Party bust is 'fine-line' case
Rock County deputies think they had a responsibility to enter a rural Edgerton home without a search warrant earlier this month because the rowdy teen drinking party inside could have endangered the young drinkers.
The legal reasons they cite are valid, said Paul Merkle, a longtime public defender in Rock County, but it’s a close call whether they should have called for a warrant or forced their way in as they did.
Rock County sheriff’s deputies broke into the home at 5390 W. River Oaks Road early the morning of Sunday, Nov. 4. The case raises broader questions about what law officers may and may not do when they are denied access to a house where they believe people—often teenagers—are violating the law.
They acknowledge they forced their way into the party but said in reports and interviews that they did so out of concern about:
-- Possible alcohol poisoning.
-- Vulnerability of possibly highly intoxicated underage girls.
-- Possible presence of guns in the hands of drunken kids.
-- Overall safety of drunken teenagers.
-- Obvious criminal damage to property.
Deputies ticketed a dozen underage drinkers, and they made a drunken-driving arrest near the home before the entry but in connection with the party.
Derek W. Trickle, 24, M1536 Rockvale Road, Edgerton, was cited for procuring alcohol for underage people, and Cody J. Hinkle, 20, of 107 W. Lawton St., Edgerton, was arrested on several charges.
Legal reasons
Though obvious, the vandalism in and of itself was not enough legal reason to enter the home without a search warrant, said two sheriff’s department sergeants and Brian Blanchard, Dane County district attorney.
Rock County District Attorney David O’Leary declined to comment because the case is pending.
The criminal damage was just one factor in the "totality of circumstances," said Sgt. Michael Mugnani, who decided to force entry.
On their way to the house for a loud party complaint, deputies stopped a car driving on lawns near the party.
The passenger was a 16-year-old girl whose preliminary breath test showed the relatively high blood-alcohol concentration of 0.20, deputies reported.
She told Mugnani that other high school students were drinking at the party and drugs possibly were present, according to departmental reports.
When they got to the home, deputies knocked and pounded on the door but got no response other than kids taunting them through windows.
Hinkle was looking out a window, drinking beer and throwing empty beer cans at the window, sheriff’s deputies reported.
"There were beer cans virtually littering every surface. There was half a case of beer out in the front yard," Mugnani said this week. "We could see kids out of control, throwing beer cans."
Through windows, deputies also could see a young man unconscious on the couch, and he did not respond when deputies pounded on the door and shouted.
And they saw a gun-cleaning kit next to the front door, Mugnani said.
His decision to use a crowbar to open the door was based on "the totality of the circumstances and on my training and experience, Mugnani said. "I’ve been doing this since 1981. …
"If I see a gun-cleaning kit right by the doorway, I’ve got to think there’s a good possibility guns are in the house."
He pointed out that police often deal with possibly lethal alcohol poisoning in young people.
Community caretakers
Police can enter private property without warrants if there are urgent circumstances such as hot pursuit of a suspected criminal, the probability that evidence such as drugs will be immediately destroyed or if they think someone is in danger of death or serious injury, Blanchard explained.
Entering to prevent death or injury comes under the responsibility of police to be community caretakers, Blanchard explained.
"If you believe someone is having a heart attack or stroke, you immediately bust in. This person needs help," Blanchard said.
He declined to comment on the specific case, but the district attorney offered general opinions when factors were described to him.
"If I see people throwing things in a house, throwing beer cans, the threat to others might be raised. It’s a fine-line case," Blanchard said.
Asked about entry without a warrant if deputies saw what they thought to a passed-out, unresponsive person, Blanchard replied:
"That kind of thing absolutely could be considered community caretaker. This is a tough case for police."
He noted that deputies could be faulted either way: For not entering when teens could be drinking themselves to death and for going overboard by entering a simple party without a search warrant.
‘A close case’
Assistant public defender Merkle agreed that police have the right to enter without a warrant under urgent circumstances and in their community caretaker role.
