MIP in California

[sandimm]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? California

Son, Age 19 was stopped on street by Police. Police asked to search backpak. My son allowed him too, never being in a situation like this. He had alchol in the backpack and was sited. He went to court and pleaded guilty. The judge fined him $80 and put him on a restricted DL for one year. Why was the DL involved. He was not driving, he was walking down the street, from school. What should he of done? Is there anything we can now do?

[JETX]

Originally Posted by sandimm

Why was the DL involved. He was not driving, he was walking down the street, from school.

Because that is the law. Minor drinks, minor loses driving PRIVILEDGE.

What should he of done?

Start with not drinking?? Why the hell aren't you concerned about your sons CRIMINAL conduct??
What kind of parent are you that is looking for excuses rather than helping him to learn from this??

Is there anything we can now do?

Yeah. See above.

[CdwJava]

CA law allows for the offense to effect his license.

It's done.

Your son needs to look at HIS problem and see that he doesn't do it again. It's a learning experience.

- Carl

[grasmicc]

Your son needs to learn to Just Say No. To consent searches. .

The reason that his DL was suspended is due to intense lobbying efforts by "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" and related groups, which has created the nasty laws that try to take DL's away based on individuals under 21 getting caught engaging in behavior that is near-ubiquitous. You're right to feel like it doesn't make much sense. It's basically just lottery-style punishment, which is common of drug and alcohol possession laws.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by grasmicc

Your son needs to learn to Just Say No. To consent searches.

How do you know that this wouldn't have escalated beyond the level of 'consent'?? The OP says: "Son, Age 19 was stopped on street by Police."
If he was going to be arrested (for whatever reason he was stopped), the backpack would have been searched anway.

It's basically just lottery-style punishment, which is common of drug and alcohol possession laws.

More whining from the left.
You can whine and bitch all you want about the laws... but they ARE the 'law'. If you don't like them.... tell your legislature. If you don't like them... you still have to obey them... or suffer the consequences.

[Curt581]

Originally Posted by grasmicc

Your son needs to learn to Just Say No. To consent searches

What about the underage son learning to Just Say No To Alcohol?

Or would that violate his "right" to Paarrrrrty?

Originally Posted by JETX

How do you know that this wouldn't have escalated beyond the level of 'consent'?? The OP says: "Son, Age 19 was stopped on street by Police."

If he was going to be arrested (for whatever reason he was stopped), the backpack would have been searched anway.

He does this alot. Reads more into the post than what is actually there. If this halfwit really is an attorney, he's a p*ss-poor one.

I'm going to echo another poster in a different thread and wonder why the Admin has put up with him this long.

[Son of Slam]

Originally Posted by grasmicc

..."Mothers Against Drunk Driving" ...has created the nasty laws that try to take DL's away based on individuals under 21 getting caught engaging in behavior that is near-ubiquitous. ...

I love this guy.

*

[JETX]

Originally Posted by Curt581

I'm going to echo another poster in a different thread and wonder why the Admin has put up with him this long.

Actually, it hasn't been that long... he has only been on the forum four days. And yes, he is being 'watched'.... and the boot is being warmed up.

[grasmicc]

"If he was going to be arrested (for whatever reason he was stopped), the backpack would have been searched anway."

Regardless of whether the stuff would have been turned up anyway, he shouldn't have consented to a search when he knew he had something to hide. We don't know whether it would have been turned up anyway.

It's not "reading into" anything to say that he shouldn't have consented to the search.

None of us have any idea whether a search would have been justified without consent. If you assume that a search would have been justified under these circumstances, then you too are "reading into" the post.

If you take the perspective of the poster, and really want to help them out, you'll respond to their questions without ridiculing them. The poster wanted to know why the DL was taken away. I told her why - laws have been passed, primarily due to lobbying from MADD and related, that have allowed DL's to be suspended under these circumstances. She wants to know how that happened. I'm telling her.

[grasmicc]

"What about the underage son learning to Just Say No To Alcohol?"

People don't come on here looking for psychological counselling. They come looking for legal advice. My legal advice is not to consent to searches.

The kid realized this was illegal (or is that "reading into" the post?), and for whatever reason he decided to do it anyway. That's true of the vast majority of criminal defendants, and it's not really any of my concern.

