open container ticket, not driving; California

[Its MikeL]

California

My girlfriend, two of her friends and I were trying to leave a parking garage. The driver (girlfriend) got in, followed by the two others, and i was still standing outside of the car next to the passenger door with the door open.. As i was standing a cop pulls up behind (btw the driver didn't have the keys in the ignition if that matters).

Before i know it he's walking up to the passenger side of the car with his flash light asking if we have any alcohol in the car and notices that there is an open container. I tell him that i was actually standing outside of the car because i was going to put it into the trunk, but he wasn't having it.

He gave all four of us tickets. I can maybe understand giving the driver a ticket, but did he really have the right to give us all tickets?
violation code: bp 25620 (a)

please let me know if you have any advice on how to fight the tickets.

Thanks

 

[I_Got_Banned]

California

My girlfriend, two of her friends and I were trying to leave a parking garage. The driver (girlfriend) got in, followed by the two others, and i was still standing outside of the car next to the passenger door with the door open.. As i was standing a cop pulls up behind (btw the driver didn't have the keys in the ignition if that matters).

Before i know it he's walking up to the passenger side of the car with his flash light asking if we have any alcohol in the car and notices that there is an open container. I tell him that i was actually standing outside of the car because i was going to put it into the trunk, but he wasn't having it.

He gave all four of us tickets. I can maybe understand giving the driver a ticket, but did he really have the right to give us all tickets?
violation code: bp 25620 (a)

please let me know if you have any advice on how to fight the tickets.

Thanks

25620.

(a) Any person possessing any can, bottle, or other receptacle containing any alcoholic beverage that has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been partially removed, in any city, county, or city and county owned park or other city, county, or city and county owned public place, or any recreation and park district, or any regional park or open-space district shall be guilty of an infraction if the city, county, or city and county has enacted an ordinance that prohibits the possession of those containers in those areas or the consumption of alcoholic beverages in those areas.
(b) This section does not apply where the possession is within premises located in a park or other public place for which a license has been issued pursuant to this division.
(c) This section does not apply when an individual is in possession of an alcoholic beverage container for the purpose of recycling or other related activity.​

​

Let me first establish that BP25620 has nothing to do with driving, whether the key was in the ignition or not, nor where you were in relation to the car.

You didn't mention what type of parking garage you were in but assuming it fits any of the criteria listed in BP25620, then the citation is valid.

The only question I would pose is whether the one container (assuming that was the only one which was "opened") would be sufficient to charge all five of you with the same violation.

 

[Its MikeL]

I'm not too sure on the different types of parking garages there are, this one was in a downtown area, and had signs that said "consumption of alcohol results in $100 citation" or something along those lines..


However, the ticket the officer issued was for $180 each.

 

[Jim_bo]

OK... I want to see one of the "OP is always guilty" crew come here and tell us how one open container was in the possession of five people!!! That is just crazy. What the hell was that cop thinking?? I guess it is the "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" theory. But I'm wondering how that theory benefits the public.

 

[reactive]

If the ticket has nothing to do with driving, then I suppose whoever owns the container is the only one who can be rightfully ticketed. Did anyone admit ownership to the officer? If not, I'm not sure how to clear the mess up. If he didn't even ask, then I guess dismissal is what will happen. By the way, I'm being helpful even though I am vigorously anti-alchol. I hope your fondness for the stuff has been diminished.

 

[Its MikeL]

He didn't ask. Thats pretty smart, i guess i'll try to bring that up in hopes of dismissal. thanks

 

[I_Got_Banned]

thats pretty smart, i guess i'll try to bring that up in hopes of dismissal. thanks

The code you were cited with states that "possession" is the key element there, not "ownership". So if the officer saw you with a can in your hand, bringing up the fact that it was somebody else's beer will get you nowhere as far as your citation.

As for the other four, you failed to mention what the circumstances were for them receiving theirs...

 

[Some Random Guy]

OK... I want to see one of the "OP is always guilty" crew come here and tell us how one open container was in the possession of five people!!! That is just crazy.

Yes, its called contstructive possession. Sometimes the law is crazy. You can still get convicted for it. You would be crazy not to think so.

 

[reactive]

I guess that possession/ownership thing could make a difference if finger-pointing were to happen. It sounds like he implied possession of the container in the statement that he was going to move it. Mike seems to be saying that they received tickets for the same offense, but he could prove me wrong on that. Fearless prediction: if Mike tells the court that he will plead guilty, the charges against the others will be dismissed (unless there are probation issues or something). One hopes he cares about his girlfriend and the other two, because constructive possession (news to me) opens up the possibility that otherwise all would be found guilty. I'd say that is more likely if, for example, the container was a keg rather than a single can of beer; a keg probably would make it unnecessary for an officer to ask whose it is.

 

[Some Random Guy]

I'm not saying its likely that all will be convicted, just that its possible. Also, you are correct that the quantity of alcohol (single beer, case, table full of half full beer cups, etc.) does make a difference in how this will turn out for multiple people.

 

[Jim6]

Why dont you just say that you found the container and were taking it to be recycled. You did not want to make a smelly mess of the parking lot so you did not bother to empty the contents.

Recycling is one of the exceptions in the text of the law shown above.

 

[Zigner]

Why dont you just say that you found the container and were taking it to be recycled. You did not want to make a smelly mess of the parking lot so you did not bother to empty the contents.

Recycling is one of the exceptions in the text of the law shown above.

Jim, it's frowned upon to encourage posters to break the law...

 

[justalayman]

had any or all of you been drinking? If so, maybe his reasoning is that to have drunk, you would each have had the container in your possession.

I would suggest this is similar to finding drugs in a car and charging all occupants with possession. I would contest it in similar fashion.

who is going to be the pigeon?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

From the OP's original post, it seemed to me that the officer wasn't just there patrolling and happened to come upon them. He knew what he was looking for and when he found it... He cited all five...

Depending upon how long they were in that parking lot, my guess is that somebody called and reported them as a bunch of youngsters drinking in public...

That does not make all 5 citations legit... And I'm not sure why the officer did not cite them for drinking in public... Then again, we've only heard one side of that story! Who knows!!!

 

[reactive]

Correction, again: he cited all four. I think you might be right that he had been tipped off to the drinking. However, not witnessing drinking himself and presumably not detecting much of a smell of alcohol on the individuals, it probably was safer for him to just cite them for the open container. Anyway, it sounds like the OP is going to have to take his punishment and so might the others.