By Shannon Fiecke, Staff Writer

Over the opposition of the majority of its townships, Scott County became the second county in the state Tuesday to make it illegal for rural residents to host or allow a party with underage drinking.

Following a passionate discussion, where a doctor and law enforcement told stories of minors who’d been killed or injured because of drinking, County Commissioners voted 3-2 along city/ township lines in approving the ordinance, which 24 cities and one county already have on the books in Minnesota.

Supporters said the law is needed to deter underage consumption, while those who spoke against it during a two-hour public hearing said there are enough underage drinking laws and the ordinance’s vague language could lead to innocent people being charged or sued.

“Three city commissioners are basically going to make the rules for the townships,” said Commissioner Tom Wolf of Savage, whose district is mainly rural. “This lays the groundwork for potentially damaging and far-reaching consequences in the future.”

Jon Ulrich, who represents most of Savage, disagreed with the notion that this was a township versus city vote. He called arguments from opponents “exceedingly weak” and said they “just make me angry. . . we ought to be about protecting lives.”

Along with Ulrich, Commissioners Barbara Marschall of Prior Lake and Jerry Hennen of Shakopee supported the social host ordinance, while Wolf and Joe Wagner of Sand Creek Township voted against it.

 The new rule

Similar to ordinances passed in over two dozen jurisdictions in Minnesota - including the city of Prior Lake - this proposal was introduced by the Scott County Sheriff's Office and supported by the Scott County Attorney's Office and all of the county's seven chiefs of police..

According to Scott County Sheriff Kevin Studnicka, this new ordinance will allow law enforcement to hold individuals ("social hosts") criminally responsible for hosting or allowing an event on private of public property where persons under the age of 21 possess or consume alcohol, regardless of who supplied the alcohol. This ordinance applies to situations in which:

+ The social host knows or reasonably should know that alcohol is being possessed or consumed by underage persons at their residence or premises or at any event they are hosting on public or private property,

+ The social host fails to take reasonable steps to prevent possession or consumption by the underage person or persons.

Under this ordinance, the social host does not have to be present at the party, event or gathering to be held criminally responsible.

The ordinance is a misdemeanor offense, punishable up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. It will become effective 30 days after Tuesday’s vote.

 Township opposition

Six of the county’s 11 townships opposed the ordinance.

Township leaders who spoke Tuesday were against the ordinance, at least how it is currently written. All police chiefs who spoke were in favor of it.

Others also offered their opinion.

“Teenagers no longer drink to be social, but to get plastered,” said Pete Giancola, an insurance agent from Jordan, who said he’s been with parents as a child lay in a coma because of a drunk driver.

Studnicka read a letter from Shakopee High School senior Hannah Lemke, who said “following the law should not be a matter of individual taste.”

The Sheriff asked the board, “Do we want to have Scott County be a safe place (i.e. safe haven) for kids to drink?”

Robert Wagner, a Blakeley Township supervisor, who helps throw post-prom parties to prevent underage drinking, said innocent people could be damaged because the ordinance could be widely interpreted.

He said five people provided different responses when asked what is means to take reasonable steps to prevent underage drinking at a graduation party, ranging from doing nothing because minors know the law, to putting up a sign above the coolers, to checking IDs by the cooler, to making sure half-empty beer bottles are cleared from tables to making sure kids don’t slip liquor into their pop.

“That’s five definitions of reasonableness,” he said.

Commissioner Joe Wagner of Sand Creek Township pointed out that dram shop laws sounded great at first too, but can be taken too far.

“There is way too much grey area here,” he said.

Giancola asked if people would like to be on the road with a bunch of drunken teenagers.

“Talking about rights — what about being able to drive home without the fear of being maimed or killed in our car?”

Darik Schultz of Blakeley Township asked that the ordinance language be tightened so people can’t be frivolously sued. He said it took $100,000 for someone he knows to be cleared from liability for hosting an event where a child disobeyed and got onto a golf cart and ran into another child.

“Yes, we’d like to see you have a new tool,” he said, “but let’s get it done right the first time.”

Louisville Township Supervisor Bob Pieper also asked that the county statute be better defined: “It’s too wide open, it’s too open to interpretation.”

“Ten years down the road (with new office-holders), what’s to say their interpretation will not be different?”

Robert Wagner, the Blakeley Township supervisor, cited the concern of a prominent local farmer who worries what might happen if he tries to prevent illegal drinking at a graduation party, but doesn’t meet the county’s definition of “reasonable” actions. If that farmer pays a fine, admitting guilt, he could be a target for a lawsuit from someone who was at that party, Wagner said.

The township supervisor further cited the example of a Minnesota woman who was cleared by an appellate court for hosting a birthday party, where kids had brought alcohol to while she was away.

 “She went to court, proved her innocence, but what did that cost her?” he asked. 

When something is written this vaguely, it costs time and money to defend yourself, he said.

In responding to Robert Wagner’s question about the cost of innocence, Bill O’Rourke, chief of police in Prior Lake (the only city in Scott County with the ordinance), responded: “How much is a kid’s life worth?”

Jordan Police Chief Bob Malz asked Commissioner Joe Wagner to put aside political popularity because this ordinance has the potential to save lives.

He told the story of having to inform parents one Fourth of July that their 19-year-old, whose alcohol was twice the legal limit, had collided with a semi while going the wrong way on Highway 169.

That young man had been drinking at a friend’s apartment, but Malz said he was unable to charge anyone because friends said the 19-year-old had either brought his own alcohol or gotten it from someone else at the party.

Police say it is difficult to prove someone procured alcohol for a minor, a major reason the social host law is needed.

Gerald Williams, chairman of the Cedar Lake town board, agreed there is too much drinking in the county – by teens and adults—but there’s already enough laws.

“I think the toolbox is so full now, you can’t even get the cover shut.”

Savage Police Chief Rod Seurer, citing the issues with juvenile crime and underage drinking (which are often intermixed), said, “I don’t think we ever have enough tools.”

Malz said the law will act as strong deterrent for those thinking of allowing underage drinking, and it closes a legal “loophole,” with minor defined under the state procurement law as being under 18, not 21.

Commissioner Wolf asked how residents are supposed to “know when they should have known” underage drinking would occur.

“Who determines that? It seems so arbitrary,” he asked.

Sheriff Studnicka responded that deputies will be trained on the new ordinance, and he and the county attorney’s office will extensively vet each ticket that comes before them in the beginning.

Studnicka reported to commissioners that five of the county’s 11 townships supported the ordinance and St. Lawrence hadn’t gotten back to the county.  

St. Lawrence Township clerk Mona Bischof, however, told the Valley News that her board of supervisors had reported its opposition to the county following its April township meeting. The supervisors were asked to reconsider, and they voted against the new rule in May as well.

 What’s next?

Area police chiefs are said to be waiting to present social host ordinances to their City Councils until after the county takes action.

Commissioner Joe Wagner had asked that the county ordinance be contingent on it passing in Shakopee and Savage. It’s not.

Shakopee Police Chief Jeff Tate said Tuesday he plans to present his Council with the proposal.

The New Prague police chief said his Council has already reviewed the proposal and will be addressing it at its next meeting. Shannon Fiecke can be reached at (952) 345-6679 or sfiecke@swpub.com