I'm not really into a position to say whether it appears rational that he would risk an MIP ticket in order to consume alcohol. Certainly MIP is not the type of crime that is reflective of a uniform moral condemnation of the perp. In this case, the law isn't in place due to any moral condemnation of the activity prohibited. Rather, it is in place for purposes of preventing some other evil.

Most attorneys risk criminal liability all the time with extra-jurisdictional practice, among other things. There's no reason to treat crim. liability (at least in the absence of a genuine moral prohibition on the behavior) any differently than civil liability. Risks should be weighed along with benefits.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by grasmicc

We don't know whether it would have been turned up anyway.

Yep. YOU don't. And yet, you didn't let that stop you from posting, huh??

If you take the perspective of the poster, and really want to help them out, you'll respond to their questions without ridiculing them.

So EXACTLY what help did your post provide????

The poster wanted to know why the DL was taken away. I told her why - laws have been passed, primarily due to lobbying from MADD and related, that have allowed DL's to be suspended under these circumstances. She wants to know how that happened. I'm telling her.

I had already answered the why... with "Because that is the law. Minor drinks, minor loses driving PRIVILEDGE."
You just rambled as to your own personal opinion.

[grasmicc]

"Yep. YOU don't. And yet, you didn't let that stop you from posting, huh??"

I posted that he shouldn't have consented to the search. This is true REGARDLESS of whether it would have been turned up anyway.

"So EXACTLY what help did your post provide????"

1 - answered her question.

2 - told her what to teach her other kids about consent searches.

"I had already answered the why... with "Because that is the law. Minor drinks, minor loses driving PRIVILEDGE.""

She already knows that. She is witnessing it happen. She wants to know why.

"You just rambled as to your own personal opinion."

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the progression of underage drinking legislation in this country during the past 40 years is aware that a primary influence was lobbying by MADD and related groups. What I'm stating is a fact, not an opinion, as to part of the process by which the law came into being.

On their website, MADD states that they have been involved with the passage of this legislation:

"MADD Official Position Statement:

Driver License Sanctions for Underage Purchase and/or Possession of Alcoholic Beverages - Use and Lose

MADD advocates that each state adopt and implement laws which provide driver's license sanctions for underage persons convicted of purchase or possession of alcoholic beverages."

[url]http://www.madd.org/activism/0,1056,1618,00.html?p=1#dl_sanctions[/url]

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Curt581

I'm going to echo another poster in a different thread and wonder why the Admin has put up with him this long.

I'm curious what he's doing that the rest of us do NOT do from time to time? We ALL read more in to a post than is written from time to time. It's natural.

Personally, I don't see what grasmicc is doing is any different from some of the rest of us ... and there are others who regularly post on these forums that are far more argumentative than he.

Maybe I'm missing something he's doing on some of the other forums, but so far I have yet to see anything I would see as outrageous or in violation of the "rules".

- Carl

[Curt581]

Originally Posted by grasmicc

1 - answered her question.

It had already been answered... by JetX.

2 - told her what to teach her other kids about consent searches.

Which is always very important... while refusing to advise her to teach her other kids about the illegality of possessing alcohol in the first place, under the guise of people not coming here for psychological counselling, they come here for legal advice. Typical liberal hypocrisy.

She already knows that.

Then WHY are you telling her again?

She wants to know why.

Which you patiently explain, adding your own leftist spin.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by grasmicc

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the progression of underage drinking legislation in this country during the past 40 years is aware that a primary influence was lobbying by MADD and related groups. What I'm stating is a fact, not an opinion, as to part of the process by which the law came into being.

And I say, "Good for them!"

They are a very successful lobbying group - almost as good as the NRA. Personally I don't think DUI laws go far enough ... maybe it'll be a good thing if I never get elected to my state's legislature.

MADD advocates that each state adopt and implement laws which provide driver's license sanctions for underage persons convicted of purchase or possession of alcoholic beverages."

Good.

I'm all for it. The 16-20 crowd tends to have too few common sense brain cells as it is - we don't need alcohol to assist them in a plunge to ever increasing stupidity while driving a coupel tons of steel around town.

- Carl