This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Kinnelon Adopts Underage Drinking Ordinance

5-to-1 vote brings new alcohol beverage statute to borough.

The adopted a controversial ordinance Thursday that would allow police to charge underage individuals found in possession of or drinking on private property.

The ordinance that was voted on Thursday and was a modified version of the ordinance the council has been considering for the past year.

Under the new ordinance, "Persons under the legal age who knowingly possess or knowingly consume an alcoholic beverage on private property shall be punished by a fine of $250 for a first offense and $350 for any subsequent offense.”

Find out what's happening in Tri-Borowith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Previously, all alcohol-related matters for persons under age 21 were handled at the county level. Now, ages 18, 19 and, 20 will be handled locally. Individuals charged with the ordinance who are under 18 will continue to go to Morris County.

Even though the ordinance was adopted, the council plans to gather data over the next three years and could amend the ordinance through a sunset provision. Members of the public had the opportunity to comment on the ordinance during a hearing prior to its adoption. The council and attorney spent over an hour responding to questions and giving clarifications.

Find out what's happening in Tri-Borowith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Resident Kelly Nelson asked a hypothetical question regarding her 15-year-old son.

“If my son were in a private home and alcohol was being served, with the parents there or not there, and a police officer comes to the door… if there’s drinking going on, but there are some kids who are not drinking, will they also be held liable?” she asked.

Councilman Ronald Mondello said a person would not be held responsible unless there were signs of use. 

“The statute says if you are in possession or you consumed alcohol, one of those two, so either I smell it on your breath or you’re holding a can…," Mondello said. 

Nelson said she hoped to use that strategy to keep her son away from alcohol.

“As a parent, I want to be able to tell my 15-year-old, ‘Listen, I’m telling you right now, if anybody’s been drinking, you'd better get out of there because you’re gonna be held liable’” she said.

Nelson questioned the parents’ responsibility in the situation.  

“If the parents aren’t home and there are kids partying on that property, and … the police come, how responsible is that parent who is not present? Can they be punished as if they were there, or fined?" she asked.

"The facts have to dictate that it was knowing,” Borough Attorney Mark Madaio said. 

“If a parent has 20 cases of beer stacked in their basement and they leave the house for a weekend for a bunch of kids to hang out, that parent may be getting near the line of knowing."

Councilman Gary Moleta pointed out what he believes to be the larger problem behind why the council even considered an ordinance.

“Moreso than the criminal liability for whether the kids were drinking, there has to be an investigation,” he said. “But normally that’s not what’s occurring. Parents leave the house. Kids are drinking. You know what the biggest penalty is? One of those kids gets hurt; sexually abused. It’s gonna be a civil lawsuit that will be far more serious than any C violation.”

Resident Carla Mecionis asked the council how to handle a difference of opinion with police.

“What if the officer is saying, ‘I smell it on your breath,’ and the child does not look physically intoxicated?” she asked. “As a parent, if I saw my child and thought that perhaps this was poor judgment, what alternative do I have?

The response was to take him for a blood test, or the judge would make the final call based on evidence, testimony, circumstances and trained observations.

Read more Tri-Boro Patch coverage of the council's consideration of the underage drinking ordinance here.

Before voting, council members gave their opinions. 

Councilman Daniel O’Dougherty was originally against the ordinance.

“I didn’t want big brother interfering or having more governmental constraints against the residents,” he said, “But in the back of my mind, I realized underage drinking is against the law and that’s why we’re doing this. We want to protect our children hope that this becomes an educational route.”

Mondello said the ordinance doesn’t affect probable cause. 

“In my opinion, our [] was at the forefront of education in lieu of any fines, of any license suspension. However, our hands were tied because of the state statute that says, 'If you’re gonna do this ordinance, you have to have A, B, C and D.' We even went so far as to speak to the judge about that, if we can eliminate A and B. He was adamantly opposed, and indicated that it had to follow the state statute," he said.

“Again, it doesn’t change how or why a police officer can gain entry into your home. This ordinance doesn’t change anything with respect to probable cause. The only difference now is that from 18 to 21, now you get a ticket. You’re not gonna have a record. There’ll be no fingerprinting. There’ll be no photographs. It covers the kids who have actually consumed alcohol, not the ones who weren’t drinking. I have not heard from anyone objective about the downside to this ordinance. For this reason I will be voting for it.”

San Filippo said it gives kids the right to choose.  

“By having an ordinance like this, it gives the one kid that reason to say, ‘No way dude, I can’t get caught. I’m not doing that.' And if it helps one kid from wrapping his car around a tree, or being found face down bleeding in the middle of the street, I think we did our job," he said.

Moleta wants to change the behaviors and thinks the ordinance could help.

“Change their behavior. Change those coping skills that are wrong that they are picking up at such an early age, which can really affect their lives, and your lives, and the community,” he said.

Councilman James Freda cast the opposing vote and said his decision was primarily based on the fact that the state created a statute, but did not impose it statewide and left it in the hands of the municipalities.

“There’s 30 percent of municipalities that are saying this isn’t right, and 70 percent saying it is right. The positive results that were in Mountain Lakes — is it because of this ordinance, or is it maybe that the parents realized there’s a problem and started stepping up and making sure there is no problem? But we’ve been talking about this for years. To me, education and parenting will curtail this problem in our community, not a $250 fine," he said. 

Mayor Bob Collins asked parents for their help.

“We had a . To the council’s credit, we took this at probably the slowest pace of any ordinance I’m familiar with. We involved a citizen’s community group that really put effort into it as well. We touched upon education time and time again," he said.

“I think the educational component that may be missing is within our homes. I’m not lecturing our parents at all, but we need your help to make sure that Kinnelon protects our kids and it can’t be something that’s an outside force. It can’t be the or the or a piece of paper that says we’re gonna act. It’s not gonna be a catch-all. This is just one component allowing us to move forward in a very concrete fashion.”  

Have you signed up for our daily newsletter? With it, you can get the day's top stories in your inbox every morning. Sign up for free here.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?