LHS Senior Charge with Facilitating a Underage House Party

On Saturday, May 17th just before midnight an a anonymous caller contacted Police regarding an underage drinking party being held on Sparhawk.

According to the Londonderry Police log when officers arrived at the scene they saw that alcohol was at the party.  Three subjects ran from the scene through the woods down Sparhawk toward Chase.  An additional unit was also called to the scene.

Michael Patrick Rauseo, 18, of 27 Sparhawk Drive, Londonderry was charged with facilitating a drug/underage alcohol house party. He was released on $1,500 personal recognizance bail and is scheduled to appear in Derry District Court on June 10.

Rauseo name is listed under Seniors as a Honor Student at Londonderry High School.  Prior to the incident he attended the prom that evening at the Atkinson Country Club.

In an earlier published story Choices and Consequences Getting Ready for Your Prom the maximum penalty for providing alcohol to underage drinkers could be up to three years.



30 Responses

Write a Comment»
  1. -9 Vote -1 Vote +1Cathi Rauseo

    It is unfortunate that the police did not prevent this alcohol from entering my home – there seems to be a huge problem in Londonderry that is not being handled very well by the police – focus here is on how the town/state can get money from fines and not how to prevent the adults who are buying for these minors. There was another prom party in Londonderry in which the parents supplied the KEGS of beer, I guess that party was less publisized, funny how I could find out about it. I was not home on prom night and the police entered my home when my son was not even there on an anonymous call. I thought the police needed a warrant to enter someone’s private residence. The police also sent the canine unit to my home while my son was at the police station, again is this legal? When police arrived there were only a dozen kids there.

    1. +20 Vote -1 Vote +1Phil

      Ma’am I don’t believe this is solely a police problem in town I believe this is also a parenting problem. Plus I am no cop, but if illegal things were going on in my home I would have no problem with them entering it without my permission. I would also no allow illegal things to go on in it.

      1. -5 Vote -1 Vote +1Larry

        That’s a very enlightened attitude Phil.

        Are there any other amendments in the Bill of Rights that you would like to revoke, or are you happy just ignoring the fourth?

        Let’s all thank God you’re not a cop.

    2. +15 Vote -1 Vote +1ConspiracyTheorist

      I assume that his arrest in July 2012 was also the police’s fault. Its always someone else’s fault…never the individual or, shockingly, the parent/owner of the home…

    3. -3 Vote -1 Vote +1Larry

      Although I don’t know of the circumstances that surround this story and your son’s behavior, in my opinion the Londonderry police are prone to overstepping their authority and the law. Whether this might be due to poor training or simply poor supervision I don’t know.

      Regarding the canine unit, you might read this recent report of a Supreme Court decision for some background. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/03/26/supreme-court-dog-sniffing-drug-case/2020743/

      As in all criminal matters, my suggestion is to retain the best attorney you can afford.

      1. +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Mike D

        Larry, just to make you aware, the Police are obligated to check the residence when underage drinking is taking place and a responsible adult is not present. You see, they are liable should there be anyone in the residence that is passed out or possibly suffering from alcohol poisoning. Should something happen to that person, the Police are held responsible. It’s called a welfare check.

        1. -1 Vote -1 Vote +1Larry

          Mike, if you read my very first sentence in my posting above – I’m not aware of the specific circumstances that surround this case. Having said that, I’m of the opinion that the Londonderry PD play fast and loose with warrantless searches. (You might also give some credence to skye03053 below regarding her personal experience.)

          A “welfare check”, as you may know, is generally not prompted by anonymous phone calls; they are prompted by relatives or neighbors calling to legitimately ask for police assistance in determining the status of someone who is not responding to communication or otherwise believed to need assistance and cannot summon it themselves.

          If you have an RSA or USC clause that has codified the “underage drinking” scenario that you describe, please cite it. Or, in the alternative, cite some similar cases where the police were found liable.

          Otherwise what I’m thinking is the police enter a residence using a “welfare check” or “emergency aid” excuse, then use the “plain sight” exemption to gather up evidence (which was their primary goal anyhow). Just my opinion.

          However, even if you are correct, and the police are just trying to guard against a liability suit, your reasoning wouldn’t explain a canine unit being there at all – whereas I absolutely expect this behavior to follow. (I wouldn’t be surprised if they also took possession of cellphones and did a little “data mining” while they were in police possession.)

          I believe they might do this because officers in the Londonderry PD, like many other small town PD’s across the country, are looking to uncover the “big case” and are likely to overstep their authority and the law in that pursuit.

          Your mileage may vary.

          1. +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Mike D

            Larry, lets see if this helps you out…

            The police get called for a noise complaint. They respond to the house and see obvious signs of a party. They knock on the door or go into the yard (Because sometimes these parties are outside) and speak with the owner of the house. They find that he is underaged and his parents are not home. They then see in the background alcohol in plain view. They check the ID’s of everyone there to see who is under 21. They are then OBLIGATED to check the rest of the house for anyone that may be hiding. This is called exigent circumstances. It happens all the time. I called it a welfare check because if there is anyone there that passed out or has the idea that they are going to drive, the police have to prevent the driving or get medical attention for the individual that is passed out. This is where the liability comes in. Should the police not check the rest of the house and someone there hiding at the time leaves and gets into an accident, the police are liable.

            As for the RSA, that would be 644:18 Facilitating a Drug or Underage Alcohol House Party. This allows the police to enter the house as a crime is being committed in their presence.

            The taking of the cell phones is ridiculous. Please tell me where you read that this happened because I have never seen nor heard of this.

            And just out of curiosity, what would give you the opinion that LPD oversteps their boundaries? Or are you just pulling this out of your hat because you don’t like police in general?

          2. -2 Vote -1 Vote +1Larry

            Hi Mike D -

            Well, first of all, the RSA or case that I wanted to see wasn’t re: facilitating an underage drinking party, which has been illegal for years, what I wanted to see is the law that confers the authorities that you believe exist i.e. “the Police are obligated to check the residence when underage drinking is taking place and a responsible adult is not present. You see, they are liable should there be anyone in the residence that is passed out or possibly suffering from alcohol poisoning.”

            Look at this article about a real-life case (albeit in Georgia), which is almost a carbon-copy of your scenario and see if my issues with this behavior make sense – as they did to the court. http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/print/party_warrantless_entry.pdf . As you can see, the fourth amendment trumps the causes of action you rely on.

            Now, regarding data mining of cellphones being conducted by large and small police agencies, it’s VERY common. Perhaps this link (almost three years old) will give you something to think about: http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-criminal-law-reform-immigrants-rights/new-document-sheds-light

            In this regard, tell me why you believe the Londonderry PD does not own something similar to this: http://www.cellebrite.com/images/stories/brochures/UFED-Ultimate-ENGLISH-web.pdf

            Finally, as I pointed out above, I think the Londonderry PD enjoys the press associated with a “big bust” and, in my opinion, let that desire cloud their judgment re: the law and search warrants.

            I have several friends that are law enforcement officers in various departments and agencies and respect them highly. They will be the first to tell you that this behavior is more common in small departments than larger, more process driven, organizations. Just ask them.

    4. +19 Vote -1 Vote +1Bill

      Wah, Wah, Wah, Not my fault. Not my kids fault. Not the other kids that were there at fault. This person is a perfect example of one of the things that has gone terribly wrong in this country. No one willing to take responsibility for when they screw up. The police should have prevented alcohol from entering your house? How the heck could they do that? Please explain. I agree that there is HUGE problem in Londonderry and the rest of the country. It is that parents refuse to be parental. They want to be their kids friend. Being a parent means teaching kids right from wrong and disciplining them when they step out of line. Your kid stepped out of line and what do you do? You blame the police for doing their job. Maybe you should do yours. By the way, the police can legally enter your house without a warrant if they observe criminal activity going on.

