The police should be lauded for this. What in earth are you thinking? Are you one of the "Take my Kids Side No Matter What" parents? If so, you're doing them no favors and taking the easy way out.
The cops could have arrested the young knuckleheads for having a container of alcohol, underage drinking, and probably a whole lot more. Or, they could have got higher and drunker and caused all sorts of problems.
My kids are grown and weren't saints by any measure, and I was always grateful that the Westford police seemed to have the "keep the kids safe and what's in their best interests" attitude instead of "arrest the jerks" which happens a lot in other towns. Use your head, not your feelings on this, please.

Perhaps it's a low crime area precisely BECAUSE police take notice of things and check out suspicous vehicles, such as a minivan parked in a closed beach parking lot. That, by itself, is suspicious enough to get a cruiser to drive past and check it out. Smell pot coming from the car, who is to know if they are using small, legal amounts or carrying a load to distribute. I think the way you find out is by checking into it. It's called probable cause.

I, for one, applaud the effort. And, oh by the way, just holding the kids and issuing citations while calling parents should be seen as a lenient response, that I would think parents would be THANKFUL for. Or would you rather let the kids go, get away with it, and learn nothing from it, except that they can do what they want with impunity?

Derek, smelling pot does not constitute probable cause in this state. It's great that you know that phrase, but unfortunate that you have no idea how it applies here. There is already precedent in this state. Dan D, you're relying on emotions here, thinking about all of the things that could have happened. All that really did happen here, was that overzealous cops performed an illegal search and made these teens resent them for it. (they knew it was illegal as it happened) You don't need to use your feelings because the law is quite clear on this, smelling like pot is not enough reason to be searched. This is why Westford can't even pay it's teachers, our priorities are so screwed up that you would protect illegal searches so that we can pay cops to parent our children. Don't just sling from the gut here, think about the effect this would have on your children!

I guess that was less awkward than catching Mom and Dad in the minivan on date night...

Actually, according to the article, they were drinking. And,the smell of pot is suspect enough, not to mention trespassing.

Dan D. the article implies drinking because the 30 pack didn't have 30 beers remaining. Nowhere does it say that they were drinking on the beach or given breathalyzers. What's humorous is that you are defending illegal actions committed by adults, the smell of marijuana is not probable cause for a search and there is precedent in mass backing that up.

Mary G give it up! The police found evidence of drinking at the beach. The law is still 21. They were in a motor vehicle with open containers. The rest of us are glad they didnt drive away! Likeky cause a crash, maybe kill themselves or others, hit a pedestrian or child. What are you thinking?

They found evidence after performing an illegal search. You can be happy that they were harassed and that their rights were violated if you see this as justifiable for safety. But there is already precedent in Mass on this matter and the search was illegal. So if you enjoy the fact that our police break the law to babysit our citizens, say that! Nobody can deny that searching a car in Mass because they think they smell pot is illegal. THAT IS THE LAW.

One would have to be brain dead to allow 4 teenage boys with a 30 pack and pot to drive anywhere. Notwithstanding your anti cop screed, you are obviously not a parent. If these boys hit and killed a pedestrian on the ride home after the cops let them go, would you say the cops were negligent for letting them go ? I think you might. Moreover, any reasonable person would assume that they were not in condition to drive and they are damn lucky that the cops let them off with a slap on the wrist. Yes I believe in rights and you are fully entitled to your opinion on police and corruption but the majority of law enforcement is there to protect us.

They wouldn't have even known about the open container if they had acted within the law and let them leave. In Massachusetts if you have a liquid in an unmarked container, police have to perform a very expensive test to prove what it is. They never do the test. In this case, the police most likely lied to these people and threatened them until one of them divulged the fact that it was soco. It was only after harassing them that the alcohol was found. What if they hadn't found anything? Then it would have been harassment for nothing. It was illegal, and perhaps you support illegal searches to protect teens? That's an argument you could make, although it belongs in another country. In America, what these cops did was illegal.

So according to you people, the police breaking the law is perfectly fine but, the teenagers who were illegally searched breaking a law isn't? Just because they are police officers doesn't mean they have special rights or that they are always right, being a cop is an occupation, they have the same rights as non police officers do, and this search was illegal and quite possibly even profiling the teenagers in the car. I'm not saying letting anyone drive drunk is okay, but i believe that we ALL have to abide by our own implemented laws, police officers don't have special rights.

We have drug addicts because we lie to our children and tell them that cigarettes and all street drugs are dangerous. Then when they inevitably smoke something and realize that we've been lying to them, they are no longer afraid of the truly scary street drugs. Look to South America, and parts of Europe, where drug use is decriminalized and treated. They have gone from rampant addiction to far less than we have here in under 10 years.

