Three years ago, everybody drinking illegally at a party in the University area could expect a citation when police arrived at the scene.
“They would pass out (citations) to everybody — it was ridiculous,” recalls Ted Welles, a University senior who hosted a handful of parties that ended when police arrived.
Police would check identification cards, give sobriety tests and cite nearly every minor in possession of alcohol, every person who illegally supplied alcohol, every partygoer found outside with an open container and every resident who let a radio blare loud enough to upset neighbors.
This was the work of the Eugene Police Department’s Party Patrol, a team of officers working overtime during weekends to break up raucous parties and enforce alcohol laws.
During the height of the Party Patrol’s enforcement in 1999, 909 alcohol citations — nearly half of all alcohol-related tickets issued in Eugene that year — were handed to partygoers in the West University Neighborhood, according to police records. But since 1999, budget restraints and an EPD policy shift have changed the way police enforce alcohol laws in the University area. Facing a tight budget and a shortage of officers, EPD disbanded the Party Patrol last year, and police have since given significantly fewer alcohol violations, with 505 issued in the West University neighborhood in 2001.
Instead of trying to bust everybody who breaks the law, EPD has focused its attention on party hosts, said Officer Pete Aguilar, who is assigned to the University area.
“It is easier to change the environment of the parties than it is to change the behavior of hundreds of people at a party,” he said.
The result, Aguilar said, is “a lot more people having near misses and warnings than in the past.” Welles said he has seen the change, noting that police responding to his parties have sought out him and his roommates before ticketing his guests.
“I think they’re more interested in me,” he said.
EPD Lt. Ron Roberts said the decline in citations is also the result of students partying more responsibly, and he attributed this change to cooperation between the University and EPD during the past few years.
The University has abandoned a “just say no” message and instead sought to educate students about how to party safely, said Laura Blake Jones, director of student life at the University.
Often working with EPD, the University has produced fliers, ran advertisements, made posters, hosted informational events and talked to students in residence halls and neighborhoods, she said.

Police focus on party hosts
The Eugene City Council approved the centerpiece of the EPD’s new party-control approach last year when it implemented the special response fee ordinance.
Under the ordinance, residents cited are forced to repay the city the cost of police responses to disorderly parties after the second police response to an address within 90 days, where at least 25 people are gathered and at least two citations are issued. The bill could be as high as $1,500.
The intent of this ordinance, Roberts said, is “to make sure that the people ultimately responsible for repeated police responses to disorderly parties are responsible for the resources.”
Since the ordinance was approved, 29 locations received warnings stating that police would issue the special response fee the next time they respond to a party at the address. Police have yet to issue the response fee.
The fact that none of the 29 locations have required a second police response indicates that the policy has been a successful deterrent, Aguilar said.
“People have noticed that there is an enforcement, that it stings and that they want to avoid it,” he said. “The people who habitually threw big parties, the people who got good at throwing big parties, don’t do it any more.”
Furthermore, Aguilar said the new policy has improved relations between police and students.
“It’s a little more respectable to the student body and less confrontational,” he said.
The June 1 riot near campus, however, was a shocking reminder of the alcohol-fueled student riots of 1997 and 1998, which spurred the EPD’s zero-tolerance policy and the Party Patrol.
About 500 people attending parties at 17th Avenue and Patterson Street spilled into the streets that night and began a riot that persisted until every EPD officer on duty and about 20 officers from other police agencies fired tear gas, arrested 11 people and chased everybody else off the streets. Roberts said he hoped the incident was a fluke.
“It’s a reminder that these things can be spontaneous and that we must be diligent, be out there and make connections before parties get started,” he said.
When the Party Patrol was on duty, officers would check Oregon Liquor Control Commission records, discover where kegs were on any given weekend and contact residents before parties began, Roberts said.
Officers would remind residents of the law and advise them to contact police if they began to lose control over the party. This, Roberts said, is the most successful way to prevent disorderly parties, but the EPD lacks the money and personnel to do this.
“We have to have people work overtime just to maintain minimum staffing,” he said.

Critics of response fee

reconsider
Still, Aguilar said he thinks the EPD’s focus on party hosts is the best way for the department to manage partying with the funds available.
Whereas the Party Patrol would respond to a disorderly gathering with half a dozen officers, shut down the event and cite everybody they could, police now operate in smaller numbers and spend less time at an unruly party, he said.
Officers arriving at a party now seek mainly to establish the conditions needed to justify a special response fee warning, conditions including a minimum of 25 people present and two citations, he said.
When the special response fee ordinance first passed, however, student leaders feared that it would be enforced in conjunction with the Party Patrol, would cause a jump in alcohol citations and would create a significant financial drain for students who got caught.
ASUO members spoke numerous times before the Eugene Police Commission and City Council while the ordinance was drafted last year and recommended revisions, some of which directly influenced the final language of the law.
Christa Shively, the ASUO community outreach director at the time, said that the potential adverse effects of the ordinance were mitigated by the disbanding of the Party Patrol.
She said she has heard no complaints from students who felt they were targeted by the special response fee, and current ASUO members also said they have received no complaints.
City Councilor David Kelly, who represents the University area, said he, too, was unaware of any complaints from students.
“There is some indication that the ordinance may have resulted in less situations that may have gotten completely out of hand, and it has been used sparingly, which is good,” he said. “Based on what I’ve heard, which is not a lot, it’s been less negative than was feared.”