But he added:
"This is a close case. They’re (deputies) making a lot of conclusions based on what they see. But the facts could be construed another way."
For instance, maybe the gun-cleaning kit was out because of the approaching deer season, Merkle said.
And where the deputies were standing—on public or private property—when they saw what they saw could be factor, he said.
At issue would be whether they had a legal reason to go on the property and look through the windows, Merkle said.
The question of entering the home could have been resolved, he said, by calling a judge and asking for a search warrant based on crimes probably being committed.
"Take that guy off the couch, and I think it’s search warrant time," said Sgt. Gary Groelle. "It’s our responsibility to take care of them to some extent.
"If you don’t do something, the liability aspects can be astronomical. You’re balancing the safety of the community with constitutional rights, and it’s based on reasonableness."
Guns, unresponsive men found
Before using the crowbar, Mugnani fired a couple of short bursts of pepper spray through an open window to try to get the celebrants to come out. They closed and locked the window and went to another part of the house.
After they entered the home, deputies found a lot of damage, several long guns such as rifles and shotguns in the basement and four men, ages 18 to 20, passed out in the basement, according to reports.
"It seemed that they were incapacitated to the degree that none of them knew what was going on around them, nor even that we had made entrance to the house," a deputy reported.
The men appeared not only drunk but possibly drugged, and deputies found an empty prescription drug bottle with an empty baggie in it, according to the report.
What they found bore out their concerns, Mugnani said, but he acknowledged that it wasn’t a legal reason to enter without a warrant because deputies discovered it only after they entered the house.
"It was the totality of the circumstances," Mugnani reiterated.
"There is no police action that has one little factor. You take all the factors on balance and see if you can make a decision.”
Nov 28, 2007 at 9:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
What I remember of Operating While Intoxicated laws is that if you open a car door, you're operating it.Unlock a door, you're operating it.
Legally, I don't know how that would stand- if you retained a good lawyer it probably wouldn't- but it is still what they teach in most driving schools.
We had an ex-EMT teaching our class. He brought his work pictures for slideshows. He made a pretty strong impression.
Nov 28, 2007 at 5:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
outspoken, what do have blinders on when you drive through town? have you talked to any of the kids that have been stopped,oh maybe you dont know any kids lol
Nov 28, 2007 at 4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
It's possible that this has already been mentioned in the mile long list of comments, but had the police NOT entered, and had the person they SAW passed out on the couch DIED, the whole community would be raising holy hell because the police could have prevented it. It's their job to make quick judgement calls and considering that there was pretty blatant illegal activity going on inside the house, i'm glad they decided as they did. If i were these kid's parents i'd be pissed if the police just walked away. They're saying a warrent should have been obtained first? How long would that have taken? If it was a matter of minutes, i could understand. Any longer than a couple hours, though and it would be practically pointless. It'll be a sad day if these kids get off due to some loophole. THAT'D be good message... (sarcasm)
Nov 28, 2007 at 3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hey mannsur read the whole post then you won't be so confused. Very good point Pandow.
Nov 28, 2007 at 3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
etown, just wondering why every story you comment on reverts back to teenagers being stopped and vehicles searched. Are you riding around with them, or saw it happen once and thats how you percieve every stop to be? I bet if you would ask the officers, the other half of the story would be quite different, and legal. But then it wouldn't be your buisness anyway. If you are so up tight about Edgerton, move. You wont appreciate all the good thats taking place in Edgerton anyway.
Nov 28, 2007 at 2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Blackirish: That's a good one:)
BadgerPacker: Sorry if I snapped at you. Obviously I took what you said the wrong way. Some of the people that post in here are very judgemental, critical and rude. It just gets alittle aggravating. Anyway, sorry about that.
Nov 28, 2007 at 12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
I didn't mean it to sounds snide and that I was perfect. In my eyes "taking down" in a police sense is busting anybody that is doing anything wrong. You're the one that made the bad assumption that I wanted to paint him as a bad criminal on the loose.
