Son's prom night DUI

Parents Forum
361

<p>I never understood that we have the dual systems in place for juveniles and then make exceptions either. The NC rule is a mix of protecting minors as defined as under age 18 if a passenger, but age 17 drivers are are treated as adults right within the same case. In our situation, my son was 18 but treated as a minor since he was still in high school. </p>

<p>I went to court for 6 months for that case because the jr prosecutor refused to deal, and because one piece of evidence that was being tested had not returned. The Prosecutor rotated out and the new one wanted to start anew, so he settled all of the cases. But during that time, I watched case after case. I don’t think I’d want to take a chance on the court appointed lawyers in that jurisdiciton. Most of all their clients were quickly dispatched and to pretty harsh sentences except the seasoned repeat offenders who seemed to know the law better than the attorneys. They didn’t give the cops an inch so every bit of evidence had to be pulled out and was then questioned, and mostly thrown out as inadmissable. The young prosecutor would practically foam at the mouth as those guys, and they were mostly guys would walk or the judge would tell the prosecutor if he did not work out a deal, he would throw out the case, at which point there would be a lot of teeth gnashing. </p>

<p>I see why there are laws with repeat DUIs, by the way. Ever so many of them and some of them had 5, 7 , 11 and those guys were still out there, not in jail. They have no licenses yet they drive. Some did get jail sentences but not for that long, and I think they would be out in 3months to 2 years,. Not much one can do with these guys and NY’s laws are pretty strict. Top 10 in fact. It was not from lack of effort of the prosecutor that these guys were walking or getting lenient sentences. That’s why it makes no sense to me that a minor, a 17 year old first offender under those circumstances should get a month in jail. With overcrowding, those guys get out in a month or two. </p>

<p>The young offenders were not DUIs, but kids that stole, got caught selling dope or other drugs, under age drinking, vandalism, but mostly stealing. DUI here is a rich kid’s venue. These young people had no cars available to drive, I guess. Our attorney, who checked the record said that they did not fare well when so charged, and I would learn much later, that it was true. Here and in the Kew Gardens Court in Queens, they do like to throw the book at the younger kids who are careless drivers and who drink. The courts here were taking careful notice and putting emphasis on drinking and driving. But the younger kids, the first offenders, were getting awfully severe punishments aa compared to the multi time offenders. Mainly because the old timers were seasoned and the young kids cooperated with the police and so the DA would have an airtight case against them. </p>

<p>So around here, if you screw up and get caught driving with ANY alcohol count because for underage it is zero tolerance here. A drop is as good as drunk, though there is some DUI/DWI distinction at the upper levels. And if you cooperated with the police, you were done. If you refused to do the breathalzyer, refused to urinate, refused the drug test and insisted on your attorney being present first, the chances of beating the rap are really pretty good, because the cops seem to me to be totally inept if the perp didn’t help them out with self incrimination. So you refuse to talk, refuse to make an statements till your lawyer shows up, and you are in a lot better shape even as multi offender, than coming clean. You are innocent until PROVEN guilty, and a lot of the evidence is not so certain. A lot of mess ups and inaccuracies on part of the cops, I noticed. So the DAs focus on those cases they know they can win and settle or just drop those where the odds were not good. </p>

<p>My one son at that time, I’m sad to say, not the younger one still in school with all of this, but the older one refused to cooperate and the judge basically threw the case back to the DA who had to deal way down or it would get thrown out. My son wanted to take it to trial, but the attorney said, absolutely not. You never know how those things go. </p>

<p>I had told my kids from day one, if they were ever in trouble, to firmly tell the authority figure that they wanted a parent right there first, and in my kids’ cases, their silence got them off very lightly given what the possibilities were. Even though they got off, i insisted they spend 6 months and a year in treatment. We paid so much for the treatment which took a lot of our college money. They went no where but treatment, saw no friends, nothing for all of that time, and they are bitter to this day with me, as they felt it was tantamount to jail. So we got through all of this, but it did age me terribly, and changed me, and my feelings towards my kids as well as towards the schools, the entire judicial system and the police which has only gotten worse, because since then I’ve run across some bad cops. Would never have believed it but as a very rare thing, but both times got them dead to rights, one on video, on on record. </p>

