Cops issued 127 tickets at party bust...

Cops issued 127 tickets at party bust in Mankato

There are 50 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Jan 19, 2009, titled Cops issued 127 tickets at party bust in Mankato. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

It was the first weekend back for students at Minnesota State University-Mankato, and Mankato city authorities were ready.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

Constitutional Violations

Eau Claire, WI

#21 Jan 21, 2009
Jaywalking wrote:
An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.
When doing "research" it is very advisable to read more than the first 2 lines of your sources material. Violations of the 4th Amendment are not treated lightly in any court with standing higher than a circus court. There are very few exceptions to this that would be called "EXIGENT" There are four exigent circumstances which may justify a warrantless search:ď(1) an arrest made in Ďhot pursuit,í(2) a threat to safety of a suspect or others,(3) a risk that evidence will be destroyed, and (4) a likelihood that the suspect will flee.Ē Add alaso that the government, cops, Jack Booted Thugs, cannot create the exigent circumstance. In otherwords if the cops know of a "underage drinking" party, before they go there they would, should have their search warrent in hand. So quite probably all the arrests at this Mankato party are illegal. The reason this is allowed to go on is because of the cooperation and tacit approval of the many attorneys, judges, cops, and court workers who turn their collective heads to these injustices, violations, and count the money coming in to their and the states coffers.
Lawyer

Saint Paul, MN

#22 Jan 21, 2009
In all constitutionality, it appear that the police violated the constitutionally protected right to privacy, constitutionally speaking, ergo quo quid pro diem. To put it in Layman's terms, the cops actually have to witness the alcohol being comsumed, et al, there is no way to prove it without violated the right to un seasonable search and/or seizure.
Delusional

Minneapolis, MN

#23 Jan 21, 2009
I would hope that a real lawyer could put their thoughts into words more easily and correct that you just did. How about using the word constitutionally a few more times in one single sentence??
Lawyer wrote:
In all constitutionality, it appear that the police violated the constitutionally protected right to privacy, constitutionally speaking, ergo quo quid pro diem. To put it in Layman's terms, the cops actually have to witness the alcohol being comsumed, et al, there is no way to prove it without violated the right to un seasonable search and/or seizure.

“Jaywalking”

Since: Oct 08

Minneapolis, MN

#24 Jan 21, 2009
Lawyer wrote:
In all constitutionality, it appear that the police violated the constitutionally protected right to privacy, constitutionally speaking, ergo quo quid pro diem. To put it in Layman's terms, the cops actually have to witness the alcohol being comsumed, et al, there is no way to prove it without violated the right to un seasonable search and/or seizure.
ergo quo quid pro diem?

It appears that you combined Quid Pro Quo (something for something) with Carpe Diem (Seize the day). You might want to break that down into its constituent elements.

OK Lawyer:

Here is an example. Give us your opinion.

A person enters a bar, drinks to excess, leaves the bar, gets behind the wheel of the car, and heads for home.

The police witness the car driving erratically and pull over the car. The police smell alcohol and remove the man from the car. The man fails a field sobriety test.

There is no alcohol in the car.

The police did not witness the person drinking.

Are you saying that the police have to release the person because they did not witness him drinking?
Constitutional Violations

Eau Claire, WI

#25 Jan 21, 2009
Jaywalking wrote:
<quoted text>
ergo quo quid pro diem?
It appears that you combined Quid Pro Quo (something for something) with Carpe Diem (Seize the day). You might want to break that down into its constituent elements.
OK Lawyer:
Here is an example. Give us your opinion.
A person enters a bar, drinks to excess, leaves the bar, gets behind the wheel of the car, and heads for home.
The police witness the car driving erratically and pull over the car. The police smell alcohol and remove the man from the car. The man fails a field sobriety test.
There is no alcohol in the car.
The police did not witness the person drinking.
Are you saying that the police have to release the person because they did not witness him drinking?
You are confused!! There is a big difference between Driving While Intoxicated,(D.U.I.) and underage Drinking! In a D.U.I. situation you have contracted to the government to "Implied Consent". In otherwords if you are stopped while driving you will take a PBT or other blood alcohol test. There isn't such a provision for Joe Blow Underage drinker. That is where the 4th Amendment Violations come into play. The cops do not have the right to search your body, your person for evidence. They can bodily search you but not your bodies fluids or expulsions. In the Mankato instance the cops should have had search warrents in hand before they left the station, so if they didn't, and they requested PBT's they are probably not legal as evidenc and should be stricken from the record. Ah yes!! Cops violating our Rights and their oathes, and the judges and attorneys line up to get their share of the money!!!!

