Social Host Ordinance?

[Karried]

I think it's a matter of time before this will take place in OKC and other cities ... A lot of college students were celebrating this week.. and a lot of them are now in jail.. nine people were arrested last week at a separate party.

What do you think about this ordinance?


EDMOND — Responding to a complaint of a loud party early Wednesday morning, Edmond Police made another arrest under the city’s new Social Host Ordinance.

Officers were called to the 500 block of Boulevard Avenue just before 1 a.m. and, according to a police report, observed several underage drinkers outside.

Zachary Dale Myers, 20, told the officers he lived at the house with two roommates. He said about 80 people were at the party but he didn’t know how many were under the age of 21.

According to the reports Myers told officers, “It’s rush week and well, you know.”

He was arrested on a complaint of permitting or allowing a gathering where minors are consuming alcoholic beverages.

This is the second instance this week for Social Host Ordinance violations. Police were called to a loud party disturbance around 1:20 a.m. Sunday morning at a home in the 2300 block of Naples Way. Police arrested two 19 year olds and a 20 year old at that party under the new

ordinance.

The ordinance allows police to arrest the hosts of any party where underage drinking is allowed. It took effect this month.

[AFCM]

I don't see anything wrong with adults drinking under the age of 21 as long as they're not causing any problems. However, if a host is going to allow people to drink under 21 on his property, he should be wise and at least try to control the level of noise. If someone's arrested because minors are drinking on his property, he likely let the situation get out of hand and deserves to be arrested for not using common sense in the first place.

I'm sure others will disagree with my point of view. In advance, I respect other opinions. This is just my two cents.

[Easy180]

Too risky to host those things, but I also agree it's not that big a deal as long as the noise level stays low and the kids stay the night or get picked up

I drank many times as a teen and look at me now....Able to type on a computer and other cool grown up stuff

[BailJumper]

I don't see how this is new. Since when could a property owner invite and/or allow minors to consume alcohol at their gathering?

Additionally, police have arrested adults over 21 in OKC for drinking in their own front yard in the past.

My opinion is that if an adult gives a minor alcohol then a night in jail, fine and the whole judicial inconvenience is exactly what they deserve.

Too many bad things and not a single good thing comes from minors and alcohol.

I am just shocked they are calling this new. Several years ago there was a big incident at Heritage Hall where a parent allowed the seniors to have their senior party at their home and allowed alcohol. The idea was "if they're going to do it, I'd rather they did it here where I can keep an eye on them." Well, the cops didn't see it that way and if it hadn't been kept fairly quiet and the adults not been "connected" then it would have been serious trouble for them.

[Karried]

The first party in question has a teen girl in Edmond Medical Center in intensive care because something put a 'party pill' in her drink.

I'm not so sure about the 'new' law being different either.

I think the difference being is that the teens that were arrested were 'having' the party.. not over 21 themselves and maybe not even owners of the homes.. ie renters or parents homes... so now, they can arrest the social host just for having a party even if the minors bring their own alcohol.

[BDP]

yeah, I thought "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" already covered this. Sounds redundant to me and was probably enacted so that some politician could put a sexy name on it and get some publicity. Disturbing the Peace and other noise violations probably could have been used to break up the party.

In the end, I think it's more important to site the minors than the host of the party for their drinking. If the law is supposed to keep them from drinking, then they are the ones that should be sited for it. That's called "Minor in Possession" and has been law for years. If someone drops a pill in a drink causing harm to someone else, that person should be punished. Sounds like too much of a transfer of responsibility in order to allow for easier arrests and make the city look like its actually doing something when it's really just displacing the blame. The end result is that the real offenders go unpunished.

[BailJumper]

I know in other states when they refer to 'social host' liability it refers to accidents, damage, injury or death by someone who leaves your residence where you provided them with alcohol.

I know in the past, Oklahoma did not treat an individual the same as say a restaurant or bar.

While you could sue for big dollars if a commercial location over served you, but not so much if an individual did so in their home.

Came down to intent. A businesses intent is to make money, not so for a host in their home.

Does anyone know if this 'social host ordinance' places more liability on the home owner?

I read an article where a server and his employer at TGIF (or something similar) was sued for overserving a patron who got into a wreck. They were awarded several million dollars and found both th company and the bartender liable.

Some states take the same stance on individuals serving in their home.

[BDP]

Good points, bailjumper.

I think what you're talking about is more tort action and I am sure it is covered in this state as well. This "social host" measure sounds like a criminal measure. While there is usually tort action that parallels the criminal, there's still a difference between sueing the host and having the city arrest and jail the host. Negligence and endangerment are always covered by tort law, however they're only actionable is there is damage. Criminal law can be stricter (albeit with a higher burdern of proof) and punish people for actions even when no damage has occure.

It seems more and more people want to pass their responsibilties off to someone else and these "social host" laws seem to do that. It seems that criminal law is beginning to reflect tort law more and more in this trend.

[BailJumper]

Here is a link to what I am talking about and they do refer to it as a social host law.