Several Alcohol Law Enforcement agents continued their testimonies at the Durham courthouse Friday in the latest proceedings of a case that involves the citation of approximately 75 Duke students.
"We had a 'back to school' operation as we like to call it- centered around Duke University," said ALE Raleigh district supervisor Jeff Lasater in his testimony.
He and other agents also noted that a warrant was not necessary for them to enter the house where the students were cited.
On the night of Aug. 25, ALE agents and Durham police surrounded the house at 1206 W. Markham Ave. and cited dozens of students who were found to be committing alcohol violations.
Lasater testified Friday that he was tipped off about the party by a Durham police officer who saw kegs being carried into the Markham house.
Defense attorneys in the case are seeking to have all evidence collected that night thrown out because agents allegedly obtained it using illegal methods of search and seizure and interrogation.
Attorneys for both sides concluded their presentations of evidence Friday, and the judge will likely issue a verdict next week, said Tom Loflin, one of seven defense attorneys in the case.
"The defense lawyers have decided to offer no evidence," Loflin said. "We are very happy the way the record of testimony from the ALE agents now is."
Continuing his testimony from Thursday's proceedings, ALE agent Keith Patterson was cross-examined by the defense. During cross-examination, attorneys focused largely on the exigent circumstances the agents claimed were used as justification for entering the house without a search warrant.
Patterson testified that agents decided to proceed without a warrant because they were worried that the party would break up before one could be obtained. He also said that they were worried students who were drinking beer would finish doing so, thus eliminating one piece of evidence in the arrests.
Patterson added, in response to questions from defense attorneys, that no one he personally cited was holding a beer or cup.
Multiple agents also said the house was completely filled with people. The defense argued this as proof that the party was in full swing, claiming agents had time to obtain a search warrant.
Lasater testified that another exigent circumstance was his concern for the safety of an undercover officer, who remained in the house until after police arrived.
But defense attorneys challenged Lasater's assumption, arguing that if the undercover agent felt his safety was at all threatened, he could have left the premises or called Lasater on his cell phone for help.
"Lasater conceded the undercover officer, once he had relayed all the information, was completely free to leave out the back door," Loflin said. "But no, he couldn't do that because the agent in charge ordered him to stay there-and I put this sarcastically-so concerned was [Lasater] for this man's safety. When the cops raided the house they didn't frisk anybody for weapons, so concerned were they for safety and the dangerous Duke students."
Agents testified that they detained all students in the house and in the yard, Loflin said. The students were only allowed to leave after proving they were 21. If they were underage and denied having been drinking, Loflin added, they had to take a breathalyzer test before being allowed to leave the house.
This is a key point in the defense's argument, Loflin explained, because several students have claimed they were coerced into taking breathalyzer tests against their will.
Patterson testified that no student was forced to take a breath test.
Lasater said he allowed some underage students to leave if they appeared to be sober without first asking them to take a breathalyzer test.
If the motion is successful, currently unresolved citations would likely be dismissed, Loflin said. He noted that students who have already pled guilty or agreed to seek the First Offenders program will likely be unaffected by the trial's outcome.
Only a handful of students were present at the trial Friday due to school- or work-related exemptions. The prosecution and defense will present their closing arguments in court Nov. 3 at 11:30 a.m.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.