underage drinking /withdrawn/recharged

[CdwJava]

Just to put some water on this.....

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/12217116p-13081090c.html

Not being a subscriber, it doesn't allow me to read the story. Can you summarize?

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Her On-View Arrest Citations reads as follows: "Defendant, being under 21 years of age, consumed one (1) 12 ounce can of Milwaukee's Best Ice Beer. Defendant is 18 years of age." Charge was consumption. I suspect if the officer smelled alcohol on her, he would have allowed her a breath test (which she requested at least 3 times). Does the four hours she was detained count as "custody" for Miranda?

This is a question that a court would have to decide. If it is worth it, you might consider consulting a local attorney to see what their opinion is regarding how a local court might rule on the issue.

As you have seen, an argument can be made in either direction. How your courts might rule can best be answered by local attorneys. The question then becomes, is the fine and potential future ramifications worth the expenditure of a couple thousand dollars? (Or whatever it might cost in your neck of the woods)

Also, keep in mind that the citation is not likely the whole record. I know our citations will never have all the info on them ... but, in a mass arrest situation, it's unlikely that individual reports were written for every underage drinker there so it COULD be the entire record.

- Carl

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Not being a subscriber, it doesn't allow me to read the story. Can you summarize?

- Carl

Chico State the one time "Party School" still has problems:


x - close Recent Stories By Enko


Chico State student dies during suspected hazing incident
By M.S. Enkoji -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 3:32 pm PST Wednesday, February 2, 2005
Get weekday updates of Sacramento Bee headlines and breaking news. Sign up here.

A 21-year-old California State University, Chico, student died early Wednesday after drinking a large amount of water, apparently as part of a hazing for an unauthorized fraternity.

"Excessive water consumption had something to do with the pledge activities," said Chico Police Sgt. Dave Barrow. He declined to give other details about the hazing ritual while the department conducts an investigation, but he did say that alcohol appeared to not be a factor.

The student, Matthew William Carrington of Pleasant Hill, was apparently pledging Chi Tau, a local fraternity which has no national affiliate and lost school affiliation in 2002 because of alcohol violations.

The death is the second hazing death connected to the school since 2000, when 18-year-old Adrian Heideman died from alcohol poisoning.

 

[CdwJava]

Ah ... yeah, that's a big local story. Chico State is good overtime for neighborng agencies a couple times a year. The frats there are zoos and tend to get out of control. I believe this particular fraternity isn't even recognized by its national affiliate anymore, and is NOT recognized by the university or the local Greek Council.

- Carl

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Ah ... yeah, that's a big local story. Chico State is good overtime for neighborng agencies a couple times a year. The frats there are zoos and tend to get out of control. I believe this particular fraternity isn't even recognized by its national affiliate anymore, and is NOT recognized by the university or the local Greek Council.

- Carl

My son went there for 1 year then returned to finish up living at home. One time when they had Pioneer Days, he couldn't get to class, I understand they have eliminated that celebration. He had one of the "New cat shirts" You know the ones with a picutre of 3 smiling mountain lions on the front and on the back, a picture of the backside of the 3 cats each with a full mug of beer hidden behind. The even have an apartment complex called "the zoo". The other problem were the rafting trips where they would tie innertubes and coolers full of beer and go for floats. The water is ice cold from melting snow. One time I drove up there after Xmas with his stuff in my car and he on his motorcycle, I was stopped because they thought I was a college student which they stopped routinely! But it's either one extreme or another underage drinking alcohol/water.

 

[CdwJava]

My son went there for 1 year then returned to finish up living at home. One time when they had Pioneer Days, he couldn't get to class, I understand they have eliminated that celebration. He had one of the "New cat shirts" You know the ones with a picutre of 3 smiling mountain lions on the front and on the back, a picture of the backside of the 3 cats each with a full mug of beer hidden behind. The even have an apartment complex called "the zoo". The other problem were the rafting trips where they would tie innertubes and coolers full of beer and go for floats. The water is ice cold from melting snow. One time I drove up there after Xmas with his stuff in my car and he on his motorcycle, I was stopped because they thought I was a college student which they stopped routinely! But it's either one extreme or another underage drinking alcohol/water.

Not much has changed in the 20+ years since I went to college in the Bay Area and we used to travel to Chico for the par-tee!

- Carl

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Not much has changed in the 20+ years since I went to college in the Bay Area and we used to travel to Chico for the par-tee!

- Carl

The worst part of the drive was 505 very boring at night, straight, no cars, no lights, moon shining of the backs of sheep huddled together, easy to drive too fast.

 

[CdwJava]

The worst part of the drive was 505 very boring at night, straight, no cars, no lights, moon shining of the backs of sheep huddled together, easy to drive too fast.

Hey! We're rather fond of our sheep up here!

The nights can get cold!

- Carl

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Hey! We're rather fond of our sheep up here!

The nights can get cold!

- Carl

OMG I hope not too fond
Actually I do worry when they are freshly shorn, they must get real cold then.

 

[bjl1105]

Thanks again for everyone's help. Much appreciated!

 

[LawGirl10]

This is very interesting stuff! To set the record straight, the frat house was "charged by swarms of Police yelling, "Get down on your knees and stay down!". All the kids hit the floor and stayed there until the dust settled. They were told they could not leave without being seen by an officer. They were accompanied to the bathroom if they had to go. My daughter was held in an upstairs room (where she was when the entered the house) for four hours with whomever happened to be in the room at the time of the bust. Some kids tried to sneak out windows etc, but were caught and detained. No cuffs, no Mirandizing. We'll see. But your exchange of information is very informative. Thanks!

