>Village Council Approves “Underage Drinking On Private Property” Ordinance
By a 4 to 1 vote, the Village Council last night approved a much debated “Underage Drinking on Private Property” ordinance. Councilwoman Kim Ringler Shagin cast the only “no” vote.
Although Council members claimed to have received many e-mails objecting to the ordinance, only two persons of the dozen or more who spoke at last night’s Public Hearing opposed its passage.
>Village Council Approves "You cant drink with your kids" ordinance
20 thoughts on “>Village Council Approves "You cant drink with your kids" ordinance”
Leave a Reply
>Break out the champagne!!!
Here’s to modern stupidity and big brother government.
>hey if you cant do your job tell other people how to live…time for a new council
>Hey, I can drink with my kids!
>i think they should ban micro wave popcorn like seattle
>I wounder how much longer voters are going to put up with this stupid BS?
>can I dare say another case of dumb dumb math?
>Can’t drink with my 18 old son who is old enough to be drafted to Iraq? Against the Law? Yeah, and should the Ridgewood Cops talk on the cell phone and smoke in their patrol cars? Is this Salem?
>Village Council Approves “Underage Drinking On Private Property” Ordinance.
Sounds like my underage children can now safely drink on private property, now that they have an Ordinance to protect them. Ha, ha ha.
Only in government, folks. Only in government.
>I want to express to this blog an incident that happened to me last night that is within the same vein of this subject matter.
A call was made to Child Services by my ex wife, according to a Ridgewood Police Officer, that alleged “child endangerment”. The high ranking officer who came walked right into my home, without knocking, because my door was open. I asked him on his way up the stairs if he was allowed to just walk in like this. It was after 8:00 pm. He stated it was within the law because there was a call about a child in danger.
Needless to say, he left after interviewing my elementary school age daughters, with the bedroom closed and who were playing in their room. He was able to see this for what it was…a vengeful and loony ex wife looking to make trouble.
Although I contested to the police response without knocking and just walking right in on us, the police left without incident in short order and in a polite manner. But this is not the point.
In other words, it seems as if the police can do this without probable cause which was downright scary to me and the children.
Is this appropriate and lawful? It must be, and I don’t like it.
>The recently deceased, Mr. Casey, former mayor of Ridgewood, fought against Ridgewood from “becoming just another town”.
Well, This lock step ratification of the taking of constitutional rights puts us in the same boat as the rest of New Jersey. We no longer set the example, we just follow the State’s incredibly horrid reputation for ineptitude. We don’t need the Sopranos anymore; we have Ridgewood.
>The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If a guy in DC can sue for 65 million for a lost pair of pants, anyone want to guess the amount of the first lawsuit against the village for a 4th Amendment rights violation based on this ordinance?
Hopefully RPD will do with this what PDs always do with do-do like this … ignore it entirely and enforce it about as often as spitting on the sidewalk.
>Never mind the drinking ordinance,
Is this police thing legal?
Just walk right in. Is this home invasion? don’t they need some type of court order.
And what about the wife, are the police going after her for filing a false report? Or will she get a second chance? ( to do it again )
Its scary.
>Yes, the police can enter your home if there are exigent (emergency) circumstances (google exigent circumstances). A person cannot commit a crime then run into their house and tell the cops “You have to get a search warrant to enter.” A hearing can be held later on the validity of any evidence acquired during the warrantless search.
If a call is made to the police about a child in danger inside your home, they must establish that the child is ok. If the door was closed, you could have called the child outside to talk with the officer.
Sorry, I know it’s a little scary and possibly subject to abuse, but it’s how the law stands currently.
>EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES – Emergency conditions. ‘Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.’ United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).
>Thank you.
I don’t believe this was an EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE given the definition, and the history. Considering there were similar incidents over the last 4 years with ex via the conduit of the RWD police, I thought that sort of response was not suitable or appropriate.
Regarding the prevention of future acts, all they tell me is to “contact my lawyer”. Basically, a pat answer without anyone willing to stop her and the “abuse of process” and filing false reports.
Cliff
>The Ordinance is just another case of outsourcing parental responsibility for minding their own kids.
PS: The village Council was not elected to “send a message” to the people of Ridgewood. If this isn’t mindless grandstanding, what is?
>What is Shagin up for reelection or something?
>I agree with all of you regarding this ridiculous ordinance, but where were you all on Wednesday night? Only 2 people were at the council meeting to speak against the ordinance. Oh, and kudos to Kim Ringler Shagin – she rocked!
>The fact that the Coucil voted on the same night as the Public Comment just proves that they had previously determined to vote for the ordinance. No matter what was said at the microphone by the citizens, the vote, and the roles (good cop/bad cop) of each council member had already been predetermined.
>In this day and age of electronic communications, why would it matter if only two people are alleged to have shown up to object to the ordinance? If Counsil members claimed at that meeting to have received “dozens of e-mails objecting”, then the people have spoken!
Take heed ye wayward Counsil. For we the people have spoken during the “new age” of 21’st century!
And we have the power to reverse things after you leave!
“that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.”… Declaration of Independence