Alcohol & Drugs: MIP, MIC, Intoxication MIP In California

[spectria]

My 19 year old daughter was having a party at her Santa Rosa, Ca. Sonoma County home. Some were drinking. The noise brought a complaint and the Santa Rosa PD. Two very buff female officers swore at my daughter using the f bomb repeatedly in order to try and force some admissions out of my Daughter. She is on the lease of the home, she was not holding nor anywhere near alcohol, she was questioned and denied drinking, she was not tested, she was inside the home, not outside.
She was citied for MIP, she signed the citation, and has just recieved notice to show up in court in September.

Without her being tested, how can she be accused of MIP?

What are the possible penalties? She is full time student and works part time. She has no tickets, never been in any rouble with the law.

ps, the officers forced their way into the home, pushing past the person who answered the door.

Her Dad is worried.

 

[jacksgal]

It seems unlikley the events happened exactly as your child says. However giving you, or her, the benefit of the doubt lets say its accurate. There seems to be no evidence that could link her to that charge. However is it possible she as the occupant of the home is beign charged with giving alcohol to the other minors present? You need to know the "exact" charge for us to answer otherwise all you get is gueswork. I would also suggest you or her consult an Attorney as well.

 

[CdwJava]

My 19 year old daughter was having a party at her Santa Rosa, Ca. Sonoma County home. Some were drinking.

She does understand the legal drinking age is 21, correct?

How bad this might become will also depend on the age of the other parties in the residence, who brought the alcohol, who was permitting them to drink, and whether this party was free to most anyone or required a contribution at the door, or was just a handful of invited guests.

Without her being tested, how can she be accused of MIP?

It would help to know the specific section for which she was cited as that section will contain the elements of the offense that the state must show in order to get a conviction. But, in general, an MIP (aka Minor in Possession) requires POSSESSION, and does NOT require consumption. No test is needed for a person to be cited for a possession charge. However, depending on the section, it might not have been proper to cite her for possession in her own home. But, it depends on what section she was cited under.

What are the possible penalties? She is full time student and works part time. She has no tickets, never been in any trouble with the law.

The penalties will depend on the specific code section.

Typically, a small fine, alcohol counseling, and informal probation are associated with this sort of offense. Again, this might change depending on the section.

ps, the officers forced their way into the home, pushing past the person who answered the door.

Okay. Her attorney can argue an unlawful entry at trial and the officers will be compelled to articulate their justification for entry. However, I have to tell you, that it's likely they will be able to articulate such justification. But, maybe not.

Her Dad is worried.

Of course.

- Carl

 

[spectria]

It seems unlikely the events happened exactly as your child says. However giving you, or her, the benefit of the doubt lets say its accurate. There seems to be no evidence that could link her to that charge. However is it possible she as the occupant of the home is being charged with giving alcohol to the other minors present? You need to know the "exact" charge for us to answer otherwise all you get is guesswork. I would also suggest you or her consult an Attorney as well.

Thank you for your reply.

Of course I don't take anything on face value, as children tend to spin the story to avoid parent disdain.

She wasn't in actual possession, but she is the occupant. She didn't supply the alcohol, but by association she was charged as being the responsible adult (minor???) at 19.

We will get an attorney, I just wondered what the potential penalties are here.

If you don't know, that's fine.

I sense it was a couple very aggressive female (in this case very bull) officers running roughshod over a houseful of Svelte Female Junior College Volleyball players, if you get my drift.

Since my daughter is bi, I would say she qualifies as a judge of their persuasion, as none of us can.

 

[spectria]

She does understand the legal drinking age is 21, correct?

Of course, do you have teens??? That doesn't seem to matter to them.

I don't condone the behavior, but I am a very strict constitutionalist. If the cops didn't dot every I and cross every Tee, then the perp walks, no matter the crime.

State power must always be challenged.

They have the resources to ram anyone into Prison for any charge, whether true or not.
How bad this might become will also depend on the age of the other parties in the residence, who brought the alcohol, who was permitting them to drink, and whether this party was free to most anyone or required a contribution at the door, or was just a handful of invited guests.


It would help to know the specific section for which she was cited as that section will contain the elements of the offense that the state must show in order to get a conviction. But, in general, an MIP (aka Minor in Possession) requires POSSESSION, and does NOT require consumption. No test is needed for a person to be cited for a possession charge. However, depending on the section, it might not have been proper to cite her for possession in her own home. But, it depends on what section she was cited under.


The penalties will depend on the specific code section.