<p>So, the adversary system just doesn’t work very well, IMO, but no idea what would work better. Most cases are plead or dealt out. That’s the truth of it, and who your attorney is and who the the DA is seems to be the issue that determines the outcome. The NC law is trying to break that cycle but putting in a mandatory sentence so the judge has no discretion on certain cases, and the DA can’t deal without going through extraordinary circumstances. I wonder if that will log jam the courts? Because, then those who have nothing to lose will insiste on a trial. By jury. At that court, at that time that meant a lot of time, money and usually an aquittal or lower sentece than expected because of jail overcrowding. </p>

<p>Momof3 is right that the outcomes are not due to adversarial battles in court most of the time in these types of cases, and yes, the outcome is bought in that the right attorney makes a huge difference. The young kids with court appointed lawyers were the losers in these siituations.</p>

362

<p>I did not know you practiced as a criminal attorney, Calmom. So you think that when your kids do wrong and get caught, say driving drunk, they should admit it all, cooperate and plead guilty as charged? </p>

<p>What I saw in those courts, were those who took that route, and there were a number who did, got the worst consequences by far. It’s not as though you get rewarded for cooperating and admiiting it all. I watched a lot of days in court in three very different areas, and the pattern was clear.</p>

363

<p>“Don’t any of you see the irony, or hypocrisy or whatever, in that you can understand that the OP is going to spend and fight for his son to stay out of jail, even as you believe that the punishment is just?”</p>

<p>No. </p>

<p>Among other things, laws are created to reflect society’s disapproval of criminal acts. Treating certain crimes in an adult courts also reflects that disapproval, and the thinking on the part of the legsislative majority that what they had been doing previously was not being effective, and that it was an adult crime (kids don’t drive). Don’t like that, change the law.</p>

<p>Let’s be clear: the 30 days is NOT for a DUI. A DUI conviction in North Carolina would likely result in a suspended sentence, or probation plus community service. That’s what the law says. The 30 days is for a DUI, with two aggravating circumstances, and the son had three. (Had he had four, it would have been a one year sentence, with at least 120 days to be served.)</p>

<p>Let’s also remember that, unlike many DUIs, the son PLANNED to drink, planned to drive, and planned to drink and drive with an under-18 year old in the car. In other words, unlike many DUIs, it was premeditated - except for the speeding on top of that. Of course, that’s not part of the law (though I think it would certainly be relevant.)</p>

<p>I’d want to protect my kid too, and in similar circumstances, I’d do my darndest to do so. I have complete empathy for the OP. (Of course, the best protection would have been before this occurred, since drinking and driving after track meets seems to have been common prior to this.) But it doesn’t mean that I think the potential sentence unwarranted or unjust.</p>

<p>As for pleading, not pleading, well paid lawyers, public defenders, well, that’s the way the system is set up. Hey, I think a certain former President whose name doesn’t begin with a B should be in a dank prison as a genocidal murderer, but that’s not the way the system works. I’m open to different ones - got a country that does this better?</p>

364

<p>Why is the son treated like an adult and his girlfriend is regarded as a minor (drive with an under-18 year old in the car). If the son is adult then his GF should be treated as an adult also.</p>

365

<p>A question. I know the son is treated as an adult with regard to charges, sentences, etc. But would his jail time be spent in the adult jail? I’m curious to know people’s opinions about whether it should be in “juvvie” or adult jail.</p>

366

<p>Pure speculation on my part but it might be that the issuance of a drivers license implies that the state believes a teenager to be at least as responsible as an adult in terms of actions behind the wheel. So when he was issued the license it was implied that the state thought that he possessed adult maturity in figuring out how to safely operate a moving vehicle. Since he violated that compact and acted irresponsibly the state feels it necessary to treat him like an adult since they gave him adult like privileges. </p>

<p>His girlfriend didn’t operate the moving vehicle, and thus the state doesn’t think she violated any adult privileges it granted her. Therefore she’s treated as a juvenile since the only legal thing she did wrong was drink underage.</p>

367

<p>^^In states that treat 16 and 17 year olds as adults, yes, they mean they do all the same things as “adults.” Now in some jurisdictions a 16 or 17 year old must get some preferential treatment attached to sentencing like the charges will be removed at age 21 or something like "deferred jailtime as long as no other legal trouble’ but it will depend on what the original charge (or charges) actually is and usually it’s predicated on their being nothing against the law happening until 21…the proverbial sword of Damocles, that’s how it went with my son back in the day. </p>

