Not to mention the biggest flaw in their statement was to assume that the bus gave access to alcohol to any students in general. It's the restaurant's responsibility. It has nothing to do with the bus.

it's unfair to cancel the system, because by doing so, they are also taking away the previlage to those who really need the system for "non-drunk" reasons.

I could be wrong, but are they trying to cut the cost? because it could cost a lot for the drivers to drive night shifts, right?

The SGA was paying for it with their own funds, per the OP.

Being in college doesn't exempt you from the law. People drink underage, yes, but having a bus that travels through town to and from the bars presents a liability for the university because the police are more likely to bust the kids on the bus, and as I mentioned earlier, there's a lawsuit waiting to happen the minute Frankie the Freshman binge drinks, hops on the bus and chokes to death on his own vomit. Mom and dad aren't going to sue Benny's Backwater Bar. They're going to go after the private university with its millions of dollars.

As far as I know, SafeRide in Norman doesn't have anything to do with the University, and from what I recall, they won't take you straight to a bar.

Its the Bar's responsibility to control who drinks, not the University....so I can't see a lawsuit against ______ University holding up, at all.

To my knowledge, in the 20+ years the Moonlight Express route has been in existence at Iowa State, the cops have never pulled it over and ticketed the riders on the bus. They have enough on their hands dealing with other issues. There have been fights on the bus, yes, and those people involved are dealt with by the police (if necessary) but it never turns into a free-for-all MIP/PI ticket writing session.

Also, the Moonlight Express won't drop you off at the front door of a bar or house party, but it will get you close.

This has nothing to do with the situation at all.

The only thing that made sense from your Post was reputation.

The bus was paid not out of School funding.

The Police had no reason to stop the bus and cite passengers.

There has to be probable cause to stop the bus.

Unless there was a reason to check the passengers, they cannot to that either.


As DeltAlum said, they violated the laws they are there to enforce, not be Emorys foot patrol.

It is not Emorys call to have this done unless it is against school polocy.

Call ACLU, they get in to s**t like this for the good of the down trodden?:rolleyes:

Oh the irony of Tom Earp commenting on people's posts making sense.

Ahhhh, words of wisdom :rolleyes: *nods*

Oh, and you are an authority I take it?:confused:

It was paid out the SGA funding, which is a part of the university. SGA Funds come from a university's student services and activities fee, which each enrolled student must pay. The SGA is an approved Emory activity. Thus anything sponsored by SGA or paid for by SGA is paid for by Emory and thus associated with Emory.

I'm not really seeing where everyone is so adamant about why this is wrong. Emory pulled a free bus shuttle program. That's within their right to do. There are still cabs and designated drivers if the students want to go out drinking. Underage drinking is illegal. Yes, people are going to do it, but a majority of people breaking a law doesn't make it legal. If you get busted you're still screwed. If there's a bus sponsored by a college activity and it is going to the bars and back, it is fair game for the cops to pull people over so they can bust people for underage intoxication. They could do the same in your dorm room or your parents' home.

....they can't do that in my parents home....don't know where you got that. I could go out and drink at a restaurant when I was 18 so long as I was with my parents.

I think cops should be worrying about a whole lot more than pulling over a bus full of responsible kids who are trying to get a safe ride home after drinking.

Actually, yes, they can. If the cops break up a function at your home, they can fine the hosts for a variety of things including serving alcohol without a license, serving alcohol to minors, and so much more...

As far as drinking alcohol with your parents in a restaurant when you were underage, the restaurant could have been fined and so could your parents, with some parties serving jail time if there had been a cop present.

I guess this isn't consistent across all 50 states (?) or you've been very lucky, but it occurs enough to where it's commonplace.

Personally, I think the drinking age is absurd. Only 4 countries in the entire world have imposed a drinking age of 21-- USA, Ukraine, Malaysia and South Korea. That being said, people are still going to drink underage-- and some are going to get caught which sucks for everyone involved.

ETA: While I agree it seems that cops should have much better things to do than pull us over for going 50 in a 40 MPH zone, or drinking underage, they don't seem to. While you don't need to be a nun, just be careful out there.

That depends on where you live. This article
http://www.boston.com/news/local/con...n.com+%2F+News

discusses new legislation making it illegal for someone who owns or controls private property to knowingly allow a minor to possess alcohol, or fail to make reasonable efforts to stop a minor from possessing alcohol.

I'm not in law, but it seems to me that, in some places, police can come in to your parents' home. I don't know about the restaurant situation you talked about - seems to me that a restaurant would still be liable for serving alcohol to a minor, even if said minor was with his/her parents. Don't know for sure, though.

I agree with adpiucf. I can see why Emory did what they did. I think the hang-up here is that the topic of the thread (underage drinking vs dui) is a false dilemma. By providing the shuttle service, Emory was not condoning underage drinking (although some people would make an argument for that). By removing the shuttle, Emory is not condemning people to DUI.

Just my two cents, anyway.

Actually, no......they can't.

I wasn't talking about a "function" or a party at my house.....and you didn't mention that either. Obviously if my parents were handing out alcohol to a bunch of different people that aren't me or my siblings, it makes a difference.

My father is an attorney....we are well aware of what can and can't be done in the home/at a restaurant/etc. etc. No, its not consistent across all 50 states.

It reminds me of a case I learned on TV.

This guy was pulled over because of speeding. The cop gave him a speeding ticket, but also found drugs in his car. However, the cop cannot arrest him because the cop does not have a warrent to search his car. The guy got pulled over for speeding at that's it. The cop would have to petition a search warrent to arrest the guy.

Could the same be said about that bus? As long as the driver is driving safe, the cop has no reason to pull over the bus (but obviously the cop could see a reason) until he has warrent. Is that the same?