No Breath Tests for Non-Motorists

In a case that's been winding its way through the courts for some time now, a federal judge has ruled that a Michigan law allowing police to force minors who weren't driving an automobile to take an alcohol breath test violates the Fourth Amendment.

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Katie Platte, had attended a party for a friend who had just enlisted in the Marines and was headed to Iraq. Police broke up the party, and told attendants they'd go to jail if they refused to take a breath test.

Another plaintiff, Ashley Berden, inadvertently left her purse behind when leaving a post-prom party. A police unit called the "Party Patrol" later broke the party up, and forced attendees to take breath tests. Finding Berden's purse, police then went to Berden's parents' home, woke her and her family at 4 am, and demanded she take a breath test—all without a warrant. She blew .00, then sued.

Comments

sage | September 27, 2007, 9:16am | #

A police unit called the "Party Patrol" later broke the party up...

Boy, I'll bet they're great fun at...uh, parties.

Cracker's Boy | September 27, 2007, 9:17am | #

"A police unit called the "Party Patrol"

I guess "Storm Troopers" was already taken.

CB

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | September 27, 2007, 9:20am | #

Ice Cube said it best.

Warren | September 27, 2007, 9:21am | #

Unfricking believable. This is a trend I didn't notice until it was too late, and I don't understand how it happened.

Selling alcohol to minors has always been a crime. But more and more now, minors obtaining alcohol by any means, even via their parents, is being treated as a crime. This is insane. There are many reasons parents might serve alcohol to their children,teaching them how to drink responsibly not the least among them.

Dragging a girl out of her own bed at 4:00AM to administer a breath test has got to be the most outrageous example of this new regime. Let's hope so anyway.

J sub D | September 27, 2007, 9:26am | #

But, but, ... WON'T ANYBODY THINK ABOUT THE...Thump! as nanny gets hit by a brick thrown by an irritated citizen.

gaijin | September 27, 2007, 9:26am | #

Of course, these warrantless searches, traffic stops, and other rights abuses would all disappear if we just made things simple and banned alcohol...[sarcasm]

J sub D | September 27, 2007, 9:33am | #

Maybe they can start busting up those cultists giving alcohol to children. There is this bizarre cannibalistic ritual called "communion" that these fringe groups practice. I've heard demon alcohol is involved.

P Brooks | September 27, 2007, 9:34am | #

[insert standard boilerplate outrage]

jimmydageek | September 27, 2007, 9:42am | #

"Party Patrol"...what all school bus aisle patrols aspire to be...

John | September 27, 2007, 9:45am | #

"One of the plaintiffs in the case, Katie Platte, had attended a party for a friend who had just enlisted in the Marines and was headed to Iraq. Police broke up the party, and told attendants they'd go to jail if they refused to take a breath test."

The old enough to go to war old enough to vote and to drink is one thing they got right in the 70s. This kid is going to Iraq to risk his life but the cops are going to harrass him for having a drink. The 21 year old drinking age is a aching puss filled sore on the ass of American society. How long before we can lance it and move on?

TrickyVic | September 27, 2007, 9:46am | #

Violation of rights should be a crime.

J sub D | September 27, 2007, 9:48am | #

The 21 year old drinking age is a aching puss filled sore on the ass of American society. How long before we can lance it and move on?

Not until Nanny says so.

BTW, great description.

TrickyVic | September 27, 2007, 9:50am | #

""""The 21 year old drinking age is a aching puss filled sore on the ass of American society. How long before we can lance it and move on?""""

It would probably be more easier to raise the draft age. Many states didn't want to raise the drinking age but the feds blackmailed them. Raise your drinking age or lose highway funds. As long as that tactic is permissable, states rights can't truly exist. The feds win where they are not suppose to.

dhex | September 27, 2007, 9:51am | #

[quote]Ice Cube said it best.[/quote]

ice cube's a pimp?


also party patrol jimny christmas don't people test market slogans before launch?

Warren | September 27, 2007, 9:53am | #

There is this bizarre cannibalistic ritual called "communion" that these fringe groups practice.

Side story:
When I was growing up, my family attended a Presbyterian church. Each month communion was hosted by a different family. The family would provide the blood and body of Christ in the form of home made bread and store bought grape juice. They would also read some scripture and talk a bit. When it was our turn, we went for authenticity. We made unleaven bread and wine (my father uncorked a bottle of Johannesburg riesling on the altar). IIRC at that church we poored it into those tinny shot glasses.

This cause a disturbance amongst the faithful and at the next committee meeting, a new rule was made, No alcohol in church.