<p>I didn’t mind, because it meant he had to stay out of trouble when he left for college…and up until he turned 21. I do know a set of parents who “let” their kid sit in jail for a time right along side all the other adults in the jail. These parents were professionals, had plenty of money yada yada yada…so how families and lawyers and prosecutors handle these things can vary. In our town the local police love to slap kids with multiple charges…knowing that the prosecutor will drop all but one and virtually guaranteeing that the kids will get “hit” with one charge that sticks. Everybody “feels” good, the judge, the prosecutor, the police. Usually one of those charges can’t stick because it’s misapplied or simply not proveable by any stretch of imagination. </p>

<p>I don’t want to give out too much information, but in the end, my son “agreed” to an MIP with deferred adjudication…he did not have any alcohol in his body but “posession” has broad reaching meaning in our state. So my son had an MIP on his record but hadn’t been drinking. It’s no longer on his record. I feel for any parent of a young person charged with a crime. Getting behind the wheel of a car after drinking, though, I have a real tough time deciding in my mind what is “fair” for a young person. It is such a dangerous situation. My son made alot of money his senior year of high school driving kids around because he simply could not break any law whatsoever. I can’t tell you how many times my fingers itched to pick up the phone and tell other parents what their darlings were doing. I never did because at least I knew my son got them home safely.</p>

368

<p>This thread has been an eye opening for me. My oldest graduates from high school tomorrow night and is going out with his friends afterwards. I told him tonight that I didn’t want any drinking and driving and to call me if needed. No questions asked. Honestly if this thread hadn’t been here I wouldn’t have done that.</p>

<p>We can all hope our kids listen to us but that doesn’t mean they always do. I have known people who have been killed by drunk drivers and I have no sympathy for the drunk drivers that killed them. However as the OP stated. It’s different when it’s your own kid
facing charges. If my son was caught driving drunk I would be very angry and disappointed in him however I also would do everything I could and I would spare no expense to try and make sure he did not end up with a DUI on his record because a DUI could permanently mess his life up. Why would I do that? Because it’s my kid. </p>

<p>OP- The only good thing about them fast tracking is if your son has to do jail time perhaps he can get the time served before senior year starts.</p>

369

<p>Is the girlfriend 15? The statute says a passenger under the age of 16. <a href=“http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/PDF/2011-2012/SL2011-191.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/PDF/2011-2012/SL2011-191.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>That’s the only part of this that makes no sense to me. Heck, in statutory rape cases, at least here in NY, the law has an exception when an underage “victim” is about the same age as the accused. The state doesn’t prosecute 17 year olds for having sex with 16 year olds. </p>

<p>It seems to me that the girl here is just as much at fault in failing to call her own parents, drinking, and getting into a car with the OP’s S whom she knew had been drinking. I don’t think this should count as an aggravating factor. This isn’t the case of a 40 year old driver who drives drunk with a 10 year old who may not realize the risk–or be able to do anything about it. So, personally, I don’t think the fact that the girlfriend is 15–if she is–should be an aggravating factor. </p>

<p>I understand why, as a parent, you want to protect your kids. However, I don’t get being mad at the police. Presumably, they didn’t have a magic wand which let them know the S’s BAC. He was speeding and perhaps driving erratically. That’s why they pulled him over. They may have saved his and his girlfriend’s life. The OP should remember that.</p>

<p>Additionally, if he’s been drinking after track meets, does that mean he’s been getting into a car with other teens who have been drinking? How did he get home from track meets? It seems hard to believe that if a parent/coach/bus driver was doing the driving (s)he wasn’t aware of the fact the kids were drinking.</p>

370

<p>Michigan Georgia–I thought of that today. The worst hand the judge could possibly deal us is jail time that would cause him to miss school, but I don’t think that will be the case since we expect the sentence to come down in June.</p>

<p>Jonri–I think you’re taking me out of context a bit. My wife and I were fleetingly angry at the police before we learned the full details of the situation and had our minds in the right place to think logically. We are nothing but grateful to the police and have personally reached out to all the officers involved in the arrest.</p>

