Underage But Adult Alcohol Consumption

[Stump]

Anal? Not. Professional, yes. And by the way, dispatchers have no control over HOW cops respond to jobs, but it is a written guideline on what times you can respond to calls with lights, etc.

However, you now changed your story to read that they put their lights on when stopped in front of the house. I'm assuming it is just the "holding pattern" lights, which would be a completely different idea than what you said the first time.

[Hightower]

OK, everyone here seems to be concerned about what we do with a person who is 18 but younger than 21.

Yes, it is not legal for them to consume alcohol in most states.

Let's say you come across a 20 year old that has been drinking. He shows signs of alcohol consumption, but not is not outright "DRUNK". He tests a .07 in a PBT. He is NOT driving. He is very cooperative. What do you do with them if you choose to give them a citation for underage consumption?

Here, we would cite and release. NO phone calls to anyone to pick them up, unless its the dead of winter and they have a long way to walk home. But even then, they can call for their own ride.

Now, let's say this person who blew a .07 in the PBT is 25 years old. Or better yet, 35 years old. What do you do with them now? NOTHING. It is legal for them to drink, so no citation. No reason to really fear for their safety is there?? So you let them go on down the road.

There is no difference in 20 year old or 35 year old that both blow a .07. They both still would be able to care for themselves, be able to walk home. Hell, in some states, the 35 could still drive home.

Hightower

[SpeedySlowGuy]

Originally posted by Hightower
Hell, in some states, the 35 could still drive home.

Hightower

Not in WVA. ;)

[Hightower]

Originally posted by SpeedySlowGuy
Not in WVA. ;)

Just curious, but why not? I did not know that any state had a AC limit lower than .08.

Hightower

[mcsap]

In Pennsylvania , a driver under age 21 is considered LEGALLY intoxicated at a .02% . ANY alcohol in the system is a $100 fine.

Commercial Vehicle drivers ( regardless of age) .04%. ANY alcohol in the system is a $100 fine plus 24 hrs out of service.

The rest of us .10%.

[SpeedySlowGuy]

It's funny you should ask, because I always thought the same thing myself. WVA is one of two states, IIRC, that actually are 0.10. (Which is crazy, cause even I know that operating a car anywhere near 0.10 is asking for trouble in the worst way).

WVA apparently has a very lax statute re: reckless. It's considered a lesser-included (thus every arraignment for DUI carries the reckless charge as well). I got pulled and blew a 0.04, a couple other people in the lockup with me that night blew a 0.03 and a few others blew a bit higher than me. They were really breakin balls that night.

Anyway, the long and the short is, even though they couldn't make the DUI stick, the reckless probably would have stuck in front of a jury, so they went ahead and charged me. I took reckless as a plea bargain, and they dropped the charges of speeding (he said I was going 50 in a 40, which was bunk, I was going MAYBE 30mph, but hey when you're breakin balls who cares, right?) and failure to dim headlights.

I'm trying to find the statute in reckless for the purpose of this and the other DUI discussion on this board, but the WVA legislature doesn't make it easy to find the civil codes on the net. Let's see what I can find, cause I would love to sue my $3000 atty for malpractice if it turns out I got schnookered on that charge too. But somehow I doubt it.

Oh, and the WVA DA and trooper agreed to not report the reckless to the MD MVA, so it's not supposed to appear on my record. Go figure, the two states don't have reciprocity.

[gdowkpc]

I agree with Hightower. It's just a cite for an underage drinker if they are not driving. Under 18, at least in Portland, we cannot cite for anything other than a violation. So, they have to be arrested and taken somewhere. They cannot be released at the scene. That somewhere can be home or a county facility.

As far as the WVA .10 law, new federal law goes into affect next month:

.08 became federal law in October 2000, requiring states to pass a .08 BAC per se law by October 1, 2003, or face the withholding of 2 percent of their federal highway construction funds. States without the law by this date will lose an additional 2 percent of highway funds each year until 2006. Passing the law before October 1, 2007 allows the return of withheld highway funds to those states that did not pass the law before October 1, 2003.
-MADD

Currently, 44 states are in complaiance. The current states not in compliance are WV, CO, DE, MN, NJ, and PA.

All states have the zero tolerance DUII law. Any person under 21 driving with a .02 BAC or more are guilty of DUII.

