mickie: As best I recall from a forum debate last year, "officerfriendly1" is not an officer. Of course, he's the one who started slinging around the "moron" label, but he doesn't quite get it. Don't let him affect your impression of cops!

Mickie you are right, all of them should of been ticketed including the parents that were protecting their children from facing the consequences of their own stupid choices. Kids are so fast paced these days it is scary, and the parents helping them being fast paced are crazy. What happened to enjoying ones childhood.

officer- .28 for a 17 yr. old?? Not suicidal- was passed out?? Crap if you are an officer you need to wake up! I do not know what your beef is- I believe the parents who hosted a party for a bunch of minors are MORONS- need I expalin further? Also the police should have handed out tickets right and left to all...? So your crap about "pot kettle" blah-blah-blah. Makes no sense.. Sorry, I would NEVER host a party for minors..Get your facts straight, or realize what you are reading, then comment.AND get off the "spelling wagon", its so boring..

Officer- excuse me so terribly for putting that zero in there..I also forgot an "s" on regardless- you missed that moron!! Anyways- I wish they would give the parents names!

I wish they would list the parents names..What a bunch of complete MORONS. There is an age, time and place for everything! The police should go abck and ticket them regardles..What examples these clods are--- << .028 >> Thats suicidal!

Who pays??!! Society Pays! We all suffer. Take a look at the culture WE'VE created. It's not pretty.

Parents behaving badly is nothing new. We've all see family, friends, neighbors bend over backwards to shield kids from the consequences of their own actions.

It's a sign of the times. Nobody is responsible for anything anymore. It's always somebody else's fault. They didn't do it - or if they did do it they didn't mean to - or if they meant to they couldn't help it.... blah blah blah....

Parents like those at the party are teaching their kids to be liars - to avoid the consequences of the law and their own actions.

I agree - the police should have locked up every one of those parents that refused to let their kids be tested - and every one of the kids but that was 4 years ago. In future the whole shootin' match (kids and adults) should be made to do community service - something appropriate like cleaning goose poop off the sidewalks in the parks.

We are a society of laws and it's our responsibility to teach our kids to live by the laws of the land. That responsibility extends to encompass the entire community. If parents shield their kids at the expense of the community they should be punished. And the kids should be punished. Period. There's nothing complicated going on here. It's actually very simple. You screw up - you pay the price.

Maybe instead of sitting here blogging about this, parents should be actively involved with their children? I am not a parent, but also no longer an adolescent, and if my parents would have been open with me, it would've spared me a lot of regret and shame. No parents shouldn't get drunk with their kids, but they should be the first ones they try it out with, who to care of them better then the partents?
And secondly, if all these kids DID get tickets, A) Do they ahve jobs to actually pay the tickets? and B) What if it ends up ruining their future?
Personally, I'd walk my child away too. Parents can discipline too, and it doesn't have to be in monetary form--simply not letting them go out anymore can do the trick!

It's easy for parents to cross the line from being part of the solution to being part of the problem.

baybeegirl, for society's sake, I hope you don't have children. Cops have to step in when parents refuse to do their job.

It is most often the officer's discretion as to when a parent is notified that their child is under investigation in forfeiture cases such as UAL violations.

Get the investigation done and the citations issued before calling the parents.

baybeegirl: Those of us who are parents will tell you that in a perfect world you will know where your kids are and what they are doing 24/7 but not in the real world. Unless you are going to chain yourself to them you will not be able to monitor all their activities at all times. If you are lucky you will have honest kids who don't hide things from you but even the kids who were raised to know better often fall to peer pressure..

Amen latinmami!

Sorry other parents but why not help your child keep a clean record and stay outta juvie and court and avoid the ticket..

That seems sensible to me?!
********************
No what sounds sensible is teaching your children to not do something that could result in them getting a ticket.

Well whenever I have children I won't allow my children to be cited or have anything going on unless I know about it and if I'm there, and they wouldn't get cited.

