26 Comments

1. Reed  •  Nov 25, 2009 @7:18 am
   

   My favorite line from the article: "I feel like it is a breach of privacy," Stenholt said. "You feel like you should be able to trust cops."

2. TomH  •  Nov 25, 2009 @7:21 am
   

   Upon reading the link, it is apparent that he can, in fact, trust the cops. He just doesn't think that it should be illegal to drink beer at 20 years old.

   The cop is doing his job, perhaps too well, as asinine as that job may be. That job is to persecute (or even prosecute) those who do not follow the strictures of the law. THAT is how police protect 'you'. By making people afraid to break laws, even the stupid ones.

3. pegr  •  Nov 25, 2009 @7:21 am
   

   "Your Honor, I was posing with what looked like alcoholic beverages to impress my friends. It wasn't really booze."

   "Your Honor, that wasn't me."

   "Your honor, that picture was taken in another state."

   There's three outs right there, and I'm not even getting creative…

4. Marty  •  Nov 25, 2009 @7:28 am
   

   Awesome. I know of a tweeter who posts pics of her weed stash when it arrives on twitpic.com, and says to "TXT4BIZNSS".

   Here's hoping they bust her stupid ass too.

   Idiots.

5. Jdog  •  Nov 25, 2009 @7:28 am
   

   My first thought was just how much justice could he afford? I guess he's learned his lesson, though, but if it's when you pose with a beer for your Facebook page, put the beer in a dark glass how useful a lesson is that?

6. TomH  •  Nov 25, 2009 @7:35 am
   

   What you don't drink apple juice with your buds on Friday night?

7. Joe  •  Nov 25, 2009 @7:39 am
   

   People need to start to realize that what they post on Facebook, Myspace, Youtube and the like isn't anything close to private and safe from the eyes of the public, police, current/future employers, parents, etc. I know people in both my companies' HR and Collections departments have a lot of fun with social networking sites when they need to get some more personal information on people ("No one ever wants to be my friend, but when I send them a request as Trixie the smoking hot 19 year old co-ed they let me right in!").

   I don't necessarily agree that the police should be going after people like that, but really they only have themselves to blame and as noted above it's really easy to avoid any prosecution from a photo for something like this.

8. Ken  •  Nov 25, 2009 @7:41 am
   

   If that hot teenage girl you see online isn't a cop, she might actually be a 41-year-old Olympic wrestler — a man.

9. Randall  •  Nov 25, 2009 @7:46 am
   

   pegr beat me to it, but the first thing I thought of was "how can they prove venue?"

   Then I wondered "How can they authenticate the photograph?"

   Can they prove it isn't a digital manipulation? (the state then has the burden to disprove a reasonable alternative theory since the case is circumstantial to begin with)

   I would absolutely have taken that to trial – I don't think it very likely that a jury in my circuit would convict on a mere photograph of what may or may not be a container of some sort of alcolic beverage in the hands of someone who may or may not have been my client and who may or may not have been in this county when the photograph, which may or may not have been photoshopped, was taken.

   And yes, it is a cautionary tale about lay-people who represent themselves in court.

10. dhmosquito  •  Nov 25, 2009 @8:10 am
    

    I'm not a lawyer, but I think Patrick is correct on all counts. This story is ALSO about La Crosse police officer Al Iverson, who works in alcohol compliance and education, and his need to show revenue. (Just like traffic citations everywhere have absolutely nothing to do with safety.) Even though proper representation may have never crossed his mind, the young man may have been reluctant to ask Mom & Dad for the cash needed for an attorney. Or, his calculus may have been that $227 was cheaper than an attorney.

11. SB7  •  Nov 25, 2009 @9:09 am
    

    Even though proper representation may have never crossed his mind, the young man may have been reluctant to ask Mom & Dad for the cash needed for an attorney. Or, his calculus may have been that $227 was cheaper than an attorney.

    I think that's it exactly. I've been involved in a couple of these cases, and it's cheaper to just swallow your pride and pay the state their money.

