Underage Drinking & the Law

What parents need to know now about the new Social Host Laws

Echoes of a tragedy resound in Illinois’ legislature and Supreme Court

Jeffrey and Sara Hutsell revIn one night, in an affluent suburb of Chicago, two 18-year-old sons died, one couple was arrested and three families’ worlds were shattered. More than four years after this tragic house party, the decisions that Illinois’ Supreme Court and its Legislature will make over the next few weeks can impact the one-and-a-half million households with children in the state. And much of it hinges on the legal definition of “social host”.

The story begins on October 13, 2006, when a college student throws a party at his home, with his parents present to ensure no one is drinking. Despite their presence, the guests drink and hours later, an intoxicated 18-year-old and his passenger die when he drives into a tree. The parents, Jeffrey and Sara Hutsell, – who were not accused of serving or providing alcohol — are convicted of two misdemeanors, pay steep fines and — in the case of the father — serves 14 days in jail. Headlines blare, experts speak, and several laws and ordinances are created in the aftermath, most importantly an amendment to Illinois’ Liquor Control Act making it a Class 4 felony if any person [meaning minors are also liable] knowingly permits or allows a minor to drink and a death occurs as a result of that intoxication.

On March 8, 2011, Illinois House of Representatives passes a stiffened version of the Liquor Control Act and it’s now in assignments at the Senate. House Bill 1554 broadens the law by removing the “knowingly” clause and adds the phrase “knows or reasonably should know”. It adds “bodily harm” to the felony clause and removes the requirement that the “person” is aware the minor has left the house. The language is surprisingly similar to a clause in an earlier version of the Liquor Control Act (Chapter 235. Liquor Act 5. Article VI (c)) which was considered unconstitutionally vague in 2002.

If the most recent amendment is passed by the State Senate, a law-abiding, well-respected Illinois couple can go out for dinner one Saturday night and come home in time to be arrested for a Class 4 felony, several misdemeanors and years of legal trouble because their 16-year-old daughter broke into the liquor cabinet and her friend broke her nose when she tripped on the stairs. Worse, the 16-year-old daughter is equally liable. Worse yet, the younger children can now be taken by the state because Mom and Dad are in jail or are convicted felons. Unlikely? Think not..

The legal landscape gets weirder. The Illinois Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case brought by the mother of Daniel Bell, the 18-year-old driver who died leaving the Hutsell’s house. She’s seeking to make the Hutsells civilly liable, which isn’t allowed under the Liquor Control Act. Her argument is the Hutsells were wrongly convicted; they weren’t “Social Hosts” since they didn’t provide or serve the alcohol Instead, the lawsuit alleges the Hutsells “voluntarily undertook duty to prevent consumption of alcohol at party on their premises and negligently performed duty”. If the Supreme Court agrees, the Bells can sue the Hutsells in civil court for millions of dollars.

It all depends on the definition of “Social Host.”

To learn more:

Authorities Cracking Down on Social Host ParentsThe Chicagoist – March 19, 2011 – Byline: Sean Stillmaker

High court to take up Deerfield drinking party case. The Daily Herald – March 19, 2011 – Byline: Mike Riopell

2 comments on “Echoes of a tragedy resound in Illinois’ legislature and Supreme Court

  1. Robin Kessler
    March 27, 2011

    Whew, its a complex issue. Do I favor laws that would allow parents to be tried as criminals when their kids break into their liquor cabinet? Hmm. If the liquor was locked and carefully away, maybe not. But what if the liquor was not carefully locked? What if the parents were home and turned a blind eye to the activity in the downstairs bathroom? I’m still weighing in on this.

    • H. M. Epstein
      March 27, 2011

      Exactly. Robin. These are the questions that lawmakers need to consider when drafting Social Host Ordinances. In order to block minors access to liquor, are they aiming for sleazeball adults who like to party with kids; or college and high school students who like to party with their friends; or hapless parents who are unaware of what’s happening in their own home? Where should the line be placed between catching criminals and dictating parental responsibility? The language used in writing these laws needs to be very carefully considered so the directives are equally clear to law enforcement and to citizens. What seem like minor edits in Illinois’ Liquor Control Act can have tremendous consequences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

RSS Latest News

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Video News

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Follow us on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: