The standard for excellence in public safety is changing. Lexipol is your partner in understanding how your agency measures up and setting a course to achieve performance excellence. Schedule a consultation with our team today to learn about our holistic approach built on Gordon Graham’s 5 Pillars of Organizational Success.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to follow and signup for notifications!
NELDON V. LINCOLN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, ET AL., 25L6-CC00135 (Lincoln Cty. Mo. Cir. Ct. August 5, 2025)
Author’s Note: In Xiphos, we don’t often discuss cases from a single state’s courts, but my friend Laura Scarry recently shared this case and it merits discussion. Our colleague Gordon Graham is famous for saying “predictable is preventable,” and this case presents a scenario that is predictable for most officers throughout the nation. I invite you to read Laura’s introduction to the complaint filed in this case (linked above) and brainstorm with fellow officers, supervisors and legal counsel about how you would handle a similar situation.
The following is a scene that plays out any given week for law enforcement: Walking up to a residence in response to a noise complaint, activating a flashlight, and exposing teenagers ducking into the darkness and scurrying away at an Olympic-race pace to avoid being detected. At one time or another in their careers, nearly every law enforcement officer has responded to a noise or loud party complaint. And it’s not uncommon for officers in every community to suddenly find themselves interrupting an underage party involving drugs or alcohol (or both).
| REGISTER NOW: Protecting major events from drone threats
When responding to such calls, what do you do when you see young partygoers — seemingly under the legal drinking age — who are, or might be, under the influence of drugs or alcohol? Do you disperse the party by shooing everyone away, hoping for an easy disposition, and calling it a night? What if the attendees of the party are all juveniles? (The majority of states define juvenile as an individual under the age of 18. Some states set the line for juveniles at 16 years of age, while two states have raised the upper age limit beyond 18 years old.) Do you corral them, notify their parents, then release them to the parents or guardians?
That’s a logical resolution when dealing with a relatively small number of attendees. On the other hand, what do you do when there are 100 or more people at the party, and your entire shift consists of three officers or deputies? What if the partygoers are not juveniles but still under the legal drinking age?
A lawsuit recently filed against a sheriff’s office, its deputies, and parents of the party host in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, Missouri, shines a spotlight on this issue. It should also force agency heads and supervisors to discuss the most appropriate responses when confronted with these circumstances. In Neldon v. Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office et al., Thomas and Jennifer Neldon filed a wrongful death complaint following the death of their daughter after her vehicle was struck by another vehicle driven by an impaired 16-year-old who recently left an underage party. The crash, which resulted in a fiery inferno, also killed the two passengers in the offending vehicle.
Thomas and Jennifer Neldon, the plaintiffs, allege that on April 29, 2023, several deputies responded to a “peace disturbance” call at a residence by parking at the sole entrance, thereby blocking any vehicles from leaving. The deputies observed dozens of juveniles in the front yard along with several parked vehicles. The plaintiffs assert the deputies spoke to “Jake,” the son of the homeowners and host of the party. They allege the deputies entered the home, observed more juveniles inside, and saw alcoholic beverages being consumed. They also smelled marijuana. According to the complaint, rather than contacting the parents of the juveniles, the deputies communicated with “Jake’s” brother, who told the deputies that they “should force the juveniles to leave the property.”
| READ NEXT: Unlawful entry or police community caretaking?
Rather than following their policies or procedures, the plaintiffs assert, the deputies listened to the brother’s instructions. The deputies purportedly gathered the juveniles still present, told them to get in their vehicles and instructed them on which direction to travel when leaving the residence. They allegedly did this knowing full well that many of the juveniles were drunk, high, or a combination of the two.
The plaintiffs allege the deputies maneuvered their squad cars to block highway traffic, provided a clear lane to exit, and guided the juveniles’ vehicles out of the driveway with their flashlights. They assert dozens of vehicles left the residence as directed by the deputies and that the deputies observed clear and obvious signs the juvenile drivers were impaired. The plaintiffs allege one of the vehicles “released by the deputies” was being driven by a 16-year-old who had consumed alcohol and marijuana as well as cocaine. They assert the driver of that vehicle crossed the center line and collided head-on with a vehicle being driven by their daughter, killing her.
A core part of the plaintiffs’ claim is that the deputies and the sheriff’s office were negligent when they failed to prevent teenagers they knew — or should have known — were drinking or consuming drugs from leaving. Deputies also directed other juveniles to drive onto the highway while under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine. The plaintiffs also allege the homeowners were negligent when they failed to supervise their son, “Jake,” in allowing him to have a party when they knew (or should have known) he and his friends would be consuming drugs and alcohol and then driving.
At this point, these are simply allegations, and it remains to be seen through the litigation process whether the responding deputies knew the juveniles were under the influence before they left the residence. However, assuming the deputies knew kids were intoxicated, did they have a legal obligation, or a duty, to protect the kids? If the teenagers were in the “custody” of deputies before being “released,” an argument certainly can be made that the deputies had such an obligation. On the other hand, assuming the kids were not in the custody of deputies, could the deputies’ “direction or instruction” on where to travel be construed as a form of intervention imposing a duty on the deputies? These and a whole host of other questions arise from this case and warrant discussion within our agencies with involvement from legal counsel on how law enforcement should respond in similar circumstances.
Read more Ken Wallentine case reviews here.
This article was featured in Lexipol’s Xiphos newsletter, a monthly legal-focused law enforcement newsletter authored by Ken Wallentine. Subscriptions are free for public safety officers, educators and public attorneys. Subscribe here!