Typically, a small fine, alcohol counseling, and informal probation are associated with this sort of offense. Again, this might change depending on the section.


Okay. Her attorney can argue an unlawful entry at trial and the officers will be compelled to articulate their justification for entry. However, I have to tell you, that it's likely they will be able to articulate such justification. But, maybe not.


Of course.

- Carl

See text insert

 

[CdwJava]

And, of course, the romantic predilections of the involved parties is not relevant to the actions of the officers in any event.

As a note, she WAS in possession ... she is in constructive and control of the property within her home ... the alcohol was in her home ... ergo, she was in possession. She should be lucky that no one inside was under 18 or she could have also been charged with contributing to their delinquency and providin alcohol to a minor.

The exact section is very important because many sections cover only possession in public places and are often MIS-applied by officers.

- Carl

 

[spectria]

And, of course, the romantic predilections of the involved parties is not relevant to the actions of the officers in any event.

As a note, she WAS in possession ... she is in constructive and control of the property within her home ... the alcohol was in her home ... ergo, she was in possession. She should be lucky that no one inside was under 18 or she could have also been charged with contributing to their delinquency and providin alcohol to a minor.

The exact section is very important because many sections cover only possession in public places and are often MIS-applied by officers.

- Carl

Are you an actual police officer??

My daughter is Bi and the officers were clearly Lesbian. This is a common conflict and it was clear to those present that the officers actions were very sexual Orientation motivated. Being dominate is a common trait of police officers, this is why most gravitate to this "service". And please don't waste your breath lecturing about the altruistic values of doing good that is an added benefit (cover) for the opportunity many officers take to have power over others. (I come from a family in Law Enforcement, for reference).

I appreciate your responding, but I have zero sympathy for the Legal system and their players.

 

[spectria]

And, of course, the romantic predilections of the involved parties is not relevant to the actions of the officers in any event.

As a note, she WAS in possession ... she is in constructive and control of the property within her home ... the alcohol was in her home ... ergo, she was in possession. She should be lucky that no one inside was under 18 or she could have also been charged with contributing to their delinquency and providin alcohol to a minor.

The exact section is very important because many sections cover only possession in public places and are often MIS-applied by officers.

- Carl

Nothing about their hetero-phobic behavior could be misconstrued as romantic.

 

[CdwJava]

Nothing about their hetero-phobic behavior could be misconstrued as romantic.

:sigh:

Okay, their sexual predelictions are not relevant.

Bottom line is that the issue is not whether the officers were gay, straight, bi, or whatever, but whether the actions were lawful and whether the offense cited can be charged under the circumstances.

- Carl

 

[spectria]

:sigh:

Okay, their sexual predelictions are not relevant.

Bottom line is that the issue is not whether the officers were gay, straight, bi, or whatever, but whether the actions were lawful and whether the offense cited can be charged under the circumstances.

- Carl

Alright, I sigh also as you continue to miss that small point. If the officers were heavy handed, and they acted with thier hate made obvious, it clearly plays into any defense.

Yes, If my daughter was as you say "in constructive control" she maybe chargable for an offense.

That law sucks as much as you be being charged cause you own the car and are driving when the Gestapo pulls you over because of the proverbial taillight out, and finds some dope on the passenger you just picked up.

Whatever, I wrote in asking about the possible penalties and I got you and your lecture about how lucky she is. She's lucky she was born in the USA, and unlucky that the right wing has appointed a Supreme court that has wittled away our rights to the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments, and increased the rights of prosecutors to charge for looking at somebody the wrong way.

 

[CdwJava]

Alright, I sigh also as you continue to miss that small point. If the officers were heavy handed, and they acted with thier hate made obvious, it clearly plays into any defense.

I hear your "point", but it is not likely to play into any defense. What WILL come into play will be the justification for any entry and whether or not the elements of the charged offense have been met. Legally, their subjective reasons are rarely relevant.

Yes, If my daughter was as you say "in constructive control" she maybe chargable for an offense.

Yep.

That law sucks as much as you be being charged cause you own the car and are driving when the Gestapo pulls you over because of the proverbial taillight out, and finds some dope on the passenger you just picked up.

Wait ... you're pulling the "Gestapo" charge?!

Ah, the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy!

Oh, please ... I have yet to ever arrest or hear of an arrest of a truly innocent passenger in the circumstances you outline. Has it happened? Probably. Is it often claimed? Of course! The problem is, the driver usually has a history of dope, too. Plus, for the charge to stick, the state would have to show that the driver had knowledge and control over the item. Though, in your scenario, the driver would be almost impossible to charge ... unless she admits to knowing the passenger was holding dope.