And the comment about the keys was just so that you knew he didn't have to even go that far. I wasn't trying to be a jackbag about it. Just trying to give you a little extra information you might not have known. Maybe it will keep some people from getting taken down that really weren't planning on going anywhere but didn't want to be out in the elements.
Nov 28, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
badgerpacker: I too am glad that they were sitting outside of the bar that night and had stopped my brother-n-law from possibly hurting himself or anyone else. He is a sweet kid and I'd hate for him to put himself into a really bad situation and the fact that he was "caught" before anything happened was enough to scare him straight. Although, I think your statement "I commend the cops for taking down your brother in law" is being a little melodramatic. Was what he almost did stupid? Yes. But "taking down" my brother-n-law, you make it sound as if he was a violent criminal on the loose.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Some of you people in here really need to lighten up. When people share their views/opinions/stories you make snide and rude comments back as if you're perfect little angels who have gone through life and never done anything wrong. Give it a rest already...
Nov 28, 2007 at 8:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
I commend the cops for taking down your brother in law. Also your keys don't have to be in the ignition for the ticket.
Nov 28, 2007 at 12:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Some of you are not comprehending the fact that if they were so concerned about the safety of others instead of just busting in they could've called the judge, gotten the search warrant and then entered the home. Cop or not, you have certain guidelines that need to be followed. While waiting for the search warrant to come through they could've still busted anyone who came out and attempted to drive. They wouldn't even have had to wait till the vehicle was on the road. I'm not sure if any of you know this but if your intoxicated and you put your keys into the ignition of your vehicle you can be charged. Last winter my brother-n-law came out of a bar (intoxicated) and was just sitting in his vehicle and he was arrested. He tried to get out of it by saying that he had no intentions of driving and that he was just going to warm up while waiting for his ride. The cop told him that by putting the keys into the ignition that he was attempting to drive while intoxicated. Needless to say my brother-n-law got a pretty hefty fine out of that.
Nov 28, 2007 at 12:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmansur -- No one was in immediate danger. The police had no reason to enter the way they did. The correct way to handle this would have been to watch the house while attempting to contact the owner, and prevent the kids from drunken driving. Run license plates to contact other parents. Once the owner was contacted, get permission to enter. Or if it would have been quicker to get a warrant, then do that. But to storm in like they did was wrong. By their own admission, no one was in immediate peril, in which case the police have every right to enter the premisis.
Nov 27, 2007 at 11:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
What is all this crap about if the cops broke in on adults????
If they were adults nothing would have happened and the cops would move on with their lives. What is your people's problem. Get a clue, the cops, especially in this case were out to protect the community and these kids. If there was drinking and driving that is illegal and they had a reason to enter.
Everyone is all up in arms, go to Whitewater for a while and you will see much more of this. And more needs to be done to stop kids from "thinking" this is okay behavior.
Nov 27, 2007 at 6:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
if somebody at that party would have died, and the police didnt go and in bust all the kids there, would everybody be saying, "Why didnt the police break in and stop the party?" We cant have it both ways. the police were doing there jobs, and what I want to know is where were the parents of all these kids?
Nov 27, 2007 at 6:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why arent the parents supporting the police, I know that they should have had a warrant, but the fact still remains that these kids drinking and they were not of age. Do I think the police should have a warrant? Yes, but isnt this considered probable cause? just a thought.
Nov 27, 2007 at 5:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”
—RONALD REAGAN
Nov 27, 2007 at 5:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
The Founding Fathers started with an important premise: we, the American people, are responsible citizens and are entitled to information about what our government is doing, since the government has the power of coercion over our lives. It is precisely to secure individual liberty that our Constitution, backed by the Bill of Rights, limits and enumerates the powers of the federal government.
In the last century, however, the government has grown exponentially both in size and power while our constitutional rights keep eroding. The government continues with its time-worn phrase: “Trust us. We are here to protect you.” But in the eyes of the state, trust has simply become a one-way street. We are to trust the government “to do the right thing,” while the government demonstrates a profound lack of trust in us, the people. The state keeps collecting more and more information about us, while allowing less and less information about what it is doing to us. In other words, the age-old battle is being waged between the government’s legitimate authority to defend our nation and its responsibility to protect those God-given rights that are spelled out in the Bill of Rights.
