Alright, so I missed that, but he was with in his rights to say now and stick with that. It also doesn't change the fact that he was stopped with out any kind of cause.

Probable Cause...

>.>

<.<

You should have slept at your friend's house that night, SiliconC.

I read through most of the responses, but I dont feel like quoting everyone. So I'll sum up as much as i can.

:: If he asked you for your name and date of birth, or made you present a photo id, he ran you for a records check. Standard procedure every time they talk to anybody suspected of anything. Ever wonder what the cop does when you get pulled for speeding and he takes your DL back to his car? He runs a records check on your license plate to check the car's owner and then runs a check on your DL to check you. A lot of times, people might be driving a card that their parents own. For example, my vehicle is registered in my mom's name because that way it gets cheaper insurance. So if they run a records check and see the car is not stolen and the vehicle owner is not wanted, that's great. But if the driver does not own the vehicle, that says nothing about the driver's status. So they run your DL to make sure there are no warents ALREADY outstanding. When he called over the radio it was to do a records check, not create a new warrant.

:: At 3 in the morning, about the only people out on the road (walking or driving) are cops, and people up to no good. So when a cop sees a person at 3 in the morning walking by themself, he wants to make sure they arent getting ready to commit a crime or walking away from one already commited. There's no law saying a cop can not stop you and talk to you. As far as the alcohol, more than likely he could smell it on you. I work for the Student Police at my university and we provide a safety/security escort for anybody going to and from campus by using vans owned by the police department. I've had plenty of people get into my van that, though they acted just fine, I could easily smell the booze on them. And I'm not even trained to detect the smell of alcohol. Officers get trained on what to look for (or smell for, in this case). He walked up to you (not illegal), smelled the alcohol on you, and wanted to see if you had any more with you. You said no, so he didnt search. Then he called his dispatch to run a records check on you, which he would have done no matter if you consented to a search or not. Note that the more cooperative you are with the police, the more cooperative they are with you. If you say "look, I'll admit I had a couple drinks, but I needed to get home because of some reason, and I decided to walk so as not to drive under the influence", then there's a better chance he'll let you off with a warning if you have a clean record. Now, that in mind, you have every right to refuse a search. But you turned around and gave consent, so he proceeded to search. Nothing wrong there.

:: Breathalyzer...different states have different rules. Generally speaking, it is a criminal offense to refuse a breathalyzer test. In South Carolina, you may refuse to take the test, but you can lose your driver's license for up to 90 days. Whether the penalty for refusing a test while on foot and not in a car is different, I dont know. But more than likely refusing the test is going to be another penalty, on top of the MIP citation if they were to find a container in your possesion.

Long-short: Everything the officer did was on the up and up. SiliconC was not in a vehcile, so the officer did not need probably cause to perform a traffic stop. The officer doesn't need probably cause to stop and talk to you. In talking to SC, he probably could smell the alcohol. This gave him probable cause to ask to perform a breathalyzer test. SC accepted the test and blew an illegal limit.

"I know I was "breaking the law" by partaking in alcoholic beverages while underage, but honestly, what problems was I causing? In the arguement we had, the police officers couldn't even come up with a reason, but still gave me the damn minor. I oppose much of the United States' drug laws, but this just seems ridiculous. If I was causing a problem, I could totally understand them stopping me, but me walking home by myself doing nothing wrong? "

You broke the law. It doesn't matter if you were causing a problem or stumbling drunk. You broke the law and were fined for it. "Doing nothing wrong" is not a correct statement. You were a minor in posession of alcohol, and you were also intoxicated in public, which is a totally seperate charge you could have been fined for. The breathalyzer test showed that you were intoxicated, and you were walking around in public. But as far as MIP is concerned, you did something wrong in the eyes of the law. If you didnt want to get fined, you should have either not drank at all, or stayed at your friend's place over night.

You skipped the part where he said he was walking home, not driving. Yes he could have stuck with the right to not consent to a search, but he didnt. Nobody forced him to change his mind.

He didn't get an MIP, he got an MIC, and although he was intoxicated, it's not really public intoxication as he was walking home at night instead of out on the town getting drunk. He had no alcohol on his person.