Oregon has zero tolerance for consumption by minors not related to motor vehicles. It simply says that any amount is minor in possession. This means an officer simply has to detect odor on the breath with his own nose. No breathilyzer is required.

[SpeedySlowGuy]

Finally found it; wasn't easy, as WVA's page kept crashing my browser. I should be surprised? ;)

(a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon any street or highway, or upon any residential street, or in any parking area, or upon the ways of any institution of higher education, whether public or private, or upon the ways of any state institution, or upon the property of any county boards of education, or upon any property within the state park and public recreation system established by the director of the department of natural resources pursuant to section three, article four, chapter twenty of this code in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

So in other words, it's pretty much what they want it to be. "Willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property?" What the heck does that mean?

I'll tell you what it means--they get to take your money if they don't like you, that's for sure :D.

But, as it's written, my lawyer was right. Had we pushed for a jury trial, there'd have been a bunch of little old ladies on the jury who hated the Millenium Club who would have happily slapped my *** for reckless anyway.

Oh well. Easy solution...see if WVA gets anymore of my hard earned dollars ;). And FWIW, in this case the punishment works...I won't even have 1/2 a beer and drive in WVA. Then again, I won't go there anymore, period.

[gdowkpc]

Oregon law:


Careless Driving
A person commits the offense of careless driving if the person drives any vehicle upon a highway or other premises described in this section in a manner that endangers or would be likely to endanger any person or property.

This is a $175 fine in Oregon unless coupled with a crash it is $295.
For pespective, a speeding ticket for 21+ is $175 and so is running a stop sign.

Reckless Driving
(1) A person commits the offense of reckless driving if the person recklessly drives a vehicle upon a highway or other premises described in this section in a manner that endangers the safety of persons or property.

This is a class A misdemeanor.

DA's here use the 'oh my (gosh)' factor here to describe reckless. Meaning, did they do something that shocks the consciense?
For instance, firing a bullet a few feet above a crowd of people with only the intent to scare them is reckless endangering. However, firing a bullet straight up into the air like on the 4th of July, is not. (This is directly from our law class with the DA who prosecutes these types of crimes).


I would agree that the reckless driving law in WV is pretty wide open. I wonder if there is any case law there on it that limits it a little more.

[neinta]

Originally posted by Stump
However, you now changed your story to read that they put their lights on when stopped in front of the house. I'm assuming it is just the "holding pattern" lights, which would be a completely different idea than what you said the first time.

Stump, I'm sick and my medication makes it difficult for me to think clearly sometimes (which I stated as the reason I needed to clarify). I didn't change my story, I clarified my story. What I meant to say and what was said did not come across the same. I'm sorry.

[SpeedySlowGuy]

Originally posted by gdowkpc

I would agree that the reckless driving law in WV is pretty wide open. I wonder if there is any case law there on it that limits it a little more.

I suppose for my post mortem on the whole deal, that would be the $64K question. Although I did stay at a holiday inn last night, I can't see footing the Westlaw expense just to find out. Then again, it might be interesting...as an excercise only. I already signed the deal, so there's no appeal :D.

If the glove don't fit...

[Hightower]

Originally posted by gdowkpc
All states have the zero tolerance DUII law. Any person under 21 driving with a .02 BAC or more are guilty of DUII.

Oregon has zero tolerance for consumption by minors not related to motor vehicles. It simply says that any amount is minor in possession. This means an officer simply has to detect odor on the breath with his own nose. No breathilyzer is required.

You are somewhat mistaken on this. In MN, it is against the law for a person under 21 to drink, it is a separate offense if they are also driving. It is not really considered a DWI here unless they are over .10 or over .04 and the alcohol obviously impairs their driving ability. They are charged with an offense separate from a DWI and separate from underage consumption. They get a license suspension rather than a revocation and the time period is much shorter. There is also no "minimum" AC level. They could be a .01 and still get charged with this offense.

Now, if they were to go out and also DWI at a later time, this underage drink and drive would "count" as a prior alcohol offense and would aggravate the basic Misdemeanor DWI to a higher level offense.

Hightower

[gdowkpc]

Originally posted by Hightower
You are somewhat mistaken on this.

Not unless I am reading this wrong:

SOURCE

From MADD web-site. Not unless you are saying that it is still a crime. In that case....6 one way, 1/2-dozen the other.

[Hightower]

I guess I am just splitting hairs. It is just not considered a DWI. No implied consent, therefore no DWI.

Hightower