RCW 66.44.270 (2) (a) it is illegal to possess for a person under 21 years of age or consume alcohol. The complaint shall be generally as a child in the possession or MIP called. Conviction for MIP may jail time, resulting in a loss of driving licenses and health fines. Law enforcement often makes the mistake of thinking, that this law arrest them and charge a minor if the minor characters of the issuing can be consumed with alcohol. As we shall see, makes this to be false.
Mere presence ofAlcohol in the system is not sufficient to prove MIP
The court in State v. Roth, 131 Wn. App. 556 (2006) addressed the question whether evidence that a minor symptoms, which was sufficient to alcohol consumption, a conviction under RCW 66.44.270 issued (2) support. In Roth, the 20-year-old defendant went to a party where alcohol was present. No one saw the defendant is not drinking alcohol, but when she contacted the police Mr. Roth noted that he wavering and exuding a strong odor ofAlcohol from his breath, they gave a ticket for MIP. Mr. Roth was subsequently sentenced by MIP in the district court.
On appeal, the Court annulled the accused Roth conviction on the basis of insufficient evidence. According to the case of Roth:
A defendant possesses a controlled substance when he knows of the presence of the substance, the substance is immediately accessible, and the defendant exercises dominion and control over the substance. State v. Hornaday, 105 Wn.2d120, 125, 713 P.2d 71 (1986). Possession can be either constructive or actual. State v. Dalton, 72 Wn. App. 674, 676, 865 P.2d 575 (1994). Whether the defendant the possession of a substance, the trier of fact is determined by the totality of the circumstances. State v. Partin, 88 899 Wn.2d, 906, 567 1136 (1977) P.2d. Mere presence of alcohol in their system is not enough support on its own to a conviction. Dalton, 72 Wn. App. at 676th However, if evidence of prior consumptionin combination with other matching evidence, this may be sufficient to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt. Id No single factor alone is decisive for the existence of dominance and control. State v. Turner, 103 Wn. App. 515, 521 P.3d 13 234 (2000). Emphasis added.
This means that a minor charged with MIP should be able to throw the case out of court before the hearing to get, unless additional evidence to prove ownership. If you find yourself or a loved one charged with MIPonly on the odor of alcohol, you should talk to a lawyer immediately about to dismiss the case.
Related : cheap lg lcd tv review
0 comments:
Post a Comment