11 Eames Avenue , Amherst
Intermittent rain was not enough to dampen the renegade party spirit of the hard core party hardy types as evidenced by this repeat offender. And an unusual one at that as it's not a rental but owner occupied.
Neighbors called police around midnight last night to complain about throngs of loud people in their yard. When police arrived they spotted a bevy of college aged youths fleeing the basement of 11 Eames Place and dispersing into the woods. But they still found around another 60 hiding in the basement. They also found the owner and arrested him for Noise and Nuisance violations.
Arrested for Noise and Nuisance:
Reed Smith, 24 Pain St, Wellesley, Ma, age 27 (owner of the property)
Christopher Roy, 11 Merridan Rd, Weyham, Ma, age 21
Kelly Norton, 62 Karen Ln, Abington, MA, 18 arrested for resisting arrest, underaged drinking
16 comments:
SCOTUS has some interesting interpretations of the "taking" clause and were I the owner, I would consider a suit against Amherst on the grounds that saying you can't entertain is the same thing as saying you can't build.
The town *can* say both, but in doing so it is "taking" part of the value of the property for which it must compensate the owner. And in this case, where they arrested the owner, the town would be hard pressed to argue that they aren't restricting his right to use his property as he pleases.
And then there are some due process and equal protection issues -- does the Town itself sponsor any events that include large numbers of people and noise? How about the high school football games? How about the July 4th fireworks?
And exactly how many dB and measured from where constitutes "noise" anyway? If you don't define that (and the ordinance doesn't) then it is "unConstitutionally vague."
I would so love to see him (or someone) actually challenge the ordinance in court - and combining it with both a "taking" claim and a "false arrest" claim would make a really interesting mess -- no matter which way the court ruled, Amherst gets screwed.
Bottom line, the man owns the property and the town is criminalizing what he wants to do with it. The town can do this - but they gotta pay him for his lost value.
And as to hours and such, how long do you think a prohibition against the Catholic Saturday-night Mass (and "Midnight Mass") would stand? Or one requiring all Jewish services to be on Sundays? I don't think a court would be impressed with arguments about trying to reduce Saturday traffic congestion or even that "Midnight" is in the middle of the night. I really don't.
Actually his Daddy owns it.
One other question is who gets arrested and the rationale for it -- and it can't just be whim of the officer, that's unConstitutional (even if it may be the de-facto process.)
For example, they can't just arrest *anyone* in a vehicle for things the vehicle has done, it has to be the operator (or whom they reasonably believe to have been the operator).
Second, in reading the narrative here, it appears that the actual offense (neighbors called complaining about) was groups of noisy adults who apparently weren't even on the premises , who arguably were on someone else's land.
Assuming the APD could determine property lines in the dark, should they have figured out whose land the noisy individuals were on and dragged *that* homeowner out of bed and arrested him/her/it?
A basic principle of law is that you are only responsible for what another adult does if you (a) incite him/her/it to do it, or (b) have control over the individual (i.e. can kick them out of the house if they don't stop).
These adults, themselves, had the capacity to make the choices they did and under the *criminal* laws, they are responsible for their own actions.
Let's say I walk out of Larry's house and wander over to the adjacent DPW building where I notice the keys left in one of their trucks, so I steal it. Who is responsible for this crime -- Larry or me? Say I smash it into a school bus and lots of little kids are hurt or worse, again, who is responsible?
While civil liability likely would extend to the town for the negligence of the employee who left the keys in the vehicle, there is only one person criminally liable for this - the person who did it.
The noise ordinance is criminal -- otherwise the arrests would be illegal -- and what ability did the people arrested have at the time to stop them from being noisy? How do you "kick out" someone who is already leaving, already off your land?
Above and beyond the town arguing that one has a duty to prevent third parties (who are adults) from doing things, the so-called "reasonable man" has to have had the ability to prevent them from doing it.
In other words, I can prevent someone riding in my car from throwing rocks at oncoming vehicles -- worst case, I stop the car, call the police, and ask them to remove the person from my vehicle. But once the person has gotten out of my car, if he/she/it decides to pick up a rock and throw it at someone, exactly what am I supposed to have done to stop it?
Well Dr. Ed, if you had been here to see it for yourself, besides the noise and the crowds of people...more importantly was the roads were blocked by cars parked on both sides of the street, had and ambulance or fire vehicle been needed, they would not have been able to access the road. That is a PROBLEM.
Larry, facts matter, and you wrote:
Reed Smith, 24 Pain St, Wellesley, Ma, age 27 (owner of the property)
Not "son of the owner of the property." And "occupied by the spoilt brat son of the owner" is a *far* cry from "owner occupied."
And I am actually surprised it isn't in the son's name for tax reasons -- the IRS stuff on "sale of principle residence" (not to mention his lower income) would give some significant advantages to having it in Junior's name. But I digress...
Although my "takings clause" argument has even more traction in this case.
Daddy bought the property for a place for his son to have parties so he (Daddy) didn't have to worry about his son burning to death in other firetraps in Amherst, shot in Springfield, etc.
By Amherst "taking" this value from the property, Amherst has engaged in a "taking" for which compensation is due.
