City Pimped by Illegitimate Sheriff’s/Church’s Bogus “Operation Breakthrough” Cash Cow Again

An answer to underage drinking in Big Bear Valley has been proposed, and it aims to hit the pocketbooks and wallets of parents, older siblings and anyone else who supplies alcohol to minors.

After its presentation on adult accountability for underage drinking last month, Operation Breakthrough proposed that a social hosting ordinance is the best solution to reduce the number of underage drinkers in the Valley.

“Doing this would give law enforcement another tool,” said Bonnie Shaffer, a prevention specialist at Operation Breakthrough. “But it doesn’t give cops the right to just walk into your house, protective measures are in place to prevent that.”

See also:

Second-ranking state prison administrator arrested

College presidents want lower drinking age

Old enough to fight, old enough to drink

Let My Students Drink

60 Minutes on Lowering the Drinking Age

Shaffer explained that a social hosting ordinance gives law enforcement officers the power to issue infractions to parents and other adults who knowingly host underage drinking at a residence. The infractions can result in fines as high as $1,000. This proposal came after Operation Breakthrough released a survey showing that a large percentage of teenagers in the Valley acquire their alcohol from parents, older siblings or older friends.

“It is like getting a traffic ticket,” Shaffer said. “But the ordinance is still going through the county hoops, and it will be down the road a ways before it actually becomes law.”

According to a social hosting ordinance adopted in San Diego in 2003, repeat offenders could face misdemeanor charges, which includes an even larger fine and a year in jail. Twenty-nine other cities in California passed ordinances similar to San Diego’s. Also according to the Web site www.socialhost.org, there are three different types of social hosting laws a city or county can adopt. The first is a criminal hosting law, which results in an infraction or misdemeanor.

The second is a civil host liability law, which means that a host could be liable in a private lawsuit brought by an injured individual permitted to drink on the host’s private property. The third is a response cost and recovery ordinance, which can hold a host civilly responsible for the cost of police, fire or any other emergency response that arrives at a residence that is hosting underage drinking.

It may take some time for San Bernardino County to pass an ordinance, but the city of Big Bear Lake can decide to pass one of its own if it so desires.  According to Jeff Mathieu, city manager of Big Bear Lake, the chances of that are unlikely.

“There is no timeline for the City Council to pass an ordinance,” Mathieu said.  “This is a county matter since we are under the jurisdiction of the Sheriff’s Department. It would be better to let the county make a coherent and consistent law, since we don’t have a free-standing police department.”

Mathieu said a few cities that quickly put together and rushed passing a social hosting ordinance are currently facing legal challenges.

City Council member Michael Karp, who attended the presentation by Operation Breakthrough, believes that a social hosting ordinance could potentially reduce underage drinking in the Valley. But if the City Council decides to pass its own ordinance separate from the county, it should be done meticulously, he said.

“On the surface, the ordinance could be effective, but theory and reality are two separate things,” Karp said. “We need to do more research on effective ordinances in existing municipalities, consult our attorney, and review it with opposing litigation in order to diffuse any legal conflict with basic rights.”

Contact Nick Dobis at 909-866-3456 or by e-mail at ndobis.grizzly@gmail.com.