Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 16 comments | Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Two plead guilty following charges under the city's 'social host' law
Published Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Two Austin 20-year-olds — who were among the first to be charged under the city’s new “social host” law — both pleaded guilty Monday to the misdemeanor offense.
Mitchell Anthony Jaeger and Brian Wayne Voigt were each sentenced to one-year probation terms and $385 fines for their role in facilitating an early-January house party at 800 Second Ave. SW in which upwards of 40 minors were caught drinking.
A third man at the party, 20-year-old Ryan Thomas Palmer, was also charged with a social host offense and awaits a Feb. 22 arraignment.
Collectively, the young men were the first test cases of the new law, which was passed by city council in November. Under the social host ordinance, Austin residents that allow minors to drink — without taking steps to prevent it — will be slapped with misdemeanors.
There are exceptions for religious observations or instances when a minor consumes alcohol with only his or her parents around.
Austin is one of nearly 40 cities and counties in the state with such a law on the books, with Minneapolis City Council recently taking up discussion on possibly enacting an ordinance of their own.
There is no comparable state law, which is why officials in Austin and elsewhere have pushed so hard to pass social host regulations that are meant to combat underage drinking.
Locally, that push largely came from the Austin Area Drug Task Force, a group comprised of various area leaders.
Thor Bergland, a teacher at Austin High School and also a member of the task force, said the law is very important in protecting youngsters’ safety.
“Our goal is to protect the kids,” he said at a November council meeting.
Social host laws are also seen as very effective, former police chief and task force member Paul Philipp said. He added that they give law enforcement “more teeth” when dealing with minor consumption problems.
“They work,” the former chief said.
That’s certainly the case in Albert Lea, where a social host ordinance in place since late 2008 was one of the motivating factors for Austin officials to get their law passed.
In 2009, when Albert Lea’s social host ordinance was first put to use, 13 people were people were charged for violating the law — 12 of them pleaded guilty without going to trial.
Former Austin mayor and current task force member Bonnie Rietz said that’s a sign of the law’s effectiveness.
“Yes, it’s working for them,” Rietz said.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by NotFromHere (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Any charges against the person/persons/establishment that sold the liquor that ended up in the posession of the two twenty year olds? Nope, that is hard police work. That is the whole reason behind this nanny state ordinance - the police/courts want easy convictions.
If we as a society keeping giving inches the state will keep taking miles. It is not about underage drinking, health care, immigration, sub-prime mortgages, Iraq, Al-Queda or any of the other distractions. It is about people in government wanting to take control of more of our lives.
Posted by dc16 (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
when they promoted this law, wasnt it targeted at parents who allowed their kids & friends to party, then wouldnt allow the cops in their residence?... well they got three 20 year old college students, good people at that, who certainly aren't going to stop partying not because they are bad people they are just college kids, give em a break you already have the poor kids afraid of a minor consumption
Posted by GWAnderson (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We need more laws to make more criminals so that there will be plenty of people to fill the new jail.
The leaderless Key Stone Kops will have easier time find new customers.
Posted by 4u2nv (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dc16,
So what you are saying is it is O.K. for a couple of college kids to invite over 30-40 friends and friends of friends to a minor party! Last time I checked it was against the law to consume an alchoholic beverage under the age of 21. So these kids need to be held accountable for their actions....What if someone was to leave this home where the party was at and get into a crash and ended up killing someone, would it still be ok for a couple fo college kids to host a party? I think not! And as far as the parent thing what does it matter these kids most likely live on their own so they are responsible for the home where they live.
And GW they would not go to jail they will get a citation. And have to go to jail:)
Posted by 4u2nv (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
GW they would not have to go to jail just get a citation!!!
Posted by dc16 (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You dont understand my parent point... a large motivation of austin putting in this law was to keep PARENTS WHO HAD KIDS STILL LIVING AT HOME from hosting a huge party and then not allowing cops in when they busted the residence... so i just think it is ironic that APD starts off with 3 twenty year olds.. and i totally understand the drunk driving matter and respect that but these are other 18,19,20 yr olds that can make their own decision like an adult, they kill themselves driving i dont know if that is totally the hosts fault...besides most parties i went to in my younger days they took your keys at the door if you were drinking... I dont think its much the hosts fault if somebody crashes, they arent always watching the door and it tells me that the cops are too lazy to investigate the real problem, the liquor store who sold the booze, so they just issue a ticket where they can with minimal effort... just like i emphasized in my first post, COLLEGE kids arent going to stop partying underage no matter what law you put in place... Do they have a social host ordinance in mankato and st. cloud?? if the cops in those cities have the power and abuse it like austin cops, think of the money they would be pulling in... lastly, you cant tell me that you never ever had a drink before the legal age of 21
Posted by tiger1 (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Two plead guilty following charges under the city's 'social host' law."
Seems pretty clear to me they were guilty of the ordinance, and they owned up to what they did and plead guilty.
Glad they are enforcing it before one of them gets into an accident and kills someone, or themselves. I am glad they have avenues they can use to help curb this, your right, it will not end the parties, but maybe it will help them stay where ever they decide to drink. Everyone seems to complain about the control issue government has, or lack there of. In the end, lives may have been saved due to them being caught. The funny thing is, you can not put a number for a statistic on x amount of lives saved due to the new ordinance.