The USA Patriot Act, passed by the Congress in the aftermath of the tragic 9/11 terrorist attacks, contains provisions in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the limitation on government power it represents. Unfortunately too many of our fellow law-abiding Americans think that it is not a matter of great concern to them. In reality, it should be a matter of great concern because it affects the liberties of all law-abiding citizens.
Nov 27, 2007 at 5:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime."
—Johnson v. United States, 333 US 10, 13-14 (1948
People are turning into livestock! Go ahead believe everything you read.
Nov 27, 2007 at 5:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Were the kids drinking alcohol in the wrong? Yes. Were the adults who gave them alcohol in the wrong? Yes. Should they be punished for this? Yes. Is it a good thing that the police stopped things before something bad possibly happened? Yes. Was it necessary for the police to do things the way they did? NO! Should the police had called in for a search warrant before entering the place? YES! Should the police get some sort of punishment for over stepping their boundaries? YES! What's going to happen the when a bunch of hunting buddies are sitting around drinking and having a good time in their house? The cops notice alot of vehicles parked outside, their being loud (having a good time) and the cops peek in and see their guns laying around and maybe they see a couple of the hunters teenage kids inside the house. Can they bust in because they see one of the hunters laying on the couch, a couple guns on the coffee table and a bunch of beer cans laying around and they assume that maybe the teenagers are drinking also? Give me a break. The police shouldn't have handled it the way they did. They have certain rules and guidelines to follow.
Nov 27, 2007 at 5:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
I have absolutely no criminal record housewife, and I never said anything about victims. You just like disagreeing with people. I will not debate you nor will I give any attention to your worthless unsubstantiated rants. Like I said before, How do you know anyone would have developed alcohol poisoning, or driven drunk? The use of the phrase "fine line" makes it seem like they might know they are in trouble already.
Nov 27, 2007 at 5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
ashlea , kudo to you , but i have never had contact with the police either, and i dont agree with teenage drinking, or any other activity that breaks the law, but i am willing to bet that if the cops stopped you once a week , and searched your vehicle for the heck of it you would be complaining about it, or would you say its okay just a minor inconvenience, because you have nothing to hide,unfortunately people only seem to care about their rights when it s their right s that are being violated, someone on here made the comment that the number of people being picked up for alcohol offenses are on the rise in the U S , but has anyone checked out other countries they dont have the problems we do but most of them have lower drinking ages, they changed the drinking age to 21 and unfortunately what seems to have happened,is to many people dont agree with the change, and are more willing to give alcohol to someone between the age of 18-20,these people in turn are more willing to give it to the under 18 group , take the drinking age back to 18 and give this group a choice if they want to go to a bar with adults , or a party with minor s and what do you think they will choose? and for the record i wasnt slamming edgerton , i pointed out that this party was not in rural edgerton, but rural janesville, and the other party that i put on here was in rural evansville, it doesnt really matter where its happening at violating your rights is violating your right s
Nov 27, 2007 at 4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
pudsweetie, You are dead on. If my hypothetical teenage kid was at that party the LAST thing I would do is question if the police were within their bounds. My kid would be getting their just punishment - hopefully volunteering wiping the butts of those injured by drunk drivers or those with brain damage caused by alcohol poisoning.
fldpan, parents like you ARE the reason for selfish, irresponsible kids like these at the party. Everything is about you and your poor, victim status. No matter what, you and the poor victimized drunk kids are innocent little souls at the hands of a vicious police state.
Try staying out of trouble for once. It does wonders.
I know a few police officers personally- as friends and members of the community.
Paul Merkle is also a wonderful, capable, and highly organized lawyer. Even he says this falls on a thin line between . If it was more blatantly illegal, he would have said so.