Yes, under these facts, I would definitely consult an attorney to determine what they think about the custody issue. If it would be seen as custody (and I tend to think it would), then the next thing they would need to look at is if there was interrogation. To me, a direct question about if a person under the age of 21 was drinking would be interrogation in that situation (directed toward illiciting an incriminating response). If the court found that there was both custody and interrogation, without Miranda, then any responses the suspect made to those questions could not be used in the Prosecutor's case in chief. The exception to this is if the suspect/defendant took that stand and denied that they had been drinking at all. In that case, even if there were a Miranda violation, the statement could be used by the Prosecutor to impeach the defendant. BUT, if the defendant never takes the stand, the statement could not be used.

Keep in mind one thing, as was stated before, the police could still use other evidence to convict a person of a crime without using an incriminating statement. The Prosecution could call the police officers to the stand to testify as to what they observed. In cases where minors were drinking, the observations of the police could very easily be used to convict someone of a minor intox charge.




To CdwJava, I do understand about the issue of custody being the first inquiry that has to be made in a Miranda challenge. My statements about the interrogation were made assuming that the issue of custody could have been proven. Since we were going back and forth about both issues, that might not have been clear. But yes, I understand that.

 

[Rhubarb297]

Since she admitted drinking there was no need too do BAC, ask for a diversion program, a 6 month suspension of her license is the least of her problems, she is away at college it could be worse. Look into getting her into some sort of AA or alcohol education program before going to court. Most colleges have cracked down on underage drinking.

An 18 year old consumes beer, and you want to put them in AA? Give me a break. You have you any proof that she's an alcoholic or heading in that direction? Probably 95% of people consume alcohol before 21...do you want to put all those people in AA too?

 

[Rhubarb297]

Yes, under these facts, I would definitely consult an attorney to determine what they think about the custody issue. If it would be seen as custody (and I tend to think it would), then the next thing they would need to look at is if there was interrogation. To me, a direct question about if a person under the age of 21 was drinking would be interrogation in that situation (directed toward illiciting an incriminating response). If the court found that there was both custody and interrogation, without Miranda, then any responses the suspect made to those questions could not be used in the Prosecutor's case in chief. The exception to this is if the suspect/defendant took that stand and denied that they had been drinking at all. In that case, even if there were a Miranda violation, the statement could be used by the Prosecutor to impeach the defendant. BUT, if the defendant never takes the stand, the statement could not be used.

Keep in mind one thing, as was stated before, the police could still use other evidence to convict a person of a crime without using an incriminating statement. The Prosecution could call the police officers to the stand to testify as to what they observed. In cases where minors were drinking, the observations of the police could very easily be used to convict someone of a minor intox charge.




To CdwJava, I do understand about the issue of custody being the first inquiry that has to be made in a Miranda challenge. My statements about the interrogation were made assuming that the issue of custody could have been proven. Since we were going back and forth about both issues, that might not have been clear. But yes, I understand that.

Excellent legal analysis. You certainly know the law regarding Miranda and its progeny.

 

[Rhubarb297]

True enough. But unless the police had everyone cuffed and ordered everyone onto their knees (or something similar and synonymous to "an arrest", I doubt that it will be seen as custodial for Miranda purposes. However, PA law may be different on the subject. I know that in CA we have never had a successful Miranda challenge that I am aware of when citing frat parties and similar events where everyone is told to hang tight and wait for an officer.

During a detention, we are permitted to make inquiry to determine if a crime has occurred. And if the officer walks up to a detained college student and asks, "How much did you have to drink?" and the student answers that they had any, then that can be used against them. They can, of course, refuse to answer and the officer can base it upon observations (odors, mannerisms, objective symptoms of intoxication or at least of consumption).

In fact, in any criminal investigation, an investigative inquiry can generally be made without invoking Miranda. At the scene of an assault, I may have a suspect seated on the couch at my direction, but I can still ask him his involvement in the incident. "Did you hit her?" It gets dicier once I've established that he did indeed commit the crime and that there was no legal justification for it. But, the initial statement is almost certainly (with some exceptions) going to be valid.

So, in this particular case, I would be very surprised if in this case the detention would be seen as rising to the level of custody for purposes of Miranda.

- Carl

Actually courts have said the definition of "custody" for the purposes of whether Miranda applies is whether the defendant reasonably believes he or she is free to leave during questioning. In the scenario described what do you think would have happened if she attempted to leave? She almost certainly would not have been allowed to leave. I think there's definitely custody.

You're right police officers can ask some basic questions (like name, address, etc), but if you ask "Did you commit the crime." (As you have when you said "Did you hit her") that question is probably going to be outside of what is allowed without first Mirandizing. It's not a big deal if during the investigation an officer get information that should have been Mirandized. It happens all the time. What typically would happen is the suspect would be taken to headquarters, given his or her Miranda rights, and the question would be asked again. If the person doesn't reconfess, the information probably won't be used.

By the way, most likely it's not state law that controls, but Court decisions including Miranda and its progeny that have interpreted the U.S. Constitution. Therefore I doubt there would be differences from state to state.

 

[Rhubarb297]

If my understanding is correct on that, then it wouldn't matter what state either one of us is in. The only differences that could ever take place on the issue of Miranda would be where the state gave a suspect MORE protection than the Constitution required.

Excellent!!! Not many people know this know this. No, it wouldn't matter what state you were in unless the state provided more protection than the U.S. Constitution.