At its weekly meeting last night, the Borough Council discussed a potential law that would allow Borough Police to impose penalties on underage drinkers caught on private property.
Chip Meara of the Mercer Council on Alcohol and Drug Addiction presented a ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
the alcohol ordinance has been proposed at least once every year since 2001. how is this in any way linked to scharf v. borough?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Cindy Hong had a good column today. Cindy doesn't say this but it still ought to be said--Scharf's suit is already doing damage to students.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Maybe it is time for the University to take ownership of Prospect Avenue. It might solve a lot of issues.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Hopefully Scharf will set aside some of his settlement winnings to establish a fund to pay for student's 250$ fines. What I don't understand is why the Boro is initiating tension between the University and Town. From my knowledge, townspeople are not particularly bothered by the 'nuisance' of the clubs on Prospect Avenue and Princeton townies/students generally get along quite fine. The clubs have always gone out of their way to make sure they don't admit underage townies and have been generally successful at it.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Probable cause is a joke. If you don't think it is, look up any long laundry list of "cause" that can allow a cop to search a vehicle or do a DWI test. The cops would have all the "probable cause" they would need by nature of the eating clubs being the eating clubs. They exist (at night) for drinking college students. Not all college students are 21. Cause shown. Do NOT think that is a shield to actual enforcement, and definitely don't think you'll whip that out at "trial" and be exonerated by a judge. It won't happen.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
How ironic is it that the Borough threatens to crack down on eating clubs, and IN THE SAME MEETING asks the university for more parking spaces and public transportation to these parking spaces?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Basically, this is a very transparent racketeering ploy. First, they will use the threat of an exorbitant fine to induce students to testify against the clubs, whether the clubs are actually guilty or not. They will find a drunk student, slap him with a hefty ticket he can't afford, then say that they will drop it if he flips. Most students will say no, and pay the fine, but one or two will inevitably give in - either way the Borough Police makes money to fund its bloated department. I hope Borough residents wake up and throw these petty and vindictive fools out of office.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I don't think that the BoPo cares too much about 'probable cause', they have been known to step beyond their boundaries at times and I wouldn't be surprised if they use this to hit the clubs hard.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Police would still need probable cause to enter private property uninvited. I don't think the alcohol ordinance would really change much on the Street. Lawnparties would probably have to move to back lawns, but other than that I really don't think this would have much in the way of teeth.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
It's no accident that this is coming up now. Those who have cheered Scharf's suit against the borough should realize that this is its first result. Few students like the borough, but suing them is not the best way to proceed.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!