MIP and MIC is just a matter of what your jurisdiction wants to call it. Some places say that if you have it in your system, you are in possesion of it. Walking home in public while intoxicated is what would make it Public Intoxication. Doesnt matter whether the alcohol comes from a bar or someone's house.

No, but it matters the area. I know my town says that if you're in a residential area, you can't be charged with drunk in public for the very reason that you may be walking from house to house, which isn't a big deal, yet says in a Commercial or somesuch area you can be charged with Drunk in Public.

And I've never heard of being in possession just because you've consumed it, but then again I don't presume to know the laws of every city.

Vash, cops can't just stop you for no reason. They have to witness you do something illegal or you can match the description of a suspect. Just walking on the street at 3:00 am in not a crime.

Also, when they take your ID, they are running it to get your criminal record (if you have one), and to see if you have any outstanding warrants.

That's what I said. They run a records check (i.e. check for any outstanding warrants) against your driver's license (which, if you do not present it, can be obtained by running your name and date of birth instead, and from there finding a DL number) as well as the license plate of the vehicle if you are driving one.

As far as stopping you....I saw no mention of handcuffs, being placed into custody, or being put in the back of a patrol car.

"I notice the cop car pull over behind me, and ask me to put my backpack down. I put the backpack down..." is what you said. He asked you to put it down so he could talk to you. There is no law that I'm aware of saying they need probable cause to ask you a couple questions. Had you remained silent and not given permission for the search of your backpack, that would be a different story. But you complied with his request and consented to a search. It was all done voluntarily. They dont need a warrant to search you if you voluntarily give them permission to do so, and they don't need a warrant to talk to you if you decide you want to answer his questions.

You're right, what happened to you is ridiculous. I was arrested a few months ago for drinking on the beach, which is doubly illegal since I'm 19, and I understand that. However, it's absolutely ****ing absurd - I wasn't being loud or boisterous. I was having a good time with a few of my friends. The cops don't make the law, though, and I guess because I was polite and didn't make a fuss they let me go with a fine. Still, though

You people are so legalistic. US vice laws are ridiculously harsh and are a hand-me down from the puritans.

Just called, $182 out the window.

I heard that if you suck on a penny before taking a breathalyzer test, but after checking real quick, it seems it's urban legend.

But I did find these, maybe they'll help next time.

http://www.nationallampoon.com/flashbacks/oc&stiggs/ocschapter7a.html (Language)

Hah, nice. I'll keep those in mind. :p

Cazor is right. The cop can't search your backpack without a valid reason. They can't just pull you over and say "Open her up kid."..;. It happpened twice to a friend of mine.. Unfortunately for him he had weed in his backpack and got busted for it..

However, cops do this bull**** all the time. They think they're all powerful and break their own laws (i.e. illegal searches like this) and nobody does anything about it.



Um..I'd point out the various reasons why this statement is wrong..But I think I'll let a little thing called COMMON SENSE sink in first and see how that works...

And there is NO way to beat a breathalyzer test. At all.


As for the second part about underage drinking..

"And did you ever stop to think?... I'm old enough to go to war, but I ain't old enough to drink..."

**** the police.

There's nothing wrong with the police. It's the laws that need improvement.

It's pretty well known that for the most part, at least where I live (toronto and outside toronto) that police have a very bad power problem. They think they're **** doesn't stink, they break their own laws, they are arrogant ****s.

Sorry, but I don't like the police, and as my experiences with them so far has gone, I hate them.

There may be some good cops, yes, that's definately true. But for the most part where I live, they're *******s.

Oh, you're in Canada. Heh.

Moose riding Mounties.

Why are people banging the "illegal search" drums? The cop asked if he could search, he said yes. Search is legal. If you want a valid reason, somebody walking around in public with noticeable alcohol on their breath is a valid reason. The officer asked to search to see if he had any more on him. It would only be illegal if he asked to search and SC said "no" but he looked anyways.

Yeah..

If you consent to search..


You = screwed.

While the cop did seem to go out of his way to cause you trouble, getting caught if you drink underage is pretty much the risk you take. You don't have to like it, but, in the end, you're reaping what you sewed.

