Alcohol & Drugs: MIP, MIC, Intoxication Cited For MIC, But Wasn't There?

[MouseToe]

A party got busted in my hometown and several people were all given MIC's, and that's how it was written on their ticket. The officer that was there said he saw me (he knows who I am....small town) holding a beer and then run from him. I get into town 3 days later from vacation to find the police have been looking for me. I call them and they tell me to go to the police station, so I did. When I got there, the officer gave me a citaton that he had wrote up 3 days ago for an MIC but needed my signature. I signed it then took off. I was a little mad but just took it and left.

I have court next month and was wondering if I should even bother putting up a defence....even though I am innocent how can I prove anything? It's my word against his. Even if that had been me there with the beer in my hand and I had ran away and didn't get caught until 3 days later, why did they give me an MIC and not an MIP. Is there really a difference, because there is no way he could have known that I had consumed any alcohol what-so-ever with just 'seeing' it in my hand? Then again, how would he prove that was a beer in my hand?

 

[mightymoose]

If you were not even in town then that should be very easy for you to prove. Bring evidence that you were not even in town and could not have possibly been the one that the officer saw and you can easily beat it.
If you can't provide that, then the questions you raise here are legitimate ones to ask in court. How does he know for certain it was you? What clothes did he see you wearing? What did he say to you? What did he see you holding? Did he see you drink it? Did the person who ran take the drink with them? How did he verify what it was?

Lots of dumb little questions like that will make this go away because he won't remember a bit of it. It is extremely petty, and if nothing else, issuing the citation three days later seems like enough of a reason to toss it.