To cut down on underage drinking, county officials will begin enforcement of a new ordinance next month that allows officers entry into residencies if they suspect minors are drinking on the premises.
The Social Host Liability Ordinance grants law enforcement the ability to issue citations to hosts knowingly permitting the consumption of alcohol by minors on their property. Although officers are scheduled to begin enforcing the ordinance Dec. 1, officials may postpone enforcement until administrative measures are ready.
The Social Host Liability Ordinance — set to be enforced on Dec. 1 — gives law officers the authority to enter a residence if they suspect minors are consuming alcohol. The ordinance aims to keep residents and landlords accountable.
[/media-credit]
Fifth District Supervisor Joseph Centeno said the ordinance aims to hold residents and landlords accountable for what occurs in their homes.
“We were trying to also ensure that people who rented properties to youngsters and knowingly condoned the booze parties, that they were going to be held responsible,” Centeno said. “We also want to protect absentee owners who are not on their properties and knowledgeable of what is happening.”
Although critics of the ordinance have voiced concerns that police may use the ordinance as an excuse to enter a house, Centeno said officers will enforce the ordinance only as needed, like situations when law enforcement responds to noise complaints and other calls.
“I do not think the sheriff’s department will look for these things going on,” Centeno said. “When they respond to a complaint they will make the appropriate response [if they are in violation of the ordinance].”
Third District Supervisor Doreen Farr provided the single vote against the Social Host Ordinance, based on the implications the ordinance has on her district, which includes Isla Vista — where student residences may have numerous youth and adults age 17 to 24 or older living under one roof.
“Of course, it will be much more problematic in Isla Vista, where many household units do not have typical families and are groups of students, some who are underage and some who are not,” Farr said. “How are you going to correctly assess if someone is actually furnishing alcohol to a minor or is simply living in a residence with alcohol in it?”
In addition to enforcement concerns, Farr said she voted against the proposal because it lacked the administrative planning necessary for effective implementation.
“The other part was it did not come to the board’s agenda through the Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services, it came from Supervisor Centeno on the request of members of the community,” Farr said. “It did not come with a full analysis of how this would be administered.”
County Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services has been charged with the ordinance’s administration. Interim Program Manager John Doyle said ADMHS will work alongside local officials on an education program prior to the start of enforcement. Additionally, Doyle said, the county has allocated additional time and resources for these efforts to be carried out in Isla Vista.
“It is a countywide ordinance, but it has the potential to affect Isla Vista the most, and we really need to protect the district who voted against, very strongly I might add, the Social Host Liability Ordinance,” Doyle said.
According to Doyle, outreach efforts have included the distribution of pamphlets and other informational outlets both on campus and throughout the county.
Hello. Are you an expert blogger?
75. Great write-up, I am normal visitor of one’s website, maintain up the nice operate, and It is going to be a regular visitor for a long time.
Everywhere we go nowadays, people are bombarded with advertisements to “Drink Responsibly”; yet, in spite of the warnings, people are still being maimed and injured by drunk drivers. Little children are still being killed. Who’s kidding who? What the lying beer companies and Big Alcohol will NEVER tell you is that NO AMOUNT of alcohol is safe while driving or at anytime………
THE COST
Alcohol and drug abuse costs the American economy an estimated $276 billion per year in lost productivity, health care expenditures, crime, motor vehicle crashes and other conditions.
Untreated addiction is more expensive than heart disease, diabetes and cancer combined.
Every American adult pays nearly $1,000 per year for the damages of addiction.