Nov 27, 2007 at 4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
How do any of you know the police "saved lives". Do you really think that if the cops wouldn't have broken in, that someone would have gotten hurt? Or gotten alcohol poisoning, or driven drunk? Are the police going to start charging us with crimes that haven't happened yet? Come on, like it says below. Would you still be so behind the police if it were a group of adults, instead of minors? Yeah so what, the kids got busted they probably deserve it. If the bust was legal I would have no problem. But the police can not continue to do this sort of thing! Once precedent is set it is too late.
Nov 27, 2007 at 3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
What if earthworms had machine guns? Well, birds wouldn't eat 'em.
Nov 27, 2007 at 12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm amazed people are trying to compare this to George Orwell or a police state or revocation of civil liberties or whatever. There are a lot of people in Washington DC ignoring the Constitution right now, but this is hardly a case like that. The cops have a thankless job and I'm glad they did the right thing.
Nov 27, 2007 at 11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
To etown
I never put myself into a situation where the cops had to get involved, I don't drink, never have and never will. Plus the people that I surround myself with don't drink and I have never had any type of action where the police overstepped their bounds. I also have to say that if the cops had done nothing and known that this was going on and something had happened, you would still be bashing them. I do agree with a lot of the comments about the cops are damned if they do and damned if they don't. The cops are like parents, kids either hate them for what they have done or hate them for what they haven't done. Also the fine town that I am from is a very close knot commmunity and I wouldn't trade my upbringing in this "fine" town for anything! I have nothing to complain about, I am one of the lucky peole who when I was graduating from high school I had no police record as to DUI or DWI or any other reason for the cops to get involved. I am sorry if my "fine" town has a bad rep but maybe it is the people who have the bad reps who need to do something for themselves. Not everything can be blamed on the police, they were just acting with common sense and precaution, they were trying to ensure that at least the kids were not dead or hurt. They were protecting the kids, can't you see that? I mean really, you are so caught up in the cops overstepping bounds that you can't see the fact that they actually saved lives. Thank you for your comments but really who are you mad at, the cops or the kids that made the cops get involved?
Nov 27, 2007 at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
I cannot believe some of you people who are writing comments on here. Some of you are so fixated on whether or not the police were in the right or wrong should not matter. If you are a responsible parent, then you should be glad that the police are looking out for your children and their safety. Just because when you were your child's age and drank, does not make it right and should be teaching your children that. Yes kids will be kids and a parent cannot watch them 24/7, but you can instill in them the difference between right from wrong, what will happen if they do wrong and let them know that if they decide to be stupid that they will have to face the consequence of their actions. Any parent in my opinion who allows their child to drink while underage, go to parties where there will be alcohol and no supervision and let them run wild and do whatever they want is not being very responsible. When I was 16, I was not allowed to go to a party unless there was adult supervision and by adult I mean a parent being present. I had a curfew, and I had to let my parent's know where I was at and who I was with. That is called being a responsible parent, your kids may hate it, but will thank you later when they become adults and have children of their own. Kids will be kids, but hopefully they will make more right decisions than wrong ones, and hopefully if they do wrong they will learn from their mistakes. The way I see thing's, what the police did that night was a prevention, because they prevented things like alcohol poisoning and drinking and driving from happening and everyone at that party got home safe and no one was injured. To me that is what is important, not whether the police had the right to do what they did. If it were your child at this party, would your reaction be the same or different?
Nov 27, 2007 at 8 a.m.
Suggest removal
If you're a cop, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If they didn't go in and kid passed out on the couch was dead, how many of you would be saying, "Damn cops shouldn't have let the party keep going?" I haven't had the best time with cops, but I do know that they aren't out to get people unless they have a reason to be gotten.
Nov 27, 2007 at 12:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hey everyone - where does common sense lie in the constitution? Don't you think these cops have a brain and some intuition that tells them they better get involved before somebody gets hurt (or killed) ? They were relying on common sense - they were trying to do their job to protect the public (including those kids) before anything got out of hand and somebody got hurt. That's it, end of story.