Sorry other parents but why not help your child keep a clean record and stay outta juvie and court and avoid the ticket..

That seems sensible to me?!

MacDaddy - PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE?!?!?!? I am not sure about you but I live in America where everyone is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!!! It is the duty of the cops and district attorney to PROVE that you are GUILTY! It is also your right to not incriminate yourself (5th ammendment).

i think this is a lose lose situation, if the police go in a stop they are wrong because the parents are mad that they are in the house, but if something bad happened and the police did not go in the house then they would be the bad guys because they didn't stop it.

I would be pissed if the police came in my house without my permission. Do you realize what these kinds of cases will lead to?

The parents of the Columbine shooters didn't let their kids drink.
***************
yeah because that is the reason why they went crazy

Those parents who let their kids drink turned out dubber than box of rocks.

If you don't want your kids to drink, DON'T DRINK. Telling them not to, then doing it yourself, means they will drink when they first get the chance. Let your kids grow up, you will learn eventually.

Just for clarity: "Not a drop" only applies to operating a motor vehicle.

What about the law "Not a Drop." It doesn't matter what they blow if it not a 0.00 then they are cited. If they fail to cooperate they are detained like any adult. I believe the cops offer the breathalyzer to those teens that claim they did not drink. Prove your innocence.
.
I agree with everyone on here about the lack of parenting. If you tell your kids that drinking is okay and you think the law is stupid what happens when they go to college? They buy fake ids, go to parties and then Mommy and Daddy aren't there to "protect" them from the evil police. If you don't believe me, look up the stats on the number of underage citations at UW or UWW. It is mind-blowing how many would get caught everyday.
.
And yes the statistics show that teens that begin to drink in the home are way more likely to become alcoholics. And alcoholics cost taxpayers tons of money. So as a taxpayer, i say bust the parties and get rid of this crap that i can do whatever in my household. I can break any law.

thank you whonellie this whole theory of they can do it as long as i supervise them is crazy how about you teach them why they should not do these things that can cause them harm or not allow them to learn how to deal with life in the right way. I don't care the reasons it is not okay for parents to allow their underage child to get drunk in front of them, don't encourage your child discourage them. I am a child who grew up probably with a little more freedom then I should of had, and I love my mom dearly she is my world, but at the same time I really wish someone would of said NO you can't do that and really enforced it. I think that things would of been different I might not of been one of those rebellious teens. Now as a mother myself the only thing I can do is learn from what I have been through and teach my kids right from wrong

And if you do get caught I'll fight like the dickens to keep you out of trouble!! Stupid is as stupid does!IMO The parents got what they deserve for NOT being parents!!!!

I agree 100% with you latin! You are exactly right! When did we stop being parents and become best friends and anything goes as long as you don't get caught? Way to be good parents!

drunk people and drunk drivers can both cause harm to themselves and those around them. One with a vehicle and one with whatever is around them, there really is not a difference

That being said, the JPD using their resources to enforce it makes as much sense as creating a jaywalking task force or an Anti-loitering Squad.
***************
yeah I still don't get the theory, most times we are on here complaining because no one does anything about drunk people, now when they do just because they were underage they should not of? Do you realize that there are a lot of underage drinkers who die from alcohol poisoning because when you are underage you are invisible, nothing can hurt you. I for one am glad the cops busted the party before anything got out of control.

Those who allow their kids to drink responsibly, and those who's kids drink behind their back. Personally, I'd rather not be the one with the wool over my eyes.
**************
there are more types of parents than this, there are parents who have instilled values, morals, life lessons, and their children choose not to drink underage because they don't want to. To say it is your job to make sure they do it safely is crazy, it is actually your job to make sure they don't do it. I am guessing by your statement that it is okay for your kids to have sex, drink, and whatever else they should not be doing just as long as they do it supervised? I have a hard time understanding this theory.

Uhhh parents do have the right to say if they don't want their child to get the sobriety test or not, they are underage, and if the parents suspect the kid of being intoxicated instead of getting breathalyzed (sp) and get a ticket why not tell the cops nope it ain't goin and take them home...