Episiarch | September 27, 2007, 9:53am | #

How can they bust you for drinking? Selling to minors, I understand. Procurement by a minor, I don't like at all, but I can see it. But once you've had the drink of a legal product, what's the fucking charge? Possession (in the blood) by a minor?

ARRGHHHHH

Warren | September 27, 2007, 10:00am | #

The 21 year old drinking age is a aching puss filled sore on the ass of American society. How long before we can lance it and move on?

I don't know John. Now that I'm in my forties, I'm increasingly of the belief that the drinking/voting age should be raised to 35. You got me with the military service though. You've got to take em young. If anything I'd even support taking volunteers at 16. Back when I was in the service, some states with higher drinking ages would still allow service member to drink. I could go for that.

TrickyVic | September 27, 2007, 10:00am | #

"""what's the fucking charge? Possession (in the blood) by a minor?"""

Pretty much. A friend's son was arrested for that. I think it was possession by intoxication.

Nick M. | September 27, 2007, 10:03am | #

[blockquote] But once you've had the drink of a legal product, what's the fucking charge? Possession (in the blood) by a minor?[/blockquote]

It's called possession by consumption. And at a party, tailgate, etc. once a minor is guilty of possession by consumption, all adults are guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

I'm curious if "The Party Patrol" are like Indiana's Excise police. These are cops, who look like college kids, going around to parties trying to get in to bust everyone.

Randolph Carter | September 27, 2007, 10:04am | #

yup Episiarch, possession by intoxication is the charge

Nick M. | September 27, 2007, 10:05am | #

Clarification: I am not condoning any of these actions, except the drinking by people who are adults, but haven't reached that magical age at which booze has no effect.

TrickyVic | September 27, 2007, 10:07am | #

"""Back when I was in the service, some states with higher drinking ages would still allow service member to drink. I could go for that."""

I enlisted when I was 17 back in 1981. No state would let me drink, but the club on base was a different story. The rule was you still had to be 18 but as long as you had military ID, they didn't care. That's changed.

I have a problem with sending kids to fight for freedoms they can't have.

Scooby | September 27, 2007, 10:16am | #

Violation of rights should be a crime.

It is a crime; it's just so happens that it's one that cops routinely get a pass on, like speeding and parking violations.

Episiarch | September 27, 2007, 10:18am | #

Holy. Fucking. Shit. I am not particularly surprised, as the government and prosecutors will do any crazy thing to enforce their nanny-statism and fuck people who are hurting no one, but this is still out there.

Can you get busted for possession of weed when you are high but don't have any on you? It used to be that you couldn't.

rho | September 27, 2007, 10:19am | #

She blew .00, then sued.

God bless America.

Rhywun | September 27, 2007, 10:45am | #

the government and prosecutors will do any crazy thing to enforce their nanny-statism and fuck people who are hurting no one

Part of the problem is that many folks *demand* this nanny-ism. It's not the government is using its muscle against the will of (most of) the people.

Rhywun | September 27, 2007, 10:46am | #

... it's not LIKE the government ...

Randolph Carter | September 27, 2007, 10:46am | #

I'm sure if they did a blood test they could nab you for it. I know from a friend's experience that if they think you've been smoking, even if there's no physical evidence, and they pull you over and give you a DUI they can take a blood sample.

Make sure your fluids have all the right contents, boys and girls!

JW | September 27, 2007, 10:51am | #

Party patrol? Shouldn't Anheiser-Busch or Coors be sueing these Keystoners for trademark infringment?

All I know, when I was growing up "party patrol" had a much different meaning.

lunchstealer | September 27, 2007, 11:17am | #

If you do not cooperate with the Party Patrol, we will be forced to use Non-Lethal Fun, and hit you with the Joy Tazer.

Do not taunt the Party Patrol.

gaijin | September 27, 2007, 11:36am | #

Make sure your fluids have all the right contents, boys and girls!

Pure or right? Is fluoride still considered a communist plot?

whit | September 27, 2007, 11:54am | #

it's not the cops who make these dumb (and in the case of the mandatory PBT test) unconstitutional laws.

it's the LEGISLATURE.

it aint the "party patrol's" fault, that the law is stupid.

blame the lawmakers.

fwiw, the law varies state to state, but in my state, it is totally legal for a juvenile to drink alcohol as long as it is served by a parent.

the 21 yr old drinking age is completely ridiculous. criminalize DUI (make the penalties stiff), but the idea that you have to wait until 21 to drink is absurd. and there's no evidence it reduces alcoholism or drunk driving. quite the opposite.

i rarely look to europe for "superior policy" but in the case of minors and alcohol, england, etc. get it right

David Woycechowsky | September 27, 2007, 12:05pm | #

I have a problem with sending kids to fight for freedoms they can't have.

