Contributing to minor?

[kalrith]

What is the name of your state? South Carolina

So a few weeks ago the place got called to my house for noise and my girlfriend and 2 of our friends were both drinking. (all three of them are 20) I was the only one over 21 so they gave me a ticket for Contributing to a minor. The ticket was a fine with a charge of $672.50.

The ticket says Violation Section # 61-4-90 So I decided to do some research about this law and see if I stood a chance getting out of it since I wasn't drinking myself nor did I 'allow' them to drink. After doing some research I got interested that the law actually says the fine should be no less then $200 and no more then $300. Now how was i fined 672.50$? Could it be because there was 3 people involved, but wouldn't that be three seperate tickets/laws broken? Anyway here is a link to the section #. http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t61c004.htm

SECTION 61-4-90. Transfer of beer or wine for underage person's consumption.

(A) It is unlawful for a person to transfer or give to a person under the age of twenty-one years for the purpose of consumption of beer or wine in the State, unless the person under the age of twenty-one is recruited and authorized by a law enforcement agency to test a person's compliance with laws relating to the unlawful transfer or sale of beer and wine to a minor. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction:

(1) for a first offense, must be fined not less than two hundred dollars nor more than three hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both; and

(2) for a second or subsequent offense, must be fined not less than four hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

(B) A person found guilty of a violation of Section 61-6-4070 and this section may not be sentenced under both sections for the same offense.

(C) The provisions of this section do not apply to a:

(1) spouse over the age of twenty-one giving beer or wine to his spouse under the age of twenty-one in their home;

(2) parent or guardian over the age of twenty-one giving beer or wine to his children or wards under the age of twenty-one in their home; or

(3) person giving beer or wine to another person under the age of twenty-one in conjunction with a religious ceremony or purpose if the beer or wine was lawfully purchased.

Also how can they prove i did not give it to them for religious purposes? If I go to the court date is there any chance of getting the fined lowered?

 

[Silverplum]

What is the name of your state? South Carolina
So a few weeks ago the place got called to my house for noise and my girlfriend and 2 of our friends were both drinking. (all three of them are 20) I was the only one over 21 so they gave me a ticket for Contributing to a minor. The ticket was a fine with a charge of $672.50.

Don't you mean, "Contributing to THE DELINQUENCY OF a minor"??
Because I didn't know it was illegal to give my kids their allowances.

The ticket says Violation Section # 61-4-90 So I decided to do some research about this law and see if I stood a chance getting out of it since I wasn't drinking myself nor did I 'allow' them to drink.

Your house.
You are the "adult" there.
You, by default, DID allow them to drink. In your house. In your presence.
Do I really have to go on and on to explain it? Or are you a bright guy and see the point?

After doing some research I got interested that the law actually says the fine should be no less then $200 and no more then $300. Now how was i fined 672.50$? Could it be because there was 3 people involved, but wouldn't that be three seperate tickets/laws broken? Anyway here is a link to the section #. http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t61c004.htm

SECTION 61-4-90. Transfer of beer or wine for underage person's consumption.

(A) It is unlawful for a person to transfer or give to a person under the age of twenty-one years for the purpose of consumption of beer or wine in the State, unless the person under the age of twenty-one is recruited and authorized by a law enforcement agency to test a person's compliance with laws relating to the unlawful transfer or sale of beer and wine to a minor. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction:

(1) for a first offense, must be fined not less than two hundred dollars nor more than three hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both; and

(2) for a second or subsequent offense, must be fined not less than four hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

(B) A person found guilty of a violation of Section 61-6-4070 and this section may not be sentenced under both sections for the same offense.

(C) The provisions of this section do not apply to a:

(1) spouse over the age of twenty-one giving beer or wine to his spouse under the age of twenty-one in their home;

(2) parent or guardian over the age of twenty-one giving beer or wine to his children or wards under the age of twenty-one in their home; or

(3) person giving beer or wine to another person under the age of twenty-one in conjunction with a religious ceremony or purpose if the beer or wine was lawfully purchased.

So...probably 3 tickets for 3 violations.

Also how can they prove i did not give it to them for religious purposes?

ROFL!

 

[kalrith]

Let me make this question a little easier for some people to understand what I am asking. Can you get one ticket for multiple offenses?

 

[Happy Trails]

Court cost and administrative fees were added.

http://www.daodas.state.sc.us/WhatAreYouPreparedToLose.asp

A fine of $200 to $300 [$465 to $675] and/or imprisonment for up to 30 days for the first offense.

