Depends on the state.
In Wisconsin all involved could be cited. Establishments cannot allow carry ins, underage possession/consumption for your nephews, and you supplied intoxicating beverages to minors not your children or spouse.
I figured I could have been cited, and my nephews as well. In PA, BYOB is pretty common in restaurants that do not have a liquor license. It was a funny situation that the nephews (now in their 30s) still talk about.
PA has always had some odd liquor laws, but that one has always confused me. So, the state does not believe for whatever reason that restaurant X can be entrusted to sell booze to their customers, or probably more accurately, it wants to control the amount of alcohol sellers in the community either to ensure limited distribution points for safety, or even more cynically to protect the politically connected by giving out liquor licenses as favors.
Yet at the same time, the state allows alcohol to be brought into these establishments where the patrons could be drunk in public or serving booze to minors without any oversight. Even if the restaurant provided oversight and was held responsible to these violations, I can find little difference from a public safety perspective between buying booze at the liquor store and then drinking it at the restaurant, or both buying and drinking booze at the restaurant.
They did something similar in WV for a short time in the early 90s WRT strip clubs. You could not sell alcohol in a strip club, but patrons could BYOB. If the idea is that we don’t want booze and nude dancing in the same place because guys get all rapey and touchy-feely, then this policy did nothing to solve the problem (and as such was very short lived).
In some states it is legal for kids to have a drink under parental control.
That doesn’t extend to Aunt and Uncle, though. Or grandparents for that matter. Last summer I cited an old bag at a street festival for buying her 13 year old granddaughter a 24 ounce can of Four Loko 14%.
ETA: The girl got cited as well. She barely weighed over a buck! Had she slammed that down it could have done major harm! Mom and dad were not happy with her or granny when they showed up to pick their daughter up at the station.
Some Canadian province allow a minor to consume alcohol and even be served in a restaurant provided it is with a meal, and under supervision of parent, guardian, or spouse. But then, most provinces allow drinking at age 18 or 19.
I guess the question is, does guardian mean the person supervising them at the time in loco parentis, or only the official guardian/parent?
In my state it means a legal guardian. Just being with an adult doesn’t count.
I thought that those states that did allow it only permitted it in private, say at Christmas or a dinner gathering, not in public.
Indeed, such a thing would seem to cost a state federal highway money if it allowed it:
(emphasis added).
Here in Wisconsin it is legal, by statute for people under 21 to drink:
**(b) Except as provided in par. (bm), any underage person not accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or spouse who has attained the legal drinking age who knowingly possesses or consumes alcohol beverages is guilty of a violation.
**
And this includes in public. We have never had a problem with our highway funds.
In the northern part of the state it is somewhat common to see teens in bars drinking with their parents. The law, of course, does not require bartenders to serve them if they don’t want to.
Meant to also post:
Despite its name, this act did not outlaw the consumption of alcoholic beverages by those under 21 years of age, just its purchase.
Bully for WI! I mean that. I’m just not sure how that complies with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. I won’t be pursuing a case against you, I’m just wondering why nobody else has done so. Maybe the idea that good enough is good enough?
Wisconsin complies just fine. The act says the states forfeit some funding if they do not ban X and Wisconsin essentially said, “Okay. Here’s your cut. Now get offa my snow-covered lawn.”
:dubious:
But you also said that the state law says:
Sounds as though the state law explicitly outlaws not only consumption, but mere possession as well.
Of course, the exception carved out by the law, but does that apply to 18-20 year olds with their parents? The person with them is not their legal guardian anymore.
That says they are guilty of a violation.
How about retrieving the ID from the clerk or barman through use of force? It’s my stuff, assuming I won’t fight to keep it is unreasonable to me.
That’s called assault. If you aren’t in danger it is unreasonable for you to resort to force when you could simple call the police.
That’s called refusing to be a victim. Rarely would I ever voluntarily call the police.
An American friend of mine back in Bangkok tried to enter Vietnam to visit a friend of his who was teaching English there. Immigration at the airport told him his US passport was fake and would not admit him to the country. Said he had to fly back to Bangkok the next morning and not leave the airport until then. They did let him meet with his friend, but that’s as far as it went. So he did fly back the next morning, reentering Thailand on what was his very real US passport. He said the official wasn’t even stern or angry or anything, just sort of matter-of-fact about it. “No, sorry, the passport is fake, you gotta go back,” the way he might be telling someone the weather forecast.
We all thought this was odd. He himself was something of an oddball, and there’s always been a question of what he might be leaving out of the story. I myself have had no problems with my passport in Vietnam.
For good measure:
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure - CRIM P Art. 18.16 Art. 18.16. [325] [376] [364] Preventing consequences of theft
Any person has a right to prevent the consequences of theft by seizing any personal property that has been stolen and bringing it, with the person suspected of committing the theft, if that person can be taken, before a magistrate for examination, or delivering the property and the person suspected of committing the theft to a peace officer for that purpose. To justify a seizure under this article, there must be reasonable ground to believe the property is stolen, and the seizure must be openly made and the proceedings had without delay.
The right to seize both the property AND the thief.
wow. no wonder everyone in Texas carries a gun (seems like)! It is legal to seize any person whom you have reasonable (in your mind) belief to be a thief and hold him long enough to present him to a magistrate. Sounds like a situation which is ripe for a) abuse and b) a shooting-probably both.