Nov 26, 2007 at 10:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
ashlea, i also wanted to mention that since your from this fine town , then you must of at some point witness the cops searching every teenagers vehicle they stop they stop ? is this not a violation of their rights? since when does every traffic stop you make turn into a police search,my point is not just about this story , but in general making up excuses to stop someone because you think they did or are doing something illegal is not legal,
Nov 26, 2007 at 10:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
ashlea, no i already stated earlier no one i know was involved in this incident,including myself, but i do have personal knowledge of other incidents where they have entered homes or stopped by for made up reasons to check and see what was going on because they "thought" something didnt seem right, i am not against them stopping teenage parties , if it happens once thats one thing , but there have been several time in the past months they have entered home s where they didnt really have any proof other then seeing activity so they were just checking it out, no wonder so many vehicles, houses , businesses are being robbed and broken into , the police department is out on a road trip looking for to many vehicles parked in one driveway
Nov 26, 2007 at 8:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yeah Unk, I heard Dick Chenney called the sherriff and reamed him a good one for not violating more peoples "rights". LOL!
Nov 26, 2007 at 7:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
The systematic revocation of our rights has begun. Brainwashing the public into believing that it is all in the name of public safety/homeland security.
Nov 26, 2007 at 6:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
There is no such thing as "Constitutional Rights". Rights are not given to a person by another person, or group. Rights are "God given", and cannot be taken away. Rights can be violated, and the Constitution was created to secure our rights. Of course, it's up to each of us to exercise our rights responsibly, which is the opposite side of the same coin.
Nov 26, 2007 at 5:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Janesville Gazette writes..."Rock County sheriff’s deputies broke into the home at 5390 W. River Oaks Road early the morning of Sunday, Nov. 14."
Actually it was the 4th, the 14th was a Wednesday. How about the police and the Janesville Gazette get there facts straight before they brainwash everyone’s opinions about this unconstitutional raid.
To the people that think this was "great/good job police," I would be interested to know how your opinion changed if you were having a little football party and the cops maced your house/broke in "for your safety."
For everyone’s information THE POLICE DID NOT FIND 4 GUNS! THE ONLY GUNS IN THE HOUSE WERE LOCKED IN A SAFE!
Nov 26, 2007 at 4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Should have maced the whole drunken lot"? You are way out in left field Seebee. Your comments all across this site explain your views well.
If you don't open your door to the police, that does not give them the right to break in. The girl in the vehicle was no doubt pressured into telling the police where she was drinking, which she had the right not to do. She should have not given them a breath test. Did you know they now have Breathalyzers that can get a reading from three or four feet away?
Do you people who think the police were right want your freedom taken away or what? That is what will happen if the lawmakers can keep stretching the rules and laws. Checks and Balances remember?
Nov 26, 2007 at 4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Woodchuck writes:It sounds like the kids taunted the cops, the cops got mad that someone would challenge their authority, and they responded emotionally instead of logically .
My thoughts exactly!! They were mad so they made up a lie to bust in. In order to SEE all those things they did from the window, they must have been outside for a long time.
Nov 26, 2007 at 3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
I remember discussing this case a few weeks ago and being told how no guns were in the house. Hmmm, guns were found near 4 illegal drunks who didn't realize what was going on.
Prank 911 calls, taunting cops, drunk driving, guns, teens passed out. Yeah, no reason to enter the property.
Cops did nothing wrong. They arrested a bunch of kids with no respect for the law and 2 losers who feel "cool" by supplying underagers with alchol.
Congrats to the cops for catching the bad guys!
Nov 26, 2007 at 3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reader, you must like to guess. It seems you have no clue. Do you want the police to break the laws? If the police are allowed to break the law, it will evolve into a police state in no time. Ask yourself this? Would any of the people in that house died or gotten seriously hurt while the deputies waited for a warrant? If I was in your lawn looking in your windows, and creeping around undetected, would you like me? How about if I sprayed pepper spray through the windows? The people in that house had a right to not answer that door. "Nothing unconstitutional"? How about the fourth amendment? "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."