    What bugs me about this story is that the police feel a need to go fishing for "criminal" activity like this. It's one thing to bust a loud, underage party that is annoying neighbors, it's another entirely to go trolling for people committing victimless crimes. Obviously someone is trying to boost their stats and/or revenue, but even so, can this really be an efficient use of police time? You could get more money if this guy was out there writing speeding tickets.

12. Madrocketscientist  •  Nov 25, 2009 @9:41 am
    

    Obviously someone is trying to boost their stats and/or revenue, but even so, can this really be an efficient use of police time? You could get more money if this guy was out there writing speeding tickets.

    This is revenue generation, pure & simple. Underage Drinking in WI is a misdemeanor crime and if IIRC, if this went in front of a judge, it would get tossed for lack of evidence. These kids just don't know enough to say "Not Guilty" & "Prove it". It's getting cold in WI this time of year, much easier to trick some dumb kids into making the trip into the station then it is to go find them.

    If I was a parent, I'd be writing letters asking elected officials and newspapers hard questions, like "Is the local crime rate so low that officers can afford to spend time surfing the web for misdemeanors? If that is the case, maybe we should be saving money by laying off a few officers instead of having them surf the web looking for kids to charge a "Stupid Tax" to?"

    I think what really disturbs is not the actions of the police, but rather the fact that kids these days (God I sound old) don't have the presence of mind to think that the police are not their friends. I remember spending lots of effort in my youth doing bad things and actively taking steps to avoid the attention of Johnny Law as well as getting rid of incriminating evidence (I grew up in rural WI, drinking and breaking laws was how one passed the time).

13. smurfy  •  Nov 25, 2009 @12:05 pm
    

    I hope the police really employ that hot young lady, other wise they created a fake facebook profile for the purpose of harassing a target. People found it really disgusting when Lori Drew did that.

14. Jack Marshall  •  Nov 25, 2009 @4:47 pm
    

    I'll help you out. It's about people being so casual about breaking a law that they broadcast the fact, then use every rationalization in the book to make it someone else's fault. Don't break the law if you don't want to be caught. Using Facebook like this is legitimate police work. The taxpayer money argument, repeated by your commenters, is especially lame: so the argument is that only major laws should be enforced? Have you seen the stats on kids and alcohol-related deaths? When people break the law, they should at least be ashamed of it. This lesson was worth teaching.

    Good case to raise qestions about, though.

15. SG  •  Nov 25, 2009 @5:36 pm
    

    "When people break the law, they should at least be ashamed of it."

    Perhaps. But only if the law commands respect, and thus gives pride to those who follow it. Punishing each and everyone for anything they do is not the way to give dignity to the law. Nor is doing "legitimate police work", ie digging around for any piece of sufficiently stinky meat to swallow like some carrion eater. Although I suppose it has some symbolic logic, since bald eagles apparently do "rely largely on carrion, especially in winter" (according to Wikipedia). There's a well-chosen emblem for government and law-enforcement.

    Plus, if the tax-paying argument is lame (and it surely can be), then the "Have you seen the stats on kids and alcohol-related deaths?" is, too. What about the stats on adults and alcohol-related deaths ? People in this case are 19 and 20. Do you suddenly turn responsible about alcohol when you're 21 ? Also, whose stats ? And how are they made ? What's a "kid" in the stats you quote ? But if you have your head that deep in the stats, don't waste your time on teenage alcohol-related deaths. Don't stats tend to show that some minorities, especially coloured ones, tend to commit more crimes ? Let's be proactive and arrest all these statistical criminals !

    As Madrocketscientist pointed out, the lesson teached here is not "respect a bunch of cops who like to hassle you for anything". It's not "respect the law". It's "appear to be a law-abiding citizen". "Evade the law". Post only photos of you doing the Pledge of Allegiance on FB, and do your binge-drinking away from any cops' eyes. Let's all thank the Law for proclaiming "I'm a cheap, STD-infested whore, learn to stay away from me !".

    But that lesson is indeed worth teaching.

16. SB7  •  Nov 25, 2009 @6:12 pm
    

    I agree with SG contra Jack completely. Legality and morality are entirely orthogonal dimensions. There is nothing inherently shameful about breaking laws, especially in a society in which law enforcement comports itself in such an amoral, unrespectable way.