I mean if they take the test and fail and get a ticket... Might as well say no and avoid the ticket..

Duh.
************
No. 1 most of this did not make sense, No. 2 if you are trying to say that the parents should say no just to avoid paying the ticket then that type of thinking is part of the reason some children think they can get away with everything. Children need to have consequences, if they don't they will think they are invisible and may end up in a really bad situation.

I agree with you Ladulce, kids are different, the parenting is different, I would not stop the police from citing my child, it is a life lesson and if you cover up for your child they will probably for the rest of their lives expect that you will fix it and cover up anything they do. Part of growing up and being able to be in the real adult world is having life lessons to learn from. People grow from their mistakes most times and it makes them the good people they are today. I am not saying all people because we all know that there is a lot of evil in this world.

MooShoo... thanks.

I am more inclined to agree with you because, actually, I glossed over the part about the party being unsupervised. "Kids will be kids" or "they'll do it anyway" is no defense.

Certainly there is a lot of gray area when it comes to law enforcement vs. parental rights. I wonder what let the police to believe and then observe that someone was passed out?

ladulce: Don't take this as anything other than pragmatic advice. ALL kids are susceptible to peer pressure. I encourage you to have frank conversations with your child(ren), which you likely already have. Also, get to know your local police officers. Let them know that UAL consumption in your residence is NOT ok, and make sure they have a cell phone number for you. Finally, let them know if you catch wind of UAL parties. Actively engaged parents are the best ally for keeping the kids safe. It's not about writing tickets...it's about safety.

Great article, and, AMEN! Shame on any parent that would not let their child be tested. IF THIS WERE MY DAUGHTER, she would be tested, and, pay for her own fine and be punished at home. NO wonder our society is going to hell. This generation is allowing kids to do anything they want to and get away with it! Simply ridiculous! These are the same kids that will struggle in jobs, relationships, and, life because parents have not allowed them to experience REALITY of cause and consequence. These parents SHOULD be arrested for obstructing, and, I hope they are in the future.

Uhhh parents do have the right to say if they don't want their child to get the sobriety test or not, they are underage, and if the parents suspect the kid of being intoxicated instead of getting breathalyzed (sp) and get a ticket why not tell the cops nope it ain't goin and take them home...

I mean if they take the test and fail and get a ticket... Might as well say no and avoid the ticket..

Duh.

One other note, JCK..."probable cause" is an expression that's used a lot, sometimes incorrectly. We don't need PC to make a traffic stop or contact. We need "reasonable suspicion." Reasonable suspicion is a lower thresh hold. We must have articulable factors leading to the suspicion that an offense is occurring or has occurred. Probable cause requires more. In traffic cases, we usually do have PC becuase it involves an observed violation which, in itself, presents a case for prosecution.

Sure, JCK. That's the way it's most often done. And, I could not convince myself to act without a warrant because it would violate my oath to "uphold, protect, and defend" the Constitution.

There are arguments for not waiting until people leave. One of those is that you aren't likely to be able to watch them all, if they leave en masse. If the one you miss is the one that gets killed or kills someone, then what? And if they all stay put, then they "got away with it." Mind you, I would rather have them stay put and miss a citation any day!

I am more proactive. I know - at least by face - the parents of the kids around town. I have cell phone numbers for many, and I don't hesitate to call them at 1 AM to tell them what I see.

I recall a couple years ago where there was a party at a house where I knew the parents were camping up north. I sent park rangers to all of the campgrounds in the area where I knew they were. About 45 minutes later (around 1:30 AM), a ranger called and was with the parents. I explained that I had seen through a window a 17 year old holding a beer. I explained the penalties for an adult failing to take action regarding under age drinking. I was told - by the parents with a ranger present - to break in if I had to. Instead, I had the parent call their son and order him to open the door for me...otherwise I would break in.