<p>His girlfriend is 17. The law that you linked to is from 2011–Laura’s Law passed in 2012 and changed the levels so that anyone with a passenger under 18 is charged with Level 1.</p>

371

<p>That’s what I get for doing legal research on the web! Thanks for the explanation. I still don’t think it makes sense to count the presence of a minor in the car as an aggravating factor when the driver is also a minor of the same age.</p>

372

<p>

I didn’t say anything like that. They have every right to exercise their legal rights. But you’ve been ranting about the punishment for the offense, which is what is invoked when someone is convicted. </p>

<p>You seem to think that everyone should have one free pass - that a “first offense” of DUI is somehow excusable because teenagers are too naive to understand that they might get arrested if they drive drunk. </p>

<p>I think DUI is a serious crime. I don’t think that “first time” or “didn’t know any better” is legitimate excuse. And I think that whatever the law is as to juvenile vs. adult, when a 16 year old is handed a license and allowed to drive alone, he is being given an adult-level responsibility. If parents don’t believe that their 16 and 17 year olds have the maturity to handle that level of responsibility (and the consequences that go along with it), then they shouldn’t consent to their child getting a license while still a teen.</p>

373

<p>“I still don’t think it makes sense to count the presence of a minor in the car as an aggravating factor when the driver is also a minor of the same age.”</p>

<p>Gosh, I would have thought even more so! In our state, we have a system of graduated licensing, and it specifically restricts all driving with those under 18 in the car. And the reason for this is that it is known to be distracting for new drivers, and also is associated with use of alcohol. The dangers are much greater, and hence the greater penalties.</p>

374

<p>North Carolina has something similar as well.
[NCDOT:</a> Your First License](<a href=“http://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/driver/license/first/]NCDOT:”>http://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/driver/license/first/)
Assuming that the OP’s son got his license soon after he turned 16 he was likely granted a full provisional license which allows him to drive any time during the night and carry as many passengers as his car allows. During the first year after the issuance of the license he was only able to transport one other person, and only drive between the hours of 5AM and 9PM.</p>

375

<p>

</a></p>

<p>I think you are looking at an older statute – it looks like there is new law that says 18 - see [G.S</a>. 20-179](<a href=“http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=20-179]G.S”>http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=20-179)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s not analogous. Statutory rape laws are designed to protect teenagers from being taken advantage of by adults; the laws which exempt close-in-age teens is making the assumption that in that situation, both participants are roughly equal in terms of level of sophistication. </p>

<p>The DUI laws are there to protect the passenger. They are saying: don’t drive drunk, and whatever you do, don’t drive drunk with a child in the car. It doesn’t matter whether the drunk driver is age 17 or 57, the risk to the passenger is the same. For the purpose of the statute, the passenger is considered an innocent victim.</p>

<p>(From the OP’s report, I think that the girlfriend was also arrested for unlawful possession by a minor – so for that purpose, she’s an offender – but that is a different context. )</p>

376

<p>There are a lot of mix and matches in the laws regarding ages i agree, but I don’t think minors should be treated as adults for a number of reasons, in criminal cases. But as you say, mini, that 's the law there, and gotta change it it’s that much of a problem. IT was just recently changed by the way, and though the entire purpose was to get those multi time offenders, the first timers were also ramped up, judge discretion at sentencing was removed for certainly categories, and dropping down the charges once filed was made more onerous. This all just happened in late 2012. It’s difficult for anyone to say how the courts and judges will handle the situation because it is that early, and 'tis the season now to test out how the rules will apply for a lot of the younger crowd with graduations, out of school parties and proms on the horizon. </p>

<p>The aggravating circumstances are that he drank a lot and had an under 18 passenger (who with her friends provided the alcohol). I don’t expect the under 18 drinking charge except for the driver to get much penalty. From what I’ve seen, those get off pretty easily. It’s the driving part that really makes this a case that has jail time and long term record implications. Something that EVERYONE please, please, please, let their kids know. Most of them, though they have read the penalties let them slip out of mind and could not tell you what happens when caught drinking and driving. I’m sure the OP did not know. It’s still an issue because in the anticipation of bachalian delights, peer pressure and the Big Mo, sadly, these kids still often take the risk because so many of them that they know personally take this risk a lot and don’t get caught. And, yes, the first offender, I know is very rarely a true FIRST offender. The fact of the matter is that you can make the frigging penalty the death sentence, and they would still do it, because is it so widely done. So what happens is that the system tries to punish those who do get caught in hopes that the word gets out and it reduces the incidents. According to my attorney, the number of incidents is more directly tied to how vigilent the police are than anything else. </p>