    “If the people are led by laws, and conformity among them is sought by punishments, they will try to escape punishment and have no sense of shame. If they are led by virtue, and conformity sought among them through the practice of propriety, they will possess a sense of shame and moreover will become Good.”
    – Confucius, Analects 2:3

    Seeking control through punishments only teaches, as several commenters have said, to avoid the police and treat them as the opposition.

17. Jack Marshall  •  Nov 25, 2009 @7:46 pm
    

    Oh, what utter nonsense. Obeying laws is a statement of respect for society, which officially disapproves of conduct it deems harmful to itself. An individual who celebrates lawbreaking by memorializing it on a semi-public website is hardly to be pitied….it's an arrogant, disrespectful, not to mention dumb act. That's three things to be ashamed of.

    SG's argument is desperate. You want to have a lower dinking age? Fine, get it lowered.one can debate where the line should be..the fact is that teenagers kill themselves in cars with liquor involved more than I'm comfy with, and they kill other people too. So maybe 18's too young, but we elect legislatures to male that call, and the law needs to be followed. There's no great incursion of fairness here: if the cops discourage some people from breaking the law and there are a few less DUI deaths, great. The big downside is that some 19 and 20 year olds have to pay a ine for wilfully breaking a law? My heart bleeds.

    The comparison of stats you cite is beneath you. We're taliing about voluntary behavior of a demographic group that has certain cognitive vulnerabilities. Unless you are really making an argument that no law should penalize youth, which is bizzarre.

    Honestly, I though such irrational contempt for police doing their jobs (that is, reminding people to obey the laws until they change them) went out in the 60's. Do you call them "pigs" too?

18. SG  •  Nov 26, 2009 @8:16 am
    

    "The comparison of stats you cite is beneath you. We’re taliing about voluntary behavior of a demographic group that has certain cognitive vulnerabilities. Unless you are really making an argument that no law should penalize youth, which is bizzarre. "

    Thanks for giving my comparison more sense, then. The argument that a certain "demographic group" has "cognitive vulnerabilities" has often been used as an argument for "protective" laws, some of which are today more seen as patronizing or even discriminatory. There was a time when Blacks were assumed to have "cognitive vulnerabilities", too. Note that I'm not shooting for the Godwin there, and I'm not saying you're some kind of racist. But before you assert that laws that target a specific demographic are justified by "cognitive vulnerabilities", you should ponder upon the implications of such a statement, and tell us on what basis you say that young people have "cognitive disabilities".

    And yes, I do make an argument that no law should penalize youth, based on the fact that from personal experience (and I hope others can relate to that, too) there are young people that make far more sense than some "grown-ups", so youth doesn't entail a certifiable, automatic "cognitive disability". It may entail a more probable one (and even then, I doubt it does, or at least question from what point of view), but then, should one make laws according to probabilities, instead of according to what individuals do ? Do you arraign or condemn a man because he committed an act, or because he will probably commit it ?

    Your choice, at least, seems clear : it's about efficiency. "There’s no great incursion of fairness here: if the cops discourage some people from breaking the law and there are a few less DUI deaths, great. The big downside is that some 19 and 20 year olds have to pay a ine for wilfully breaking a law? My heart bleeds." That's a colourable choice, I suppose. But you should recognise what your own position is, and what it means. Personally, I'd be more inclined to choose principle over efficiency, even if it would mean more deaths. It can totally be criticized, too. But don't come and say that the principle of efficiency, which you perfectly summarized there, is also a principle of morality and justice. Or if you want to, use better arguments than "the law is the law".

    Finally, I do not usually call cops "pigs", unless I am angry and therefore a bit foolish. I don't think cops have "cognitive vulnerabilities" either. I think there are no more, no less idiots among policemen than among other people. But an idiot with a gun and the strong arm of the law is more dangerous than an idiot without, and should be watched more closely. But ultimately, it's the institution I would question, and the spirit in which it operates, more than the role of individual "good cops" or "bad cops".