If they are driving age they get the benefit of cheap oil. That is what war is for now anyway.

From the article | September 27, 2007, 12:13pm | #

But once you've had the drink of a legal product, what's the . . . charge?

The state MIP law considers a pedestrian under 21 to be intoxicated with a blood-alcohol level of .02 or more.

ChrisO | September 27, 2007, 12:16pm | #

The cumulative effect of these stories makes me fear that another revolution will be necessary someday. We're handing over our freedoms to the thugs bit by bit.

whit | September 27, 2007, 12:28pm | #

"The state MIP law considers a pedestrian under 21 to be intoxicated with a blood-alcohol level of .02 or more."

no, it doesn't. under 436.1703 a level of .02 BRAC (which is standard in most states with similar statutes) is the minimal threshold amount that must be present for the law to be applied.

it is not considered "intoxicated". it is merely considered the minimal amount to be charted under the statute as having consumed an alcoholic beverage.

note that many (if not most) DUI statutes don't even require "intoxication". they require usually "impairment"

this statute requires neither. it merely criminalizes (among other things) having consumed liquor, and defines the threshold amount to prove consumption... NOT intoxication

ChicagoTom | September 27, 2007, 12:37pm | #

How can they bust you for drinking? Selling to minors, I understand. Procurement by a minor, I don't like at all, but I can see it. But once you've had the drink of a legal product, what's the fucking charge? Possession (in the blood) by a minor?

Each state has their own weird drinking laws.

Like in Illinois for example. Although you can not buy alcohol, it is illegal to consume it if you are under 21 unless have your parent/guardian Permission and are in your own home.

Some states have a marriages exception too that allows married under 21 people to consume alcohol with a parents permission

I believe in Mass. there is no laws against drinking alcohol under 21 only buying it / going to bars.

Some states are stricter than others.

whit | September 27, 2007, 12:40pm | #

exactly. some states (cali comes to mind) criminalize having illegal drugs IN your system. my state doesn't.

like all discussion of (stupid) laws. the laws vary GREATLY from state to state.

Christ on a Cracker | September 27, 2007, 12:41pm | #

I had a couple-hour layover in Tokoyo Narita airport. There were women passing out samples of whatever whiskey they were pushing in the duty-free. They were giving samples of booze to anyone who asked! For free!

When I noticed all the restuarants had sealed-off smoking rooms, I was tempted to move.

CoaC

TrickyVic | September 27, 2007, 12:58pm | #

"""The cumulative effect of these stories makes me fear that another revolution will be necessary someday. We're handing over our freedoms to the thugs bit by bit."""

I have to disagree with you Chris. After 9/11 it's been chunk by chunk. Anyways, why revolt? Most Americans don't want our founding father's concept of America.

ChrisO | September 27, 2007, 1:29pm | #

I have to disagree with you Chris. After 9/11 it's been chunk by chunk. Anyways, why revolt? Most Americans don't want our founding father's concept of America.

Yeah, you're probably right. Maybe the culture will change someday.

unthinkableisnow | September 27, 2007, 1:51pm | #

This kind of stuff would never happened in pre-bush years. Americans are so unplussed by erosion of civil rights and disdainful dismissal of the Consitution that it's not even amazing to us anymore that something such as the "party police" could exist. The term "party" is somewhat ironic in this use, isn't it. The ruling elite has it's "party police" in the form of the military.

ed | September 27, 2007, 2:23pm | #

That's nothing compared with the crime of thinking: the Dems attaching of a new "hate crimes" bill to the defense spending bill:

"The defense authorization is about dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas...This (bill) is about terrorism in our neighborhood," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, the chief Democratic sponsor. "We want to fight terrorism here at home with all of our weapons." The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay college freshman who was beaten into a coma in 1998 in Laramie, Wyo.

Got that? Being a bigot is the same as being a terrorist. And murdering a gay man is somehow worse if you hate gays. Presumably it would be less of a crime if he was murdered while being mugged. I'm happy our Congress has its priorities in order.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | September 27, 2007, 2:36pm | #

This kind of stuff would never happened in pre-bush years.

Excise police have been around much longer than Bush. Think first, type second.

J sub D | September 27, 2007, 3:10pm | #

This cause a disturbance amongst the faithful and at the next committee meeting, a new rule was made, No alcohol in church.