 

[kalrith]

now im a little confused about this one

Possessing, consuming, purchasing or attempting to purchase beer, wine, or liquor if you are under the age of 21 (In instances where beer or wine is discovered in the presence of minors [e.g., at a party], but no one is holding the beverages and no one claims ownership, law enforcement in some jurisdictions have charged all those present with “constructive possession,” carrying the same penalties as for actual purchase or possession.)
A fine of $100 to $200 [$260 to $465] and/or imprisonment for up to 30 days for the first offense
Mandatory completion of alcohol prevention intervention/education program
S.C. Code Ann. Sections 20-7-8920, 20-7-8925, 56-1-746

That is what my girlfriend got and a ticket of $465. They told her at the time that she would not have to do the alcohol prevention program and that she did not have to go to court, just pay the fine. Also on the ticket it says Court apperance mandatory and he circled no. We were about to go to her court hearing in 30 minutes because the officer said if she went it might get lowered. If we go does she stand a chance of having to do the prevention program?

 

[Silverplum]

First it was YOU; now it's your girlfriend...
Problems with the story?

now im a little confused about this one

Possessing, consuming, purchasing or attempting to purchase beer, wine, or liquor if you are under the age of 21 (In instances where beer or wine is discovered in the presence of minors [e.g., at a party], but no one is holding the beverages and no one claims ownership, law enforcement in some jurisdictions have charged all those present with “constructive possession,” carrying the same penalties as for actual purchase or possession.)
A fine of $100 to $200 [$260 to $465] and/or imprisonment for up to 30 days for the first offense
Mandatory completion of alcohol prevention intervention/education program
S.C. Code Ann. Sections 20-7-8920, 20-7-8925, 56-1-746

That is what my girlfriend got and a ticket of $465. They told her at the time that she would not have to do the alcohol prevention program and that she did not have to go to court, just pay the fine. Also on the ticket it says Court apperance mandatory and he circled no. We were about to go to her court hearing in 30 minutes because the officer said if she went it might get lowered. If we go does she stand a chance of having to do the prevention program?

 

[kalrith]

First it was YOU; now it's your girlfriend...
Problems with the story?

Can you not read? read the original post and then reply.

 

[Silverplum]

Can you not read? read the original post and then reply.

I did read it and replied. You wrote that YOU got a ticket in your first post.

Later, it's your GF that got the ticket. Can YOU read what YOU wrote??

I can't help being logical.

 

[kalrith]

In the first post I was talking about my ticket (from giving my GIRLFRIEND alcohol). my reply talked about the ticket she got.. So once again, If you cant read need not reply.

 

[Silverplum]

In the first post I was talking about my ticket (from giving my GIRLFRIEND alcohol). my reply talked about the ticket she got..

So you just wander from topic to topic, huh?

So once again, If you cant read need not reply.

What an arrogant jerkboy you are, to assume you can determine who and who does not reply to you on a message board.

And so I reply again, with the value you so greatly deserve:
4uitr5jklmxcvkasdpmcv 4tmb45iklhak

 

[kalrith]

For any intelligent people who care, the whole thing was dropped due to the fact that they never read her her rights.

 

[>Charlotte<]

For any intelligent people who care, the whole thing was dropped due to the fact that they never read her her rights.

Ummm...kalrith? It's kind of hard to get away with a lie like that in a forum full of lawyers.

 

[The Occultist]

For any intelligent people who care, the whole thing was dropped due to the fact that they never read her her rights.

Please allow me to clarify something for you so that you do not embarrass yourself further. Rights only need to be read after an arrest and prior to interrogation. If rights are not read, all that means is any self-incriminating testimony given cannot be used against you. That doesn't mean the whole case is dropped, just that self-incriminating testimony cannot be used. I know I said the same thing twice, but I figured it was an important of detail that it should be made clear.

 

[Happy Trails]

Please allow me to clarify something for you so that you do not embarrass yourself further. Rights only need to be read after an arrest and prior to interrogation. If rights are not read, all that means is any self-incriminating testimony given cannot be used against you. That doesn't mean the whole case is dropped, just that self-incriminating testimony cannot be used. I know I said the same thing twice, but I figured it was an important of detail that it should be made clear.

Somethings need to be repeated.

 

[kalrith]

Actually since they never breathalized her or did any other tests the only proof they had was that she admited she was drinking. The judge dropped the case due to the fact that she was questioned without first being read her rights and that her answer could be based on the fact that the officers were containing her and continuing the ask the same question without teller her she had the right to remain silent. There for anything she said to them was no longer vaild which was the only proof they had that she was drinking.

Don't beleive me if you dont want to. I don't know the law enough to argue with any of you but that is what the judge said as he told her she could leave.