fuck tha police, comin' straight out the underground

Alcohol container-alleged beer box?

Policy: Kegs or other high-volume containers and/or large quantities of alcohol or alcohol containers are prohibited

Definition of container-anything that contains or can contain something, as a carton, box, crate, or can.

Argument-Cardboard cannot technically contain alcohol, or any other liquid. If it could, you would have to call a box of pop-tarts a possible alcohol container as well, due to the definition of the word. There was an empty, broken down cardboard case beer used to be in. If there had been beer in it, then we are guilty as charged. Students have these cardboard cases as decoration, not for potential alcohol storage. This policy as proven is very unclear, no alcohol was found in the box so unless it can be proven, then the charge is false. There is no definition as to what exactly constitutes an “alcohol container”. If a piggy bank says, "Bud Light " on it, is it an alcohol container? If it never contained alcohol in the first place then it could be called an advertisement. Residents are allowed to have advertisements of alcohol as long as its not visible from the outside of the apartment. An advertisement is anything with the logo or name of a product that is used to promote the product itself. This is in fact what we had and since it was located inside the kitchen we are in no violation. You cannot prove their was beer in it.

USI Code - 2.1.1 Alcohol on USI Property

Policy: The manufacture, sale, transfer, purchase, transportation, possession, or consumption of an alcoholic beverage anywhere on University-owned or controlled property (including
University-owned or leased vehicles, regardless of location), is prohibited by the University; exceptions are granted by the president or his/her designee

Argument: A friend of ours stopped by late in the evening. He was very intoxicated and still had a bottle of vodka on him. We told him to stop drinking because he was very incoherent and falling over. We confiscated his bottle and he left. We assumed he just went over to another friend's house, little did we know he was walking down the Lloyd Expressway. Security picked him up and asked him where he had been earlier. In his drunken stupor, he said he came over to our apartment. Naturally the security officers tailed their lead and came over. It would be immoral and unjust to charge us with possession of alcohol when our only thing we were guilty of was saving a friend from possibly drinking himself to death. There was no party going on in our apartment. Only one person was actually awake when the security officers arrived.

USI Code - 2.15.1 Failure to Produce Identification
Policy: Failure to produce either a University identification card or a driver’s license upon request by any University official including but not limited to USI security officers, Residence Life area coordinators and
resident assistants, and program sponsors in the performance of their duties, is prohibited.

Argument: If you check the report it should have everyone of our identification numbers on it. Not a single one of us failed to give the security guard an ID. (note in the policy it says absolutely nothing about in a timely manner as it is in policy 2.15.2) We all gave them our id’s so this charge is completely illegitimate and could be called a crime in its self as a false accusation by a legal authority. How would they even know our names if we didn't produce an ID?

2.15.2 Failure to Comply

Policy: Failure to comply with the instructions or directions of University officials in the performance of their duties is prohibited. Such acts may include but are not limited to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly obstructing or delaying any University proceedings, failing to cooperate with an investigation, fleeing a University official, and/or failing to comply with assigned University behavior sanctions.

Argument: Everything the security guards asked of us we did. They asked us to open the door, we did so without a moment of hesitation or delay. They asked us to get out of bed at 3 o’clock in the morning, we did without hesitation or delay. They asked us to produce identification we did without delay or hesitation. They asked us to produce a phone number so they could contact us later-Two out of the three involved did so without delay, the other asked the security guard to use the room phone number for his contact. The security guard demanded a personal number which in no way are we forced to give. After not even a minute of disagreement about this demand the third roommate did produce a personal number at which he could be contacted at. He questioned why he had to surrender a number in which neither of the officers answered.

2.4.1 Property Violations

Policy: Property violations include but are not limited to criminal violations such as burglary, robbery, theft, trespassing, and vandalism.

Argument: No burglary took place, no robbery took place, theft if referring to the signs found in the apartment is already another charge against us, in which would be double jeopardy (a United States federal crime as to where two of the same charges for the same crime are charged against a defendant). So the only deduction that can be made to the meaning of this charge would be the ash tray that contained cigarettes in them. Note in the report it should say nothing about finding someone smoking a cigarette in the apartment because it doesn’t happen and that it is against housing rules. There is only one roommate that smokes the other two are active sports players that do not smoke and cannot stand to be around it. They do not and wouldn’t not tolerate the smell of smoke in the apartment, and is the reason to why there was no one found smoking inside the apartment at the time of the incident or any other time. All smoking is done outside, the reason why the ash tray was inside is because its not the first one that has been lost due to theft and had been brought inside to prevent this by the roommate that smokes and had gone to sleep hours before the incident. If need be a inspection of the condition of the apartment is granted and urged, when and if this is done it will be found that there is no trace of smoke ever being in the apartment.

2.4.2 Theft or Removal of Univ. Prop.

Policy: Theft or removal of University property and/or furnishings including but not limited to furniture, artwork, plants, electronics, window screens, and signs from their designated locations is prohibited.

Argument: The signs were blown off of their designated locations during a wind storm in the early part of the fall semester in 2008. Check the maintenance records and serial numbers of the signs and this explanation will be confirmed. After this point is confirmed it is impossible to charge us with the crime as to they were blown off from the “designated locations” as to they were in the street. So in fact no violation occurred. One of the roommates picked up the signs in the middle of the road, thinking nothing of it, and took it inside. From it's location where he found it, it had been blown relatively far from it's original location.

Closing Argument

In the end after everything is said we the residents of apartment 830A Bowen are completely innocent of any charge of the violation of any policy that the University of Southern Indiana has. We are the victims of unfortunate circumstances as to where a friend came in the apartment completely intoxicated carrying a bottle of alcohol (the cause of the whole situation). Our only crime is trying to help out a friend. This was taking away an intoxicated persons alcohol as to not future the possibility of harm to himself or others. There was nothing that could be done any differently to avoid this situation except to reevaluate some friendships which has been done. We are asking for you to see things from are side of view and if you do then you will see that nothing else could have been done and that in fact we possibly save a life that night with are noble actions. You have to ask yourself WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE at 3 o’clock in the morning after being woken up by two men, one holding a sledge hammer.

As far as the charges of failure to comply and produce ID, they are vindictive acts of the security officers. We may have not been nice in our dialogue, but we were cooperative and behaved. The only reasons they have for charging us with these infractions would be personal reasons, not legitimate ones.