Undercover Police Sting on Underage Drinking

cardenas1 - 2009-09-06 9:12 AM

Everyone DOESDOESN'T do it, but I remember being a lot more careful about it. Staying in the dorms/apartments before game, using plastic cups, koozies, McDonalds drink containers etc. Drinking out in the open with containers even if tailgating seems a bit nieve of the consequences.

bradword - 2009-09-06 8:32 AM Fixed that. Not everyone does it. Just saying.

uclamatt2007 - 2009-09-05 10:43 PM So I just got a call from my 19 year old brother who goes to school at Fresno State. Their first football game was today and they were BBQ'ing and hanging out by the pool. The were drinking some beers (yes, i know, shocking, college kids, even those not yet 21, drink beer before going to the game. An undercover cop dressed in a football jersey and headphones walks over to the pool, flashes his badge, and asks how old they are. Him and his friend answer honestly, that they are 19 and 20 respectively. End result, 5 of them in up with minor in possession tickets.

Yes, I know, they were breaking the law. But really, is this the best use of law enforcement resources at a time when all we hear about is that we don't have enough cops on the street. They were not throwing a raging party and they were not drunk enough to warrant a drunk in public. Apparently the undercover cops were working their way from apartment complex to apartment complex checking ID's of anyone who was drinking. (As an aside, isn't this a form of profiling? I know you can't pull someone over simply for looking under 16, can you ask for someone's ID if they look under 21? Then again, since they answered when the officer asked, I suppose it voids that argument)

I normally would say that he got caught, pay the fine and move on. Looking online, however, it appears that in California, a minor in possession ticket leads to a mandatory license suspension of a year. That's a rough deal for having a few beers at your apartment.

Honestly, I have a feeling this crackdown is solely financially motivated. The 5 tickets could equal a fine of $1250. The cop told them that the ticket would only cost them between 50-100 dollars and that would be it. I realize that giving that answer makes it easier on the cop,  but really they should get their facts straight.

Ok, enough ranting for one night...

ADollar79 - 2009-09-06 12:15 PM

So he was breaking the law, got caught, was given a ticket and this is a problem how?  Funny how people think law enforcement must be a conspiracy when they or their friends are caught.  I don't have a problem with it.  How would you feel if the cop let them off with a warning and then the intoxicated person was in a wreck.  I assume you would be up in arms that the officer didn't enforce the law. 

Sure the situation sucks but that is the RISK you assume if you break the law. 

uclamatt2007 - 2009-09-06 9:44 AM ids.

Fine. Not everyone.... only about 95% of all college kids.

bel83 - 2009-09-05 10:08 PM That is a tough call. Also hard to answer. Not sure about California Law but if they are in their own home/yard can't they legally drink anyway? It might be different but I know when I was in college I could not get a ticket for drinking at my house when under 21, if I was on the street THEN they could ticket me. Cops broke up parties I was at as well, never gave out tickets even though the sheriffs department could use the funds. Then again maybe the at home law only applies when it is with your parents. (I had a friend in high school whose parents both grew up in England/France. They would often have wine with dinner at home and it was legal because it was at home and under parental supervision etc...)

Hopefully they do not get the license suspension but he should pay the ticket.

gerald12 - 2009-09-06 1:38 PM

Not at BYU.

uclamatt2007 - 2009-09-06 2:38 PM

It appears that under CA law, it is legal to drink if under 21 if you are in private.

This is the law concerning minor in possession:

  Section 25662:

              Any person under the age of 21 who has any alcoholic beverage in his possession on any street or highway or in any public place or in any place open to the public is guilty of a misdemeanor.

So it becomes a matter of the definition of open to public. They were inside the gated pool area inside of the gated apartment complex. The only reason I think they were in an area that could be considered open to the public is that the front gate to the complex was open and the gate to the pool was propped open with a trash can. Then again, is your house considered open to the public if you're front door is open? I honestly don't know.

uclamatt2007 - 2009-09-06 3:57 PM

I never said it was a conspiracy. I just don't think that it is the best use of police resources. If your goal is to prevent people from drinking and driving, why are you patrolling the apartment complex across the street from the stadium and not the parking lot full of people tailgating who drove to the game? You could argue that the goal is to reduce underage drinking, but to say that giving those tickets will have ANY effect is just naive. The more likely outcome is for the kids who were sitting by the pool at their apartment choosing to go back into and apartment and drinking where they will most likely end up binge drinking.

I've never been one of the people who has thought that the cops were out to get you. However, situations like this are part of the reason their is an issue between law enforcement and the younger generations. As far as I know, you cannot pull over someone driving a car just because they look under 16. Similarly, I would expect that an officer cannot demand your ID if you appear to be under 21 and are just drinking a beer, not actively buying it. In this situation, the officer did ask for their ages, not demand it, but in doing so took advantage of them not knowing their rights. Young people are stuck in a catch 22. If you answer the officer's question, you are giving up your rights and incriminating yourself. If you don't answer the question, then you generally end up being harassed by the police. I think we can all agree that the best situation is everyone cooperating with the police, but in order for that to happen, the police need to respect your right.