“Jaywalking”

Since: Oct 08

Minneapolis, MN

#26 Jan 21, 2009
Constitutional Violations wrote:
<quoted text> You are confused!! There is a big difference between Driving While Intoxicated,(D.U.I.) and underage Drinking! In a D.U.I. situation you have contracted to the government to "Implied Consent". In otherwords if you are stopped while driving you will take a PBT or other blood alcohol test. There isn't such a provision for Joe Blow Underage drinker. That is where the 4th Amendment Violations come into play. The cops do not have the right to search your body, your person for evidence. They can bodily search you but not your bodies fluids or expulsions. In the Mankato instance the cops should have had search warrents in hand before they left the station, so if they didn't, and they requested PBT's they are probably not legal as evidenc and should be stricken from the record. Ah yes!! Cops violating our Rights and their oathes, and the judges and attorneys line up to get their share of the money!!!!
No, I am not confused. I just wanted to make sure that you and I are on the same page.

Your argument seems to consistently return to Jack Boots, Judges, Attorneys, and money from the public. Let's set those things aside and focus on underage consumption.

A citizen calls 911 and lodges a complaint about a party next door making too much noise.

The police start the investigation by entering the property and announcing that a complaint has been lodged regarding the noise.

True to form, some loudmouth spouts off to the police.

The police ask for the loudmouth's ID, which is legal. The loudmouth is 17 and smells of alcohol.

Q1: What can the police do at this point?

A1:

Q2: If the police do nothing and the loudmouth drives drunk and injures someone, can the police can be held liable for knowingly allowing an underage loudmouth to drive when the presence of alcohol had been established.

A2:

Q3: The other party goers testify in court that the loudmouth was drunk and that the police knew, or should have known, that the kid was drinking. Is this testimony valid?

A3:

Q4: If the police testify in court that they took no action because they did not see the loudmouth drinking, are they off the hook?

A4:
Constitutional Violations

Eau Claire, WI

#27 Jan 21, 2009
Jaywalking wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I am not confused. I just wanted to make sure that you and I are on the same page.
Your argument seems to consistently return to Jack Boots, Judges, Attorneys, and money from the public. Let's set those things aside and focus on underage consumption.
A citizen calls 911 and lodges a complaint about a party next door making too much noise.
The police start the investigation by entering the property and announcing that a complaint has been lodged regarding the noise.
True to form, some loudmouth spouts off to the police.
The police ask for the loudmouth's ID, which is legal. The loudmouth is 17 and smells of alcohol.
Q1: What can the police do at this point?
A1:
Q2: If the police do nothing and the loudmouth drives drunk and injures someone, can the police can be held liable for knowingly allowing an underage loudmouth to drive when the presence of alcohol had been established.
A2:
Q3: The other party goers testify in court that the loudmouth was drunk and that the police knew, or should have known, that the kid was drinking. Is this testimony valid?
A3:
Q4: If the police testify in court that they took no action because they did not see the loudmouth drinking, are they off the hook?
A4:
So why don't you stay on the topic of underage drinking and not wander off to intoxicated driving?? They are two (2) different things. I myself think that 95% of those leaving the local watering hole are probably legally too intoxicated to drive, are they all arrested?? Underage drinking tickets are not done according to the 4th Amendment and make huge amounts of money for the courts, the state, and the cops through fines and Federal KICK BACKS. Not a good thing to have our government paying others to violate citizens rights.

“Jaywalking”

Since: Oct 08

Minneapolis, MN

#28 Jan 22, 2009
Constitutional Violations wrote:
<quoted text> So why don't you stay on the topic of underage drinking and not wander off to intoxicated driving?? They are two (2) different things. I myself think that 95% of those leaving the local watering hole are probably legally too intoxicated to drive, are they all arrested?? Underage drinking tickets are not done according to the 4th Amendment and make huge amounts of money for the courts, the state, and the cops through fines and Federal KICK BACKS. Not a good thing to have our government paying others to violate citizens rights.
You did not answer my questions.
Annoyed

New York, NY

#29 Jan 22, 2009
Wow, Jaywalking, you just don't see his point do you?

I get what you are trying to say about Driving Under the Influence but that is not the situation at hand. Underage drinking, that is the situation.

First off, I think it is ridiculous that a man, and or woman, is able to die for our country in war but not allowed to have a drink. But that may be just me.(By the way, I'm well over 21.)

Secondly, I understand they were underage, and it may have been wrong for them to be drinking, but how can one tell exactly where their consumed alcohol came from? Why are these 4 people being charged with purchasing and providing all the alcohol? I know plenty of college students with fake i.d.'s.

