CCMIN040103 - Laserfiche WebLink

it in the confines of your house, making sure nobody leaves and drives. He ventured to say that 80 - 90% of the parents of the kids consuming the alcohol would not support their child being at a party drinking alcohol. The one pennissive parent has ascribed their own values much to the chagrin if they do find out, and often times do, to the remaining parents of the kids who are at the party. This modifies the existing ordinance to knock the dual standard comment that was made at the beginning. While we do have an ordinance and it is unlawful for a person to host this type of party, it is not unlawful for the kid who is underage to be sitting at home consuming the alcohol, becoming intoxicated, or possessing it. Ms. Hosterman asked Mr. Roush to follow up on the discussion that had taken place the prior day when they went over the elements and levels of scrutiny used to analyze these types of fundamental rights. It is obvious to her that it is unconstitutional and she has a sense that certainly it would be challenged and she would like Mr. Roush to give some feedback on this. Mr. Roush stated he felt while one could argue that it is unconstitutional, he felt the City's analysis would indicate (1) that is not pre-emptive by State law, which allows cities to regulate in the area of alcohol consumption, whether it be by adults or by minors. The question would be whether or not this ordinance intrudes upon the homeowners Fourth Amendment rights. He would say the appropriate test would be a balancing test, a rational basis test. In other words, the court would simply look at whether or not there is a rational basis to do it and would not apply a higher level of strict scrutiny standard to it. If a court did apply that higher standard, he thought there would be more difficulty in defending the ordinance under these circumstances. Normally in the area of regulation of this, even though it does involve the potential entry into a home by a police officer, he thought the court would use the more deferential standard. If a different level of scrutiny were applied, a different result could obviously take place. Ms. Hosterman asked about general police power and the ability to regulate acts for health, safety and welfare measures. Does this give the City any advantage? Chief Neal said it does and it is not uncommon to apply it to this circumstance. Beyond the probably cause issue, which is reasonable cause to believe a crime is being committed, the secondary aspect of this is the welfare of people inside of the home. It is not uncommon for the police to force entry into a home where somebody is believed to be incapacitated or unconscious. There have been times when they have been called to check on the welfare of an intoxicated teen age gift in the home and he believed they have the authority and it is appropriate to search the home until they have located the bedroom that the girl was in to check on her welfare. Society gives the police very broad powers not only within the criminal realm, but the safety and welfare realm to enter a private property to discern whether a criminal act is in progress or somebody's life is at risk. Ms. Hosterman asked why the City could not find rational relationship between finding for going into a home for the sake under welfare, and under that same umbrella, Pleasanton City Council 14 04/01/03 Minutes