Minor Intoxication in Public

[DevlynThompson]

I am a 19 year old, I was in the City of Bonney Lake and State of Washington at a house party on Privately Owned property. Apparently in my county, Pierce, there is a party specific patrol group that busts house parties. They had surveyed the house I was at for 48 hours and were walking the streets dressed as pedestrians in order to observe the happenings. They did not however warn my friend of that they knew about the party which to me sounds like entrapment, maybe not a defense in this case but still its not like were drug dealers or hardened criminals, a warning would of been nice as we wouldn't of had the party. But in another right, I was cited under RCW: 66.44.270 (2b) Minor Intoxicated in a Pubic Place. I invoked my rights and did not answer the officers questions, nor did I take a field breathalyzer test. Although the confusing part to me is being on private property and never going outside of the house until asked by the officer. How an officer can give me a ticket for a Public Intoxication when I didn't meet the requirement of being in a public place? I am taking this to trial but would like some advice on a defense as I am a college student who can barely afford tuition so I most likely will need to get a Public Defender.

 

[Ohiogal]

I am a 19 year old, I was in the City of Bonney Lake and State of Washington at a house party on Privately Owned property. Apparently in my county, Pierce, there is a party specific patrol group that busts house parties. They had surveyed the house I was at for 48 hours and were walking the streets dressed as pedestrians in order to observe the happenings. They did not however warn my friend of that they knew about the party which to me sounds like entrapment, maybe not a defense in this case but still its not like were drug dealers or hardened criminals, a warning would of been nice as we wouldn't of had the party. But in another right, I was cited under RCW: 66.44.270 (2b) Minor Intoxicated in a Pubic Place. I invoked my rights and did not answer the officers questions, nor did I take a field breathalyzer test. Although the confusing part to me is being on private property and never going outside of the house until asked by the officer. How an officer can give me a ticket for a Public Intoxication when I didn't meet the requirement of being in a public place? I am taking this to trial but would like some advice on a defense as I am a college student who can barely afford tuition so I most likely will need to get a Public Defender.

It is not entrapment. You most likely lost your license for your refusal to take a breathalyzer. When you were outside, you were in plain view. You shouldn't be drinking if you can't afford the crime.

 

[DevlynThompson]

It is not entrapment. You most likely lost your license for your refusal to take a breathalyzer. When you were outside, you were in plain view. You shouldn't be drinking if you can't afford the crime.

There is no consequence for refusing a breathalyzer when I am not operating a motor vehicle in the state of Washington, good try. And also it can not be considered public if I am ordered to come outside by the officer. Can I please get someone who has more knowledge than myself?

 

[Ohiogal]

There is no consequence for refusing a breathalyzer when I am not operating a motor vehicle in the state of Washington, good try. And also it can not be considered public if I am ordered to come outside by the officer. Can I please get someone who has more knowledge than myself?

http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/minor.html
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=66.44.365
Go hire counsel and kiss your license goodbye.

 

[tranquility]

There is no consequence for refusing a breathalyzer when I am not operating a motor vehicle in the state of Washington, good try. And also it can not be considered public if I am ordered to come outside by the officer. Can I please get someone who has more knowledge than myself?

Before you said asked:

Although the confusing part to me is being on private property and never going outside of the house until asked by the officer.

Which was it, ordered, or asked?

Say a cop comes to the house to arrest a person but does not have a warrant--only probable cause. If the cop asks the person to step outside, and the person does, the person can be legally arrested because he is in a public place. If the cop ordered the person out and the person submits to the lawful authority of the police officer, the arrest would be invalid. Here you will have two problems. The first will be what the officers will say as compared to what you eventually say and the second will be the courts will base the whole thing on the totality of the circumstances as to if you were ordered. It will not just be what you thought, but what a reasonable person would have thought. Two cops in plain clothes telling you "Let's step outside and talk." in a really mean voice will be considered asking. 10 cops with guns drawn saying "Step outside--now!" will be ordering. What do you think a judge will find on that particular issue in your case? Remember, too, the cops will testify you were intoxicated and imply you didn't remember things that well.

Info edit:
Ohiogal, the OP is 19.

I am a 19 year old,

 

[dave33]

There is no consequence for refusing a breathalyzer when I am not operating a motor vehicle in the state of Washington, good try. And also it can not be considered public if I am ordered to come outside by the officer. Can I please get someone who has more knowledge than myself?

If you are going to trial, you need a copy of the police report. The polkice report will not reflect the situation as you have described. You need to know what you will be fighting. goodluck.

 

[swalsh411]

So for the benefit of anybody reading this in the future..... stay in the house.

