Nuisance Party Arrest on University Drive
Arrest marks at least third for nuisance party on street since classes resumed at Kent State
Photos
A third Kent State University student has been charged in connection with a nuisance party on University Drive since classes resumed for the fall semester.
Kent Police charged MacKenzie M. Mitchell, 19, of 840 Morris Road, with failure to disperse from a nuisance party, an unclassified misdemeanor, early Sunday morning.
Officers were breaking up a nuisance party at 125 University Drive shortly after 1 a.m. Sunday when Mitchell refused to leave and was charged, according to police.
The psychology student at Kent State is the third student to be arrested on University Drive this semester in relation to a loud party.
In September, police arrested Nicholas S. Elder, 19, of 222 University Drive, and charged him with holding a nuisance party, which also is an unclassified misdemeanor. The Pennsylvania native is a sophomore at Kent State University.
And in August police shut down a nuisance party at 206 University Drive and charged a tenant of that house, also a Kent State student, with a nuisance party violation.
Nuisance party violations across the city are up in 2012 compared with the previous two years, KentWired reported Tuesday.
So far 63 nuisance parties have been reported this year compared with 14 in 2011 and 34 in 2010, according to KentWired.
Kent Police Lt. Jim Prusha told KentWired the department is more strictly adhering to the nuisance party law.
"In the past, officers have been a little more lenient than what our procedure actually says they should be … it kind of got a little lax,” Prusha told KentWired. “It’s really a no-nonsense kind of thing. If you go there, and this is what’s happening, it’s a ticket.”
Teresa K.
9:30 am on Wednesday, November 14, 2012
This doesnt make sense to me! Nuisance parties are up in numbers, high numbers too, this year and YET... the college has chosen a "smarter" group of students. KSU was being very selective and getting a higher "quality" of students.
Why were police so lax before? What changed?
Sarah Skibiski
10:10 am on Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Possibly because they need more fine money?
http://kent.patch.com/articles/city-manager-2013-budget-frustrating
Artie
10:13 am on Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Are you really surprised? The university conveniently tossed students off campus; bought the frat houses on Lincoln to be demolished, demolished Allerton housing. See a pattern? Put the students out into the Kent neighborhoods and the University is no longer responsible for them, let Kent City police deal with the students now.
Donald S
9:44 am on Wednesday, November 14, 2012
partying has nothing to do with how intelligent you are teresa....
Teresa K.
10:03 am on Wednesday, November 14, 2012
donald: OH! ok ; )
I'm all for parties for the students. But a nuisance party is different.
Sarah Skibiski
10:06 am on Wednesday, November 14, 2012
It's a college town, what do people expect?
Teresa K.
12:47 pm on Wednesday, November 14, 2012
@sarah: I expect parties !!! par for the course every weekend or holiday.
Nuisances must be contained though. I'm not sure what qualifies as a nuisance party though?
Very pro 2nd amendment!
11:22 pm on Thursday, November 15, 2012
A party for me, might be a nuisance to others, or visa versa. Its about preception. No matter what kind of party it it, its a problem only when busted
Chris (Kit) Myers
10:44 am on Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Ah, ain't alcohol grand?
Teresa K.
12:49 pm on Wednesday, November 14, 2012
@chris: it sure is. cheers!
Jason Mason
2:47 pm on Wednesday, November 14, 2012
The cops are lashing out because they didn't get their new sty/jail when they lost in the election. They want to keep up with the judges that are building a new courthouse and they are jealous! They had to buy a sump pump for their leaky basement at the ReStore!
Chris (Kit) Myers
3:40 pm on Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Lashing out? No, they are doing what we taxpayers expect; fighting a constant battle against what seem to be incredible odds in order to maintain the peaceful enjoyment of the neighborhoods for those who would like Kent to be a fine city in which to live, work, and raise a family. Perhaps someday you will understand.
Very pro 2nd amendment!
11:14 pm on Thursday, November 15, 2012
Well said Jason! It took a failed levy to wake the KPD up
Very pro 2nd amendment!
11:18 pm on Thursday, November 15, 2012
Easy there KIT. The KPD usually waits till the party gets out of hand before they do anything about it. The same thing happens every year, at the same time. Every May, they put 2 officers at the end of the street for the parties in MAy. When it get out of control, they call the other police depts to come help. Just think what Jason is saying, its nice to see the KPD finally do something
Sarah Skibiski
7:19 am on Thursday, November 15, 2012
I'd be interested in knowing what exactly a nuisance party is as compared to a normal party too.
Matt Fredmonsky
11:25 am on Thursday, November 15, 2012
Sarah, a nuisance party is defined under section 509.13 of the city's codified ordinances as "a social gathering or party" that meets any number of 10 criteria, including:
Illegal open container
Littering
Outdoor urination or defecation in a public place or on another's property
The ordinance makes both property owners and tenants responsible for preventing such instances.
Very pro 2nd amendment!
11:13 pm on Thursday, November 15, 2012
Its nice to see the KPD not let this party get out of control like they usually do
Chris (Kit) Myers
9:32 am on Saturday, November 17, 2012
Parties do not get out of control; people do.
Police presense should not be required before or when a party begins. It seems that that is what is necessary in Kent. Would the law-breakers act the same way on the block in front of their parents' home? I seriously doubt it. Why do it in Kent?