Alcohol & Drugs: MIP, MIC, Intoxication Need clarification for California Code 25662 B & P

[Horsehappy2]

My son was driving my car with his friends in the car. They stopped, parked, removed the key and were visiting when one of the girls pulled out a bottle of vodka in her purse. Some of the kids took a swig, but NOT my son who was the DD. The bottle was being held by a girl who was standing outside the vehicle. The cops roared up in a car and the girl threw the bottle into a purse inside the vehicle. The cops heard the clink and asked if they had alcohol. They admitted they did and then gave the officers a 5th of vodka 2/3 full and an unopened 5th of Captain Morgan. The cops poured out the open bottle and confiscated the other. Then they handcuffed both the girl who owned the purse (not the one who was outside and threw the bottle inside) and my son who said he was the driver of his parents vehicle. My son had no idea they had alcohol until it was being passed around outside the car. The cops then cuffed another of the girls (who dared to ask a question) and began verbally barrading all the kids. Eventually they released all the cuffs and issued a ticket to the girl who owned the purse and my son for 25662 B&P. How can both of them be in possession? Is there any defense? This is a good bunch of kids no priors, good grades in school and college bound or enrolled. Could this cause my 17 year old to loose his license?

 

[CdwJava]

Possession is a crime of dominion and control and not one of ownership or consumption. Anyone that could have exercised control over the bottle can be charged.

So, if his friends are willing to go to court and admit that they blindsided your friend with the booze and he knew nothing about it until seconds earlier, the court might find in his favor. However, as the father of teenagers myself, as a male adult who once was a teenager (a long time ago), and as a police officer who hears lies on this subject every day, I DO hope you are open to the possibility that your son is selling you a line about his not knowing the alcohol was present and/or for how long they had been passing it around.

And, yes, pursuant to CVC 13202.5 his license SHALL be suspended for a period of one year if convicted. However, after the suspension the court may allow him to petition for a restricted license if he can show a "critical need to drive."

As for the offense itself, its is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $250, he can be required to perform between 24 and 32 hours of community service during hours when not employed attending school.

 

[Horsehappy2]

I know how it sounds, but in this case he was actually hired to drive the girls to a birthday dinner and show. I believe the girls would go and testify to this but will they then all be charged? If the one girl who was also charged speaks up is that enough? I'm still wondering why he was charged when he did not have the bottle in his possession. It was only thrown into the vehicle when the cops showed up and they knew that because they asked the girl what did you just throw? I can't afford an attorney but this good Honor student will get kicked off the baseball team if he is convicted.
The girl who was convicted doesn't have a drivers license, will it effect her ability to get one?

 

[Horsehappy2]

Why would cvc 13202.5 apply? He was cited for 25662 B&P minor in possession, not anything to do with the vehicle.

 

[CdwJava]

Why would cvc 13202.5 apply? He was cited for 25662 B&P minor in possession, not anything to do with the vehicle.

13202.5 is the Vehicle Code section that mandates a license suspension for possession of alcohol per BP 25662.

 

[Horsehappy2]

In my quest for answers I've spoken to a number of people who have gotten tickets for MIP and they have not lost their licenses. If it's mandatory, seems like they would have. IF the ticket doesn't specifically cite 13202.5 is it left to judicial discretion?

 

[CdwJava]

In my quest for answers I've spoken to a number of people who have gotten tickets for MIP and they have not lost their licenses. If it's mandatory, seems like they would have. IF the ticket doesn't specifically cite 13202.5 is it left to judicial discretion?

13202.5 says the court "shall" suspend the license - it is not an option or discretionary. Why it is not happening with people you know, I cannot say with certainty. I suspect they were allowed to take diversion and a conviction thus never occurred.