But, back to the point ... you may believe alcohol possession laws "suck", but that's beside the point. if you do not like them, lobby for a change in the law. Until that time, the law is as it is, and we are all expected to live within the law or be prepared to suffer the consequences of our actions. If she takes the matter to court, a judge (and, possibly, a jury) can sort out the relevant issues and have their say.

Whatever, I wrote in asking about the possible penalties and I got you and your lecture about how lucky she is.

She is lucky.

And just how can anyone tell you what penalties she faces when you have thus far not provided the code section she has been cited for violating? There are many possible laws that could have been cited including local municipal codes - and they all have different potential penalties. Until that information is know, we can only guess.

She's lucky she was born in the USA, and unlucky that the right wing has appointed a Supreme court that has wittled away our rights to the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments, and increased the rights of prosecutors to charge for looking at somebody the wrong way.

What??

If you say so ... apparently you haven't been paying too close attention to the "right wing", or even the left (especially if you are speaking of the 1st Amendment - look left).

 

[spectria]

QUOTE=CdwJava;67588]I hear your "point", but it is not likely to play into any defense. What WILL come into play will be the justification for any entry and whether or not the elements of the charged offense have been met. Legally, their subjective reasons are rarely relevant.


Yep.


Wait ... you're pulling the "Gestapo" charge?!

Ah, the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy!

Oh, please ... I have yet to ever

(yea, you are the expert here, your attitude of guilt by association is what forces the ACLU to exist)


arrest or hear of an arrest of a truly innocent passenger in the circumstances you outline. Has it happened? Probably. Is it often claimed? Of course! The problem is, the driver usually has a history of dope, too. Plus, for the charge to stick, the state would have to show that the driver had knowledge and control over the item

(which of course the judge will believe you fine honest officers).

scenario, the driver would be almost impossible to charge ... unless she admits to knowing the passenger was holding dope.

(Yea right, she admits to something while handcuffed, no Miranda, completely intimidated by you Gestapo types)

But, back to the point ... you may believe alcohol possession laws "suck", but that's beside the point. if you do not like them, lobby for a change in the law. Until that time, the law is as it is, and we are all expected to live within the law or be prepared to suffer the consequences of our actions. If she takes the matter to court, a judge (and, possibly, a jury) can sort out the relevant issues and have their say. (Yea like going to court and going through the whole process because your dishonest associates want to punish a kid for her sexual difference is somehow redemption )

Yea


She is lucky.

And just how can anyone tell you what penalties she faces when you have thus far not provided the code section she has been cited for violating? There are many possible laws that could have been cited including local municipal codes - and they all have different potential penalties. Until that information is known, we can only guess.


What??

If you say so ... apparently you haven't been paying too close attention to the "right wing", or even the left (especially if you are speaking of the 1st Amendment - look left).[/QUOTE]

What can I say, you obviously have no life other than coming on to lecture me.

As a reference, I was recently charged with embezzlement of funds from a nonprofit school group I became President of by default. After 3 years of volunteering an average of 30 hours every week, and countless dollars out of my pocket, a new group of interested females decided I needed to go. I am a man, in case you could figure that out, Mr Psychic.

I was charged without proper cause (born out after the dismissal), my home was searched (without a proper warrant) and my computer was searched (without a proper warrant), I was dragged through the papers, and I lost my business base (as a Home Repairman/Plumber), Lost my home, and most of my "Friends".

The only joy I got was after 4 years and over 40 appearances in court we finally got to the prelim, and there it became clear to the judge and prosecutor that not only were my rights (which you apparently think folks don't deserve, typical of a cop) violated in the most despicable way, but my life was ruined over made up false charges. It was a joy to watch my lawyer question the expert "Detective" and shred his methods, and prove that he lied in his initial report, and on the stand.

He handcuffed me in my home, in my underwear while his "Gestapo" idiots went into my room in front of me and started pushing video tapes I had in a rack into my machine (not listed in the warrant, nor apparently a part of the alleged crime) and started viewing them one at a time.

They were there to find documents related to the group I was associated with and to seize my computer.

After 20 minutes and starting to shiver in my seat in the hallway, in cuffs, with a Goon standing over me with the classic hand resting on the Gun, the "Detective" came to me and quietly asked if I knew why they were there. I said no.

I asked to see the copy of the search warrant. He said it was on the way. (It had been signed by a judge weeks before yet he didn't show it to me on entry, nor could I read it while both hands were cuffed behind me and to my chair.)

