L’Observateur / June 19, 1999

DEAR EDITOR: Imagine coming home from vacation to the announcement that your home had been invaded by the police, with accompaniment of police dogs, to disperse of your child’s graduation party, with the offense being “loud music.” Unbelievable, right?Conflict between a scheduled cruise date and the revised East St. John’sgraduation date forced my husband and I to reluctantly proceed with our plans due to expenses involved and at our daughter’s insistence. It wasunderstood, that although we would not be present, the party, scheduled May 20, would be chaperoned by my daughter-in-law, son and eldest daughter – responsible adults, ages 29, 28 and 21.

I was informed that an officer had stopped to speak to the chaperons concerning complaints of “loud music” twice (8:30 p.m. and 9 p.m.). Theywere informed by this particular officer that although he saw no reason for complaints, complaints had been called in, and the party would have to disperse at 10 p.m., with the reasoning that after the stated time it wouldthen be considered “disturbing the peace.”Approximately at 9:30 p.m., they were again informed of the “loud music,”by a different officer. In compliance, the chaperons urged the guests tovacate the pool and escorted them to the front yard. The police officer,annoyed that some of the guests were still lingering, called for back-up.

Approximately four cars appeared, with officers insisting that the remaining guests vacate the pool and yard. There was no resistance due tothe fact that no one wanted to be arrested.

Remaining were the graduate, the three chaperons, my grandchildren, and 10 of my daughter’s girlfriends whom had helped with party preparations and were, supposedly, to have spent the night. Two officers, entered myhome, informed my family that everyone had to vacate the premises.

Additionally, two other officers appeared, one with a dog, whereupon, my daughter’s four-year-old son began screaming and crying.

Everyone was again informed to leave the premises. One of my daughter’sfriends informed an officer that she was waiting upon her mother’s arrival. Annoyed by her not stating her address, when he demanded theinformation, he and another officer grabbed her arms, dragged her outside and shoved her inside a waiting police car.

As the officers demanded everyone to leave, my daughter’s friends requested that they retrieve their personal belongings. They wereinformed to “Get it” and “Get out,” while the officer, with the dog, roamed from room to room, discovering my daughter’s three-year-old daughter watching TV upstairs. She, also, was ordered to “Get out.” Notonly were my family barred from their home, but the street was also barricaded.

Through all of this chaos, many questions were unanswered: (1) After dispersing the party, was it necessary for the police officers to force my family outside of my home when there was no evidence of any crime committed? (2) How could the police officers force themselves into my home without the necessary documentation, specifically a search warrant? (3) If the complaint of “loud music” was the only offense, of what purpose was the police dog? (4) What assurance did the police derive from barricading the street? (5) After forcing my family out of their home, what was the outcome? Jail? The answer, dear readers, belongs in “Ripley’s Believe It or Not.” After allof the hoopla concerning this particular night, the policemen decided “to call it a night” and left.

Imagine yourself in this dilemma. Honestly answer, “Couldn’t thissituation been handled differently?”

Maurleen Florent LaPlace

Copyright © 1998, Wick Communications, Inc.

Internet services provided by NeoSoft.

Best viewed with 3.0 or higher