Rcw 66.44.270(2)(a) makes it illegal for a person under 21 to possess or consume alcohol. This criminal fee is ordinarily referred to as Minor in rights or Mip. Conviction for Mip can lead to jail time, loss of driver's license and condition fines. Law enforcement often makes the mistake of thinking that this law allows them to arrest and fee a minor if the minor is exhibiting the signs of having consumed alcohol. As we will see, this turns out to be incorrect.
Mere nearnessy of alcohol in one's principles is insufficient to prove Mip
The Court in State v. Roth, 131 Wn. App. 556 (2006) dealt with the issue of either evidence that a minor exhibited the signs of having consumed alcohol was adequate to sustain a conviction under Rcw 66.44.270(2). In Roth, the 20 year old Defendant went to a party where alcohol was present. No one saw the Defendant consume any alcohol, yet when police contacted Mr. Roth they noticed that he was swaying and exuding a strong odor of alcohol advent from his breath so they issued a label for Mip. Mr. Roth was subsequently convicted of Mip in municipal court.
Attorney Washington
On appeal, the Roth Court reversed the Defendant's conviction on the basis of insufficient evidence. Agreeing to the Roth Court:
A defendant possesses a controlled substance when he knows of the substance's presence, the substance is immediately accessible, and the defendant exercises dominion and control over the substance. State v. Hornaday, 105 Wn.2d 120, 125, 713 P.2d 71 (1986). rights may be either constructive or actual. State v. Dalton, 72 Wn. App. 674, 676, 865 P.2d 575 (1994). either the defendant had rights of a substance is to be considered by the trier of fact by the totality of the circumstances. State v. Partin, 88 Wn.2d 899, 906, 567 P.2d 1136 (1977). Mere nearnessy of alcohol in one's principles is not adequate on its own to sustain a conviction. Dalton, 72 Wn. App. At 676. However, if evidence of prior consumption is combined with other corroborating evidence, this may be adequate to prove rights beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. No single factor is determinative of the existence of dominion and control. State v. Turner, 103 Wn. App. 515, 521, 13 P.3d 234 (2000). Emphasis Added.
This means that a minor charged under Mip should be able to get the case thrown out of court before trial, unless there is further evidence to prove possession. If you find yourself or a loved one charged with Mip based only on the odor of alcohol, you should talk with an attorney right away about getting the case dismissed.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น