The ordinance was spearheaded
by the Substance Abuse Free Environment Coalition because underage
drinking was recognized as a significant problem in the Ojai Valley
and house parties were repeatedly identified as the primary place
where youth were getting alcohol, according to the S.A.F.E Coalition
web site.
The S.A.F.E Coalition did some research on similar ordinances in other
communities and decided that fining hosts $1,000 on their first violation
without a misdemeanor charge would be the most appropriate consequence
for violators in Ojai’s community, said Ruth Cooper, program
coordinator for the coalition.
While several surrounding cities including Thousand Oaks and Ventura
followed suit, Ojai was the first city in Ventura County to enact
and enforce such an ordinance. Norris said that in its first year
it had been successful from the perspective of law enforcement.
Some of the violators and their parents, however did not entirely
agree with the imposition of such a high fine, and some were skeptical
of its effectiveness in increasing safety for Ojai’s youth.
Two violators who were cited felt that they should have been issued
a warning first. One local teen said that many hosts were just given
warnings while others were fined at first offense.
“There needs to be a fairer protocol for warning,” said
a violator who asked not to be identified. “Everyone should
get a warning or no one should. I think the fairness of the enforcement
needs to be re-evaluted.”
Norris responded that hosts only received warnings in situations where
it was difficult to prove that the ordinance had been violated, not
because the police had favored some violators over others. In order
to issue a citation, the officer needs to confirm that there are at
least five underage people attending the party (for parties outside
the city limits, the county only requires the confirmation of two)
and that at least one of them has alcohol in their system.
“If officers don’t believed they have enough information
to prove the case they would rather issue a warning than write a questionable
citation, “ Norris said.
On a busy night officers might just break up the party and move on
to attend an emergency call rather than stay to investigate, he said.
Another local teen who was cited said she felt that imposing such
a high fine was unfair.
The parent of a violator who chose to remain unidentified also felt
that the fine was too harsh.
“It is the law, and somehow these kids have to be warned but
I think the amount that they are fined is a little too much,”
she said.
Her teenage daughter who received the fine was a good student who
had never gotten into any trouble, she explained. The “party”
was a small gathering, a group of friends who knew each other well
and weren’t in any danger. They were all going to spend the
night so no one would drink and drive.
The parent said that she felt safer with her child drinking at home
rather than elsewhere. She considered drinking and driving among youth
to be the more pressing threat and suggested the an important move
would be to change the law so that those minors couldn’t obtain
a driver’s license rather than fine party hosts.
Though some parents feel safer with youth drinking at some residents
where there is a responsible adult supervising.
Norris said that he felt that such attitudes send a bad message to
youth.
“It’s just not legal for adults and that attitude increases
delinquency,” he said.
Council member Steve Olsen agreed. “Drinking under 21 is illegal
and I think allowing children to drink at home is inappropriate.”
One violator who chose to remain unidentified said that she thought
it was unfair to fine such a high amount to minors.
“You don’t know someone’s financial situation,”
she said. “I was lucky enough to have that money. I understand
that a punishment is necessary for breaking the law but such a high
fine can have a detrimental effect to some young people under different
economic circumstances,” she said.
Norris discussed adding the option of community service as an alternative
to payment that could be considered in the future. But since all six
violators in the city had paid the fine, other options were not yet
necessary.
“Because the deterrent effect of paying a substantial fine is
an important part element of this ordinance, I would not recommend
conciliatory changes unless future collection problems arise,”
he said.
“Too many unfortunate things occur when kids drink.”
One such example would be the tragic death of Nicholas Dowey who was
killed at a raucous house party in Meiners Oaks 10 years ago.
Dowey had been hit in the head with a baseball bat and was found bleeding
and disoriented when the police turned up shortly after neighbors
reported that a fight had broken out at the party. Several witnesses
reported that in attempt to deter him, the sheriffs depute hit and
choked Dowey who became combative when they tried to stop him from
getting into his car.
But Dowey’s parents have mixed feelings about the effectiveness
of the new ordinance.
“I think the ordinance is probably a good thing,” said
Dowey’s father. “ There shouldn’t have been so many
minors at that party and they shouldn’t have been drinking.
But in the case with my son, the cops were more trouble than help.”
Years after the incident no arrests have been made regarding the crime
and Dowey’s parents believe that the Ventura County Sheriff’s
deputies contributed to their son’s death.
Dowy’s mother agreed.
“It may be a well-intended ordinance,” she said. “But
until the cops are properly trained I don’t think enforcement
is the answer.”
But so far Norris believes that the ordinance has effectively increased
awareness of the underage drinking problem in the Valley.
“It is too early to use statistical figures to measure the effectiveness
of the ordinance. But the consensus among deputies there were less
underage drinking problems in the past year than in recent memory.”
Post
or read comments