underage drinking and driving entrapment: Please Help!!

[tonebone]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MN

I will try to keep this short..
So, my friend and I were going to a movie last week and we had an hour to spare. After we bought our tickets, we go back to my car and start drinking a little bit. After 20 minutes or so, a security drives up and says that we need to wait for our movie in the theatre. So we get ready to go, and two minutes later we start walking up to the theatre.
As we are walking, the security comes back around and says "sorry, I don't want to make you go back to your car, but my boss says that you're in the wrong lot and you have to move it to the next one." I can hear his boss on the radio, I don't know what he said exactly.
On a side note, there were tons of people going to the theatre who were in the same lot as me. In retrospect, I know now that the boss guy was watching us drink in my car, and in the mean time got the cops over to come wait for us to drive off. Since I was going to drive, he had to come up with some excuse to get me pulled over.
And sure enough, within 200 feet of the original parking space, I get pulled over.
The police say that security told them we were drinking in my car. I took a breathalyzer, he didn't tell me what it was exactly but said it was under the limit (.08). But since I'm 20 years old, anything in my system is enough to get an underage drinking and driving.
I am wondering if I can claim entrapment to get the charges dropped. It's obvious that the police and security were working together. I had no intention of driving my car under the influence until security told me I had to move it. And how can security really be allowed to tell me to drive my car when they knew that I was drinking?

I know that the cops and security didn't make me choose to be stupid and drink underage and in public, but if security hadn't used their authority to coerce me into moving my car, I never would have been driving! I feel like the mall security was reckless and irresponsible and created an unnecessary and dangerous situation.

So, should I suck it up and take whatever's coming to me? Or should I hire a lawyer and try to get the charges dropped?

[FlyingRon]

No, you can't claim entrapment. First off, the police weren't the ones who told you to move your car. Even if a cop told you to move, you'd have to have a pretty convincing argument to push the entrapment argument as you offered up no resistance to show you were not inclined to drunk drive. Frankly, it's not even necessary that they see you move the car. The fact you were in control of (i.e., sitting inside of) and drinking is sufficient under the MN statutes.

[CdwJava]

You should consult an attorney, regardless.

If the security folks were acting as the agents of the police and you were told to move your car for no legitimate reason and only to catch you driving with alcohol in your system while underage, then you likely have a good defense. A plea or conviction to a minor in possession of alcohol charge is probably in your future.

- Carl

[xylene]

You were not entrapped, as you could have told the security guard, "No I refuse, I can't."

If you "had no intention of driving under the influence" then that is what you could have done.

Wanting to avoid a tow does not make it entrapment. Lots of people have there car towed or get towed without exactly desiring it because they have been drinking. You can't drive legally with any amount of alcohol in your system... so you should have sucked up the tow.

[CdwJava]

I think an argument for entrapment might be made.

If the ONLY reason the person DROVE a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol was because they were given bogus information that effectively compelled them to move the car, then it is possible they could have been entrapped.

Entrapment requires that an otherwise law abiding person be induced to break the law. Courts have regularly ruled that the police cannot use false pretenses to manufacture probable cause for an arrest or for entry, and this would seem to be in the same vein. If the police had the security folks make up a story about moving the vehicle, then they used a ruse to establish probable cause.

If the security folks were acting as the agents of the police, it was the police action that forced them to further break the law. The officers should have gone for the underage drinking and left the zero tolerance thing alone. If this was a bluff, and there was no need to move the van, this stinks to high heaven.

I suppose there is a chance that MN law in this area is vastly different than it is out here, but I don't think so.

- Carl

[FlyingRon]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

If the ONLY reason the person DROVE a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol was because they were given bogus information that effectively compelled them to move the car, then it is possible they could have been entrapped.

Makes little difference. As I pointed out the Michigan "not a drop" rules are specific. All he had to have control of the vehicle to be conficted on this.
He's guilty before they even get to the potential etnrapment.

If the security folks were acting as the agents of the police, it was the police action that forced them to further break the law.

Even if you buy the fact that the security folks = police, it fails the subjective test. There's no indication that they were not inclined to violate the law, they were already observed illegally drinking in the vehicle in a public place. Their whole explanation is that they would have MOVED THE CAR if they knew they wouldn't get caught, but figure it's entrapment because the police were there to catch them. That doesn't fly.

The objective test fails. A law abiding citizen would have said, no I can't drive I've been drinking. Furher Michigan case law is against him on the objective test. Michigan is tough on this one.

He needs a lawyer to fight this. This isn't an open and shut case even if you believe 100% of what the poster claims.