So, the darling community of Naperville has passed a law making it a crime for someone under 21 to be in the company of someone under 21 who has consumed alcohol. Even if they are just picking them up to get them home safely. They have recently asked the police not to make arrests of 19 and 20 year olds under this law.
This seems idiotic. It removes at least some incentive for some teens not to drink. Does anyone think this is a good law?
Not in the least. If I’m 17 or 18 and one of my friends has been drinking, I’m going to hope they call me up and ask me to drive them home because it’s safer for them than driving drunk. Now, if I know that I can be arrested and charged for being near them, what incentive do I have to help them not drive drunk?
So they aren’t supposed to be drinking. BFD. I sincerely doubt that not having a sober ride home will stop any teenager with a mind to get a buzz from actually doing so.
I’m sure there’s more to it than that. Do you have a link to the actual ordinance so we can see what the actual law is?
If a kid shows up to the prom drunk, can they arrest the entire class?
Let us read the wording of the law before we can comment on your legal interpretation of it.
Yes, they can. Under the statute, persons under the age of 21 are obliged to vacate the premises in the event that they come to have knowledge (or would have had knowledge had they exercised reasonable care) of another person under the age of 21 who is possessing or consuming alcohol in the same place.
Sure.
For more, go to 3-3-22-3 here. The only exception is for the consumption of alcohol in a private home under one’s parent’s supervision in the course of a religious ritual.
lee and I did both read and discuss this ordinance before she posted.
Sounds like a law written by a proponent of the “kill them all and let God sort them out” school of law enforcement. With this law, the police can arrest and charge everone under the age of 21 if they find underage drinking of alcohol during a raid on a party. It eliminates the need to present any evidence that the individual was engaged in underage drinking.
I’m not a lawyer, but the idea of making it a crime to be in the same location as someone who is breaking the law is very suspect. I hope someone challenges the constitutionality of the law.
What’s next, criminal charges against the customers who happen to be in the bank while the robbers are there?
I can understand the potential implications of this law, and don’t particularly think it is a good idea. Using common sense though, it sounds like a law passed to make it easier for police to break up underage parties. They can now threaten to arrest someone if the party doesn’t break up and the kids don’t mosey along. I would be interested in knowing what the impetus for the law was.
This is absolutely absurd.
Say we’ve got a family with two kids, one 18 years old, the other 6. The 6 year old is a good kid, doesn’t indulge in any legal activity, while the 18 year old may be home for the summer from college.
The parents take a weekend vacation, leaving the 18 year old in charge of the house. While mom and dad are gone, the 18 year old gets some alcohol and quietly consumes it at home.
Do you mean to tell me that the law requires the 6 year old to leave the house and spend the entire weekend on the street?
This is absolutely absurd.
Homer, while guarding the Springfield Museum: Well, Mr. Cat Burglar, you’d like to get in here, wouldn’t you? There’s just one little problem: 36 years ago, some lady gave birth to a man named Homer J. Simp – ohmigod: underage kids drinking beer without a permit!
Except the police already can do this without the new law. There are plenty of legal threats the police can make to break up parties, including “Everyone get the hell out of here or we’ll arrest anyone who is underage and drinking,” threats related to ticketing people for noise ordinances, disturbing the peace, providing alcohol to minors, etc. Any party that is rowdy enough that someone calls the police will have at least one thing and usually many things going on that can be used by the police to break up the party, ticket people, or arrest people. If none of these things are going on then the police probably shouldn’t have been called in the first place.
Besides, why should the police be allowed to break up underage parties? For instance, if someone that is underage shows up drunk to a party where there is no alcohol, why should there be a law aimed at allowing the police to break up the party?
(emphasis mine)
It’s not that you can’t be around people who are DRUNK, it’s that you can’t be around people who are DRINKING.
And while it’s my own opinion that this is absurd, it’s slightly less absurd than what the posters to date are screaming about, and I can actually see where a more carefully-worded statute might have a positive effect.
And, Cabbage, you should read the text of the statute, especially the part where it says that the home is exempted from the statute. With the following restriction:
And this is the part about the law that I think is the most important and, at the same time, the most questionable.
What this says is, basically, that it is illegal for parents to let their kids have drinking parties under their supervision, or for them to “go out of town and let little Jimmy have his friends over wink-wink-nudge-nudge.”
Personally, if kids are going to drink, I’d prefer that it be at home with the keys confiscated. That’s what we did when we were kids. Now the city is trying to eliminate house parties as a safe outlet, probably because of incidents like this one.