There's more than one way to skin a cat (nothing against cats!)!

copperguy,
From reading your posts in the past I've gotten the impression that you're a pretty reasonable guy. So I wanted to ask you a couple questions. If the police are aware of an underage drinking party couldn't they simply wait and detain the participants as they left the party either in a vehicle or on foot? Would their knowledge of the underage drinking constitue probable cause sufficent enough to stop individuals when they left? Thanking you in advance for your response.

I recall a conversation I had with a District Attorney about under age parties, and the dilemma they present. Since under age drinking is not a criminal violation, we can not get a search warrant for a simple UAL party. The search warrant requirement is to protect one's privacy.

As the DA explained it, the expectation of privacy rests with the owner or legal occupant of the dwelling and does not extend to other persons engaging in unlawful activity in that dwelling. So, s/he said, if you enter without a warrant, you can issue citations to all of the under age drinkers, but not to the legal occupants of record.

Sure, you might have to pay for a new door jamb if you have to force entry, but you could collect enough in fines from the non-occupants to pay for that repair PLUS send a message that under age parties are not tolerated in your jurisdiction.

Now, I have never acted without a warrant. But, I wonder, what do others think about that notion?

sysco~ We have a government that's made up of PEOPLE. As character and integrity become erased from the conscience of the generations being raised, this is the product that we get in return. The government isn't this magic entity that just appears, actual humans fill these positions within it. Maybe WE should stop putting the wrong people in power for starters.

Concerned
+
To summarize, you aren't strong enough as a parent to enforce the law of a 21 year old drinking age. When it got tough, you took the easy, everyone is doing it, way out.
+
When kids are in HS parents need to make sure their kids learn to follow the law.
+
If you believe the law is unjust then teach your kids how to be good democratic citizens and write your representatives.
+
I understand your belief system regarding this but I disagree with the message you are sending your kids. These are tough issues for parents but I find it frustrating when some take the easy way out.
+
BTW, I am not unrealistic, I believe once my kids hit college things change.
+
I believe parents should set the rules and let their kids know the consequences for breaking the rules. Then, it is up to the kids to be responsible. Real responsibility not fake, get drunk under my supervision, responsibility.

Concernedcitizen you didn't answer my question. Do the parents of the other under aged kids know they are there? Do you take the keys so they can't drive? Do the guys and girls all stay overnight together?

You also forgot two other types of parents. Those whose kids don't drink and those whose kids drink at home AND also sneak behind their backs.

You have a bad relationship with alcohol but still sponsor parties for your kids and their friends?

I don't drink with my kids, I don't drink at all. I personally have had too many nasty experiences with alcohol, and have decided that drinking is not for me. It's been about 2 years since I've had an alcoholic beverage. That being said, it's idiotic to think that a teenager is not going to drink, and it's my job to make sure that my kids do it safely.

There are two kinds of parents: Those who allow their kids to drink responsibly, and those who's kids drink behind their back. Personally, I'd rather not be the one with the wool over my eyes.

The point is that the any law that imposes a statutory numerical drinking age is moronic, immoral, ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst. However, the law exists. That being said, the JPD using their resources to enforce it makes as much sense as creating a jaywalking task force or an Anti-loitering Squad.

While I agree with much of what Capt. Davis says, I'm a little skeptical about his implication that somehow the Police and the 'system' are an effective substitution for absentee parents in this type of situation. There is a big generalization here that because the police show up at such a party, ALL parents who are not aware of their teenager's decision to attend the party suddenly should be excluded from the process, subject to possible arrest for obstructing. Arresting the parents at such a scenario? That certainly would add a lot of heat, and little if any light to the situation. In my experience, the BEST intervention comes by the police and parents working together IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE KID. In other words, don't 'shoot first' (arrest), and ask questions later.

So if you have a party for tour 16 year old and 30 of his friends do all of the parents come to supervise? Because you can only supervise your own children. And how many of those parents don't know their kida are drinking at your house?