No, I don't follow the speed limits all the time on the highway. Yes, I've drank before. I'm not a saint. But you have to realize that, when you break the law, you risk suffering the consequences of doing so.



It's not illegal. He gave consent.



Do you have a point? Or do you simply assume that, because a person may have the qualifications to enter an armed service, utilize a weapon, and serve overseas under the supervision of another person, that they're responsible enough for alcohol?

I'll fully admit it - I was irresponsible when I drank (didn't drive drunk or anything of that sort - I simply drank too much). Simply because a person might be ready for the rigorous training and disciplining of one thing doesn't necessarily imply that they're ready for every other experience.

Wolfy's right. There are people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and so on who aren't responsible enough for alcohol.

Again, I'm going to bang the "no probable cause" drum.

Badum PSH?

The police need probable cause to obtain a warrant or to search WITHOUT consent. If you give consent, they dont need probable cause.

It sounds to me that it was a cop attempting (possibly to make a quota, but that's jumping to conclusions) to take advantage of you not being completely aware of your rights.

The only time you can't refuse a breathalizer is if you were in you car. You legally can, but the DMV can then legally suspend your license. You have to either submit to the breathalizer or a blood test.

As was mentioned a Judge must sign a warrant, he wasn't going to get one, etc.

They also need probable cause to stop someone jsut walking down the street too. There was no probable cause to stop him.

This thread's going around in circles.

That doesn't make sense. How can they perform a legal search with his consent if they don't stop him first? :p

Yeah, I read it over, and I saw that he gave permission. If he didnt, then it was illegal. I was under the impression of the opposite.



1. Not everyone that is in wars both present and past are qualified. Drafting? WW2? WW1? Vietnam?...They're in the past, yet the principles remain the same.

2. Just because you're either 18, 20, 30, 40, or 10, doesn't mean you're responsible or not for alcohol consumption. I've seen irresponsible legal drinkers, and irresponsible non-legal drinkers...Why punish those that are responsible?

3. My point is that you can, with or without your consent, go to war once you're 18 and die for your country, while your leader sits in his cozy office, yet you can't sit on your lawn on a hot day and drink 1 beer because OMFGALCOHOLISTHEDEVIL!L!L!L!L!L!L WAR ISS GOOOOOOD!!!!..

Gimme a break.

He was illegally stopped in the first place, thus making the search and the breathalyzer test illegal.

You don't need probably cause to stop and talk to someone. He wasn't under arrest and technically he could have just said I don't want to talk to you and walked away. But thats where the law goes wrong. There are all these illusions of freedom when really, the cop is in charge. Probable cause is a whole load of bs, because simply denying them search or saying you don't want to talk to them is seen as probable cause that you are up to something anyways. I'm not saying it's right but that's the way it is. I disagree with what the cop did but it was technically legal.

I'm surprised police don't just sit outside bars ticketing everyone that leaves.

It's too bad even after getting fined you won't learn anything. At least you make it sound like you'll be out drinking again as soon as you are able. It's really unfortunate that people today are so selfish as to not consider possibilities, even if you try to be responsible things can still go wrong. At the very least find a friend who is sober to talk you home if you are out that late. If someone were to want to mug anyone then I'd think a person slightly off balance might be their first choice. Maybe you live a block away, whatever, but be safe and use common sense.

I was about to reply, but you beat me

An officer is permitted to temporarily detain and question someone -- as long as a 'reasonable person' would feel as if they were free to leave.

The cop getting all pissy and going back to his car to talk on the radio sure seems like a lot more than jsut stoping to have a discussion with someone.

Exactly what I mean. We technically have all these rights but really they are BS.

The truth really is that most people don't know they can say no when an offcer asks to search your car or person (most of the time).

Oh shut up Mr. Hoity Toity. Learn anything? It's his choice to drink, and he's already shown that he's not hurting anyone else (drinking and driving) when he does so. The only consequences he may suffer will be his own. You act like getting out and having a good time is a sin these days, just because he's breaking the law (and one that many agree is rather silly). If he was breaking the law and HURTING someone or something, then I'd understand, but really the only thing he's doing is helping the alcohol industry. So just shove your snide little comeback up your ***, although I don't know if there'll be room for it next to your head.