Montville, N.J. Plan Would Allow Home Searches Without Warrants For Underage Drinking

Plan Would Allow Searches Without Warrants For Underage Drinking

MONTVILLE, N.J. (CBSNewYork) — A proposed ordinance in Montville, New Jersey could give police officers broad powers – including entering private property – if underage drinking is even suspected.

As CBS 2’s Christine Sloan reported, the proposal has some people questioning just how far police should be allowed to go.

Residents value their privacy in the upscale community of Montville in Morris County. But the proposed ordinance could change all of that.

Police officers under the ordinance could search homes with probable cause, and without a warrant, if they suspect underage drinking.

“I am not in favor of them just coming into the homes, because there – other people have said – there are children that do make mistakes on various occasions, and that’s more of a parent responsibility rather than a police responsibility,” said Anna Marie Cecire of Montville.

The proposal is so controversial that when it was heard in a local committee room, a vote was postponed until members could hear from the police chief.

But another aspect of the plan does appeal to residents. While teens caught drinking face criminal charges under state law, officers under the Montville proposal could choose to let underage drinkers face lesser penalties.

“They are kids, and kids make mistakes, and they need to understand the consequences, but I don’t think it needs to be on their college application or somehow affect them in the future,” said guidance counselor Debbie Meenan.

Despite that, some 17-year-olds in Montville said the proposed ordinance gives police too much discretion.

“I just feel that it’s not really their business to be going into people’s houses,” said high school senior Brendan Zevits. “If you want to do that, you need to get a warrant.”

“Just coming in our houses searching – eventually, it’s going to turn into hunches and all that, and once you base it on a hunch, then it’s all downhill from there,” said high school senior Stephen McManus.

The mayor, committee members and the police chief do not appear to want to talk about the proposal, Sloan reported. None of them returned CBS 2’s calls.

One town official said the ordinance, which also imposes fines of up to $350, is vague in some areas. For that reason, it will be heard again on Sept. 23.

If this gets passed and upheld, I'm sure it will meet some resistance, it opens the door for countless other ways for the police to enter our homes without warrants. They're trying to enter peoples houses without a warrant by conning them into lesser penalties for underage drinking. I think this law is ridiculous and the person(s) responsible for trying to pass it should be voted out.

a reply to: OptimusCrime

We heard about this (Montville is only a few towns over from me) and think it is absurd. I also believe that this would be found un-Constitutional if challenged.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: OptimusCrime

We heard about this (Montville is only a few towns over from me) and think it is absurd. I also believe that this would be found un-Constitutional if challenged.

They're giving the cops the right to be the judges in this case. I don't like it at all. It definitely sounds unconstitutional.

originally posted by: OptimusCrime
They're giving the cops the right to be the judges in this case. I don't like it at all. It definitely sounds unconstitutional.

It surprises me because each of our towns has an attorney which should be advising the mayor and town council on what is or is not un-Constitutional. Either their town attorney is a giant tool or they did not listen to the advice given. Either way the tax payer is screwed.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

a reply to: caterpillage


And I'll repeat it again, so those that would condone the sort of thing the OP discusses can read it twice over.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Those trying to circumvent warrants are traitors to freedom and should be dealt with as such.
No more leniency for this lot, I say......HANG them. Extreme? Not when one sees the ROT this lot has caused in America.

a reply to: Jakal26

I don't think hanging is too extreme at all for treason. I think if all the traitors were rounded up coast to coast, buying stock in rope companies would be a lucrative investment these days...

a reply to: OptimusCrime

Wow!! So now we are looking at The supreme court reviewing under-aged drinking cases. Seems to me this Is a no-brainer for un-constitutional!! At what cost Do we let police enforce The law?? The police are really beginning to overstep their boundrys. In My younger years When we Were drinking in someone's house and got The knock on The door, The door stayed shut. And if someone happened to open it, The door would be shut in The officers face. At this point they would wait up The street and pull over anyone leaving that address. I'm all for punishing under aged drinking and driving while under The influence, But not trying to throw away The constitution to Do this. Seems like way too many elected officials have No problem with overstepping The rights our fore father's fought so hard for. Very disgusting!!!

a reply to: OptimusCrime

Patently unconstitutional.

New Jersey... figures.