These deaths represented lost productivity of nearly $8 billion and
over 358,000 life years (Tables 7,8 and page 6). 8) Criminal justice system costs attributed to
alcohol were as high as $6.7 billion including $2.1 billion for police protection, $2.1 billion for
judicial and legal services, and $2.4 billion for corrections (Table 9 and page 6). 9) In California’s
justice system, 25% of total police arrests are for alcohol-specific offenses; approximately 43%
of total arrests have been observed to be alcohol-involved (Table 10 and page 6). An estimated
36 percent of state prison and jail inmates were under the influence of alcohol at the time of their
It’s not SMOKERS PEOPLE its all the DRUNKS IN CALIFORNIA
I would venture to say that with that STATE Consuming over 14 Billon Alcoholic beverages per year:
ABUSE IN CALIFORNIA: HIGHLIGHTS 1) The cost of alcohol abuse in California in 2001 totaled $17.8 billion for health service, substance abuse treatment/prevention, lost productivity from premature deaths, and justice system costs (See Appendix Table 11). 2) Nearly 84,000 hospital discharges resulted from alcohol abuse, including 11,388 discharges with alcohol dependence syndrome, 9,314 with alcoholic psychoses, and 8,115 with cirrhosis of the liver. Almost 16,000 Californians were hospitalized for injuries that resulted from alcohol use (Table 3 and page 3). 3) Hospitalization costs amounted to $1.3 billion (Table 6). The mean length of hospitalization Max, Wendy Ph.D., Wittman, Friedner Ph.D., Stark, Brad Ph.D., & West, Allyson. (2004).
And the only thing they really care about is a SMOKER..wow Now you talk about upside down….Its not only kids drinking..trust me.
Great paintings! That is the kind of info that are meant to be shared across the web. Shame on the seek for not positioning this submit upper! Come on over and discuss with my web site . Thank you =)
This is very interesting, You are an overly professional blogger. I’ve joined your rss feed and sit up for seeking extra of your fantastic post. Also, I’ve shared your site in my social networks!Executive Elite, 18a Greycoat Gardens, Greycoat Street, London, SW1P 2QA, 028 2088 0135
Have you ever considered about adding a little bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is fundamental and everything. But think about if you added some great graphics or videos to give your posts more, “pop”! Your content is excellent but with pics and videos, this site could undeniably be one of the greatest in its niche. Very good blog!
I love this law and can’t wait for enforcement to begin. If you don’t want the Foot Patrol knocking at your door citing this law then just BE NEIGHBORLY and RESPONSIBLE. Drink with your friends QUIETLY, not with blasting music and screaming drunk friends no matter what the hour of day/night. Your neighbors won’t have any reason to call the Foot Patrol to visit your house if they don’t HEAR you.
Hooray!!! oh my gosh (that’s omg for your kiddies)… you mean If I don’t draw attention to myself.. I haev nothing to worry about?!!!!
Laughing out Loud (that’s LOL) Yippeeee
Why are you all so worried about such law?
If you’re not violating it… then what’s the matter?
This ordinance is to ensure underage college students are not getting trashed at house parties in isla vista.
I don’t see police strolling the streets of santa barbara enforcing this…
It’s good that we keep underage kids from drinking at house parties, blacking out, getting raped/dui/dying.
Your home can be searched, without a warrant, by any police officer who believes you have five or more people, alcohol present, and one of them is a minor.
How will this regulation apply to the large groups of students who live together in Isla Vista who are both over and under 21? Can one roommate be cited for “hosting” his other roommate, even if the minor isn’t drinking?
I am disgusted by the Council’s blatent disregard for the constitutional protections afforded every citizen of California and the United States. Just because an elected body passes a law does not mean that it is just, nor does passage indicate the law will withstand a test in the courts.
…paranoid.
It’s like people who worry about the feds wiretapping your phone…
If you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.
And rest assured the fine members of the law enforcement in SB will not be coming into my house.
Or yours for that matter…
Just be smart, not dumb.
If thats how you want it, move to 1960s Soviet Russia, fuckstick.
The “If you aren’t doing something wrong you have nothing to worry about” argument is a poor one. There is right and wrong, and those terms don’t apply exclusively to civilians. Whatever the positives are of this law don’t matter. Supposedly there are lines the government can’t cross, and this is one of them. Reasonable suspicion can’t be determined in the way this law is written. The vagueness of the legislation should rally general opposition, not against the idea of stopping underage drinking, but against the manner in which the law is executing enforcement.
