I am not on favor of the new proposed ordiance. I think it will give the police the impression they have more authority to enter our homes, It strips us of more rights. While I understand how a law like this makes more work for lawyers that represent people in municipal matters and can raise revenue for the boro I am not in favor of giving up more rights. We all know the probable cause can be defined after the police enter our homes and no judge would support the resident. This should stop. Parents need to be responsible for their children and their childrens friends.

The ordinance should at least be limited to “under 18” (real minors) not under 21 – as the ordinance currently is – using the state drinking age.

With the issue currently in the new about the police in East Haven, CT you would think we would be extremely reluctant to give the police even more power.

So lets see if I can get this right .... The KPD Chief comes to the Mayor and Council requesting to take away Property Rights of the Citizens of Kinnelon. The Mayor and Council punt the issue because they all know how insidious the request really is. So the Mayor and Council come up with this " Kinnelon Underage Drinking Ordinance Cmte"

Which is really a brilliant move to get the Citizens themselves to give up their Property rights .... Then when the abuse of power comes from the KPD, the Mayor and Council can say hey .. our hands are clean.

And now the " Kinnelon Underage Drinking Ordinance Cmte" is punting the issue to the public .... Why is there an elected Mayor and Council again ?

But the problem is ...and no one will say it is this ... Anyone that disagrees with this is in fear that their children and family members will be harassed unmercifully by the KPD if they speak out against it. That is why the Mayor and Council should man up and protect the citizens of Kinnelon.

Hello Tri-Boro readers,

I wanted to put a reminder out here on what the intention of this blog was: to allow the public to give its input on what it wants to see in the proposed ordinance. The comments should be limited to that. If they are not, we will need to first delete what isn't under that umbrella. If they continue after that, we would have to shutdown the comments altogether, which would defeat the purpose of the blog. So please keep this in mind as you discuss the topic. Thank you.

HA HA .. so your saying those that do not want the ordnance can not voice there concerns ? Glad to see the 1st Amendment so strong on the Patch ......

Rick - It looks me like these comments do fit into the category of what people think about this ordinance. But appearently they disagree with you. The people making these comments don't want to see ANYTHING in the ordinance, they want the whole idea of the new ordinance "deleted".

I tend to agree with them. The last thing we need is for the town to have to spend a ton of money on legal fees defending some over zealous police officer. Let’s keep the police off of private property unless they are invited.

Thank you from your comments. I'm not expressing an opinion on the matter itself. I'm saying the comments need to be about the issue of the ordinance. Some comments were beyond the actual ordinance or the existence of it. We need to keep them about the ordinance itself.

How about limiting the ordinance to only impose the $250 fine if the kid is intoxicated- with blood levels over the legal limit. To fine the kid $250 and maybe take her driver’s license away just because she is holding a beer seems unfair and extreme.

I thought there was something strange with this whole process being played out ... The answer was given to me last night ,,,,

ARE YOU BEING DELPHI'ED? DO YOU FEEL MANIPULATED IN GROUP MEETINGS?
http://www.Santarosaneighborhoodcoalition.com/delphi.html

"The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a predetermined outcome, while giving the illusion of taking public input and under the pretext of being accountable to the public."

The Rand Corporation in the early 1960s developed the Delphi technique for the purpose of maneuvering segments of the public into accepting predetermined government policies. In the 1970s and '80s, it was used to convince land owners of the merits of accepting general plan maps. It now is being employed by the Cities and local groups working with the City in order to engineer "citizen consent! "

Wake Up people..... This is not a Conspiracy Theory ....This is a Conspiracy Fact.

I agree with Sam and Craig.....this is just another step on the path to "we the people" losing more civil rights under the guise of creating laws that will "protect us". This nonsense must stop.

I don't believe that the KPD is acting as some sort of NAZI regime as it is being implied in a few posts or stripping anyone of their rights. They already have the ability to do everything that is in this ordinance under the State Laws of New Jersey. Local Ordinances are just watered down local laws that only incur fines. Seems like the PD is actually trying to do the violators and their parents a favor so their kids don't get a criminal record. Having said that I think it's a bad idea. First of all you cant write a local ordinance summons to a juvenile, period. It has to be done on a juvenile complaint and it must be a state law violation, not an ordinance. Second of all most local ordinances like this are so flawed that any good lawyer can tear it to shreds in an appeal, and we know there are a bunch of lawyers living in Kinnelon just waiting for a shot at this already! My advise is if someone is having a party under age or caught with alcohol underage, etc, use the Laws on the books and let the chips fall as they will.

