Friday, May 24, 2013

STORYLINE Breaking and Action News Stories

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Rate

Community

4 Votes up

1 Votes down

Your Tags

1 of 6

< >

No high resolution image exists...

1 of 6

< >

Loading images

Sacramento, CA | Several people busted in Sacramento and throughout California Friday purchasing alcohol for minors.

As part of a state-wide operation, agents from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) with Sacramento Police Department DUI Enforcement Officers ran sting operations throughout the day.

Several teams were in the field utilizing actual under-aged decoys who would approach individuals entering a liquor store or market, disclosed their age and asked the persons to purchase alcohol for them.

In one incident at Natomas Liquor, the sales clerk (not knowing an operation was under way) even warned the female purchaser that if she was purchasing the beer for minors not to do it; she made the purchase any way and gave the beer to the decoy minors waiting outside the store.

When the officers moved in for the bust, the woman attempted to explain her actions away but was advised by agents that the entire thing was recorded as the cuffs went on.

Sergeant Andrew Pettit, Public Information Officer for the Sacramento Police Department stated that this is a misdemeanor offense. As long as today’s arrestees did not have other wants or warrants outstanding, they were cited and released to appear in court at a later date to answer for their actions. The penalty for furnishing alcohol to a minor is a minimum $1000 fine and 24 hours of community service.

Pettit stated that this is an annual operation around Saint Patrick’s Day and other targeted holidays. The program is intended to reduce the availability of alcohol to minors. According to the American Medical Association, underage drinking can increase chances of risky sexual behavior and teen pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, compromise health, and result in unintentional injury and death according to SacPD.

Per SacPD, the local task force investigated 12 random locations within Sacramento. Eleven individuals were cited for furnishing alcoholic beverages to minors and one subject was arrested for an outstanding felony warrant. The operation was conducted statewide for the first time ever and resulted in over 390 arrests.

Many local operations were funded by the California Alcoholic Beverage Control through the department's Grant Assistance Program (GAP), and some were funded by the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). ABC is a Department of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, according to a SacPD press release Saturday.

VIDEO/ADDITIONAL PHOTOS: Sergeant Andrew Pettit, SacPD PIO talks about the operation>>

Image by: SacMav.com

Image by: MaverickPhotography.us

Flag Article As:

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.

newguyinsac

March 19, 2012 | 7:59 AM

So glad that there is no real crime in Sacramento so that the police had time to go out and entrap people into performing an illegal activity. Considering that most of these people probably wouldn't have attempted to purchase alcohol for a minor if they hadn't been asked, it's clear that this whole effort was a sideshow. Oh, and it raised at least $390,000 for various jurisdictions around the state. I guess that's better than a bake sale to keep the PDs funded.

1 2

cogmeyer

March 19, 2012 | 10:20 AM

No kidding. Quite a bit of effort and expense for a misdemeanor crime. Especially when those same kids can complain they have "back pain" and at 18 yrs old can get a medical marijuana "prescription".

What kind of message is our society trying to send to our young people here?

2 2

cor

December 13, 2012 | 3:50 PM

I'm a bit late on this, but I also feel like there are wider social consequences to these sorts of sting operations, whether to enforce liquor laws, preemptively detain "potential terrorists," or curb the market for illicit goods. It is well-known and almost axiomatic that people in the US (and the "West" in general) tend not to associate with people outside their close personal networks. The openness with which people meet, relate, and converse in other countries, societies, and cultures is seen as uncouth here at home, where speaking on the bus is rude and engaging someone on the street is likely to garner strange looks. I am concerned that this sort of state-directed intrusion in our daily lives may engender even more suspicion toward social engagement in public places, taking yet another slash at the thin social fabric of most of our urban areas. I'm reminded of the endemic suspicion that abounded in Soviet countries under the communist policies of the USSR: don't trust anybody, or they tattle to Father Stalin. A stretch, I know, and I'm not an anarchist. But while laws are important to effective governance, how what are the implications of enforcing these laws under the altered sociolegal circumstances of a state that seeks and induces, rather than just identifying and punishing, criminal activity?

0 0