I would be real, real surprised if this unconstitutional law does not end up getting some cops hurt or killed.
Get the wrong house and the owner will rightfully assume illegal entry and defend and protect his self and family from those sent to serve and protect.
If I were a cop in SB I’d be very selective about whose place I entered without invitation.
Out-of-control cops, yet another violation of our rights. Add it to the list of gov’t violations of our right:
They violate the 1st Amendment by placing protesters in cages, banning books like “America Deceived II” and censoring the internet.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns.
They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by molesting airline passengers.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars for foreign countries.
Impeach Obama and sweep out the Congress, except Ron Paul.
(Last link of Banned Book):
http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000190526
good morning my oppressed american friends ,just in case anyone doesnt know how the “LAW” works ,i give you maxim xxx1 (31) – MAXIM rxxi.
Domiis Sim quiqiie est tiitissimiim refugium : (5 Co. 91.)
To every one, bis house is his surest refuge ; or, every
man’s house is his castle.
UNDER this maxim, a man’s house is a refuge for him
against a Ji. fm.^ ca. sa., or distress warrant, as neitlier
slieriff nor landlord can under such process justify hreaking
into his house to take him or his goods. His house is not,
however, a defense for him in criminal proceedings ; as, under
a warrant at the suit of the queen ; and the sheriif may, in
either civil or criminal proceedings, break into a house to re-
take after an escape ; as also may a landlord after distress
made and eviction, if the re-entry be made within a reasonable
time. In all such cases of breaking in, however, demand of
admission must first be made, with notice of the cause for
whicii admission is required ; and this feature establishes the
principle of this maxim.
Four points are to be considered with reference to the
maxim: — First, tliat the house of every one is his castle, as
well for defense against injury as for liis repose ; so that if
thieves come to a man’s house to rob or murder him, and he
or his servants kill any of them in defense of himself or his
house, this is no felony, and he shall not be damnified thereby ;
and so may he assendjle his friends and neighbors to protect
his house against violence. Second, that where the queen is
a party to a suit or proceeding, the doors being shut and fast-
ened, tlie sheriff may break open tlie doors, after having first
made demand of admission and signified the cause of his com-
ing, but not otherwise ; for, until demand and refusal tlicre
would be no default in the owner of the house, for lie might
not know of tlie suit or proceeding, and it is to be presumed
that had he known lie would have obeyed it, and there is no
78 LEGAL MAXIMS.
law to prevent a man closing the doors of his own house.
Also, if a sheriff l)reak the doors or effect a forcible entrance
otherwise, when he might enter without, he is a trespasser. A
demand in ejectment, however, after judgment recovered, is
not necessary ; for, by the judgment, the house is not that of
the defendant, but of the plaintiff ; and in such case the sheriff
may break in and deliver possession to the plaintiff, the words
of the writ being, ” habere facias possessionem.” Third, that
in all cases where the door is open, the sheriff may enter the
house and do execution at the suit of any subject, either of
the body or goods ; and so may a landlord enter and distrain
for rent ; but otherwise where the door is not open : for were
this not so, no man’s house would be safe from false pretense
at the instigation of any one, and for any purpose. Fourth,
that a man’s house is not a castle or privilege for any one but
himself, his family, and his own proper goods, and will not
protect any one who has fled to his house for protection, or
whose goods are found there, from lawful execution or ordinary
process of law ; and that is so by common law and by statute.
There are, however, cases by statute where a man’s house is
not a protection against civil process. An instance of this is
where a tenant clandestinely removes goods from the demised
premises to avoid a distress for rent ; the landlord being in
such case authorized by statute to follow the goods within
thirty days* after their removal, and to seize them wherever
they may be found, breaking into any dwelling-house or other
place where they may be, or be reasonably supposed to be.