 

[HomeGuru]

And don't drink.

 

[Just Blue]

I am a 19 year old, I was in the City of Bonney Lake and State of Washington at a house party on Privately Owned property. Apparently in my county, Pierce, there is a party specific patrol group that busts house parties. They had surveyed the house I was at for 48 hours and were walking the streets dressed as pedestrians in order to observe the happenings. They did not however warn my friend of that they knew about the party which to me sounds like entrapment, maybe not a defense in this case but still its not like were drug dealers or hardened criminals, a warning would of been nice as we wouldn't of had the party. But in another right, I was cited under RCW: 66.44.270 (2b) Minor Intoxicated in a Pubic Place. I invoked my rights and did not answer the officers questions, nor did I take a field breathalyzer test. Although the confusing part to me is being on private property and never going outside of the house until asked by the officer. How an officer can give me a ticket for a Public Intoxication when I didn't meet the requirement of being in a public place? I am taking this to trial but would like some advice on a defense as I am a college student who can barely afford tuition so I most likely will need to get a Public Defender.

Would you like, VERY CLEARLY, for me to point out ALL your errors?

 

[DevlynThompson]

I am looking for helpful opinions, not crude criticism. Thank you.

If you are going to trial, you need a copy of the police report. The polkice report will not reflect the situation as you have described. You need to know what you will be fighting. goodluck.

I have read over the police report.. and one other thing I forgot to write in here. The police officer reported I wouldn't answer any of his questions, and then reported that I admitted to drinking at the scene. I invoked my right to remain silent to protect myself from use in court. Why the hell would I answer the one question that incriminates me? I know for a fact that I did not tell him I was drinking. And I wasn't intoxicated. I did not stumble, slur or have any other signs of intoxication. This is just a ridiculous accusation by him. Also I'm sure he just didn't like the fact that I wouldn't answer his questions. But those are my rights so I shouldn't be punished for using them. He has no proof and I waited a while to take this to trial on purpose so the officer would have time to forget what happened in this case as I'm sure they have busted many parties since then. Also is the front porch in a gated yard considered public?
Another ridiculous thing is that I was offered a verbal deal to dismiss and completed all the recommendations (community service, Alcohol Evaluation, and AA classes) and when I came back the prosecuter revoked her offer.

 

[Zigner]

Ahhh, to be 19 years old and know it all again

 

[DevlynThompson]

Would you like, VERY CLEARLY, for me to point out ALL your errors?

The Court in the Dunn case said there are four factors that should be considered in determining whether an area in the curtilage should be afforded the same protections as the home. They are: (1) the proximity of the area to the home; (2) whether the area is within an enclosure surrounding the home; (3) the nature and uses to which the area is put; and (4) the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by passersby. Police officers have to apply these factors, make a decision and hope that the court comes to the same conclusion.
"intimate activity associated with the `sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.'" Curtilage is the area surrounding a home where occupants have a reasonable, but diminished expectation of privacy from government intrusion

The front porch falls under curtilage. It is right outside the door, gated, used for private garden, and also has hedges and tree's surrounding the gate.

 

[tranquility]

The Court in the Dunn case said there are four factors that should be considered in determining whether an area in the curtilage should be afforded the same protections as the home. They are: (1) the proximity of the area to the home; (2) whether the area is within an enclosure surrounding the home; (3) the nature and uses to which the area is put; and (4) the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by passersby. Police officers have to apply these factors, make a decision and hope that the court comes to the same conclusion.
"intimate activity associated with the `sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.'" Curtilage is the area surrounding a home where occupants have a reasonable, but diminished expectation of privacy from government intrusion

The front porch falls under curtilage. It is right outside the door, gated, used for private garden, and also has hedges and tree's surrounding the gate.

Um...no. The porch of a house is for people to come up. Mailmen, visitors, police officers just wanting to talk. Besides, the concept of curtilage has more to do with search law and not arrest. For arrest, the home is defined by the threshold. For example, a cop going into the bushes and peeking into a window would be a potentially illegal search because it is not an area were one would usually have the public. While not controlling for you, a good explanation is in Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 2009 PA Super 181, 981 A.2d 274 (2009):

