I would like to fight this fine. Advice appreciated.

[Silk_One]

Never mind, I do have you confused with someone else.

[Loach]

@Silk One

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?

You don’t get some of the concepts. The law states you can not be in possession of or consume alcohol if you are under age. All that is needed is probable cause to get charged with the crime. The empties and the observations of the officer are more than enough probable cause.

You are offering possible defenses. A possible defense does not negate probable cause. Saying “It wasn’t me” or “it was spilled on me” does not negate probable cause. It does not negate constructive possession. It may be enough to keep it from being proved beyond a reasonable doubt but that is for the judge to decide.

[Loach]

@Silk One

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.

Then you keep proving that you are unaware of or misunderstand basic principles of law.

[pravnik]

@Silk One

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.

Nope. The cops can arrest everyone present with possession of marijuana, and the charges will stick. The guy walking out of the bedroom reeking of marijuana can be charged with possession just the same as the guy standing next to the table. If there’s a half empty keg in a hotel room full of minors, guess who possesses it? Everyone!

[Silk_One]

@Loach

You don’t get some of the concepts. The law states you can not be in possession of or consume alcohol if you are under age. All that is needed is probable cause to get charged with the crime. The empties and the observations of the officer are more than enough probable cause.

I don’t agree that there was probable cause in this case. Being in attendance at a party with alcohol does not make it probable that everyone was drinking. The officer never observed him with alcohol according to the OP. Of course he can be charged. I think a reasonable judge would throw it out based on lack of probable cause to be issued a summons.

[pravnik]

@Silk One

I see, you feel better when you get support from others. Goody for you.

The flip side of the coin is that the cop and the lawyer agree on what the law is.

[Loach]

@pravnik

The flip side of the coin is that the cop and the lawyer agree on what the law is.

Shit, you’re a lawyer? I feel dirty.

[Acsenray]

@Silk One

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?

If the charge is illegal consumption or possession, then the presence of empties and the stink of alcohol is plenty of concrete evidence for conviction. If you think that you have to be caught red-handed with the goods in your grasp, you’re mistaken. Go back and read the article Samclem linked to.

[Acsenray]

@Loach

A possible defense does not negate probable cause. Saying “It wasn’t me” or “it was spilled on me” does not negate probable cause. It does not negate constructive possession. It may be enough to keep it from being proved beyond a reasonable doubt but that is for the judge to decide.

Probable cause is relevant to justifying a warrantless search. It is not relevant to proving the crime. In order to prove a crime, you have to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Acsenray]

@Silk One

I don’t agree that there was probable cause in this case. Being in attendance at a party with alcohol does not make it probable that everyone was drinking. The officer never observed him with alcohol according to the OP. Of course he can be charged. I think a reasonable judge would throw it out based on lack of probable cause to be issued a summons.

And on what do you base these conclusions? What is the source of your legal expertise?

[Loach]

@acsenray

Probable cause is relevant to justifying a warrantless search. It is not relevant to proving the crime. In order to prove a crime, you have to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Probable cause is more than that. Probable cause is what is needed to charge with a crime. To prove a crime you have to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes what you have as PC is all you need to prove your case. Sometimes you need more. When I ask a judge to approve an arrest warrant he asks for the PC. He doesn’t ask me to try the case over the phone. Even for indictable crimes the grand jury finds if there is enough probable cause for the case to go forward with the charges that were filed. Reasonable doubt does not enter into it until trial.

Having excuses or a good defense does not negate any of that, it just means the judge may believe you and find you not guilty. Or he may not.

[Gary_Robson]

@Yag Rannavach

Maybe you wouldn’t be, but if I say I’m drinking until 3am it means I had 1-2 drinks per hour up until then (and closer to 1 than 2). I’m fairly sure that I’d be sober in 4 hours.

As I think you noticed upthread, it depends on your definition of “sober.” If you’re under 21 and tested for alcohol, 0% BAC is the only definition that matters, and you won’t achieve that by 7:00am if you’ve been drinking until 3:00am.

[Who_me_1]

@Silk One

I don’t agree that there was probable cause in this case. Being in attendance at a party with alcohol does not make it probable that everyone was drinking. The officer never observed him with alcohol according to the OP. Of course he can be charged. I think a reasonable judge would throw it out based on lack of probable cause to be issued a summons.

You do realize that you’re arguing with a lawyer and a New Jersey police officer… don’t you? I’d take the safe bet and say that they do know what they’re talking about.

[Bricker]

@Silk One

I don’t agree that there was probable cause in this case. Being in attendance at a party with alcohol does not make it probable that everyone was drinking. The officer never observed him with alcohol according to the OP. Of course he can be charged. I think a reasonable judge would throw it out based on lack of probable cause to be issued a summons.

The circumstances described by the OP would constitute probable cause in my jurisdiction.

I’m a lawyer and former public defender.

[Rick]

Does anybody else get the feeling that Silk One is in for a very rude shock about how the real world works if they ever wind up in the justice system?

[Boyo_Jim]

@Vinyl Turnip

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?”

Tell the truth, or take the fifth.

Be prepared to pay the fine.

[DrDeth]

Here’s the point- is the citation for a crime, that is to say a Misdemeanor or is it “just” a code violation like a speeding or parking ticket? That depends heavily on your juristiction.

Which is it in the OP’s juristiction?

[Loach]

@DrDeth

Here’s the point- is the citation for a crime, that is to say a Misdemeanor or is it “just” a code violation like a speeding or parking ticket? That depends heavily on your juristiction.

Which is it in the OP’s juristiction?

I PMd the OP to clarify. He has to look at his ticket to be sure. The possibilities are not exactly as you laid out. He could have been issued a summons for 2c:33-15. It is a violation of the New Jersey criminal code (Title 2C). It is graded as a disorderly person offense (NJ does not use the term misdemeanor). It carries a fine of not less than $500 and possible loss of license. A conviction would go on his criminal record.

The other possibility is he was cited for a township ordinance violation. It may possibly mirror the state law or may have other provisions which make his guilt more likely. Conviction would carry a minor fine but no permenant record and they couldn’t touch his license. There is a ceiling on how much a township can fine but I can’t recall what it is right now.

From reading the OP I think he was given a township ordinance violation. For the 2C violation you can’t just write a ticket. The complaint has to go through the state complaint system and be printed out that way. All 2C violations are done this way, from murder down to disorderly conduct. A physical arrest would have to be made and the OP would have been hauled in a processed (photo, no prints) before being released on a summons complaint.

The jurisdiction is a Jersey shore town. Those guys have to deal with this everyday, all day. If they arrested every underage drinker they would never be on the road. It seems much more likely they were given a ticket for an ordinace violation. That makes it a lot more likely that getting a lawyer and fighting it would be much more expensive than the punishment. Especially considering that fact that he is guilty, which might lower the chances for winning the case.

[Gary_Robson]

Did I read that right? “Possible loss of license” in a case that didn’t involve a vehicle at all?

[Loach]

@InvisibleWombat

Did I read that right? “Possible loss of license” in a case that didn’t involve a vehicle at all?

You know what? The way I read the statute it says that you can lose your license if the possesion/consumption was in a car. Thats how I read it. How it has been interpreted over the years might be something else. I don’t know the answer to that. I am not familiar with the ins and outs of sentencing guidelines since I will never be involved in that. Quite frankly this statute rarely comes up for me at all. Most times there would be the ceremonial pouring out of the drinks and a resounding “cut that shit out”. Depends on the situation. Shore cops have a much different job than I do and deal with different problems.