Semayne’s Case, 5 Co. 91 ; Burdett v. Abbot, 14 East, 156; Delaney v
Fox, 1 C. B. 166; Eyan v. Shilcock, 7 Exch. 73; Smith v. Shirley, 3 C. B
142; Loyd v. Sandilands, 8 Taunt. 250; Duke of B. v. Slowman, 8 C. B
317; Curlewis v. Laurie, 12 Q. B. 640; Pugli v. Griffith, 7 A. & E. 827
Williams v. Roberts, 7 Exch. 618-630; Johnson v. Leigh, 6 Taunt. 246
Cooke V. Birt, 5 Taunt. 765 ; Cook v. Clark, 10 Bing. 21 ; Morrish v
Murray, 13 M. & W. 52; 8 Ann, c. 14; 11 Geo. 2, c. 19.
I’ve got some bad news for the county officials. The California and U.S. Constitutions TRUMP your little tyrannical unconstitutional ordinance.
If I lived in that county, they would not be allowed into the house without arresting me first.
La mutuelle santé, complémentaire santé ou assurance santé a pour but de vous rembourser tout ou une partie de vos dépenses de santé qui ne sont pas couvertes par votre assurance maladie obligatoire.
Elle vous garantie le complément des remboursements de la sécurité sociale.
Elle n’est pas obligatoire, cette garantie volontaire est souscrite moyennant paiement d’une cotisation.
We totally lost this battle in the SDSU college area. Huge fines being doled out left and right, basically all depending on what mood the cops who show up happen to be in. Some up to $7000 (for multiple residents), and sometimes because the videogames were too loud on a sunday afternoon. This is the beginning of the end if you all don’t stand up to it.
i guess the constitution is of no value these days. whatever happened to the 4th amendment?
Sounds like the officials need a refresher course in the Fourth Amendment.
The second amendment is supposed to ensure compliance with the fourth amendment.
More like a refresher course in the 2nd amendment,
Fa Fa FU** the police!
Why do these stories always come out of the most liberal/progressive states? Don’t see a story like this from Wyoming, Idaho, or Montana (for now)? It is always the most enlightened states that want to help you by crushing your constitutional rights. After all, the progressives think you are to stupid to take care of yourself and that whole constitution thing is a danger to your safety.
Isn’t this how the National Socialist Party (Nazis) started? Let us come in to see where the Jews are living but trust us, that is all we want – to see where you live.
Santa Barbara – do your police wear brown shirts?
Another reason I left this state years ago.
I agree that your council just put their foot on the 4th amendment. Just keep drinking the water with the fluoridation as it will numb your senses and make you feel better about yourselves. Did you have a choice with the governator making you drink the fluoride in the tap water. Every council person that voted yes to the ordinance needs to be voted out ASAP.
Additionally, it is sad you still have Nancy, Barbara, and Diane still working to represent you all at another level. Corruption corruption corruption but keep drinking the cool aid as it has tap water in it.
I guess the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is dead…
Looks like the tree of liberty is a little parched, time to quench its thirst with the blood of a few tyrants….
AMERICA is DEAD – stop accepting the Tyranny and get off your arses and do something – Protest, file a class action case when enough SB students get harassed under this ordinance.
Get Organized…if you can Organize a PARTY – YOU Can Organize against these forms of tyranny trampling your natural rights to put what ever you want into your body…(alcohol-wise) …don’t get freaky on me ;o)
The SB cops will only take my party away when they pry the double-fisted four loko’s from my cold, dead, drunk hands..
This is a shame, John is right, America is dead. What ever happened to the 4th 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.
That includes Santa Barbara county…
This gives the people a way to fight back.
“A statute does not trump the Constitution.” People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 286.
They will twist this to all sorts of purposes. Though game wardens already have that capacity and have for a long time. These are scary times folks
I here ya
America is dead.