As a person with alot of alcoholics in our family, I think these parents were wrong!! Underage drinking for one leads to heavy drinking through the years. Also it is illegal for kids to drink, there was no parent supervision, and how do we know that all those kids would not drink and drive??? They would. I think the police did what they could but all should have been arrested,including the parents!! What kind of parents condone these? I guess they're not really parents at all, just trying to be their friend instead of doing their job. This is why we have drugs and drinking rampant in this county, no one gives a hoot for their kids!!These parents need to grow up and take responsiblity to these kids. and the kids need to know that if they commit a crime, mommy and daddy are not going to bail them out!

Oh, concernedcitizen, you are one of the parents who likes to drink withthe kids. I get it now.

The law clearly states that children are allowed to drinking under the direct supervision of their parents.

Well, you know how it is with some families/people . . . .??

The rules don't apply to them. They are WAY above the rest of us.

Good points, "bobb" and "whythink".

concerned
+
Are you serious?
+
How can we as a society continue teaching kids a safe way to BREAK THE LAW? What are adults thinking?
+
No wonder kids believe anything can be done safely. Imagine their thinking, law says no beer, mom says beer OK in moderation = beer safe.
Law says no pot, but law also said no beer, beer = safe, pot = safe.
Law says no heroin, but law also said no beer or pot. Beer = safe, pot = safe, heroin = safe.
Hey, I can apply this to sex, driving fast, just about anything illegal. Mom/adult, has no given me permission to break just about any law.
+
We can't pick and choose what laws our kids should follow. Most kids aren't mature enough to understand our logic on these issues. You ok drinking when supervised you ok it when it is unsupervised.
+
You teach your kid that one law is wrong, they will fall for the peer pressure saying they are all wrong.
+
This can be tied to drugs, fighting, treating people with respect, etc...
+
Parents, stop being another friend and be a parent. Set a standard that supports the law and hold your kid to it. They honestly do not understand the inconsistancy. They are just KIDS!

The point of this story, though . . . there wasn't.

CallitasIseeit, did you not ready my post? If teenagers are supervised when they are drinking, then they won't overdose, and they won't drive. That would be the point of supervision.

Callitaslseeit - You took the words right out of my mouth. And, any of you know for sure, if that teenager would have woken up and wouldn't get in a car to drive??? If this had been a story about an "adult" with a bac of .28 - the **** would've been hitting the fan about irresponsible drinkers!!

What don't some of you posters not understand that this was an "unsupervised" party? No, no, no.

Sounds like some of these were people who had kids at the party. IMO

Every year the police kill and beat people and when questioned do not cooperate. The police are not supposed to question a child without the parent present or a lawyer. If fact there was a case where a Beloit mother punched an officer when he tried to enter her house to question her child. She was exonerated by the states supreme court. The reality is that the police are very good at their job when it involves fining people or confiscating their property, however, anything involving rape and murder well we are on our own.

Concernedcitizen must one of those "party parents" that allow it at their house. Juvenile drinking not a problem? Tell it to the loved one of the scores of people killed by underage drunk drivers or the parents who have lost children to alcohol overdosing.

Its embarrassing when parents show they can be as stupid as their kids.

NO moral authority in our culture today. It's become too "uncool" for the postmodernists.

prinny68, Thank you for bringing up the issue of wellness checks. If indeed there were a child in danger, I suppose I would want the police to intervene, I just don't like to see it used a way to circumvent constitutional protections.

I fully agree that teenagers are going to drink, and in moderation, there is nothing wrong with this, and as parents, it is our job to teach this moderation, and to supervise. For the Gazzette to publish what is clearly a puff piece for JPD/MADD/Partners In Prevention Police State Complex is unconsionable, especially when it flies in the face of what is clearly the safest and most reponsible option for teens and parents.