He then said it was about this group and that he had enough to arrest me and take me "Downtown". He also said he would have my daughter taken into protective custody and she would be out of school for a few days.
What he didn't know was that I had just brought my daughter home from spending over $500 on her Junior/Senior prom dress, hair and she was scheduled to get here nails done in a couple Hours. She also had just qualified as her High schools first JV Discus thrower for the County finals, both of which she would have missed if I had been arrested then (She had a wonderful Prom and earlier that Saturday she Won County First in Discus).

He then said He didn't think this whole thing was more than a misunderstanding, and if I cooperated, no charges would be filed.

He then said he was going to seize my computer and was there anything on it I should be concerned about. I answered all of his questions, heart pounding, blood pressure through the roof, shivering uncontrollably, nearly going into shock, and threatened with arrest and the taking of my child at the worst possible time.

Even a right wing SOB like you can recognize:

1) Coercing a suspect to answer questions by threatening actions against a family member is barred by the 5th and subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
2) Questioning a suspect while "In Custody" (defined by the Supreme Court and subsequent decisions as "substantially physically limited" requires Miranda (Which you Commie Gestapo types hate).Violating the 5th.
3) Promising no charges will be filed again violates the coercion doctrine.
4) No warrant presented, nor could I view it violated the 4th.

I am sure you think this is all wrong, and I don't know what I am talking about, but I did most of the research that resulted in the search being thrown out which resulted in the poison fruit being tossed.

This left what they had to start with (by the way, there wasn't anything incriminating on my computer or in my home or anywhere else for that matter as I was completely innocent) and at the prelim we were able to show that the group fabricated the data they presented to the Sheriff and the DA (who were clearly uneducated unsophisticated folks kind of like I sense you are).

I could go on, but why bother, at least you have a taste of where I come from.

It is clear to me that a cop will lie, cheat and steal to get what he wants, he will lie to a judge, jury, his peers and anyone else who asks.

Luckily, I had the top Public defender (being penniless and almost homeless from this affair) in my county and he worked as hard on my case as he said he did on most murder cases, due to the paper complexity, and he destroyed that officer (who is no longer a detective).

I have zero respect for you or your kind, so please stop putting yourself out as any kind of expert on the law, you're clueless and you represent the state, which always has a huge advantage.

Go out and bust a few more heads, you can't win me over.

And I never said I don't agree with or support the laws regarding alcohol, as you ASS-umed.

I do however respect the right to privacy (the 4th) which the Lesbian officers violated and abused that very same daughter in her home.

And their obvious attitude will come into play in front of the judge, trust me. Being heavy handed because their donut break was interrupted will earn them some retraining time, as you should have mentioned in your very first response, if you really are a supervising cop. If you are a supervisor, we are all in worse trouble than I thought.

I guess this was the wrong forum to come to for help.

 

[spectria]

By the way, what county in NorCal are you in? I may need to move.

 

[johnsoee]

it seems after reading the last post that after your ordeal with the judicial system your views of it have been severely skewed. I don't think a personal attack on the person that is trying to help you is the right way to find out the information you want.

I'm not a lawyer or even out of college yet and the information you are asking for I could find in about 45 seconds on this wonderful thing called the world wide web. Take the Penal code number (It will be on the ticket) type it into google. It most likely will take you to a state legislature website with the exact wording of the code. In this wording it will discuss under what code the maximum penalties are for the type of crime that she was cited for.

I'm thinking its a gross misdemeanor (at least thats what they call it in Washington). This is the exact wording "punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of not more than one year, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine." Now keep in mind that is the Maximum. So if your daughter (I think it would be good if you went but keep the right wing left wing talk and all the other Gestapo talk for the internet.) It is very easy to rub a judge the wrong way and have your daughter end up paying for it.

O and by the way The whole Miranda rights thing doesn't come into effect until she is being interrogated. Yes being handcuffed she is considered under in a "custodial situation" which she is just being restricted from movement while not being charged with anything yet. But because of the Stop & Identify Laws of most states (I know California has them I used to live there.) No Miranda warning needs to be given when asking name, DOB, Address, .... and so on.

 

[CdwJava]

I shall ignore the previous rant as it is ... bizarre.

Your daughter's citation is for a very minor offense (apparently). It was ostensibly for the offense of being under the age of 21 and in constructive possession (had knowledge, and the ability to control) of alcohol. No one can say whether the elements of the offense have been met because no code section was ever provided. It is possible that the section cited will not apply inside her residence. It is also possible that an attorney can have any entry or search dismissed as unlawful. It is the totality of the circumstances that will play into that decision.