    5. +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Once Again

      “My son not being home”, maybe he is one of the kids that ran from the LPD. It is up to the parents to POLICE there kids especially at home. On prom night and leaving your home empty for your kids party, go figure. Maybe the parents should also be arrested for not POLICING there kids. Why is it that when the kids get into trouble its always the police officers fault. I am glad that they are making Londonderry safe. I would hate to see one of these kids have an accident and injure or even kill someone.

    6. Vote -1 Vote +1Mingo

      For those of you who were wondering about the K9 Unit being there…..Officer Perry was there as a responding patrolman. K9 Mingo never got out of his cruiser. There was no need to deploy K9 Mingo. If anyone has any questions regarding K9 deployment you can direct your questions to Officer John Perry: jperry@londonderrynh.org

      1. +3 Vote -1 Vote +1Billy Blue

        Does Mingo have his own email too? What if we have questions for him?

        1. +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Mongo

          Mongo sorry. Mongo like sheriff Bart. Mongo only a pawn in game of life.

        2. Vote -1 Vote +1Officer Gruff

          You can reach Mingo at his email address

          Takeabiteoutofcrime (at) LondonderryPD.org

  2. +8 Vote -1 Vote +1Jim Loiselle

    ADMIN…….what criteria do you use to run these stories to put a face to a police blotter. Looking at items on the police log, I see other people of all ages from Londonderry. Why call out this ONE instance and not the others ? (P.S. – I don’t know these folks)…………..just asking the question.

  3. +1 Vote -1 Vote +1skye03053

    Cathie I agree with you in regards to enetring your home and in many ways the Londonderry Police dept- I had a officer stand in my home a while back and accuse my son of burglarizing a very close friiend of ours home a few months back- that officer flat out told my boy he knows he did it and for him to give the family’s stuff back or it would turn into a charge of burgarly he searched my son’s phone / text messages and so on – My son was in tears after he left-the officer was dead set that my kid did this and was ready to haul him in : next day I get a call from the officer that they caught the guy who did it- but the officer never made it a point to apoligze to my kid for the way he was treated and accused for something he did’nt do-I agree with Larry- I have learned first hand how the over step and I have lost a lot od respect for the offiecrs of this town

  4. -9 Vote -1 Vote +1cathi

    I dont recall blaming the police for my sons actions and as for the other kids that were there and supposedly drinking, they were allowed to go home …. Sounds to me like the police got who they wanted and proceeded to get it highlighted with photo for the media. Again I cannot emphasize enough that I do not have all the facts and cannot get the police until after my son goes to court

    1. +7 Vote -1 Vote +1Bill

      You don’t recall blaming the police for not preventing alcohol being brought into your house? You had better read what you wrote.

    2. +3 Vote -1 Vote +1Mike D

      Cathy, your son was the one having the party, your son was the one that got taken into custody. I would be willing to bet that the other underaged that were there were probably given a hand summons, (which is an arrest but is not custodial) and were released to their parents.

  5. -11 Vote -1 Vote +1cathi

    Really Bill, you lost me at “wah, wah, wah”.

  6. +7 Vote -1 Vote +1Paul

    First of all what responsible parent would allow their son or daughter to have the house to them self on a prom night??….comon people most of Us have been there done that but those days have sailed. There is no one else to blame in this case accept the parents/kid.

  7. +15 Vote -1 Vote +1Momof2

    “It is unfortunate that the police did not prevent this alcohol from entering my home”
    followed by “I dont recall blaming the police for my sons actions..”