I have a question. If you are having a holiday party, and YOUR underage children are present, and you allow them alcohol under your supervision, are you breaking the ordinance? I was often allowed a small glass of wine at holiday meals at our house, or at my grandmother’s house, with my parents in attendance. My father and I used to share a beer in the summer after mowing four acres… Does this apply to one’s own children?
And correct me if I’m wrong, but according to the CONSTITUTION, even if a complaint is received about noise or whatever, that does NOT give Police the right to enter my premises. It allows them to knock on my door and talk to me, outside if I so choose, but unless there is reason to suspect imminent danger, i.e. gunshots fired, someone screaming, etc….they cannot enter without a warrant. This ordinance is quite obviously illegal. But the beauty (and danger…) of democracy is…that the three branches have specific purposes. In the case of laws and ordinances, the legislative branch MAKES/PASSES law. It doesn’t have to be legal…it just has to have the support of the majority of the voting lawmakers. The purpose of the judicial system is to evaluate the constitutionality and legality of laws passed by the legislative branch. Sooner or later, these types of laws are tested, and in most cases, overturned. But that is years in the making, all the while, leaving these types of laws active AND LEGAL in the community. Legal has nothing to do with making or passing law, ANY law can be passed…until someone decides to sue and let the courts decide issues of due process and legality of the legislation itself. Is the ACLU aware of this little gem in Santa Barbara?
This, apparently, would be grounds for police officers to forcibly enter your home, confiscate your alcohol, and cite you.
Why is everyone quoting the US Constitution?
What about the CA Constitution?
taken from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 13. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and
searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be
seized.
US constitution rocks. Sad that dumb flicks think they can make laws in contravention of it. First lawsuit on this will be the police seeking redress against a person who shoots a policeman who violated and unlawfully entered their private dwelling…on a hunch…and the Supreme Court unholds their right to be free in their property liberty and possessions. Unblvbl
For the reader’s (and apparently our representative’s) edification, below are some relevant excerpts from the United States and California Constitutions. As the Lawyer said, this law is prima facie in violation of our fundamental rights as citizens of this country.
Perhaps Santa Barbara county should require that all individuals under the age of 21 wear an black armband with a red up-turned martini glass on it?
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
BILL OF RIGHTS
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
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.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 13. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and
searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be
seized.
A well-to-do student who is cited when an officer enters his house under this apparently “reasonable” exception to the 4th Amendment (Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures) of the United States Constitution will enjoy making Santa Barbara County millions into his trust fund.
This law is ridiculous. If I’m reading this right, an officer can enter a home any time there are more than five people there and he suspects one is a minor?
This law also seems to violate the 1st Amendment (Freedom of Association) as it will prevent consenting adults from gathering in groups of more than five any time there is alcohol involved.
GIVE ME A BREAK.
Santa Barbara County, I personally hope you get destroyed in court. Matter of fact, I think I’ll drink to it tonight… and tomorrow night, and the night after that.
I Guess they need to do something with those 14 Billion alcoholic BEVERAGES Sold per year in that STATE…And the Costs because of its use Are HUGE,,,And I guess they DONATE MUCH to that $235 Billion a year ALCOHOL USE COSTS in AMERICA….So Instead of balming all the ills on SMOKERS and PASSIVE SMOKE i think its time ALCOHOL GETS Taxed 300 % Like SMOKING DOES…….Paying .45 cents a Gallon tax on Beer is a JOKE,when in Fact it is the Biggest Problem Maker ALL OVER AMERICA
The Constitution has been in the garbage can for the last 100 years. Some people now are only starting to notice. Guess what? It’s too fucking late.
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.
Now, I am trying to figure out how the bloody heck the Santa Barbara piggies will not be in direct violation of this… or is the Constitution now, as Bush said during his presidency, just a god damned piece of paper.
Ray Bradbury was right, we need a revolution.
4th Amendment? What’s that?
Do any of these bonehead lawmakers even know the basic fundamentals of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold?
