Borough alcohol ordinance aimed at eating clubs

Borough Council president Roger Martindell said yesterday the eating clubs are the "motivating factor" behind consideration of an ordinance that would allow police to fine underage drinkers on private property in the Borough.

He and other council members said their primary concern is the disorderly behavior often associated with underage drinking, rather than the health risks.

Council member David Goldfarb said he believes the presence of the University greatly contributes to the frequency of underage drinking in the Borough. "If we were a different community this may not be a problem," he said.

Though designed to combat underage drinking on the Jersey shore, the state law — which allows municipalities to adopt measures that would permit police to charge underage drinkers on private property — has received consideration from officials across New Jersey.

The possible ordinance would stamp violators with a $200 fine for a first offense and a $350 fine for a second. In addition, those cited could face driver's license suspensions and mandatory community service.

At the request of Borough Police Chief Thomas Michaud, the Borough Council's public safety committee is now considering the law and is slated to formally discuss it at the committee's Oct. 13 meeting. They then will decide whether to recommend the law to the Borough Council.

But according to Mildred Trotman, the committee's head, even if the committee recommends the law, questions still remain as to how strictly it will be enforced.

State senator Anthony Bucco (R-Morris), who sponsored the law, said authorities would be allowed to enter private property if they suspected underage drinking on the premises.

But Borough Police officials said citations would be issued only if officers were on the private property for another official reason.

"If we're investigating a noise complaint, knock on the door, and then we're invited in and we see underage drinking, we can issue a summons," Borough Police Capt. Charles Davall said. "If we're outside and not allowed in, we can't get in without a warrant. The fourth amendment still applies."

Davall said enforcing the ordinance would likely strain the police department, which typically staffs three or four officers per shift.

"If we go to a club and we have 15 underage drinkers, that's going to overload our resources," he said. "We don't have the kind of police department that can handle that type of thing and enforce it effectively."

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Martindell, Goldfarb, Trotman and public safety committee member Bob Bruschi all said the ordinance's impact on police man power would be weighed during discussions about the possible ordinance.

Martindell said the University should compensate the Borough for enforcing such an ordinance or have Public Safety enforce it. "It is only reasonable to be reimbursed by the University if the law is being broken by University students," he said.

Surf City, Ship Bottom and Avalon — all towns on the Jersey shore — have already adopted ordinances similar to the one being considered for the Borough.

Lt. Martin McNulty of the Surf City Police said he has received calls from authorities across the state asking for details about their local ordinance.

Ship Bottom Police Sgt. Herbert Miller said officers have already issued several fines in connection with the town's recently passed ordinance. But he said the law is only being enforced in conjunction with noise complaints. Police are not entering buildings when they only suspect underage drinking.

"I certainly would not want to get in an argument with a defense attorney about violating someone's civil rights," he said. "We would want the law to be tested to see how far it can be enforced."

McNulty said the Surf City ordinance has not yet been tested.

In Princeton Township, members of the Township Committee are seeking input from community organizations such as Corner House, the Princeton Alcohol and Drug Alliance and the Parent-Teacher Organization.

Since two members objected to proposals for an ordinance because of privacy concerns, the Township Committee will continue to weigh the ordinance at its Oct. 16 meeting.