Earlier this afternoon, Bluestem posted that after partying on Mille Lacs County attorney's property, a 17-year-old went to the emergency room at Princeton's Fairview Hospitol with a blood alcohol level of .21.
The boy was unresponsive for six hours.
According to the sheriff's press release about the incident, those attending the party parked their cars near the county attorney's home:
After the 17 year old male was taken to the hospital, a Mille Lacs County Sheriff’s Deputy went to a location identified as 15203 140th Street, Milaca Township, Foreston, MN, where the 17 year old male had reportedly been consuming alcoholic beverages earlier. The Deputy identified several vehicles by license plate parked at or near the residence. The Deputy attempted calling the residence to make contact with a homeowner to advise them of why the Deputy was on the property in an attempt to gather information to assist medical personnel treating the 17 year old male patient. Upon the Deputies arrival on the property, several individuals fled from the Deputy into the woods. The Deputy was not assisted on the property nor was he immediately able to identify those that fled. The Deputy was able to identify several vehicles leading to follow up interviews.
The Mille Lacs Messenger reported about a similar incident at a party in 2009 in Isle muni manager not guilty:
After a two-day trial in Mille Lacs County District Court June 28 and 29, Cheryl Miller, who manages the Isle Municipal Liquor Store, was cleared of gross misdemeanor charges of procuring alcohol for minors.
Miller was charged after teenagers were caught drinking at her daughter’s graduation party in June of 2009. . . .
Two witnesses testified that they brought three cases of beer to the party. Miller’s daughter said she knew about the drinking but didn’t tell her mom because she didn’t want to get her friends in trouble.
And what did County Attorney Jan Jude have to say about that after the trial in 2010? Check it out:
County Attorney Jan Jude released the following written statement about the case:
“Based on the evidence that came in at trial, the State was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury that the defendant actually provided alcohol to the juveniles. It was clear that several juveniles had been consuming alcohol at the Miller residence but they all testified that they brought the alcohol to the residence themselves and consumed it outside in the yard.
“Procuring alcohol requires the State to prove that the Defendant provided the alcohol while a social host ordinance would not have that requirement. Mille Lacs County does not have a social host ordinance at this time.
“Whether there was an acquittal or a conviction, the case presents a good reminder during this graduation season that we all have to be mindful of underage drinking and take whatever precautions we can.”
Mille Lacs County still doesn't have a social host ordinance, nor does Jude seem to have a long memory. According to the Messenger story, Boy has close call after drinking at county attorney's property, Jude claims to have known nothing about the booze at the bonfire:
On Tuesday, June 4, Jan Jude denied knowledge of anything inappropriate. When asked if she had hosted a party at which there was underage drinking, she said, "Absolutely not. There was no juvenile alcohol party at my house."
Jan Jude was told on June 5 that the story would be published and was given the opportunity to comment again. She had not commented by the deadline for the story.
Perhaps this incident will cause Jude to push for the passage of a social host ordinance.
Photo: Jan Jude, Mille Lacs County Attorney, claims she's totally not a social host party girl. Image via MPR's Law enforcement fighting 'epidemic' of heroin use.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
Editor's note: Mike needs to read both posts as well as the newspaper articles on which they're based. Yes, they were on her property, their cars were parked at her house, yes, she has a daughter....but go ahead and try to confuse my readers that the facts aren't known. Indeed, your act of turning known facts into questions makes us wonder: Why are you obscuring the facts? Why are you implying these facts weren't reported? What stake do you have in making it seem like this was a sneaky kid party?
I feel a little confused. They were on her property? Did they have permission? Does she have any kids that age who would have hosted this get-together? If not, then were they trespassing?
I suppose more will come out as the investigation continues, but that was my first reaction.
Anything else would be speculation.
Posted by: Mike Worcester | Jun 05, 2013 at 04:51 PM