Please do not read this as an affirmation of rich spoilt brats!!! We have an expression on the ocean about folks "with more money than brains" and I will never forget the time I had to wade into waist-deep water to convince some Harvard students that if they simply stood up & walked ashore, they wouldn't drown.
Schadenfreude aside, however, there are real property rights issues here. While I may not always agree with some of the positions that Cinda Jones takes, those same rights apply here. If you own a piece of property, what are your rights -- what should be your rights?
My point is neither to defend "Daddy's Little Delinquent" nor to pick a fight with the Jones family, only to point out that we need to be consistent in what we consider property rights to be.
@Larry Kelley: According to the town's tax records and the Registry of Deeds, it's really not the dad who is the owner, but actually the son. The son is also the only one who signed for the mortgage.
@Ed: I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to make a constitutional claim against the town, but I do wonder (as it is not clear from this post) at what hour the police were called, and what the nature of the nuisance was, since when the police arrived, they only saw "college aged youth" fleeing the scene and found 60 people in the basement of the house (also, why did anyone let them in? They sure weren't obligated to.). Is that enough of a basis to write nuisance/noise tickets? The article doesn't mention whether or not the police actually found evidence of (too) loud a party at the time they arrived.
Sorry, my mistake.
the roads were blocked by cars parked on both sides of the street
I have seen Lincoln Avenue that way, on numerous occasions (and initially reported the same to the APD) but nothing -- absolutely nothing was done -- and AFD wouldn't have been able to get through there either.
However, the town has policies and procedures for dealing with illegally parked cars and that does not involve arresting the owner of an adjacent house. The people who parked the cars there are the ones who are responsible for having done so -- do you not understand this point?
If it is legal to park on both sides of that street, then that is an issue you need to bring to the Selectboard -- and no one did anything wrong. If it isn't, then your issue is one of parking enforcement.
"college aged youth" fleeing the scene
In Amherst, that's evidence of guilt.
In Amherst, merely *being* a "college aged youth" itself essentially is a crime...
I have two personal favorite stories. The first, some years back, involved an Amherst firefighter kicking over a can of kerosene, turning a little fire into a big one, for which the college kids were responsible.
More recently, a few college kids did the responsible thing and called the police themselves for assistance in breaking up a party -- I believe that the only complaint came from the kids themselves -- and for this they were arrested.
Yes, what a message to give to young people -- the police are not your friends and if you ask them for help, they will arrest you.
I've done nothing wrong, I have a letter from UMass Parking saying that I literally "don't even have a parking ticket" and I would never seek the assistance of either the APD or UMPD for anything -- and at this point, I do mean absolutely anything.
Such is what it is like to be a UMass student.
(also, why did anyone let them in? They sure weren't obligated to.).
My understanding is (a) that they can make a forcible entry to make an arrest, and (b) that not letting them in constitutes "resisting arrest."
I know what the law says -- but then there is the reality of the mean streets of Amherst and what actually happens. If the comfortable liberals of Amherst actually knew what was being done in their name, I don't think they would really be happy about it.
In Amherst, UM students are inherently guilty -- the only question is of what it will be...
For a good discussion of the "resisting arrest" charge, involving facts from real life in nearby Hampden County, see Commonwealth v. Alfonzo Grant, a Massachusetts Appeals Court case from 2008.
You can read all the Mass. case law you want just by plugging information into Google.
Rich Morse
Ed, you make my head hurt. please stop.
I just skip over Ed's posts.
Your head hurts because Ed says ridiculous things with conviction and authority.
Instinctively, you know he's wrong, but you don't have the time or energy to attempt to refute him. You know that he has no more expertise or life experience or wisdom than you do, but he sure acts like it. The part of your brain that triggers caution and humility and uncertainty has been removed from his.
So he buries you with verbiage. And you must submit.
Last Sat I replaced my bashed mailbox- Today I noticed that the mailbox flag has already been yanked off.
For a good discussion of the "resisting arrest" charge, involving facts from real life in nearby Hampden County, see Commonwealth v. Alfonzo Grant, a Massachusetts Appeals Court case from 2008.
Yes, and when it got to the appeals court three years later the conviction was reversed. Respectfully, Mr. Morse, from the perspective of a student, the point is moot.
The student still has either been kicked out of school or has the millstone of a judicial record hanging around his neck which precludes both grad school or a good job and three years later when the state says "well, never mind", where is he then?
He has a 3-year gap that he can't explain -- the fact that the conviction is now reversed is a distinction without a difference as the damage has already been done.
It is not what the law is, it is what the local police get away with enforcing it as being. Nationwide, I think we are really close to needing another round of Escabato/Miranda decisions because while there are lofty goals what a citizens rights should be, the reality is that they aren't there anymore.
For example, the law says that a license plate must be visible at 60 feet. I once got stopped because mine wasn't visible at 6000 feet (that's over a mile) and that is reality. What the law actually says is moot. I am sorry Mr. Morse, but from the student perspective, what the law actually says is irrelevant.
Glad to see you're using your Journalism degree well! Keep it up, Larry!
Post a Comment