If someone tried that crap in Texas the police trying to pull it off would find themselves outgunned 20-1 in a heartbeat. There would be no standoff. The police would beat a hasty retreat, assuming they were not immediately surrounded.

originally posted by: bbracken677
Patently unconstitutional.

New Jersey... figures.

Well, at least our taxes are low.

Oh, wait.

originally posted by: Jakal26
Those trying to circumvent warrants are traitors to freedom and should be dealt with as such.
No more leniency for this lot, I say......HANG them. Extreme? Not when one sees the ROT this lot has caused in America.

I'll go one further.

Any cop who enters a home without a warrant should be shot on site.

There put on your little list.

What the hell is a city council doing making laws which are way out of their authority and jurisdiction????This seems to be a common trait lately.....

New Jersey has the earned the title of "Nanny State" a long time ago. This is just another example.

It is almost like they use New Jersey as a testing ground to see how far they can go with the laws. Despite having family and friends living in Jersey, I refuse to visit that state.

Here is just one an example, some college age kids I know were pulled over because they 'fit the profile of heroin traffickers', they were searched and the cops found 1 joint. Everyone in the car was charged for possession. The girl I know is on probation because the judge and her 'lawyer' said they have to make an example of out someone!

I've heard them use this line over and over on those who are ignorant of our legal system.

a reply to: OptimusCrime

Well...

There are times when police can perform a search without a warrant, and most searches actually do occur without warrants being issued. That is not to say the police can barge into your home and search it without a warrant; if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and there is not probable cause, a search warrant is required. However, if probable cause does occur, such as the suspect runs away, a gunshot is heard from another room in a home, or even when an individual makes a sudden movement, a search becomes legal without a warrant. Even with a reasonable expectation of privacy, the police can legally conduct a search without a warrant in situations in which certain exemptions apply.

Pay close attention to Exemptions 2 & 4 under the section titled, "When is a Warrant Not Required?" This is not anything new, and the police most likely had the authority prior to this going into effect--they're probably just wanting to get it written down so that it is on the books instead of having to fight it in litigation every time they do a search without a warrant.

I'm not advocating their authority to do this in any way, I'm just pointing out that it seems to be an accepted, legal practice in the eyes of the law. That doesn't always make it right, though.

Underage drinking is actually THE biggest problem we are facing today in America. It is worth giving up any and all freedoms. /Sarcasm

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Nothing in your link would support warrantless searches for underage drinking.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Actually, yes it does. Even the quote I put up from the link allows for warrantless searches in certain circumstances of underage drinking, depending on the actions of those involved.

I'm guessing you've never worked in the legal field? I'm not saying that to be jerk, I'm just pointing out that it takes a certain training to understand these types of things and how they could potentially apply to certain situations. You don't have to agree with my post, but please understand that I've been trained and worked for years in the legal field--the things I pointed out could easily apply to a call concerning underage drinking.

I think the LEOs' time could be better spent elsewhere, but that's a different point altogether.

Best regards.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
but please understand that I've been trained and worked for years in the legal field

This is the problem with this country.

There are so many laws that it takes 4-8 years of learning to even try to attempt to understand them. But, I (as a normal citizen) am supposed to know the laws.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.......

originally posted by: HandyDandy

This is the problem with this country.


There are so many laws that it takes 4-8 years of learning to even try to attempt to understand them. But, I (as a normal citizen) am supposed to know the laws.


Ignorance of the law is no excuse.......

I don't disagree--that's why when people whine about a "do-nothing Congress," I remind them that, at some point, there should already be plenty of federal laws and the states and local municipalities should be taking over from there, assuming they even need to add any. So, I absolutely agree with you on the fact that there are too many laws. The reason it takes years of study to understand them is because they're written in such indirect ways and attorneys use every possible opening they can to sidestep the laws to get their clients free (or to prosecute them...it works both ways).

Its Not like a bunch of underage kids know how to make alcohol, SO How about using the Laws that are already set up to combat underage drinking. If places that sold alcohol to minors, knew that a very hefty fine would be given to anyone selling the alcohol, and im not tlking about fining the store, fine the person selling it. Im pretty sure that if you sell alcohol, to a minor, then they end up getting in a wreck, and killing somene, you are held responsible for the death, just as much as the person who commited the crime.