About the guns, Who cares? The second amendment? The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. If Amrericans didn't have guns we would still be English.
Just because a few people believe in their constitutional rights, doesn't mean they dislike cops. Maybe they dislike the idea of a country that isn't free.
Nov 26, 2007 at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
I can't belive this story has turned from the fact underage people were in a house having a party - some passed out - some driving reckless causing criminal damage, to trying to blame police. The Police did a great thing. I find nothing unconstitutional about what was done. This business about waiting for a warrant...get real! If it was your kid passed out in the care of out of control drunk kids you'd want the police to bust in and render care. (unless of course you're a bad parent) It's obvious from the reports that these kids were out of control. The Police had an obligation to take action not sit and wait for a key or a warrant as suggested by another reader. I can tell a few people in this forum dislike the police - my guess is these people are the same people that haven't lived the most productive lives and have not contributed much to society. Will there be lawsuits? Sure likely, but usually people that have nothing better to do in life will try and find a reason to sue a county/city because they have big pockets. They should be ashamed. It's these worthless people who cost tax payers money that shouldn't be spent. Get a job, get a hobby, and find something better to do with your time.
Nov 26, 2007 at 8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
this comment is for etown-
are you one of the persons who was violated in bust? You seem to be really trying to defend whatever ereally happened. We all know what cops can and do get away with, why are you so mad about the fact that it is in print about the misinformation of what the cops did and/or said? I am from Edgerton, lived their most of my live went to middle school and high school there, everyone drinks under the age of 21. That fact is in not new, the way the cops handled the situation, also nothing new, and the "lies" that the cops are saying, guess what still NOTHING NEW! There will always be three sides to a two sided story if it happened in Edgerton, it just depends on who you are going to believe. Etown it sounds like you are an insider who knows all about what happend, am I right? With cops you can't take anything personal, they will always have the "code" to protect them and unless the kids had any of this on their phone videos or taped how it really went down, then it is just word against word.
Imo the bust is great, underage and driving? Isn't there already a 16 yr. old facing homicide charges for drinking and driving? Just thought that I would point that out.
Nov 26, 2007 at 7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
I for one feel that the police had know right to bust in the way they did and I hope they all get in trouble for it. If police cannot follow the law why should anyone else?
Nov 25, 2007 at 10:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Maybe if people helped the cops rather than making it hard for them to do their job all the time there would be less complaining about them doing what they have to do to keep the community safe.
Everybody seems to forget the fact that once again there was somebody doing something illegal prior to anything else happening. I agree that two wrongs don't make a right, but one wrong doesn't make a right either.
Nov 25, 2007 at 9:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
camper61
amen
4 sure there are lawsuits pending.
Nov 25, 2007 at 4:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
i never said my kids were drinking or i was having a party, my kids were not involved in any of these incidents, my point in oct the did the same thing , it is in the public records, their are other s too but i couldnt find them on here, this is becoming common practice to approach houses in the dark and enter with out permission, the excuses to many cars in drive to much traffic, kids sitting outside by a fire, where is their proof that anyone on these properties are doing anything wrong before they approach them , what they have night vision now too, and two wrongs dont make it right , so they didnt damage the property more then the kids ,but they did damage it, my point is and always will be they had other options and ignored them , what was the point those kids werent leaving with the cops outside, they would of still been there when the owner showed up with a key they didnt even get the town right it s not edgerton its janesville its a dead end road off from river road
Nov 25, 2007 at 11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Well geez a bomb fire? I hope they call the fire department and E.M.S. The F.B.I. needs to be called in too because we can't have bombs going off and starting fires!
Nov 25, 2007 at 10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
etown-if you are having your kids party, you kid can drink as long as you're there. Just don't like the 50 other kids you invited drink unless their parents are there. Of course you still run the risk of somebody getting in a car later and when they crash, telling the cops they got the alcohol from you.