I am told that the ordinance, as proposed in Kinnelon, is a duplicate of an ordinance used in many other towns and it has been in effect in those towns for some time. Committee members spoke to people in several towns and no one has pointed out any legal flaws in the ordinance. And, none of those towns indicated anyone has effectively challenged their ordinance. I am unaware of anything that would indicate the ordinance could be invalidated.

None of the lawyers I know (in Kinnelon or anywhere) has mentioned anything about anxiously waiting to attack the ordinance. As a practical matter, in over 30 years of practice, I have seen very few ordinances completely invalidated. Usually ordinances like this, that are used state-wide, have been reviewed by attorneys who are experienced in drafters. Any problems are addressed early in the process. And frankly there are not too many people who are interested in spending what it costs to challenge and invalidate an ordinance. No one expects this ordinance will generate a lot of legal fees. Most cases can be handled without an attorney.

As to the using the current law, it is important to recognize that it is not illegal for underage people to possess or consume alcohol on private property unless the town has this sort of ordinance.. So if the family next door goes away and their 17 year old has a house party, he and his underage guests can drink alcohol legally because its on private property. This can and has lead to many problems in our town and elsewhere. Personally I would pefer to give the police the ability to issue an ordinance violation at the house party rather than wait to catch the kids driving home; when the kids face a DWI and risk a serious crash.

No law is perfect in every situation but I believe this proposal helps much more than it hurts

not true Pat. Ordinances do not pass the same muster as laws to be ratified or made to stand up in court. Also, it is illegal to sever alcohol to a minor on private property unless there is parental consent or as part of a religious ceremony and the minors can be charged with under age consumption or possession. 2C:33-17 and 2C:33-15 respectively. It's also not legal to charge a juvenile on a boro ordinance. It has to be on a Juvenile complaint and you cant put an ordinance on a juvenile complaint. So the ordinance is not enforceable on a minor, only the parents.

- If you're correct that it's illegal to charge a juvenile with an ordinance I would expect there would be something that says so and I would appreciate it if you can share that with us. - Of course, that would only apply to those under 18; not 18-20 year olds. - However, N.J.S.A. 40:48-1.2 is a state statute, passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, which specifically authorizes this ordinance. So, again, if you have something that says the authorizing statute is illegal, please share it.

check with the attorney general, municipal court judge or your municipal prosecutor.
I'm quite sure they can help you. In the meanwhile think of it this way... Where are juvenile complaints heard in court? County Superior Court (Juvenile Division). Where are local ordinances heard. Local Municipal Court. The municipal court judge does not have authority to pass judgement on juveniles in a municipal court. It doesn't work that way. And the Juvenile court does not hear local ordinance violations. I'm sorry to say but it seems that no one is asking the right questions. But good luck figuring it out.

This is ridiculous! The students in Kinnelon are taught about drugs and alcohol from an early age, in Kindergarten, via Safety Town. They are taught DARE in 5th grade and review it in middle school AND as freshmen at the high school. The problem in this town, is they have NO support at home. As a couple of the committee members have intimated, they're not so sure THEY would enforce it at home themselves! Where is the example being set? In the past, my daughter has been to GS meetings at homes where the MOM's were drinking a bottle of wine. They're the "cool" parents and the kids know there will be little consequence. Maybe parents who allow kids to drink in their homes are under the influence themselves and can't make the judgement if a kid can get behind the wheel. Maybe we should start educating the PARENTS! They should get involved with MADD, Teen AA, or volunteer at Straight and Narrow. Grow up, be the adult, take responsibility, set a good example, and just say NO!

Pat, just check the Superior court judge for crying out loud! You really do not know what you are talking about I'm sorry to say. To go to Juvenile court you need to have a juvenile delinquency complaint signed against the juvenile. The problem with your argument is that you cannot sign a juvenile complaint for an ordinance violation, only a "Crime" such as a Title 2C offense. Hopefully this helps you out so you dont think that my discussion with you is pointless: Every complaint alleging juvenile delinquency shall be reviewed by court intake services in the manner provided by law for recommendation as to whether the complaint should be dismissed, diverted or referred for further court action. Where the complaint alleges conduct which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime as defined by N.J.S. 2C:1-4a or a repetitive disorderly persons offense as defined by N.J.S. 2A:4A-22(h), the matter shall not be diverted by the court unless the prosecutor consents thereto.

@ Truth, regardless a juvenile can be charged with delinquency, a crime which would be issued on a juvenile complaint for violating an ordnance.