Asking for the ID of anyone drinking at a college apartment complex, without a complaint having being made, is no different then pulling over every person of a certain race. You may catch some people breaking the law, but that doesn't make it ok.

uclamatt2007 - 2009-09-05 10:43 PM So I just got a call from my 19 year old brother who goes to school at Fresno State. Their first football game was today and they were BBQ'ing and hanging out by the pool. The were drinking some beers (yes, i know, shocking, college kids, even those not yet 21, drink beer before going to the game. An undercover cop dressed in a football jersey and headphones walks over to the pool, flashes his badge, and asks how old they are. Him and his friend answer honestly, that they are 19 and 20 respectively. End result, 5 of them in up with minor in possession tickets.

Yes, I know, they were breaking the law. But really, is this the best use of law enforcement resources at a time when all we hear about is that we don't have enough cops on the street. They were not throwing a raging party and they were not drunk enough to warrant a drunk in public. Apparently the undercover cops were working their way from apartment complex to apartment complex checking ID's of anyone who was drinking. (As an aside, isn't this a form of profiling? I know you can't pull someone over simply for looking under 16, can you ask for someone's ID if they look under 21? Then again, since they answered when the officer asked, I suppose it voids that argument)

I normally would say that he got caught, pay the fine and move on. Looking online, however, it appears that in California, a minor in possession ticket leads to a mandatory license suspension of a year. That's a rough deal for having a few beers at your apartment.

Honestly, I have a feeling this crackdown is solely financially motivated. The 5 tickets could equal a fine of $1250. The cop told them that the ticket would only cost them between 50-100 dollars and that would be it. I realize that giving that answer makes it easier on the cop,  but really they should get their facts straight.

Ok, enough ranting for one night...

trishie - 2009-09-06 4:24 PM

1. You can pull someone over for looking under 16. What is a cop supposed to do if he sees a 12 yr old driving?  All a cop needs to stop a car is (1) a traffic infraction (speeding, running a light, etc), (2) equip violation (broken tailight, etc.), or (3) reasonable articuable suspicion that the driver is committing a crime. Someone who looks under 16 = RAS to stop, I think.

2. I'm a prosecutor in district court and we have A LOT of underage alc. citations (mainly from concerts).  We have a program called "Diversion" where the defendant participates in a 12 hour drug/ alc. education class and the case is dismissed.  ... and if someone completes an education program on their own before the trial date I'll nolle pros (dismiss) the charges... and then they can be expunged.  I would have your bro ask if there is a similar program in cali !

ADollar79 - 2009-09-06 4:17 PM

I think you live in a different world if you believe half that stuff you wrote.  Saying that you think the purpose was financially motivated suggests a conspiracy to make money or meet 'quota.'  Also, I can think of PLENTY of situations in college where a friend received an MIP and it DID act as a deterrent to drinking.  And in this case, where someone might lose his/her licenses for a year...I am certain some of those people will rethink the next time they want to BREAK the law. 

What are these issues between 'law enforcement and the younger generations.'  Last time I checked, all cops were 19 years old at some point in their lives.  I am sure they can empathize with the behavior.  Maybe the issue isn't between law enforcement and younger generations.  Maybe it is younger generations sense of entitlement and me, me, me attitude (subject for a different thread) that prevents them from relating with law enforcement.  The cop must be out to get them. 

To the rest of your post, I am fairly certain that in most states a cop CAN pull you over if you don't appear to be 16 years old.  They CAN ask for you id or information.   In the case of your story, the cop didn't take advantage of anyone.  They didn't have to answer and if at 19 they didn't know their rights...maybe they should NOT be drinking beer. 

ADollar79 - 2009-09-06 3:15 PM

This is the best line of the thread by far and so, regardless of whether the police should or shouldn't have asked the question....breaking the law is never a risk free endeavor....

uclamatt2007 - 2009-09-06 2:57 PM
I never said it was a conspiracy. I just don't think that it is the best use of police resources. If your goal is to prevent people from drinking and driving, why are you patrolling the apartment complex across the street from the stadium and not the parking lot full of people tailgating who drove to the game? You could argue that the goal is to reduce underage drinking, but to say that giving those tickets will have ANY effect is just naive. The more likely outcome is for the kids who were sitting by the pool at their apartment choosing to go back into and apartment and drinking where they will most likely end up binge drinking.

Young people are stuck in a catch 22. If you answer the officer's question, you are giving up your rights and incriminating yourself. If you don't answer the question, then you generally end up being harassed by the police. I think we can all agree that the best situation is everyone cooperating with the police, but in order for that to happen, the police need to respect your right.

Asking for the ID of anyone drinking at a college apartment complex, without a complaint having being made, is no different then pulling over every person of a certain race. You may catch some people breaking the law, but that doesn't make it ok.

uclamatt2007 - 2009-09-06 7:20 PM
I agree, he got caught and needs to pay the penalty. I don't argue with that. It doesn't mean that I have to agree with the method in which he got caught.