Indiana excise police find 80 minors at Indy bar

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Police arrested 80 minors early Sunday after a raid on an Indianapolis bar found patrons as young as 13.

Officers from the Indiana State Excise Police and the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department's Nuisance Abatement Unit raided the Early Bird Bar & Grill on the city's northwest side around 1:45 a.m., Cpl. Travis Thickstun said.

Police had gone to the bar to investigate a flyer advertising a 13-year-old girl's birthday party, he said.

They arrested 80 minors for being in a tavern, Thickstun said. More than a dozen also were charged with illegal consumption or possession of alcohol. One person was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor for bringing her 13-year-old sister — not the girl celebrating a birthday.

The juveniles were released to the custody of their parents, Thickstun said.

Excise officers cited the bar for 80 counts of allowing a minor to loiter and one count of altering floor plans without approval, Thickstun said.

Indianapolis police cited the bar and bartender Garcia Martinez, 27, of Indianapolis, for violating three city ordinances: No dance hall permit, allowing minors to loiter and allowing minors to violate curfew, Thickstun said.

The bar doesn't have a published telephone number and management could not be reached for comment. Martinez also does not have a published telephoned number.

Excise Police Superintendent Matt Strittmatter said his agency continue to work with IMPD "and other agencies across the state to curb the access and sale of alcohol to minors.

"Moreover, Excise officers will continue to work with the alcoholic-beverage industry to ensure voluntary compliance with the law. But blatant violations like those reported here will result in immediate enforcement action," Strittmatter said in a prepared statement.

Excise Police will seek to have the bar's alcoholic-beverage permit revoked when the case is reviewed by the Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission, Thickstun said.


  • Excise
    Only in America is this newsworthy. Any other county it wouldn't even be an issue. Excise police have one goal and one mission in mind. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. They don't care who pays in the end, as long as they get it. Note that after they were done fining the living crap out of the bar, they went a step further and even fined them for altering floor plans without approval? Jeez. A complete waste of tax dollars to keep these leeches employed and allowing them to steal from people for a living. The excise could care less about the well being of the underagers present in the bar. They went in ready to fine. If your business goes under, so be it, they don't care. Just give us the money. Pathetic excuses for human beings. I would never own a bar or drinking establishment in indy as long as the excise force exists
  • Hey Patty
    Take your racist BS to another site, you troll. Funny that you, of limited intelligence, are able to deduce that ANY of the parties involved are anything other than an American citizen. There isn't a single word in this story that would indicate such. I any case, I'd rather keep undocumented citizens and deport backwards douchebags like yourself! Pow Pow!
  • Really?
    Let's not forget that in many other states such as Illinois and Ohio to name two, as long as the minors weren't drinking there would no problem with their presence in a bar. It's just another example of Indiana's backward thinking . Minors can join their parents in a "family room", their parents can be drinking to the point of unconsciousness and that wouldn't be a problem. I don't know if any of those minors were drinking but just being in the bar shouldn't be a cause for arrest.
  • The parents were thinking...
    OMG we've been caught...we will be deported! (They don't care.) Adios.
  • Cite the Parents
    As I watched news reports and then read various accounts of what the Police and Excise Officers found at this bar, I started wondering what the parents of these teens were thinking, and if contributing to the delinquency of minors was not a viable thought for the Prosecutor's Office. What were these parents thinking?

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.