They just need to see a handful of people, and can walk in to any house under the assumption that an underage person is consuming alcohol. They can defend this under their biased logic in court if they are proved wrong.
Welcome to Santa Barbara, leave your Constitutional Rights at the door please.
“I personally welcome our new Nazi leaders…”
California Uber Alles!
Repeal the ordinance in court? With the judicial activist conservative supreme court we have in place at this moment? Don’t hold your breath. Welcome to Amerika.
Completely illegal law, totally violates the 4th amendment. Everyone on the council that voted for it should be removed from office and publicly shamed until they move to North Korea.
How does ANYONE not see that any power awarded to the police will be eventually abused by them.
How does this shit get passed and who comes up with it? I mean, seriously? Who honestly thinks it’s ok to let the police just barge in your house and start citing people without a warrant or permission? This country has a lot of growing up to do.
This entire problem could be solved if the drinking age was lowered to 19 making it less of a trill to do.
Quebec is doing fine with its drinking age at 16 and the rest of Canada is at 19. It seems strange that people can buy adult toys/movies/games but cannot drink. I was introduced to drinking when i was 5 and because of that i don’t do the crazy stuff. The ones who get in the most trouble come from sheltered and paranoid parents. Let them drink and learn there lessons young, feel free to laugh at there suffering while they learn.
Take a lesson from Canada, lower the drinking age and stop being paranoid.
The drinking age in Quebec is 18, not 16. But even that 1 year difference makes it the province with the lowest incidence of binge drinking in young adults.
You can drink at any age in Quebec (or anywhere in Canada), it’s selling alcohol to minors that’s illegal (or for them to be in bars). If minors get alcohol, they are free to drink it.
Better yet, Sam, not to many people think twice about an 18 year old killing on command in a US sanctioned “Combat Zone”.
WHAT A SICK, ROTTING, PATHETIC COUNTRY!
This law will not survive for very long. On it’s face it is violative of the Fourth Amendment, and if it is the sole law upon which an officer entry is based, it will be violative of the Fourth Amendment as applied to whichever unfortunate sole decides to bring suit. The law cannot do away with the requirement of a warrant supported by probable cause and specificity. Underage drinking is not exigent circumstances, and one could not possibly know that the sounds of a party are the sounds of underage people at a party.
Therefore, as usual, some podunk town’s law will be struck down as violating both the CA and Federal Constitution, and it won’t take long. I’d be surprised if its enforcement isn’t enjoined pending a trial on the merits.
Lawyered.
AMEN. As an attorney myself in Florida, I want to Second your advice and/or opinion. This is a case of do-gooder tyrants willing to trample the U.S. Constitution for their own purposes. Too bad I’m not a lawyer in California in that county for I would love to get a client arrested under this ordinance and sue the hell out of these do-gooder fools.
When this was proposed in May 09, it was ostensibly targeted at adults who provided alcohol to teens while hosting house parties. Several of us who were at the BOS meeting opposed it on the grounds that it would essentially give the cops the “right” to enter almost any home in IV where anyone was drinking. It was voted down at the time.
But all the douchbaggery surrounding Floatopia and other costly IV “events” over the last year and a half hasn’t made the BOS or the public very receptive to protecting the “rights” of people in IV. People in IV have continuously alienated the other locals who might have stood up for them and have brought increased regulations on themselves.
Completely with in the law, and the cops will use it to their full benefit. The whole thing was created and targeted twords isla vista and has little to no implications to the rest of the county. As long as they see 5 people they can assume that one is underage and at any point walk into a house. Most people in Isla Vista have 5-15 roomates, so family dinner has become a party.
This law is ridiculous. Do they realize that most houses in Isla Vista have more than 5 residents? I have 5 roommates and two of them are underage. So if all of my roommates are home and I decide to have a glass of wine… the cops can enter my property and give me a $500 ticket? I know that is highly unlikely but it is completely within the law.