Legal Q. Breathalyzing

"JalopJeep" (JalopJeep)
09/13/2014 at 18:52 • Filed to: None

I'm 23 and am obviously legal to drink, however cops have been raiding bars Gestapo style in my college town and breathalyzing every single kid with a non-21 wrist band and arresting/ticketing them for underage drinking. Don't patronize me with "well they are breaking the law and should be in trouble" garbage because that's not what I am asking. I am simply asking if you must comply with the breathalyzer test even though driving is not involved whatsoever. This is in Georgia. The entire town feels like they're living under Nazi rule and I just want to see if this is legal. Thanks, ya'll!

DISCUSSION (22)

Coty > JalopJeep
09/13/2014 at 18:54

LETHO!

JalopJeep > Coty
09/13/2014 at 18:56

sorry, I don't follow

Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura > JalopJeep
09/13/2014 at 18:56

Steve Letho, Oppo's resident lawyer.

JalopJeep > Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura
09/13/2014 at 18:57

Ah, makes sense now LOL, thanks!

Chris Clarke > JalopJeep
09/13/2014 at 18:59

You never had to submit to a breathalyzer test. They might still issue a ticket, or try to take you downtown, but without a warrant, they cannot force you to take one, and without the test they have no evidence against you.

JalopJeep > Chris Clarke
09/13/2014 at 19:00

Thanks for the reply, I'm just wondering if perhaps they use the fact that you're in a bar as probable cause that you've most likely been drinking.

thebigbossyboss > Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura
09/13/2014 at 19:02

Except that he deals in consumer law. Not underage drinking so he probably has no idea.

Axel-Ripper > JalopJeep
09/13/2014 at 19:04

Legally I don't think they could be required to, unless there is some sort of thing in your state/town about being able to search with reasonable suspicion or something which wouldn't surprise me. Chances are if they refused they'd get kicked out because the bar owner wouldn't question the police that far and its their asses on the line moreso than the kids (a MIP is a far lesser charge than supplying alcohol to a minor).

This is my guess anyways. I don't know what the consequences of refusing are, but you usually can refuse anything. If you refuse brethalyzer while driving though it is usually an immediate 6 month license suspension for example.

Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura > thebigbossyboss
09/13/2014 at 19:05

MOTHERFU-

JalopJeep > Axel-Ripper
09/13/2014 at 19:07

Awesome, thanks for the reply.

Drakkon- Most Glorious and Upright Person of Genius > JalopJeep
09/13/2014 at 19:12

Well the bar owner should be scared shitless if people are being hauled out of his bar for underage drinking.

That being said, just being in the location where a crime may be committed is not probable-cause (in most places). This ranks up with searching your car along during a stop just because they ask in a friendly, familar way,

'Mind if I take a look in the car and in the trunk?'

'No thanks. I'll keep my constitutional rights intact, but thanks for being concerned for my safety.'

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Drakkon- Most Glorious and Upright Person of Genius
09/13/2014 at 19:24

Not necessarily, he can't really control the 21 and over people buying alcohol and giving it to underage people, if he doesn't see them do it.

jariten1781 > JalopJeep
09/13/2014 at 19:30

It's a grey area. Does he have reasonable suspicion? Probably if he says he smells alcohol on their breath, observes bloodshot eyes/slurred speech/poor coordination, or sees people attempting to shuffle the drinks around. That gives him enough to investigate and detain. If you refuse the breathalyzer he can take you into custody while he gets a warrant...so choose your poison; MIP on the spot or a trip to the station with a pissed off cop.

Local courts will side with the police. Would these stings stand up if appealed to a high court? Maybe not, but the CBA isn't in an individual's favor. Who on earth can afford counsel for multiple appeals on an MIP charge especially one where it's not a slam dunk.

Chris Clarke > JalopJeep
09/13/2014 at 19:48

Anyone can refuse the test, but anyone who refuses the test may be assumed to be guilty under "implied consent" laws. Depending on the level of offense, you might receive a citation or worse booked. The good side is that they will have very little evidence to convict you. I'd always refuse if it was me and deal with it in court.

kanadanmajava1 > Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura
09/13/2014 at 19:51

It's Lehto not Letho. Lehto is pretty common Finnish surname.

But JJ Lehto (former F1, DTM and Le Mans driver) is not named Lehto as his real name is Jyrki Järvilehto.

Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura > kanadanmajava1
09/13/2014 at 20:14

Whoops, my mistake.

Also, I am not talking about some driver.

Drakkon- Most Glorious and Upright Person of Genius > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies
09/13/2014 at 20:20

the law doesn't see the difference on this issue. Bars in college towns tried this defense for years. Not anymore. ..

ejp > jariten1781
09/13/2014 at 20:26

I've heard of similar stories (police using breathalyzers at bars and arresting people for public intox). In that case, all citations were dismissed because the breathalyzer was only tested in court for dui/dwi laws, and these limits did not apply to public intoxication. I suspect that there is likely a similar deal with underage drinking. This sounds like a reach by police, at best.

jariten1781 > ejp
09/13/2014 at 22:03

Public intox is different than MIP. Minors are allowed to have no alcohol in their system whereas legal adults are. It's a much larger burden of proof for adult public intox, which in most jurisdictions has a disorderly component, than for minors.

I do agree the cops are overreaching, however this is pretty standard operating in a college town.

kanadanmajava1 > Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura
09/15/2014 at 03:45

Yeah, I know Steve but usually JJ is the most known "Lehto".

Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura > kanadanmajava1
09/15/2014 at 13:59

Again, I don't know him, so please don't assume you think I do.

kanadanmajava1 > Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura
09/16/2014 at 06:52

I did realize it but I was just explaining why I brought the other guy up.

I don't much about this Steve but I do know that he is a lawyer. And that he occasionally writes here.