Question About Search Legality

What is the name of your state? Illinois. I am 18 years old.

I was recently at a party on a public beach where alcohol was present. No one at the part was over the age of 18. A police detective showed up and asked someone (Tom) if he could open a cooler to look inside. Tom consented, but he did not own the cooler, it was owned by me. Is this a legal search?
Based on finding the alcohol in the cooler, the detective radioed for back up and several police officers arrived with portable breathalyzers. Everyone at the party submitted to the test and all but one passed (Ryan). I had recently undergone hernia-repair surgery and was unable to blow hard enough for the breathalyzer to work. I told the police that I might be able to blow harder if I was sitting.
Everyone was asked to leave the beach and Ryan and I were patted down and taken to the police station—we were never handcuffed. At the police station I was able to blow hard enough for the breathalyzer to function, the reading was 0.01. While the detective was writing the tickets I asked if I was under arrest, he hesitated for a moment and then responded, “Let’s put it this way, you’re not free to leave.” Does this mean that I was not under arrest? I was never told that I could refuse the test—did I have that right?
We were both given Administrative Tickets for “Consumption of alcohol by a minor.” In my research I have found that “the strict rules for evidence that exist in a normal courtroom do not apply at an administrative hearing.” Does this mean that I cannot contest that the officer obtained probable cause to search me through illegal means (the illegal search of the cooler)? And finally, is there any information in the above description that might allow me to get this case thrown out?
Thank you.
P.S. Names changed, I don't want to get anyone in more trouble.

Of course the search was legal. The cop asked someone who was using and had access to the cooler to open it. The fact that he did not OWN it is moot. Also, you recieved a ticket, therefore arrested. You do not need to be dragged down to jail and fingerprinted for an arrest to occur, even a traffic ticket is an arrest.

With zero-tolerance laws I am not sure why you think the fact it was a .001 means anything? Anything above 0 and you are in trouble.

Besdies, if you just had "hernia" surgery why are you out drinking?

I'm sorry, I don't think I was clear enough in my original post.
The detective asked Tom for permision to open the cooler. Tom did not open the cooler for the detective, the detective opened it himself after asking Tom. I don't know if that makes a difference but it might.

It wouldn't likely have mattered if he opened it or not. The officer almost certainly had enough cause to bring out PAS devices anyway ... the alcohol was probably easily smelled, and chances are there were other indicia of drinking ta boot.

Carl

I was the host of the party (although I did not plan on having alcohol present, someone else brought it) and I was quite aware of what was going on. There were about thirty people at the party and they was a very small amount of alcohol--at most there were five light beers and half a bottle of gin (that to my knowledge no one touched). Please keep in mind that we were on a beach and had a fire burining, there was no smell of alcohol at all. The officer later told me that the only reason he even thought to come down to the beach is that there were too many cars parked on the adjacent street.

I did research elsewhere on the web and found one legal site that defined "arrest" as when someone is stopped by police, frisked, and then transported to another location while feeling as though he is not free to leave. This describes my situation so am I to assume that I was under arrest even though the detective never told me that? Should I have had my rights read to me before I took the breathalyzer at the police station? Assuming I did not know that I could have refused the test while in custody but was asked to take it anyway, would that be grounds for dismissal of the evidence from the brethalyzer? Without that evidence it is unlikely that I would be found guilty since there were no outward signs that I had consumed alcohol and the officer did not observe me drinking it. Is it even possible to have evidence tossed out at an Administrative Hearing?

A breathalyzer is evidence and not testimony that would require Miranda warnings. If they suspected you had committed a crime (of underage alcohol consumption, I presume) they could have forced blood from you had they the desire to do so. You certainly had a right to refuse a breath test, but they also had a right to obtain evidence. But they did not have to tell you that you had the right to refuse the test.

And you have another problem - the fact that YOU hosted the party where undergae drinking was occurring. That COULD be another charge, including contributing to the delinquency or furnishing minors with alcohol.


Carl

Well my Hearing was today:
I'm 18 years old and was planning on attending the hearing myself but when the case was called and I stood up, the hearing officer said that he prefered to have the parents in the courtroom. I asked him if I could continue on my own anyway and he got mad at me and repeated himself in an angrier tone. I called my mother and she was able to leave her job to come and be with me at the hearing.
I entered a plea of "not guilty" and after the police officer gave his testimony I was allowed to question him. I asked him if he knew when the breathalyzer unit was last calibrated. He said that he didn't know and would have to check. The hearing officer gave me a sarcastic look and asked if I had anything else to say. I told the judge the I had looked up the model of breathalyzer used and found that according to its maker it was accurate to within 0.005 of the actual reading at the level of 0.10. I told the hearing officer that although I did not have the entire calibration curve available if the test was off by as little as 0.001 then the breathalyzer results could not be admitted under illinois state law. The reason for that is that illinois state law only allows for breathalyzer results to be admitted with significat figures out to two decimal places (0.01). Since I tested at a level of 0.01, if the unit had be off by 0.001 then I might have actually tested as low as 0.009. At this point the results would be inadmissable because when truncated to two sig-figs the reading would be 0.00.
The hearing officer gave me a long look and then asked me if I had consumed any alcohol. I told him that I did not want to answer that question, citing the Fifth Amendment. He told me that that no longer applied because I had begun testifying already. (Does this mean that one cannot represent himself without forfiting their rights in the Fifth? I couldn't have afforded a lawyer for this small violation.)
At this point my mother asked the judge if I could change my plea to "not guilty". Although he said it was very unusual he allowed us thirty seconds to talk it over at which point my mother told me to change my plea.
The hearing officer asked the police officer if I had cooperated and he said that I had. Then he told me that the fine would be $100 plus a $40 administrative fee, reprimanded me for drinking, and told me that I could leave.
Can anyone comment on this outcome? Did I have a vaild method to prove my innocence? Once you choose to represent yourself, do you forgo your right to the protection of the Fifth Amendment? I'm kind of bummed about the outcome, but at least I got the minimum fine. Can any lawyers (in addition to the police officer that had already responded) comment on my case? Thanks.

I thought of one more thing after I posted:
Does anyone know what the city as to do to prove that I was drinking. It seemed to me that the Hearing Officer told me that as long as I knew that there was alcohol there I was guilty of consumption...is this true? Also, just because I was at the party, did he have probable cause to arrest me? He definitely did not see me commit the violation and I was not obviously drunk or even slightly intoxicated (BAC 0.01 remember). I read on another law site that for an officer to arrest someone they need to have probable cause for a felony or actually see the violation for a misdomeanor, he didn't. I also belive that he need to have a belief that I myself was drinking, not just that there might have been underage drinking occuring and I was among the thirty-some kids there.

once you started to testify you cant pick and choose what you will answer.

So I guess my ultimate question is whether or not it is possible to represent yourself without a lawyer while still maintaining your Fifth Amendment rights?

not if you plan on testifying.