The issue of the sexual preference of the parties is a red herring. If you wish to focus on that so hard, then I politely suggest that you have some issues in this area. Legally, this will have no real effect on the outcome unless it can be shown that the only reason your daughter was cited was because she refused the advances of one of the officers or some such thing.

And, yes, I just might be a supervisor in your locale ... if not, let us say that I know a few cops in Santa Rosa.

- Carl

 

[spectria]

Yes my opinion is skewed, and obviously I am angry, and i want every cop out there to know that I didn't stand for it, and they were made to pay for overstepping, violating the very laws they are sworn to uphold, and there out integrity was forced back into line.

As to your comments, thank you. I did make it clear that I was the one who was violated, not my Daughter, although she may have been.

As to being able to find what I needed on WWW, I Googled the question "MIP" and guess who showed up? This forum.

I though it would be lawyers not cops, so that is MY problem with the response I got from the supreme court justice (rotflmao).

My reference to boot stompers is dramatic, but it is in that vain that someone kicks in your door and violates the constitution, and every code the local Sheriff has for conducting a search and interrogation. And I paid a high price to prove my innocence, instead of the state having to prove me guilty, all because a bunch of uneducated lazy "detectives" wearing the badge didn't do their job properly.

That is why the detectives in-court apology is not accepted. Will that give me back my House, My business, My youngest daughters Senior year (as a single Dad with sole custody of all 3 of my kids raising them alone while volunteering for every school event they were involved in) My once good standing. My health???

CDWJAVA won't acknowledge anything I have said that relates, anything I said to let him see where I come from, only ignore and move on with his agenda. His response will always be a put down, so will mine to him.

And thank him for the on-line veiled threat about having buddies on the local force.

I was truly being sarcastic about moving, I may, but not from some fear of the boys in blue.

They brought it (what little they could muster) and they got it back in spades.

I am upfront, an open book. I will be quite respectful of anyone who shows me even the slightest bit of respect.

 

[CdwJava]

Yes my opinion is skewed, and obviously I am angry, and i want every cop out there to know that I didn't stand for it, and they were made to pay for overstepping, violating the very laws they are sworn to uphold, and there out integrity was forced back into line.

As to your comments, thank you. I did make it clear that I was the one who was violated, not my Daughter, although she may have been.

YOUR issue(s) are not the subject of this thread. Your original post concerned issues involving your daughter. If you wish to discuss YOUR situation, it would be best to start your own thread on the topic.

I though it would be lawyers not cops, so that is MY problem with the response I got from the supreme court justice (rotflmao).

There are lawyers here. Apparently non have seen fit to either contradict me or support you.

CDWJAVA won't acknowledge anything I have said that relates, anything I said to let him see where I come from, only ignore and move on with his agenda. His response will always be a put down, so will mine to him.

I don't recall writing a "put down". I DO recall not responding to your attempt to bait me into an argument unrelated to the subject at hand.

And thank him for the on-line veiled threat about having buddies on the local force.

If THAT is how you took it, then I am sorry. As a rule I neither confirm nor deny the agency I work for or the region I live in ... hence the nature of my reply. It is also true that I DO know officers in Santa Rose - the point of mentioning it is to indicate that I know the agency and the caliber of officers (at least SOME officers) that are employed there even if I am not.

If you wish to discuss the particulars of YOUR incident, then please start another thread as this one concerns a possible MIP ... I say, "possible" because we still don't know what offense she has been charged with. And THAT will make a HUGE difference on where this will go.

- Carl

- Carl

- Carl

 

[spectria]

Of course not all officers are as I described.

As I mentioned in the beggining, I am from Law Enforcement, and I have been an EMT and Volunteer Firefighter, so I have had many opportunities beyond my saga to intereact with many fine officers. It only takes one bad apple...

I was being dramatic (said that) but my "issue" was dramatic.

MY issue is off this thread and so am I... If I need "help" again, I'll try and find a way to do it the right way.

 

[CdwJava]

Of course not all officers are as I described.

As I mentioned in the beggining, I am from Law Enforcement, and I have been an EMT and Volunteer Firefighter, so I have had many opportunities beyond my saga to intereact with many fine officers. It only takes one bad apple...

Fortunately, they are few and far between. I conduct IA investigations so I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly. I have also seen horrible misunderstandings ballooned out of proportion. Perception often becomes reality (and for many that perception IS reality), and that's where the on "bad apple" can do so much damage.

I was being dramatic (said that) but my "issue" was dramatic.

Some are.

- Carl