Nobody’s going to throw a six-year-old out of the house, people. Nobody’s going to arrest the whole entire prom, either. There are no provisions for either of those in the law as it is written. It is not a violation of this law to drive your drunk buddy home, nor is it a violation to hang out with your drunk buddy.
Let’s focus on the freedoms the law actually does restrict, because those are frightening enough, and it’s easy to be dimsissed by its proponents as a lawless lunatic if you don’t put together a compelling argument against the law because you couldn’t read it properly.
Stupid me with the coding lapse.
http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/9269/
The law is designed to prevent standoffs like this one.
I’m for it. This would not affect anyone driving home a drunk friend or shut down any proms. It’s obvious intent is to stop kids from going to parties and keggers if if they aren’t going to drink. And why not? They would be in the presence of illegal activity, would they not? If the party gets busted, why should they get a pass? We already have laws like this for other illegal activities. If you’re in a room where crack is being sold and smoked it doesn’t matter if you personally aren’t selling or smoking. If the crackhouse gets raided, you’re going to the pokey with everyone else. If you’re at an illegal dice game but you’re not personally shooting, too bad. You’re still going in the wagon with everyone else.
Bottom line, if a minor is in the presence of criminal activity, does not leave and does not report it, I say throw them in the can for a night. Put the fear of God in the little bastards.
I think underage drinking is a real problem. I don’t think it should be winked at or accepted as a right of passage. I don’t think it’s cool, I don’t think it’s funny and I don’t think it’s trivial, especially when these little delinquents start driving around on the same streets as me and my family.
(Yes, I drank when I was a teenager. It wasn’t ilegal in the country I was living in and I never drove but I was still stupid and I was still an obnoxious little asshole and it was good for me when I got busted with weed and valium in my pocket. It sorted me out some, and it taught me not to try to fight it out with three cops).
I don’t really see how that addresses my objection. Let’s say the six year old does know and permit the 18 year old to drink. The point still seems to stand, as far as I can tell.
And I don’t read it as saying anything about parents at all. Everyone one referred to is a “person of nonage”–How can you conclude this says anything about parents?
And while I understand that no one would seriously prosecute a 6 year old in this situation, what bothers me is not how the law is to be enforced, I’m bothered by how the law is written.
And for what it’s worth, I’m not a lawyer and have never studied law. But that certainly seems to be what the law is saying. I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
Diogenes, kindly turn in your liberal card.
Sua
It reads to me that if you let your 18 yo have a glass of wine with dinner, then all of your other kids under 21 could be arrested. Wow.
And having just said I was not interested in how it’s enforced, but how it’s written, let’s still take it a step further:
Suppose this 6 year old kid has been taught by the DARE officers at his local school that he should never allow himself to be around underage drinking because to do so is illegal.
Now the weekend in question comes around, his big brother starts drinking. The kid begs his brother to stop–He’s uncomfortable about being around drinking and therefore breaking the law. His brother refuses to stop, so the kid sneaks out of the house, to “clear” himself.
Now you and I know he wasn’t in danger of being prosecuted–but the kid didn’t know that–that’s why he snuck out.
While he’s out, he’s kidnapped or murdered.
The parents come home and are understandably furious. They feel the city is somewhat responsible–after all, the kid did the right thing by law as he understood it.
The parents sue the city.
Does the city bear some responsibility?
(I’m not claiming the city would or would not bear some responsibility. What I’m really claiming is that such a situation could be avoided in the first place by not having such an asinine law).
Cabbage, the provision for incidents at the place of residence indicates that it applies if the nondrinking minor permits the drinking. Since the 6-y/o is in no position to permit anything, he’s clear. OTOH, if a 19 y.o., left in charge while the parents are away, allows his 16 y.o. sister to drink up with the other girls, he’s in trouble.
However, this does seem to be part of an extension of a practice that seems to me rather stupid, of making it unlawful to allow your own children to drink in your home.
I think it’s flat out fucking absurd that we can expect to try a 13 year old as an adult for a crime, but we have to throw the book at anyone under 21 who has a drink. It seems your real problem is with drunk drivers who, no matter what their age, are already criminals.
Setting the drinking age at 21 when for all other matters, a person reaches the age of majority at 18 and can be considered an adult in criminal court far, far younger than that is asinine.
Nope. A person who is drunk is considered to be in “possession” of alcohol, by virtue of having it in his or her bloodstream (“possession by consumption”). Therefore, it is illegal for a person under the age of 21 to be in the presence of another person under the age of 21 who is drunk.