At a court hearing concerning Alcohol Law Enforcement citations doled out at a 1206 Markham Ave. party Aug. 25, Durham District Court Judge Craig Brown granted the defense a motion to suppress evidence.
The ruling was a victory for the approximately 75 students who were cited for alcohol-related offenses when ALE agents entered the residence.
If students cited at the party have not yet pled guilty or no contest, their cases will now most likely be dismissed, said Tom Loflin, one of seven defense attorneys in the case.
"As a practical matter, the state has no evidence," he said.
Students who have already pled guilty or no contest will not be affected by Thursday's ruling, he added.
At the party, 87 people were cited for possession of alcohol by a person under 21 and four for aiding and abetting underage drinking.
The raid at the party was part of a "back-to-school" enforcement campaign in which 194 people-mostly students-were cited for alcohol-related offenses by ALE agents at bars, stores and houses near campus.
Students' lawyers focused their case on what they claimed were violations of the unreasonable search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment.
In his closing argument, Loflin argued that the "exigent circumstances" necessary to search a private residence without a warrant did not exist when ALE agents entered.
Loflin also said the partygoers were kept in custody and interrogated at the residence without hearing their Miranda rights-an action that he said was illegal. It has been reported that agents kept some students at the residence for up to three hours.
"This action was an egregious violation of rights," Loflin said.
Assistant District Attorney Phyllis Tranchese said ALE agents were only trying to detain partygoers long enough to gather sufficient information.
Tranchese also said ALE agents entered the house because they were concerned with the safety of the people inside and did not illegally detain suspects.
In his ruling Brown said ALE agents should have obtained a search warrant before entering the house.
"By restraining the various students that were in the house... it was in effect a custodial interrogation," he said.
Brown also noted that the search warrant request form is short and simple and that the magistrate's office-which grants search warrants-is only about 10 minutes away from the Markham Avenue residence.
"The court certainly finds that in North Carolina... all people would be protected against unreasonable search and seizure," Brown said.
He also ruled that the people at the party were not in immediate medical distress.
Brown added that the party was not causing enough disruption in the neighborhood to elicit complaints from neighbors.
"There was no evidence presented to suggest the party was the subject of any complaints or 911 calls," he said.
Brown also made suggestions to students to help ameliorate the problems stemming from partying.
"There is no question that Duke University draws some of the best and the brightest," he said. "We remind them that the law states that anyone under the age of 21 is not allowed to drink or possess alcohol."
The judge made it clear that although students' records may be expunged, ALE will continue to enforce alcohol laws.
"Let me give Duke students fair warning," Brown said. "The results of this case are not going to affect enforcement. The court is very confident that ALE will continue to enforce alcohol-related offenses."
He then commented on what administrators can do to help the situation.
"We ask the authorities at Duke University for greater education... for advising [students] what the laws are," Brown said.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.