“Jaywalking”

Since: Oct 08

Minneapolis, MN

#30 Jan 22, 2009
Annoyed wrote:
Wow, Jaywalking, you just don't see his point do you?
I get what you are trying to say about Driving Under the Influence but that is not the situation at hand. Underage drinking, that is the situation.
First off, I think it is ridiculous that a man, and or woman, is able to die for our country in war but not allowed to have a drink. But that may be just me.(By the way, I'm well over 21.)
Secondly, I understand they were underage, and it may have been wrong for them to be drinking, but how can one tell exactly where their consumed alcohol came from? Why are these 4 people being charged with purchasing and providing all the alcohol? I know plenty of college students with fake i.d.'s.
You still did not answer my questions. Respond to each question based on the conditions I set forth.
Constitutional Violation

Eau Claire, WI

#31 Jan 22, 2009
Jaywalking wrote:
<quoted text>
You still did not answer my questions. Respond to each question based on the conditions I set forth.
Your questions clearly point out your ignorance so here goes: If a cop smells alcohol on a DRIVER of a motor vehicle all states have IMPLIED CONSENT as part of the driver signing their name on their license. IMPLIED CONSENT means either you blow into the measuring device or we find you guilty of D.U.I. anyway. About the cops not being able to stop someone from driving that they perceive is underaged and has been drinking but is not in the car? Well they can detain the suspect and get a search warrent if they want to use a PBT, now isn't that simple?? All the cops have to do is follow the law!!! And yes if the cops think someone is drunk and they let them drive it is not their fault, it is the driver who drove the car. OK Jaywalking what grade of grade school did you drop out from???
Down Home Boy

Minneapolis, MN

#32 Jan 22, 2009
For all you out house lawyers in here.
Franklin Benjamin Jones was on trail for stat. rape he was 18 she was 17 years and 10 months.
She did not testify because she did not want to.
Mr Jones claimed they were in love.
The DA office was pushing for brutal rape.

Mr Jones stood and addressed the court,
" Your Honor da pants were to da knees, da balls were in the breeze, you know what was you know where and if that ain't lovin then give me the chair".

“Jaywalking”

Since: Oct 08

Minneapolis, MN

#33 Jan 23, 2009
Constitutional Violation wrote:
<quoted text> Your questions clearly point out your ignorance so here goes: If a cop smells alcohol on a DRIVER of a motor vehicle all states have IMPLIED CONSENT as part of the driver signing their name on their license. IMPLIED CONSENT means either you blow into the measuring device or we find you guilty of D.U.I. anyway. About the cops not being able to stop someone from driving that they perceive is underaged and has been drinking but is not in the car? Well they can detain the suspect and get a search warrent if they want to use a PBT, now isn't that simple?? All the cops have to do is follow the law!!! And yes if the cops think someone is drunk and they let them drive it is not their fault, it is the driver who drove the car. OK Jaywalking what grade of grade school did you drop out from???
I am not pointing out my ignorance. You have just established yours.

Your effort was noble. It represented a mighty swing--reaching for the stands. But for all that effort, the ball appears to have ended up in the catcher's mitt.

You are incorrect on the following points:

The police do not need a search warrant to issue a PBT to the underage kid. If he refuses, the police will perform an alternate test (Blood Surrogate or Field Sobriety Test)

The police can be held liable for knowingly allow the underage drinker to enter the car and drive.

I dropped out of college after getting a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BS in Health Sciences.

Your ignorance is a shining light in the vacuum of your mind. Maybe after the election people as short-sighted as you will make a rash decision to move to another country. We can only hope!
Hello

Tekamah, NE

#34 Jan 23, 2009
Sounds like an easy way to waste a day at work.
Constitutional Violations

Eau Claire, WI

#35 Jan 23, 2009
Jaywalking wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not pointing out my ignorance. You have just established yours.
Your effort was noble. It represented a mighty swing--reaching for the stands. But for all that effort, the ball appears to have ended up in the catcher's mitt.
You are incorrect on the following points:
The police do not need a search warrant to issue a PBT to the underage kid. If he refuses, the police will perform an alternate test (Blood Surrogate or Field Sobriety Test)
The police can be held liable for knowingly allow the underage drinker to enter the car and drive.
I dropped out of college after getting a BS in Electrical Engineering and a BS in Health Sciences.
Your ignorance is a shining light in the vacuum of your mind. Maybe after the election people as short-sighted as you will make a rash decision to move to another country. We can only hope!
I agree that you have plenty of BS. Now where did you ever find that a cop has the right to do a pbt TO AN UNDERAGE DRINKER who is not driving?? This is a very interesting claimand I would love to have that resource. Would you please send a link to your reference. As far as cops letting people who have been drinking drive, it happens every day at every bar, tavern, and nightclub in the country. If it was legal to stop them from driving there would be a PBT at the exit door.
Annoyed

New York, NY

#36 Jan 23, 2009
Jaywalking wrote:
<quoted text>
You still did not answer my questions. Respond to each question based on the conditions I set forth.
There is no point in answering your question if it has no regard to the situation. You yourself have no answers for the question at hand. All you can do is argue about drunk driving, a seperate and more severe claim. No where is there talk of any members getting into a vehicle. How on earth did you even bring it into the discussion? And am I to assume you never had a drink before you were 21?