Also etown, the cops didn't damage the property any more than the roudy kids. It doesn't take much to pop a door open with a crowbar.
Nov 25, 2007 at 9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
reader1 your comment is almost to funny , and just where were these kids going, the police were outside the house they were in the house , at first they said they seen a firearm now it turns out the didnt only a cleaning kit , a party like this just happened in a shed up by madison, they didnt break in the shed they waited outside of it , did these kids need to get busted absolutely, did the police department need to damage this house , absolutely not , but what concerns me is they are driving around rock county looking for homes with alot of vehicles their and then just entering to check to see if it kids partying, what right do they have just to walk into someone home because they see kids a bomb fire , and vehicles,
Nov 25, 2007 at 6:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Isn't funny that cops can LIE to people while on duty, but if you LIE to a cop its obstructing justice??
Something very wrong there. IF they can not make a case without LYING they need to give it up and realize they don't have a case.
Nov 25, 2007 at 4:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Great job by Rock County Deputies! The sad part is if the cops didn't do anything the same people complaining that they went into the house would be the same people complaining if someone died and the cops hadn't gone into the house. The cops always get the short end of the stick - it's time to recognize the good they do and be happy they got there and did something before someone ended up dead. The Police had a tuff decision to make and I support what they did. Bottom line, don't drink and drive, don't underage drink and you wont run into these problems people. Find something better to do with your time. The cop's were only doing their jobs, and they did a good one at that!
Nov 25, 2007 at 1:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
and just so you can all see what im talking about i searched and found the record of one, look in public records oct 20, they went to this place , and the only reason they went their was police reported a high volume of traffic in and out of this residence, they entered the house through a back door that was unlocked, what i didnt understand why would 3 over 21 get tickets for allowing someone to drink ,they didnt supply the alcohol to these kids , so now when you go somewhere your suppose to be the police , there was no complaints called in , so the next time you want to have your child s birthday party xmas party and your gonna have more then five cars in your drive way you better call the police department an notify them so they dont bust in your door
Nov 25, 2007 at 1:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodchuck i have heard of that she was underage and smelled of alcohol had they bad over 21 they probably wouldnt of given one ,for the other posts whos to say the girl really told them that or did they make that up, now the gun they saw , turns out to be a gun cleaning kit not an actual gun i think if you read back they were quoting a police officer when they said a gun was in plain sight and in one article it say s they were called out because of a car driving through lawns now it says they were called out because of loud noise and then saw the vehicle driving through lawns well which is it ? im not saying they shouldnt of went in and got these kids and stopped them from what they were doing but i do think they had other options in the way they handled it , and like i have stated before this is not the first house they have done this to , its just the first house they damaged entering without permission that ive heard of
Nov 24, 2007 at 9:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
It sounds like the kids taunted the cops, the cops got mad that someone would challenge their authority, and they responded emotionally instead of logically (or legally, imo). They were wrong and they know it! Also, I never heard of giving breath tests for alcohol to passengers in cars. Is that done often? What's their authority for that? It sounds like another possible 4th Amendment violation to me.
Nov 24, 2007 at 8:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think they had every right to come onto the property. A drunk 16 year old driving through lawns and then reports the illegal party going on. There was also a noise complaint. If they get a complaint, they have to go to the house and warn people. The kids wouldn't answer the door. That's suspect enough. They were asking for it by taunting them. I think they should have called for the warrant, but only to cover their asses. If they would have gone to that house for the noise complaint but never entered or called for a warrant and something would have happened to one of those kids, then we would be writing comments on how they neglected the situation.
Nov 24, 2007 at 5:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Kudos to the cops for busting this party. For fun they should have maced the whole drunken lot.
Nov 24, 2007 at 11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Although nobody has YET....lets not blame the police for the story changing. Police reports don't change.
Nov 24, 2007 at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
and for the record this house is located in janesville not edgerton
Nov 24, 2007 at 10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
and now the story changes
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.