I cannot condone underage drinking in public. We don't know that anything was consumed in this case, and clearly the search was illegal. So the possession of alcohol should never have been discovered. I'm not fine with the police breaking the law or harassing citizens. Do you really think the teens learned a valuable lesson here? They knew at the time that it was an illegal search. All this does is to cause further resentment of these crooked police, and disrespect towards the entire system that allows these teens to be mistreated. Put yourself in their shoes, having just been denied their rights, and think about the effect this has on them.

By virtue of minors in possession of alcohol, they have broken the law. As such the police should search the car, period !

Kevin, they didn't know they had alcohol until they had searched the car. So you're advocating letting police search anything, anywhere, because they're bound to find something illegal every once in a while. That is not the American way. If you appreciate your freedom you should not let the police take it from your children.

Keep in mind that these teens had to be around the age of 16, I believe they would publish the ages if they were over 17.

I actually agree with Mary and Kelly because police are regularly ignorant of the law, and abuse their power especially when it comes to people they feel like they can push around.

I don't condone underage drinking or anything of the sort, but the police still need to act within the confines of the law and not skirt around it.

Also, one of the smartest bosses I ever had was a regular pot-smoker. He was ex-military, ex-US Marshall, and an ace programmer. Every day at lunch he went out and lit up a joint, and never moved on to anything harder. To say marijuana is a gateway drug for everybody just because it was for some people is illogical.

Correlation does not equal causation. Everyone who enjoys a glass of wine is not an alcoholic, nor will they become one just because they enjoy a nightly glass of wine.

Molly, I have to disagree with you about your feelings of the teenager wanting to call the mom. I am sure the kid was nervous, frightened, felt intimidated and wanted someone there that could be trusted. I do not think it was a case of feeling that the parent would not punish this behavior but that it was a matter of feeling legal rights were being violated and that another authority figure should be around to stop things from becoming more out of control. I love my children unconditionally, as I am sure this parent does, and would be glad that they would feel comfortable enough to want to talk with me about ANY problem they may be facing. I would not want any child to be raised in fear of their parents and not want to have them there even "IF THEIR LIFE DEPENDED ON IT " as you stated. Glad your not my mom because I get the feeling I would never have had any form of open communication with you. A relationship with communication is a good thing and can help solve problems and address them before they become bigger issues.

Mary,
I believe Andrew has said in the past that Patch does not publish names unless the person is arrested. So if only a citation was issued, the name(s) would not be published here.

Heard my name here, so I'll chime in.

JR is correct, it's our policy not to publish names of anyone unless they are arrested. We also try to be somewhat vague in circumstances where someone could be identified directly from their position as well in order to protect some privacy.

Ultimately, just about all interactions the public has with with police are public information, and I believe it's my role as a journalist to help provide as much transparency to those interactions when possible without interfering in the ability of police to perform their jobs.

P.S. -- I haven't mentioned this yet, but there has been one change in the Patch policy, before we did not use names of anyone arrested under 18. Now it's 17, anyone over 17 is considered to be an adult to my understanding in the State of Massachusetts when it comes to legal proceedings.

P.P.S -- And just one more thing, the report I received on this incident had the charges on the citation redacted. Thus why I didn't mention what the citation was for, only that there was one (which was mentioned in the report.)

Randy, what you just described is exactly why these laws against illegal search exist. You really think an officer can do something illegal to every teen they see out at night, because every once in a while they will find beer in the trunk? My sons were never charged with a single crime or misdemeanor, but were pulled over and harassed on 6 different occasions. They left the state for college and now work in different states, they are still scared of the assaults and injuries from Westford and Groton police even years later. At the time, the police department denied everything and the crooked cops got away with beating three 18 year old boys before they headed off to top-tier schools. If you don't think their disregard for the law is a serious problem, you're very naive.

Mary G - that sounds like the officer who tried to bully me and my son into "confessing" to stealing stuff from the Nabnasset school roof. The officer swore up and down to me he had a "reliable witness" who placed my then-teen son on top of Nab school while they were re-roofing it. I thought he was kidding. I actually laughed. Then the officer haughtily stated, "I'm glad you think it's funny, but I don't". So I explained to him that there was no way my son could have been on top of that roof the night/time frame in question, and his retort was something to the effect of, "you'd be surprised what kids get away with in this town without their parents knowing about it."

So I said, "You really think my 15-year-old son stole a credit card, booked a flight 2000 miles from Washington State where he was for his murdered uncle's *funeral*, got a ride or hoofed it from the airport to Westford, then did it all in reverse back to Washington a few hours later? Just so he could climb on top of the Nab school and steal roofing supplies??"

So much for their "reliable witness".

That WPD officer sure had his finger on the pulse of what lengths 15-year-old boys will go to for "fun".

Yes Amber, I recently helped a neighbor with transportation to and from the hospital after her husband's heart attack. The police officer who was standing outside the house, was creating a traffic problem. The ambulance was in the driveway, the police officer chose to block half the street with his cruiser. I spoke with this officer about how sad it was that my neighbor was having an emergency. His reply was that he was happy because it gave him something to do. So insensitive. I'm sure there are some good police officers out there, but in Westford I've only witnessed the worst.

