I’m quoting my binary friend because I think he’s hit directly on it here, so it’s important to read his post again. Depending on how the statute is written, it might not matter a bit if you were drinking or not. Depending on how the statute is written, simply you as a minor being in the presence of someone’s open beer may mean that you are guilty of underage drinking, even if you’ve been drinking only Shirley Temples all night. Remember, as a minor, your legal limit is 0.00 (I think that’s a pretty universal truth) - you don’t get the .08 or .1 that the rest of us do. Examine the statute and determine exactly what it says. Then you’ll know whether you’ve got any wiggle room at all.
I know I said I wouldn’t get into it because it is a whole nother topic but what the hell. (this is NJ YMMV FDIC insured) A cop cannot go in front of a judge and say “Your honor he was drunk because this little device in my pocket said so.” “Is it accurate?” “Of course your honor, the Bob’s breathalyzer company says so.” It doesn’t work that way. Right now law enforcement in New Jersey is going through the process of changing from our old breathalyzers to the newer Alcotest machine. The old ones were 1950s technology and most of the ones we had were built in the 50s and 60s. They don’t make them anymore. They were breaking down a lot and cases were being lost. The replacement parts cost more than new machines. They held off as long as possible because it is a pain in the ass to certify new technology through the court.
Once the state decided to change over to a new machine they set up a couple of towns with it. First they had to run tests on DWIs using both machines. After a few months of that they began using the new one only. Then other counties were given the new machines. Then everyone waited. We needed a case with a lawyer who was willing to put in the effort and a client with enough money to push it to challenge the new machine. State v. Chun is that case. It was sent up to the New Jersey Supreme Court. They set up a commision to determine the scientific accuracy of the instrument. Both sides presented expert witnesses and the commision had to slog through all their testimony.
It’s been going on for two years or so. No end in sight. Maybe by the end of the year.
Your simple solution is not so simple when you are dealing with the law.
If all you have to prove is consumption/possesion, not intoxication, there is no reason why the officer’s observations should not be enough.
This is how the statute is written:
This is the important part to the OP. Did the ticket say 2C:33-15 as the offense? Now that I think about it, I doubt that it did. You would have been arrested for it and brought in for processing. If it had something else like 5.9-34 or somesuch it was a township ordinance. Since you are talking about a shore town that has to deal with a ton of underage baffoonery they probably write the ordinance violation. That means they don’t have to haul in every 18 year old with a beer. If it is a township ordinance violation there will be a minor fine but nothing will be on your record, criminal or otherwise. A lawyer would cost a lot more than the ticket. Call up the court clerk and verify what you were charged with.
This is actually what I was thinking when I read AHunter3’s suggestions. All well and good, but what’s to stop the judge from flat-out asking you if you had been drinking? It’s not going to be a jury trial and he isn’t pleading the Fifth.
You could make the statement as you’ve phrased it above, but what if the judge then says “okay, but I’m asking you whether you were drinking, yes or no?”
Being in a room or a house with empty liquor bottles and smelling of alcohol is concrete evidence. The judge or the jury gets to weight that concrete evidence against your testimony that “It wasn’t me.”
Probably didn’t even have a building permit for the pyramid. Damn kids.
No, it’s not. Being in a house or hotel room is not possession and one must be caught drinking to to be charged with underaged drinking, not just smell of alcohol. You may reek of marijuana, but unless you have some on you or are currently smoking it, you can’t be charged with anything.
Also, NJ is one of 33 states that allows minors to drink when accompanied by their parents. He just may have been with his parents earlier and was sleeping it off.
Actually, it is concrete evidence. Whether it’s evidence that proves a particular crime depends on the statute in question and case law, among other things. I don’t know anything about the New Jersey law in question, so I can’t conclude that there is sufficient evidence for a conviction, but your statement that there is no concrete evidence is simply wrong.
You need to cite to particular laws to come to these conclusions.
You can’t exclude concrete evidence merely by proposing an alternative theory. If he wants to testify that he was drinking under supervision of his parents, the court will still get to consider the presence of the empties and the smell of alcohol.