If that were my child passed out on the floor of that home, I would hope like heck the JPD went in and atleast completed a wellness check. I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to teenagers who probably do not know their limit, and are drinking unsupervised at a party. If the parents were at the home supervising their teens, that would be a different story, but I would hate to see a JPD officer show up to the house, knowing what is going on, do nothing, and one of these inexperienced teens ends up with alcohol poisoning, or getting into a car and driving home or elsewhere. And I am a YOUNG parent(still in my twenties) and still enjoys going out for drinks at the local taverns, so I'm not conservative and anti-social. I just know and will tell my children when they grow up that if they want to experiment with mind/judgement-altering substances, I would prefer they do it at home, under my supervision so that I know that they are going to be safe and looked after under my care. It's naive to assume our kids will not try things like this, just like we did as youths, it's smart however that we "police" our own kids, and not have to leave it to the JPD POLICE to do it for us!

In this situation, I would gladly take an obstruction rap. Assuming that no one is getting hurt, what goes on my house is not the business of the police. I would NEVER let a Law Enforcement Officer into my home without a warrant.

Underage drinking, by and large, is not a problem. The drinking age itself is an assinine social construct that is one of the highest in the world, yet the US has one of the highest rates of alcoholism in the world. This is not a coincidence.

If the JPD does not have better things to do than harrass high schoolers having fun, then perhaps they need to consider some drastic personnel changes in the form of lay-off's.

In these types of situations, it is important that our children understand that the police are NOY here to help, they are NOT here to protect or serve, they are here to assert authority that they should not have, to deprive people of thier liberties, and to collect revenue for the city and state.

To teach my kids that lesson I will happily risk an obstruction change, and I hope that the parent's of my kid's friend's would do the same.

HELLO THIS HAPPENED IN 2005 THATS 4 YEARS AGO GET OVER IT!

Joeflint, I have a lot of respect for your posts. The article is not about parents allowing their children to drink under their supervision. It is about an unsupervised drinking party at the parents' home. Its out of hand and the cops arrive.
*
The parents arrive and wish to obstruct the crime scene. There is where we depart in our views. I encourage those who choose to try to exercise their rights and test their case in court. I look forward to the very public commentary and reporting that will take place.
*
Sprout said: "if JPD arrests a parent for advising their children to excercise their constitutional rights"
*
What part of your quote do you not comprehend. Your writing skills are weak or your comprehensions skills are weaker.

Here's the thing -- if the JPD did nothing -- what would all of you being thinking right now? You would be bashing the JPD for NOT busting an underage party. It may be legal for a minor to drink with "direct" supervision, but this was not a party that was supervised. The parents did not show up until AFTER the police busted the party -- all of the kids, drinking or not are wrong! I tell my son that if he knowingly attends a party where there will be alcohol he is just as guilty as everyone else at the party - even if he isn't drinking. I would allow the JPD to arrest him. He has to learn to live by the laws of this country.

Another thing - Dan Davis is a great guy. He expects as much from his-self as he does anyone he comes into contact with. I couldn't think of a better role model for my children. (NO I am not related or a personal friend of Dan's.)

MooShoo and others... I would rather live in a FREE society where there is some risk of harm than in a nanny state where MY rights are restricted for YOUR safety.

Try CRITICALLY reading the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and other foundational documents some time; you might be alarmed at what we can "get away with".

how a bout no one takes the blame, and people grow up and own up. bunch of babies

Sound bite: Read the 5th Amendment -- the police are, for the most part, in the wrong here.

Wow... I'm a law-and-order type (I think...) but this smacks of the police being over-zealous. I do not know the facts, particularly in regards to a passed out minor; however, if parents or legal gaurdians arrived and were in control of their child, I do not see why the police think they have a leg to stand on.

Is it not legal in Wisconsin for minors to drink under the (direct) supervision of their parents?

It is perfectly legal and costitutional to refuse a breathalyzer or field sobriety test, no matter who you are or how old you are -- this goes directly to the right to NOT self-incriminate, e.g. the parents were asserting their and their child's Fifth Amendment rights.