So when does a police officer take responsibility for the crimes they commit? We know they're not infallible, when they screw up they need consequences. I would never be disrespectful to an officer on the side of the road. However, I would absolutely call my lawyer the next day. Police have been taken off the road before, it's your duty as a citizen to report them.

Kaio, you clearly do not understand probable cause as it applies to this situation. Smell of pot is not longer probable cause in Mass. Even if the smell is coming from a criminal quantity, there is no way to know until after an illegal search. The citizens of mass voted on this in a referendum, it's our law and the police have to abide.

Mary,

Just answer one simple question.
Would you or wouldn't you want "someone" to stop your kids if they were doing this?
If your answer to that question is "yes" then thank the cops.
If it is no, then God help your kids!

Kaio,
My sons don't need God, they attended top-tier schools, graduated with honors, and have high paying jobs. They prefer to have us visit them because they are afraid to drive home through Westford after being assaulted by our police. If my sons were caught breaking a law, I would want them to experience the consequences. I would not want them to be illegally searched for any reason. In the case we are talking about here, these kids didn't smell of alcohol or appear drunk, that's not why they were searched. The cops "smelled pot" and never found any. "Smelling pot" doesn't need to be qualified or measured or documented in any way, it is simply something that police used to be able to say to search cars when they felt like abusing people. That is now illegal in this state. I would not want any child in Westford to have their rights violated in any way, if these were my sons I would have been in the police station the next morning. Our lawyers would have these officers suspended within the week. By the way, my youngest son is graduating this year and applying for law school.

Were you harassed for several hours? Did they accuse you of transporting something illegal and then search your car. Did they go through your personal items and invade your privacy without cause? Did they make someone else come pick you up? Did they threaten you?

Yes, it was nice of them to tell you that your headlight was out, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. Police should absolutely be allowed to pull people over and give tickets. However, when they break the law, we should not protect them. When they break the law, they need consequences, just like children. If we don't stop them from violating our rights now, we invite it on ourselves in the future. Just imagine if they had treated you like they treated these teens, and how you would have felt then.

So, how long were they interrogated?
Also, with regards to breaking the law, they should be afraid. The log clearly states "Three of the four teenagers were found to be drinking". Do you refute that? Last time I checked, this was illegal. NEVER side with your kids wrongly!

I want them to play by the rules they expect everyone else to play by. To get respect, you give respect. Plenty of officers here are respectful, but I've seen just as many power-tripping anal-retentive jerks who don't even know the law they're trying to yell at you for allegedly breaking.

I'd want them to approach "my kids" respectfully, do their job within the confines of the law, and then call me so I could assess the damage and kill them myself if need be. ;)

Listen, you're talking to the wrong girl on this topic. I got cited once for open container and MIP at age 19 because I was the designated driver - doing the right thing, my father was killed by a drunk driver - for all of my over-21 friends and the people who were drinking at the house party put their case in the car instead of the house.

I wasn't driving, the vehicle wasn't moving, but because the officer shined his light into the car and saw the half-full case he made all sorts of assumptions. Luckily, his partner was NOT a jerk, and explained the situation rationally. The magistrate dismissed all of the charges because (despite the two VERY different write-ups by the officers), as he said, I was doing what they hoped most young people would do. If his partner had taken the lead, or had been two officers of his mind-set together, I would have been screwed for doing the right thing.

No, I don't trust the police implicitly. Sorry. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The odor of marijuana is not probable cause to search a car or residence in Massachusetts. Scroll back up and read the links, there are several cases in recent years showing this.

Amber/Mary... your kids were breaking the law. How they were caught is a technicality in my opinion (I know we differ on that). 2 questions:
1. Do you admit they broke the Law?
2. Would you rather have found them in a twisted car wreck?
Do you not get it? Your kids were SAVED! No matter which way anyone looks at this.

Sorry about that Amber...

Hi Slick,

It is NOT a Civil liberties violation when you are parked "illegally" and a cop walks up to you to investigate. They searched the vehicle as they found the kids had broken the Law.

Brendan,

They also "sensed" a lone van parked on public property which was closed and isolated. There may be other things not listed in the log that also prompted it.
If you were a passer-by and saw this, you would wonder what is going on.
I have been to the beach parking lot. It is isolated.

That is EXACTLY what the cop went over to do. However, he could smell alcohol on their breath and THAT is against the LAW (Teenage drinking). What exactly is the problem here? Should he not take action?

I quote "Three of the four teenagers were found to be drinking". I hope WA teaches English (It definitely doesn't seem to impart common sense).

If they had tested them for alcohol and the tests came out positive, they might have had to "arrest" them. It might have gone on their permanent record!