Alcohol ordinance support wanes in Borough Council

The proposed alcohol ordinance, which threatens to have a dramatic impact on students' social lives, may not be as powerful as many have previously imagined.

If passed by the Princeton Borough Council, the ordinance would allow police to cite "any person under the legal age who . . . knowingly possesses or knowingly consumes an alcoholic beverage on private property," according to state law, which permits municipalities to enact such an ordinance. The law exempts underage drinking as part of religious observances or under the supervision of a parent or guardian.

Violators could face a fine of $250 for the first offense and $350 for subsequent offenses.

The Borough Council currently is not seriously considering the ordinance, said Borough Attorney Michael Herbert. Herbert added that some council members are wary of the breadth of the power that the ordinance gives to police officers, possibly including the ability to raid homes.

"Right now I don't see any prospect for [the ordinance] passing," Herbert said, explaining that the support of the Borough Council is so low that the council will not likely bring it to a vote.

However, even if the ordinance were passed, the Fourth Amendment would still reasonably protect denizens of the eating clubs, said politics professor Robert George, who currently teaches POL 315: Constitutional Interpretation.

"[The amendment] prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and generally speaking, searches without warrants," he said.

Borough Police Chief Charles Davall said that, in this case, "There's no exception to the warrant requirement."

As George contends though, "If the police have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, the police should have no trouble."

Not all offenses, however, are serious enough to allow for a search warrant. "The judge would only issue a warrant if it's a serious crime," Davall said.

"Underage drinking wouldn't be enough on its own to constitute a search warrant," said Casey DeBlasio, the public information officer at the office of the Mercer County Prosecutor.

"Search warrants are not granted for ordinance violations," she said. Throughout the state, ordinances enacted by municipalities cannot define crimes for which a county superior court judge could issue a search warrant, she explained.

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

"The ordinance gives law enforcement a tool to combat underage drinking," she said.

Davall, who said he is now leaning toward favoring the ordinance, said that even without the police having the power to obtain a search warrant, the ordinance is not without value.

If police had already lawfully entered private property — as might happen after a fire alarm, noise complaint, or ambulance call — whatever is in "plain view" is fair game for a citation, Davall explained.

If an underage student is drinking or in possession of alcohol while outdoors on private property, such as on the lawns of the clubs or even walking through the University campus, on-looking police officers may be able to cite the student, Davall said. The expectation of privacy outside "obviously is much less than the expectation of privacy they have in a house," he said.

"The existing state law that prohibits that in public places would apply in this situation," Davall said.

Bill Potter '68 — a practicing attorney in Princeton and a preceptor for POL 217: Law and Discrimination — said he is weary of the ordinance because it may lead to "age profiling." He said the police could target "anyone who appears to be underage and having something that appears to be alcoholic."

Potter said he is against the passage of the ordinance. "A young person's first encounter with the police could be a very negative one and it sours young people on law enforcement," he said.

Because the ordinance would not grant the police the power to raid private property, Herbert said that the opinion of the Borough Council could possibly shift toward favoring the ordinance. However, the council is currently considering the matter of excessive drinking at the eating clubs.

Drinking at the clubs presents "danger to young people who are getting very sick . . . a safety hazard for the surrounding area" — driving while intoxicated — and a burden on the police, rescue squad and hospital, Herbert said.

In the worst case, Herbert said, "If there are repeated instances of people being injured or taken ill because of excessive consumption . . . that could constitute a nuisance and can involve our taking civil action against the clubs to being shut down."

The solution to excessive underage drinking, Potter said, may be within the University, and not from legal action. "Problems of drinking by students are problems that the student body at Princeton and its very capable administrative staff are able to deal with in a much more benign manner," he said.

Potter suggested using peer pressure to curb the trend. "That will never be 100-percent effective, but I'm sure it will be a lot more effective and a lot less costly [than legal action]," Potter said.

The state law, enacted June 28, 2000, was sponsored by State Sens. Leonard Connors and Anthony Bucco. Neither could be reached for comment.

The ordinance was first introduced to the Borough Council just over a year ago.