Not Drinking at a Party

[stealth2]

I applaud your decision to stay away from drinking. It's possible - and a lot of people do it and even have a good time (being drunk isn't a lot of fun at all, especially considering the consequences of being sick, hungover, or even pregnant or worse). But, ultimately, you are likely to find yourself in the presence of alcohol so you will be tempted - and there's always a risk of consequences. I would try very hard to find alternate activities. Have an alcohol-free party in your dorm room. Get a bunch of people together to go see a movie. Volunteer for Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Whatever.

There are any number of non-drinking activities available, especially at a school not in the sticks (and even there). My son is a college freshman; he doesn't drink. Somehow, he has no problem finding activities - on and off campus - any day of the week that don't involve drinking.

I understand the recent efforts by law enforcement to crack down on underage drinking, but IMHO, they've gone too far. When a kid can be penalized for making the right decision NOT to drink simply because there are other people drinking, I think it's a mistake. Not to mention the entire premise that college kids are old enough to fight for their country and get shot at and bombed militarily, but not get bombed in their dorm rooms. But, unfortunately, I don't make the rules.

I have to agree with this, too. My son didn't go to a lot of parties in HS because he wasn't willing to risk losing opportunities based on others drinking. My daughter takes her chances because her friends do drink, and she feels someone has to be responsible. I've had plenty of late-night calls to come and pick them all up because the girls have gotten stupid drunk. And no - I'm not deluding myself. But it seems a shame that she could be penalized for doing the right thing and being the "designated driver", as it were.

 

[BOR]

Actually, the police CAN have an effect. If he has the ability to exercise dominion and control over the alcohol he could be cited for being in possession even if he was not drinking. Whether he could be found guilty at court if the officers admit that they neither saw him with alcohol nor smelled it on his breath is a question that probably has an answer with a coin toss.

Here is the case, as I am sure you know of Pringle, that I mentioned earlier, and it mentions dominion and control as Probable cause to charge a crime.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-809.ZS.html

 

[mistoffolees]

Here is the case, as I am sure you know of Pringle, that I mentioned earlier, and it mentions dominion and control as Probable cause to charge a crime.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-809.ZS.html

My point still stands. The Supreme Court simply certified that Maryland's drug laws allow for certain probable cause.

Just what does that have to do with NY drinking laws?

 

[BOR]

My point still stands. The Supreme Court simply certified that Maryland's drug laws allow for certain probable cause.

Just what does that have to do with NY drinking laws?

The PC elelment is NOT specific to MD, even though it was a MD case.

As I pointed out, PC for dominion and control is "federally constitutionally permitted", it matters not what state it is OR what crime it is, drugs or alcohol.

If the posters state has stricter constitutional PC elements, so be it. I highly doubt it.

 

[mistoffolees]

The PC elelment is NOT specific to MD, even though it was a MD case.

As I pointed out, PC for dominion and control is "federally constitutionally permitted", it matters not what state it is OR what crime it is, drugs or alcohol.

If the posters state has stricter constitutional PC elements, so be it. I highly doubt it.

It most certainly DOES matter.

Possession of a drug is a crime in MD. The law states that anyone in the same car can be found guilty of possession - and the supreme court upheld that.

Without knowing exactly what the NY law says, it's impossible to determine if OP could be charged with possession for being in the same room as alcohol.

YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THE LAW SAYS before the Supreme Court's decision becomes relevant.

 

[BOR]

It most certainly DOES matter.

Possession of a drug is a crime in MD. The law states that anyone in the same car can be found guilty of possession - and the supreme court upheld that.

Without knowing exactly what the NY law says, it's impossible to determine if OP could be charged with possession for being in the same room as alcohol.

YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THE LAW SAYS before the Supreme Court's decision becomes relevant.

You quoted the last statement of mine, but did not consider what it meant:

If the posters state has stricter constitutional PC elements, so be it. I highly doubt it.

 

[mistoffolees]

You quoted the last statement of mine, but did not consider what it meant:

Of course I considered it - it just happened to be irrelevant.

MD has a law that says that people in the same car as someone possessing drugs can be found guilty of possession. The Supreme Court affirmed that law.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why in the world that has any bearing at all on OP's situation - who is neither in MD nor has any concerns about drugs.

All your example said is that some state laws have been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Big deal. Until you know what OP's state law says, you shouldn't be commenting on the topic at all.

 

[BOR]

Of course I considered it - it just happened to be irrelevant.

MD has a law that says that people in the same car as someone possessing drugs can be found guilty of possession. The Supreme Court affirmed that law.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why in the world that has any bearing at all on OP's situation - who is neither in MD nor has any concerns about drugs.

All your example said is that some state laws have been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Big deal.

Wer'e not connecting, but I'll try again.

The case I cited concerned a "seizure" under the 4th AM.

The Supreme Court ruled such seizures as described, that is, an ARREST, is Constitutionally permissable if one has exerted dominion or control over an item.

The poster asked if he could be in legal trouble if he were at a party while underage. IF the police have PC to infer such, he can be arrested and or cited.

Until you know what OP's state law says, you shouldn't be commenting on the topic at all.

Sure, whatever you say!!