I'm not gonna go there. It's too damned easy.

x,y | September 27, 2007, 5:08pm | #

It would probably be more easier to raise the draft age. Many states didn't want to raise the drinking age but the feds blackmailed them. Raise your drinking age or lose highway funds. As long as that tactic is permissable, states rights can't truly exist. The feds win where they are not suppose to.

BS. States just don't have the juevos, that's all.

TrickyVic | September 27, 2007, 5:16pm | #

"""BS. States just don't have the juevos, that's all."""

What? The jeuvos to lose their highway funds?

TrickyVic | September 27, 2007, 5:27pm | #

I guess if I was her father, I'd be in trouble too. I would have asked the cop if he had a warrant. When he said no, I would have closed the door.

whit | September 27, 2007, 6:25pm | #

"I guess if I was her father, I'd be in trouble too. I would have asked the cop if he had a warrant. When he said no, I would have closed the door."

assuming that the cops had a lawful authority to demand a PBT (which of course said law is unconstitutional, so they didn't), but if they DID

cops don't need a warrant when exigency applies, and they have reasonable belief the subject is within the residence. extensive case law on this. example...

cops have reasonable belief that a DUI suspect just entered her residence 5 minutes ago (note this is not a hot pursuit situation. cops never need warrants in those circs under most state's constitution interpretation, however in some states there are some minor crimes that do not justify (accoridng to independent ground readings of state constitutions) hot pursuit into a private residence).

so, it is not a hot pursuit situation (suspect arrived 5 minutes before police), but cops do have sufficient evidence suspect is inside AND the crime they are investigating is one where the evidence erodes quickly (DUI BRAC reading), then they can (like it or not) make a warrantless entry in many states (note that this is sufficient exigency under the fed constitution, but any state can recognize additional privacy restrictions that exceed those of the 4th amendment, just not less).

other warrant exceptions (besides exigency) include community caretaking function, hot pursuit, etc.

i do know that the party patrol in my areas (and yes, they did this during clinton years. the above quote saying this stuff didn't happen under clinton is bush derangement syndrome personified) have, in numerous instances gotten warrants to enter private residences when investigating MIP's and they were denied entries. in those cases (where they often would have issued warnings and.or tag and release cites), they were much more likely to make custodial arrests, etc.

and of course if the cops get a warrant, they will do a much more thorough search.

P Brooks | September 27, 2007, 6:36pm | #

So, what you're saying is, if I tell the cop to fuck off he'll shoot me and plant some evidence.

whit | September 27, 2007, 6:52pm | #

no, what i am saying is that when certain warrant exceptions apply, the cops don't need a warrant to enter a private residence.

i never said anything about planting evidence or shooting you.

assuming of course, that you were responding to my post :)

Seamus | September 27, 2007, 9:21pm | #

States just don't have the juevos, that's all.

That's "huevos" (with a silent "h"), amigo.

Ken Hagler | September 27, 2007, 10:14pm | #

"So, what you're saying is, if I tell the cop to fuck off he'll shoot me and plant some evidence."

I'm sure no cop would shoot you for that. Too much paperwork. He'd beat you and/or electrocute you instead.

TrickyVic | September 28, 2007, 4:42pm | #

Whit, thats a big if.

If I was this girls dad and I didn't let you in and you kicked my door down. After the state court ruled it was a 4th admen violation, and my girl didn't violate any law, you wouldn't have a pot to piss in for the rest of your life. Most of your paycheck would come to me.

""""and of course if the cops get a warrant, they will do a much more thorough search."""

So are you saying that cops are so vindictive that they would treat you worse because you required them to follow the law? You seem to forget that the warrant defines what they can search. So that might make lawsuit #2 if you look for something or somewhere not allowed by the warrant.

If everything is done by the book, that's a totally different story.

Bob | September 29, 2007, 1:04am | #

The "Party Patrol". Is this some sort of parody? Jesus Christ, don't those assholes have real crime to prevent? Actually this question answers itself if you have ever seen the city of Detroit. This kind of bullshit is absolutely ridiculous.

Po the Ad Guy | October 1, 2007, 4:54am | #

Can you get busted for possession of weed when you are high but don't have any on you? It used to be that you couldn't.

---------------------

Yes, a good buddy of mine from high school got busted like this a couple of years ago. A bunch of kids were playing hacky sack at a park after smoking a joint. The cop, after searching them, demanded to know where the weed was. AMy friend, stoned (though he wasn't too smart to begin with) and being a smartass, yelled, "INSIDE ME, ASSHOLE!" He was given a ticket stating he was guilty of possession with his body as a container.

Paul | October 6, 2007, 1:25am | #

Its nice to finally have a judge that is trying to protect our freedom instead of taking it away.