For those who think the police could or should have done more, please read up on that particular part of the Bill of Rights! There is an unfortunate negative connotation to it in modern society... when we hear that someone has "plead the Fifth" we generally assume guilt; this is gravely unfortunate. We should individually and collectively assert all of our rights!

Proof that police have no judgment nor does our law have any as well. Either underage drinking is illegal or it isn't? Who didn't do their job once again...or is public relations in this case more important than the law. Wonder who's kid was at the party?

Last point before I call it quits tonight. Go ahead, host the drinking party, and test your misguided beliefs that constitutional rights protect you and your kids. If you are busted by Capt. Dan, please hire a dog bite attorney to represent you in criminal court. I will laugh my rear end off and post comments on the ensuing Gazette story. If you are not busted and your actions result in a carload of kids dying, I hope you are haunted by your actions until your dying day. There is no justification for what you defend, there is no healing for those you harm, and there will be no personal peace for you the rest of your life. Goodnight.

Point taken Heat. Check the statutes for penalties for obstruction. Not too onerous. Civil court is different. I guarantee that I would sue the living hell out of a parent that hosted a party who served a kid alcohol that resulted in an accident that killed my wife or children. Not a threat, but a promise.

There's a big difference between criminal liability and civil liability.

Hey kids, biggirl is hosting a drinking party. All you can drink and get stupid at her house. She plans on sticking up for you if it gets busted. And if it does not, have a safe ride home. She is worth millions in case you wrap the family sedan around a tree on the way home.

And sprout your point is ... no constitutional rights for minors. I won't even dignify a comment for the other constitutional scholar who decided to weigh in.
*
Go ahead boys, exercise what you think is within you legal rights to host a drunk for underaged drinkers. You will have your ass handed to you in civil court.

It's outrageous that police (and the Gazette) would consider it obstruction if parents try to protect their kids. I'm not sure why the police have a right to force the kids to take a breath-test. After all, there has to be proof of a crime. Just their presence at a party where some might have been drinking does not constitute such proof. Last time I looked too, we have a right to assembly in this country. It is the police who were acting badly, not the parents.

"children are minors...their constitutional rights are "disabled" which means they have no constitutional rights."

Ummmm....what planet are you living on MooShoo?

Better yet sprout, I hope the next underage drinking party in Janesville gets busted and the parents try to obstruct the investigation. It would be perfect if the fools get arrested. And the best scenario would be that they bring a civil suit against the police and the City of Janesville for violating their "constitutional" rights. I know Frank Schultz would love to write that story. Then you and I would know who the stupid and irresponsible parents are and we could post comments. Now, wouldn't that be special

umh...sprout...children are minors...their constitutional rights are "disabled" which means they have no constitutional rights. Must have slept though that class...huh.

Really? Legally a parent to stop the police from administering a field breathalyzer? That has got to be the most assenine and disgusting abuse of power I have ever heard of. I'd say "Fine, ma'am. Have it your way. CPS will be here momentarily." Those who enable should be just as accountable as those who provide in situations like these!

Parents can be arrested for obstructing, yes, but simply talking to their children is not obstructing, in my mind! That being said, I would hope that a parent would take the officers' side if they suspect their underage kids are drinking. Let them get arrested and learn from the experience. And PLEASE let them pay their own fines, that's a big part of the lesson.

Well said Capt. Dan. I hope the JPD would arrest parents who are obstructing an investigation. Message the parents sent to the kids: You can break the law, it does not apply to you, and you are not accountable.

Did the parents allow this in their home? I realize they were not home but did they give their okay for their underage child to have a drinking party? If so and my daughter was drinking in their home, I would be pressing charges against the parents. Maybe that is what the parents who were actually cooperative should do. Maybe then these parents who protect their children from consequences would learn something. As would their spoiled children.

I'm sure if they were looking inside the window to see a girl passed out on the floor they would have seen others drinking. They wouldn't need to do field sobriety testing at this point. A REAL cop would know this. Go back to your Police TV shows and quit pretending you know what your talking about.