    Enough said

    1. +5 Vote -1 Vote +1Mike D

      Momof2, best post of the thread right here…

  8. +3 Vote -1 Vote +1Paul

    Cathi, the police don’t give booking photos out. They are public record! Stop trying to blame your child’s plan of having a after prom party on the police. It makes you sound stupid…actually I shouldnt say child because in the state of nh you are considered an adult at 17 years old. Your son apperaently planned to have a party and was not to smart about planning it and obviously the wrong person caught wind of it and called the police. Your son made a young adult mistake. Your trying to protect your son from his actions and you can’t because it is what it is. The police did their jobs. They disrupted an underage drinking party which is breaking the law. If I do believe their job discription is to enforce all laws and regulations set forth by the state of nh and they did just that. God forbid this but what if the police didn’t show up and a youngster decided to drive home drunk and got into an accident.. Then you would be saying the police didn’t do their job. In this case that did not happen. And for the others that decided to run from the police well people who run from the police almost 99.9% of the time did something they don’t want to get in trouble for in this case they were at a party that had underage kids with alcohol.

  9. +7 Vote -1 Vote +1Common Sense

    Are you even kidding me?! If I had an underage drinking party at my parents home and got arrested for it I can ASSURE you that I would be much more afraid of what my parents were going to do to me rather than the police. That is what is so very wrong with the world today, parents need to find someone other than themselves to blame for their lack of parenting. Take a look in the mirror and become a parent before you are looking for a reason to blame the police for your child’s next arrest.

  10. +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Mike D

    Larry, thanx for the court decision reading. Altho it was an interesting read, it isn’t applicable here. Here’s why:

    The police entered the house in GA without probably cause. Nor was there a crime being committed in their presence. Here in Londonderry, when the police arrived, three individuals ran, there were cans of beer all over the place and the resident of the house was underaged and had been drinking. That’s all the probable cause that is needed to enter the house.

    Now, like you, (and every other Monday morning quarterback that posts here) I have friends that are police officers. And as a matter of fact, some of them work here in Londonderry! And I can tell you two things:

    1. They do not have the data collection devise that you posted in your link and

    2. I’m aware of an incident that the police were called to where there was underaged drinking taking place. The individual in charge of the residence (the owner was not home at the time) would not let the police in to check the house for more underaged drinkers. (Contact was made with some of the underaged in the yard). So in short, one of the initial officers on scene left and got a search warrant for the residence. It was signed off by a judge and the house was searched.

    As for the “Big Bust” you mention, you couldn’t be more wrong. There is so much that happens here in town that DOESN’T make the paper that residents like you believe that Londonderry is crime free. I mean, do you really believe that the biggest thing that happens here in town is rabid fox and skunks?

    You assume too much, and you know what happens when you assume…

    1. +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Larry

      Mike -

      I’m glad that at least you no longer have to claim that “[t]he taking of the cell phones is ridiculous. Please tell me where you read that this happened because I have never seen nor heard of this” re: cellphone data mining now. And I’d be shocked if Londonderry doesn’t use a similar product or service – regardless of what your sources have told you.

      Also, to your second point – you may have forgotten that what we were talking about is warrantless searches – I’m all for the police following the law and getting a warrant signed by a judge or magistrate – that’s the way it is SUPPOSED to work!

      Hurray for the adult who “would not let the police in to check the house for more underaged drinkers” and forced them to FOLLOW THE LAW and get a warrant. The bad guys still get caught, but everyone gets to live under the protection of the fourth amendment.

      Finally, as to assuming – why in the world would you assume that I think Londonderry is crime-free? That’s about as far off base as I can imagine – but I stand by my original assertion that the police here love the press and they play fast and loose with warrantless searches.

      Thanks for the civil discussion. Have a great Memorial Day and remember those who gave all for our freedom.


      1. Vote -1 Vote +1Mike D

        OK Larry, so let me get this straight, I am not to believe my sources, um, I’m sorry, I meant friends, concerning LPD even when they work there, but you can believe YOUR sources but they work for a different department? OK, got it.

        Also, the point, Larry, of the story I mentioned was to show you that LPD does not partake in Warrantless Searches as you believe that they do. When a warrant is necessary, they get one. When one isn’t they don’t.

        I also hope you had a good wekend.

  11. Vote -1 Vote +1mike

    fyi the police enter without permission…mike was found not guilty,,good job Londonderry police,lol

Leave a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.


Connect with Facebook


Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.