19. Jack Marshall  •  Nov 26, 2009 @9:04 am
    

    SG: If you really want to deny all the knwoledge of child and young adult brain chemistry…lack of maturity and experience is certianly a handicap, and thus a disability, go ahead. I doubt that you honestly think 10 year-olds should drive and 13-year-olds should vote. Or that you are seriously making the argument that because racist once argued that blacks didn't have "the necessities" to do thing whites do, it is sinister to point out when some groups really DON'T have certain abilities. My Dad will explain to you that as a 89 year-old he no longer has the rerflexes necessary to drive. You have a problem with that?

    Side issues, really. Look, I agree that this was a relatively trivial use of police work. That doesn't mean it was pointless. What is pointless is to have laws and not enforce them. There is no RIGHT to break laws just because you think they are stupid or excessive. (The right way to break laws you think are wrong, as I'm sure you know, is to break them openly and take the penalty in protest. Not break them, stupidly broadcast the fact ,and then whine about how mean the police are to actually go after you.) These guys think underage drinking is OK…the creep next door might think the same about incest, and is posting pictures of his 12 year old fellating him on HIS Facebook page. Would you apply your same principles here? Would police investigation and arrest still be an outrage?

    Breaking the law, however minor, is one thing; boasting about it or publicizing it is an amplifying factor that undermines respect for laws generally—the police have a legitimate interest in discouraging it.

    Meanwhile, we should have no sympathy for anyone who breaks a law and has to accept the consequences, no matter how badly law enforcement officials may have acted. Those are two different issues: the misconduct of the latter doesn't make the misconduct of the former any better. We may choose to punish the officials by letting the guilty party off, but that's no endorsement of the illegal act.

20. PLW  •  Nov 26, 2009 @9:52 am
    

    "Meanwhile, we should have no sympathy for anyone who breaks a law and has to accept the consequences"

    I understand your point, but saying something like this makes you sound like a sociopath, in the technical sense.

21. SG  •  Nov 26, 2009 @10:32 am
    

    "SG: If you really want to deny all the knwoledge of child and young adult brain chemistry…lack of maturity and experience is certianly a handicap, and thus a disability, go ahead. I doubt that you honestly think 10 year-olds should drive and 13-year-olds should vote. Or that you are seriously making the argument that because racist once argued that blacks didn’t have “the necessities” to do thing whites do, it is sinister to point out when some groups really DON’T have certain abilities. My Dad will explain to you that as a 89 year-old he no longer has the rerflexes necessary to drive. You have a problem with that?"

    Why yes, I do have a problem with that question. I would have a problem with anything that suggests that someone, not because of his personal situation but because he's too young, too old, too poor, too handicapped, etc. has less rights than other people. The "children are less experienced" argument seems like common sense. But is it ? Ken has reported here some of his conversations with his children, and these would tend to suggest that children can make a lot of sense. More so than adults, sometimes. I'm not saying that children should be treated in an equal manner in every regard. I'm saying this warrants careful thought, somewhat further than "eh, they're kids. They need to be educated, it'll build character" or "OMG chiiiiiildrun ! Protect them, quick !".

    It's about free will. Your dad says he can't drive any more. It's his call, his choice. How would you feel about a government agent coming and taking your dad's driving license because whatever his reflexes are, he's too old and now belongs to a demographic that's "vulnerable" ? How about the day when you are "vulnerable" for some reason and someone extends his oh-so-benevolent "protection" on you ?

    And doesn't being punished for a crime requires one to be willing in the committing of said crime (at least outside of spinozist ethics) ?

22. Jack Marshall  •  Nov 26, 2009 @10:34 am
    

    A sociopath has no conscience, which results in complete lack of concern about the effect of his own acts on others. I empathize with anyone who has to endure earned consequences, because I know what it's like. But as I have little sympathy for someone who drinks too much and wakes up with a headache, or who sends all his money on Junior Mints and Britney Spears albums and then can't pay the mortg age, someone who knowingly breaks a law forfeits reasonable sympathy when it comes time to pay the penalty he knew he was risking.

23. Jack Marshall  •  Nov 26, 2009 @10:41 am
    

    You think my Dad should be allowed to drive until he kills someone in the interest of "free will"? This is where libertairian thinking goes off the deep end into Cloud Cuckoo Land. It completely legitimate for the government to stop irresponsible people from hurting other through their negligent exercise of "fee will."