Posted by dc16 (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whats the point in fighting a 372 dollar ticket when its gonna cost you more then that just for two hours of a lawyers time?? ultimately the law wins if not in the court system then in your pocketbook... dont get me wrong it would be terrible to see somebody lose their life and i like the law i just dont think it is being enforced the way the lawmakers envisioned it was going to be when they put it in
Posted by NotFromHere (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tiger1 - what else are you okay with the government doing to save lives? If we outlawed guns it would save lives. If we took away everyone's car it would save lives. If we didn't allow ladders to be more than 3 feet high it would save lives. Being that we are all mortal by eliminating these deaths you simply push the death to a different category so to state that as rationale for destroying liberty is simplistic at best.
If the two gentlemen here were consuming or supplying alcohol there have violated laws and should be punished for that. The fact that their name is on the lease/deed should not be criminalized. What other crimes would you agree that the owner of a home should be penalized for? If cousin Joe and Uncle Bill come to blows while watching a SuperBowl Party at your house - should you be charged with some derivation of assault? Suppose you agree to host your company Christmas party and the boss, who moonlights as a counterfeiter, pays for pizza with funny-money are you okay with being charged with a crime?
I understand the good intention but the underlying principal is the opposite of human freedom, due process and responsibility.
Posted by tiger1 (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Notfromhere- For starters everyone in America needs a car to get from home to work and here and there. If they outlawed cars, you couldnt get to work. If they outlawed guns it might cut down on murders and the like however....everyone has the right to bear arms, except for Felons. I am pretty sure though if you look at the statistics yourself, there are more alcohol related deaths than a gun killing someone.
Supplying alcohol to minors is a choice, and if one makes that choice to do so it is illegal, not only by an ordinance, but by state law. And as far as them having their names on the lease/deed, it puts into effect their accountability for renting housing and curbs common party houses. I am guessing this is not their first time supplying alcohol to minors at their house.
The reason I think the ordinance is in effect is for those who do not take the responsibility of not supplying minors alcohol, and for those who do, they will be held accountable for it. If you dont supply alcohol to a minor at your house, and kick out those who come over that have consumed, most likely I am guessing you wont get in trouble.
As far as cousin Joe and Uncle Bill getting into a fight, those circumstances you can not help, that is the choice of those two guys to get into it and most likely you cant do anything about. And if that happend at my place, they would be kicked out. If they were fighting when they showed up, they would not be allowed to come in!
Anyone can go round and round about the issue, I respect your point of view and can see what your saying.
Posted by 4u2nv (anonymous) on February 9, 2010 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dc16 No I never drank before I was 21. And for the most part parents do not allow their kids to drink or host a party. The P.D. maybe was trying to set an example here, will it work probably not but I hope it will make people more responsible for their guests. And yes if someone is at a party the host should be man enough to take the keys from someone who has had a little to much to drink!!!!! Just like a bar if the bartender keeps feeding the patron booz after they know they are drunk they should be held acountable....
Posted by NotFromHere (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tiger1 - So lets say you are having a graduation party for your child. You serve no alcohol. Some punch, some cake, a little music. A group of kids show up and they all sit in the garage laughing and joking nothing too rowdy. One of Austin's finest just happens to drive buy as two boys are wrestling around, the officer not sure if it is a fight or horseplay walks over to investigate. The officer detects the smell of vodka on one of the kids and upon further investigation it appears his Mountain Dew bottle is fortified with Smirnoff. Under this ordinance you can be charged. You didn't know the kid had it, you didn't supply it to him, you just happened to own the house where he was drinking when he got caught. So you are now required to shell out $382 and have a criminal record that you have to explain the next time an employer does a background check on you. Meanwhile the person who provided the kid with alcohol is never pursued and is not punished for what is clearly the more harmful offense. As you stated about cousin Joe and Uncle Bill the circumstances are beyond your control and yet you are now a criminal. While we are all happy to see something done about knuckleheads like these two it cannot be done at the sacrifice of freedom.
Posted by tiger1 (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Notfromhere - well if I were to allow a minor on my property who had been drinking, I guess that would be my fault! I am a responsible homeowner, and I will make sure it doesnt happen. And if it does by my mistake, well, guess it is my fault!
Posted by GWAnderson (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, 4u2nv, I just checked the court record, Mitchell Anthony Jaeger got 30 days in jail supended for 1 year plus a heavy fine, much of which was supended. Brian Wayne Voigt got 90 days in jail supended for 9 months ( till he is 21) and a heavy fine, much of which was supended. I restate my position that once they have the new jail, there will not be many supended sentences, go straight to jail. They have to have customers for the new jail. The taxpayers can afford the bill to keep them in the nice new jail.
Posted by tiger1 (anonymous) on February 10, 2010 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am sure the new ordiance is not in place to put new customers in jail, I think by the looks of it, there are plenty of people who get into trouble to fill it up just as easily.
Posted by 4u2nv (anonymous) on February 15, 2010 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Roger that tiger1
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)