“Jaywalking”

Since: Oct 08

Minneapolis, MN

#37 Jan 23, 2009
Annoyed wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no point in answering your question if it has no regard to the situation. You yourself have no answers for the question at hand. All you can do is argue about drunk driving, a seperate and more severe claim. No where is there talk of any members getting into a vehicle. How on earth did you even bring it into the discussion? And am I to assume you never had a drink before you were 21?
In Pennsylvania if a Police Officer is called to a party where underage drinking is suspected.(1) What level of articulable suspicion or probable cause is needed to ask a student who is under 21 years of age to submit to a PBT?(2)Can the student refuse the PBT if he is inside a residence and was not observed drinking, and did not exhibit visible intoxication? The student was cited for underage drinking.(3) Is this a civil or criminal offense in PA?(4) Is it true that if the student participates in an alcohol abuse program the violation will be erased from the students civil/criminal record? Lastly,(5) will a Maine drivers license be affected by the PA suspension?

A: 1-An officer can ask a person under 21 to submit to a Portable Breath Test (PBT) if there is any evidence of alcohol consumption or possession.

2- An underage person can refuse to submit to a PBT. However, if there is any evidence of consumption or possession, they can still receive a citation.

3- Title 35 Section 6308, The Purchase, Consumption or Possession of alcohol by a Minor, is a summary criminal offense.

4- No, attendance of an alcohol awareness program does not, in and of itself, erase the offense from the minorís criminal record.

5- Maine is a member of the Driverís License Compact, so Pennsylvania would report the violation to them and the Maine license may be affected. Contact the Maine Department of transportation or an attorney familiar with Maine law for further information.
Constitutional Violations

Eau Claire, WI

#38 Jan 24, 2009
Jaywalking wrote:
<quoted text>
In Pennsylvania if a Police Officer is called to a party where underage drinking is suspected.(1) What level of articulable suspicion or probable cause is needed to ask a student who is under 21 years of age to submit to a PBT?(2)Can the student refuse the PBT if he is inside a residence and was not observed drinking, and did not exhibit visible intoxication? The student was cited for underage drinking.(3) Is this a civil or criminal offense in PA?(4) Is it true that if the student participates in an alcohol abuse program the violation will be erased from the students civil/criminal record? Lastly,(5) will a Maine drivers license be affected by the PA suspension?
A: 1-An officer can ask a person under 21 to submit to a Portable Breath Test (PBT) if there is any evidence of alcohol consumption or possession.
2- An underage person can refuse to submit to a PBT. However, if there is any evidence of consumption or possession, they can still receive a citation.
3- Title 35 Section 6308, The Purchase, Consumption or Possession of alcohol by a Minor, is a summary criminal offense.
4- No, attendance of an alcohol awareness program does not, in and of itself, erase the offense from the minorís criminal record.
5- Maine is a member of the Driverís License Compact, so Pennsylvania would report the violation to them and the Maine license may be affected. Contact the Maine Department of transportation or an attorney familiar with Maine law for further information.
Once again you can't answer you own questions!! In your posting you will notice that the jack booted thugs "can ask a suspect" to take a PBT. The cops have been violated our persons Constitutional Rights by demanding they take a PBT and it is all a FARCE designed to get more revenue for the state. On the backs of our next generation and all you come up with is HALF WIT PC correct replies. Are you a man???
Observer too

Eau Claire, WI

#39 Jan 24, 2009
If you are underage and want to drink, just make sure you are in shape and can run faster than the other guys if cops bust parties. If your slow, and get caught, you will pay the consequenses set forth by the MN laws. If you are suspecious of drinking and you are underage and get caught by a police officer, call Matlock, your going to need him.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#40 Jan 28, 2009
I don't know if you people know much about Mankato, Minnesota....Its a State University town with about 15,000 students....Besides the State University there are 3 other colleges here........Its a college town...Get used to the parties folks!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mankato Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
My Dear Kasota Childhood Friend Nov '17 RASBF 1
Tanning (Jun '17) Jun '17 Drift45 1
News Mankato, Minn. / Conjoined twins' dad back in jail (Apr '07) Mar '17 MNPOSSUM 79
Ashley Lynn Throckstar E. Ridge Medical Center (Jan '17) Feb '17 InMyPantz 2
News Officials detail case of LeSueur County deputy ... (Nov '09) Sep '16 Dickhead 61
Boycott The Paw (Aug '16) Aug '16 disgusted 1
Better off than five years ago? (Jul '15) Jul '16 Go Blue Forever 3

Mankato Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Mankato Mortgages