    Citizens are presumed to know the laws. If a law is really obscure and ill-publicize, yes, I think it's wrong to prosecute, as with the grandmother punished from violating an anti-meth statute in Indiana when she bought too much cold medication in a 7 day period. But these guys surely knew they were breaking the law, or should have.

24. dhmosquito  •  Nov 26, 2009 @7:07 pm
    

    Hey, I agree the kid was undoubtedly stupid for showing himself drinking on Facebook, or whatever, which certainly shows immaturity. No question. However, the problem is IT IS TOO HARD TOO GET RID OF STUPID LAWS THAT MAKE NO SENSE because the lawmakers are in the pockets of special interests. And if someone has no common sense, does it make sense to prosecute even if it's a non-"unethical" offense? Problem for the everyday citizen: what can one do, even if it's inherently NOT unethical? Occasional speeding? Like 30 in a 25 even if it's in a locale where the local city council member lives and has pressed for a stupid speed limit because he doesn't like "speeders" doing 35? God knows how many speed limits have been established to raise revenue, all over the damn place. Smoking pot? Using a naturally-growing plant? I have never figured that one out. Purchasing cold medications that exceed some ambiguous "level not to exceed"? The "drug war" is a terrible failure, and it abrogates the rights of everyday citizens every day, without affecting others, in the name of "saving the children", or whatever. (Confession: I think we should legalize use of "illegal" drugs NOW.) But politicians just want to keep getting elected. And God knows how many of them are getting elected with capital derived from drug lords. Arrested for BAC of 0.05? Oh, yeah, don't discount the leverage MADD might have. And even if, in an incident, a pedestrian with a 0.05BAC (or higher) gets hit by a car, include that in the "statistical database" as a "alcohol-affected incident" EVEN IF THE DRIVER WAS SOBER so that MADD's statistics look even better and politicians pass even more dumbass laws regarding DWI/DUI? Do we have out of control cops intent upon raising revenue through dumb laws? Yup! Absolute power corrupts absolutely! Libertarians know that if governing bodies are given free reign, laws will continue to be passed and abrogate every aspect of our lives to such an extent that everyday existence is grossly overregulated (although we're probably there already). Just wait until the dumbasses pass "Health Care Reform". Which, BTW, will not have ANY tort reform. God help this country. It is regulated to death, and will only get worse.

25. Jack Marshall  •  Nov 28, 2009 @9:05 pm
    

    Thank goodness I'm not that cynical—yet. What "special interests" want to keep the drinking age high? Parents? I LIKE that law. Just because you or a lot of yous think a law is stupid doesn't make it so. This is a law that has majority support, for good reasons. One has an ethical obligation to obey laws one thinks are stupid, and the underage drinking law hardly stands as a moral outrage. Wait until you're old enough. It's not that hard.

    Legalizing all drugs is societally suicidal. The one legal drug we are stuck with, alcohol, destroys families and lives—check out how many AA chapters there are. And you want, what, five, ten, 25 more drugs like it? Sorry: government has an obligation to say certain personal conduct is bad for society; your right to be addicted, addled and unproductive stops when you stop living in a cave.

26. Tim LeVier  •  Nov 30, 2009 @2:54 pm
    

    I can't find a single comment above to disagree with. I see everyone's point of view. I can only say that I'm disappointed in the cited men for not taking the case to trial and pleading "no contest". I don't know Wisconsin law, but in Colorado – If you are on private property and your Legal Guardians are present – you can legally drink and be intoxicated. Yet another burden of proof for the citing officer. The bar was set relatively low for these men to get off, yet they tripped of their own volition. I have no sympathy for them. Just the fact that we can sit here and postulate 8 different ways that they could get off scott-free suggests that the law as it currently is written is just fine. As it turns out, their minor teaching lesson turned into a little more than minor teaching lesson.

    The police acted appropriately with the tools they were given. They did not break any rules and were only playing their part. Could they have been doing something better? Perhaps. But maybe not. If it was just so easy for them to confirm this man's identity, location, & situation – I doubt many resources were expended at all.