[*P10] The issue of whether a front porch constitutes curtilage has not been addressed by the Pennsylvania Appellate Courts. Our sister states which have addressed the issue are divided. However, even those courts which have found that a front porch constitutes curtilage have generally found no Fourth Amendment violation where the porch in question was used by the general public. See, U.S. v. Titemore, 437 F.3d 251, 259 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in deck attached to home where it constituted part of the principal entryway); Murphy v. Gardner, 413 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1167-68 (D.Colo. 2006) (unenclosed front porch which contained homeowner's mailbox and newspaper rack did not constitute curtilage for Fourth Amendment purposes); Davis v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1043, 1049-50 (Ind.App. 2009) (noting that police entry onto private property does not violate the Fourth Amendment when the police have a legitimate investigatory purpose and limit their entry to places that visitors would be expected to go like porches, as the Fourth Amendment does not protect items or activities which are knowingly exposed to the public); State v. Brisban, 989 So.2d 923, 927-29 (La. 2002) (no Fourth Amendment violation where police, while standing on a front porch, observed defendant cutting crack cocaine; while front porch was curtilage, defendant had only a limited expectation of privacy because it could have been approached by anyone). Thus, we find that the record supports the suppression court's conclusion that the officers viewed the contraband from a lawful vantage point.

For you, rather than Dunn, you might look to State v. Seagull 95 Wn.2d 898 (1981), 632 P.2d 44 which explains:

[2] The presence of an officer within the curtilage of a residence does not automatically amount to an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. Rather, it must be determined under the facts of each case just how private the particular observation point actually was. It is clear that police with legitimate business1 may enter areas of the curtilage which are impliedly open, such as access routes to the house. In so doing they are free to keep their eyes open. See generally LaFave, at � 2.3. An officer is permitted the same license to intrude as a reasonably respectful citizen. United States v. Vilhotti,323 F.Supp. 425 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd in part and rev'd in part,452 F.2d 1186 (2d Cir.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 947,
[ 95 Wn.2d 903 ]

32 L.Ed.2d 335, 92 S.Ct. 2051 (1972). However, a substantial and unreasonable departure from such an area, or a particularly intrusive method of viewing, will exceed the scope of the implied invitation and intrude upon a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy.

For a more in depth consideration, see also:
http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/genderlaw/11/rownaghi.pdf

Info edit:
For your particular situation, see STATE v. S.E. 954 P.2d 1338 (1998) where the key will be:

all other places of like or similar nature to which the general public has unrestricted right of access, and which are generally used by the public.

In that case, a BACK porch was found to not be within the statute.

 

[dave33]

I have read over the police report.. and one other thing I forgot to write in here. The police officer reported I wouldn't answer any of his questions, and then reported that I admitted to drinking at the scene. I invoked my right to remain silent to protect myself from use in court. Why the hell would I answer the one question that incriminates me? I know for a fact that I did not tell him I was drinking. And I wasn't intoxicated. I did not stumble, slur or have any other signs of intoxication. This is just a ridiculous accusation by him. Also I'm sure he just didn't like the fact that I wouldn't answer his questions. But those are my rights so I shouldn't be punished for using them. He has no proof and I waited a while to take this to trial on purpose so the officer would have time to forget what happened in this case as I'm sure they have busted many parties since then. Also is the front porch in a gated yard considered public?
Another ridiculous thing is that I was offered a verbal deal to dismiss and completed all the recommendations (community service, Alcohol Evaluation, and AA classes) and when I came back the prosecuter revoked her offer.

This is a huge problem, and a tactic often used. The officer stated that you admitted to drinking. This is important because now (according to the officer) you have confessed to the crime and that is all he needs.

As far as the plea deal goes, I would bring in all the paperwork. You can show the judge what you have done because of the offer that was made. goodluck.

 

[CdwJava]

And I wasn't intoxicated. I did not stumble, slur or have any other signs of intoxication.

Which is not a requirement ot be charged under the section:

(b) It is unlawful for a person under the age of twenty-one years to be in a public place, or to be in a motor vehicle in a public place, while exhibiting the effects of having consumed liquor. For purposes of this subsection, exhibiting the effects of having consumed liquor means that a person has the odor of liquor on his or her breath and either: (i) Is in possession of or close proximity to a container that has or recently had liquor in it; or (ii) by speech, manner, appearance, behavior, lack of coordination, or otherwise, exhibits that he or she is under the influence of liquor. This subsection (2)(b) does not apply if the person is in the presence of a parent or guardian or has consumed or is consuming liquor under circumstances described in subsection (4) or (5) of this section.​

It is really not difficult to determine that a person has been drinking. The police really do not need to catch you with bottle or cup in hand to know that you have been consuming alcohol. The only real defense you may have here is whether you can successfully argue that you were unlawfully detained in some way. And, as others have pointed out, this will likely be a long shot. But, you can hire an attorney to make that argument if you wish.

As for the 90 day license suspension, you might want to review RCW 46.20.265 in case you are charged and convicted.

Moral of the story: Don't go outside if you drink ... and, avoid large house parties until you are 21 - and, stay inside.