Concrete evidence of what? Your claiming it’s concrete evidence of something and then go on to say you don’t know if it’s concrete evidence of a particular crime and know nothing of NJ law. That makes zero sense. If it’s concrete evidence of something other than the OP being guilty of what he was charged with, who cares?
No, I don’t. It’s common knowledge that smelling of marijuana is not enough to be charged with anything.
But you can can come to the conclusion of what is considered “concrete” evidence without citing anything, eh?
I’m not. I’m saying there is no concrete evidence to begin with.
You are pulling all this out your ass. Of course you can’t be charged with possesion of marijuana if you are not possesing it. However you can be charged with being under the influence of a controlled substance if you are in a state which has such a law. Most do. In New Jersey it is a subsection of the possesion statute. It is a disorderly person offense (misdemeanor). Just the smell of marijuana may not get a conviction under this law. Then again it might. Smell of alcohol coming from someone plus a pyramid of empties is enough evidence for an underage drinking conviction. Possesion or consumption has to be proved, not both. Having beer breath is enough evidence of consumption. You are starting to sound like those people who ask where the DNA evidence is in a case of mailbox baseball.
For smelling like marijuana? No.
No, it won’t.
I doubt it. He was in his room in a hotel room full of others drinking and possibly spilling alcohol.
Uh-huh.
Other Man: Come in.
Man: Is this the where I come for an argument?
Other Man:(pause) I’ve told you once.
Man: No you haven’t!
Other Man: Yes I have.
M: When?
O: Just now.
M: No, you didn’t!
O: Yes I did!
M: Didn’t!
O: Did!
M: Didn’t!
O: I’m telling you, I did!
M: You did NOT!
O: Oh I’m sorry, is this a five minute or the full half hour?
M: (Confused) (Pauses) Oh, Just the five minute one. (Closes door and sits down.)
O: Oh, a five. Thank you.
O: Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not!
O: Now let’s get one thing perfectly clear: I most definitely told you!
M: You did not.
O: Yes I did.
M: You did not.
O: Yes I did.
M: Didn’t!
O: Yes I did!
M: Didn’t!
O: Yes I did!
M: Look, this isn’t an argument!
O: Yes it is.
M: No it isn’t! It’s just contradiction!
O: No it isn’t!
M: Yes, it is!
O: It is NOT!
M: It IS! You just contradicted me!
O: No, I didn’t!
M: Oh, you DID!
O: oh, no, no, nonono!
M: You did just then!
O: No, no, nonsense!
M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!
O: No, it isn’t!
M: I came here for a good argument!
O: No, you didn’t. You came here for an argument!
M: Well, an argument is not the same thing as contradiction.
O: (Pauses) It CAN be!
M: No, it can’t! An argument is a connecting series of statements to establish a
proposition.
O: No, it isn’t!
M: Yes it is! 'tisn’t just contradiction.
O: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn’t just saying “No it isn’t”.
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn’t! (Pauses and looks away, slightly confused)
M: (Continuing) Arguments are an intellectual process. Contradiction is just an automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: (pause) No, it isn’t.
M: Yes, it is!
O: Not at all!
M: Now look…
In the part I underlined, are you saying you cannot be charged with possession when you are in a hotel room where contraband is found in a place other than on your person? Say, if you reek of marijuana and marijuana is found under the table in the next room, you can’t be charged?
Well he would be wrong. It would fall under constructive possession.
Are you going to respond to my questions? :
Concrete evidence of what? Your claiming it’s concrete evidence of something and then go on to say you don’t know if it’s concrete evidence of a particular crime and know nothing of NJ law. That makes zero sense. If it’s concrete evidence of something other than the OP being guilty of what he was charged with, who cares?
Now now, no hints! 
sorry won’t happen again. Too late to edit 
Any cop can charge you with anything. If you’re at a party where there are plenty of kids in attendance and there is marijuana under a table, I’m doubting everyone getting charged with possession are charges that will stick.
You have me confused with acsenray. You haven’t asked me any questions.
I see, you feel better when you get support from others. Goody for you. I see you’d rather express joy at that than answer my questions.