER. Any driver under the age of 21 is held to the "not a drop" law, where ANY level of alcohol is considered OWI and they lose their license till age 21.

And we all wonder what has happened to our world...hmmm. I believe there are laws in place for underage drinking for a reason...Just read these comments below and just add alcohol...I completely understand!

You and others are entitled to comment. You are not entitled to make possibly libelous comments that we don't know are true. Others are not entitled to name-calling. This is our Web site, and we will monitor it as we see fit.
Scott Angus, Editor

The public isn't entitled to an option I see, or to comment on facts.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I don't believe the police had the right to peek into windows, break down the door, or use mace under the circumstances described in this story. That's why I forwarded the story to the ACLU of Wisconsin. For those of you who were victims of the bust, I urge you to contact the ACLU and tell them what happened. If they take the case, maybe the courts will teach the police a lesson in respecting the citizens' constitutional right to privacy. Here's the ACLU's contact information:

ACLU of Wisconsin
122 State Street, Suite 507
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: 608.469.5540
Fax: 608.255.2688
Email: liberty@aclu-wi.org

After reading these comments I re-read the article. Where does it say ANYTHING about mace or pepper spray?? It seems that there is quite a bit of jumping to conclusions on this page. I think the police did exactly what we should have expected them to do. Who knows - maybe their actions even saved a life that night.

I am assuming that the pepper spray, which although it is a chemical---is not meant to maim, poison, or harm---was used to "drop" the party goers so they would not attempt to take off. Do I think there was a better way to do this? Yeah, probably. Do we know if someone called the police as some sort of informant? Im guessing probably...or why else would they have picked that house? Has that house had prior run-ins with the police? Who knows. Simply, face it...the kids screwed up, the cops tried to save people from getting hurt. As a parent of a teenager, YES, I would want my kid and her friends stopped if something like this was happening at my house. Who would pay for the damages? My kid and the friends.

dub. the pepper spray was for the house it was getting way out of hand.

i still feel very bad for the house. Houses hate pepper spray.

Honestly, why is everyone defending these kids? They were in the wrong. Sure, maybe the cops didn't need to mace the house. Hello, they were underage drinking and probably doing other illegal things in that house. So getting licenses suspended, being kicked off sports, and being suspended from school is just what they need. Underage drinking is illegal. Unless the kids are complete morons, they know this. It's their own fault they're going to have "criminal records". Aside from the mace, I say thank you to the police for simply doing their job and potentially saving some lives for those kids who would be dumb enough to drink and drive.

cry me a river your underage and they maced the house. If you didnt want to get caught you should not have been so PUBLIC about it. I dont here the house crying about the mace.

First of all no one let them in the house they took out a screen in the front room window and pushed open the window b/c it wasnt locked and then sprayed the pepper spray inside which filled the whole entire house. Then they kicked in the front door and entered the house without a warrant. They didnt find any firearms except for the guns locked in a gun safe which was tucked away in a closet. Everyone was going to stay at the house except for the 21 year old who left because he had to go home. In my opinion it wasnt right for them to mace the place b/c it made everyones eyes burn and everyone was coughing uncontrolably. Mostly everyone there was out of school and didnt have to worry about sports expect for a few minors who were not in any sports anyway. if you know of any suggestions for legal help comment back, thank you. P.S. if the officers were so concerned about the saftey of the people in the house why would they spray harmful chemicals inside.

Everyone's a lawyer it seems! Cirminal record for drinking, I think not...go back to school or don't spout off about what you know nothing about.

Wow, fldpan, suggesting that a fleet of deputies wait until underage children get into their vehicles and on the highways seems irresponsible. You actually thinking that this may be a good idea is absurd and makes me sick. If you are reading the papers, you'll see that this past weekend, there was a 16 year Genoa City girl that killed a 54 year old man from Delavan after hitting him head-on with her vehicle. She is now being charged as an adult for homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle, after showing a .11 blood alcohol content. This is the result that is likely to happen if the deputies wait until they get into their vehicles. Try telling this Grandeous idea to the family of the person that was just killed. Let me pose this question to you...If the deputies did nothing and one of the kids died due to alcohol related poisoning or got into their vehicles and killed or hurt someone and you found out that they had prior knowledge of the situation and chose not ot do anything about it, would you have the same outlook? I would bet you would be the first to step up and say that the cops aren't doing their jobs. Sorry, but I disagree with you on this one. I believe the cops WERE doing their job as they should and this is a good use of their time. My hats go off to the deputies and/or officers that took the initiative to do something before it was too late! Thank you.

first of all this was my dads house, why was mace involved, there was no firearms expcept for a bow on the wall, and there was no one passed out on the couch everyone expcept two people were upstairs standing in the living room and they broke the door down after the maced the house. Is that legal? The kid that got pulled over drove thru one person lawn and then the cop swirved at him and ran him off the road in to the other neighbors yard.

oh what fireworks... not firearms...? or was it? where did tyhey dissapear to when the door was pried open?

what happened to the firearms?hmmmm......

There should have been no reason to go to Wedges if the State and County would actually inspect that rat hole. Why is it even open?

For evidence-based information on Alcohol Dependence (Alcoholism) and Alcohol Abuse, please visit us at AlcoholAnswers.org

There are sections for the Alcohol Dependent and the Families and Friends along with information on evidence-based treatment modalities - including medicated-assisted treatment, Resources, Alcohol & Health information, and Discussion Communities for support and information.

We hope that this will be of help for those seeking information on Alcohol Dependence (Alcoholism) and Alcohol Abuse.