<p>I count three aggravating circumstances as he was also speeding. I also count 2 mitigating circumstances–he cooperated fully and he is in some alcohol program right now (or he danged well should be). But the new law seems to not permit the same applying of the the mitigating to the aggravating. So with the way it now stands, unless the lawyer can get the DA to go through the now difficult process of refiling the charges, as this has now been made deliberately difficult and good reason has to be shown and the DA is put on the line for such changes the way it is now set up, the judge has to sentence him to 30 days in jail, or order the DA to refile the charges (yes, that happened in a personal case) or the judge drops the charges. The other out is if alcohol treatment centers are permitted instead of jail time.</p>

377

<p>I don’t think anyone should get one free pass for drinking and driving. I believe that every single bit of the consequences which are many for this, including the fact that this is likely to be on his record forever and any DUI offense, even 50 years down the road will be counted as a repeat are in line. It’s the jail time that is the deal breaker for me and for the OP and would be for most every parent and person charged. That is the instant when the money goes onto the table, as much as it takes, as much as the parent can possibly scrape up, to the attorney. That is where everyone crosses over to the other side. And, frankly, you do not want this party on the other side. That’s the crux of the issue here. You now have a group of people that would support all the drunk driving factions full hilt, fighting it with their money where their mouths are. And you had better believe they will not be voting for tighter DUI laws after this sort of experience. I won’t and don’t and neither do any of the voters in this family. And not a dime for MADD (that’s a whole other story) or other such groups. Nope. Without the jail time, that makes this so unacceptable to the parents, you have avid supporters. With it, you have someone giving it all they got to fight it. </p>

<p>If the penalty were 2 years in jail, is that too much? Or 5 years? People are saying it depends on the quality of the facility. So a very nice jail would be okay? It usually becomes clear when a penalty is too steep, but for this one, since the law just changed it’s too early too see the results on the court system. NY has some mandatory stuff that tie the judge’s hands, and what happens in a large number of such cases, the judge forces the DA to resubmit the case, a major pain in the neck for the system, by the way, or dismisses it altogether. That happened personally.</p>

378

<p>I spent numerous days in court, just the way things worked in the jursidictions, and I also did some research and watched some specific situations out of sheer curiousity and because it’s just the way I 'm wired. I gotta know.</p>

<p>What’s really terrible about these laws, and I have brought this up in my numerous posts on this thread, is that a lot of the time, the repeat offenders are getting away with this. They are because they know the gig. Many of them will never be allowed to drive again, so they simply drive without a license, a car that is not registered with no insurance. Really great if someone truly gets hurt. And they get away with it because they know the routine and they know the police tend to mess up, and they know their chances. So the very ones, that the laws are targeting get away.</p>

<p>Laura’s Law, like many such laws that MADD and other consumer groups sponsor, was intended to focus on these multi offenders. The Laura in this situation was killed by a drunk driver who was still out there driving after multiple such offenses. Her mother, her family, her loved ones, wanted such creatures kept off the road so that no one else should have to go through this. The very purpose of those measure were directed for those cases, but changes were also made for first offenders, regarding aggravating circumstances, the age of the passenger and the passenger’s mental age, and also makes it more difficult for the DA to reduce the charges and takes away the judge’s discretion for the sentence. If the OP had gotten into this trouble before this, he might have had the one aggravating circumstance and the DA would likely reduce charges and no jail time, reduced jail time or a suspended sentence would be on the table, and even if the DA refused to discuss any of this, the judge could decide what the sentence would be. Now, no can do.</p>

<p>I don’t know how the tightened provisions will nail more repeat offenders. The very act of simply refusing to take the breathalyser test, and refusing to cooperate at all with the police, really makes it difficult to get a conviction, which in turn makes the DAs whose records are on the line reluctant to go after these guys, and the judges going by the letter of the law often cannot convict them. One little mistake in process by the cops, and it’s often dismissed, and that’s when you realize that they make a lot of mistakes. I saw case after case of repeats being dismissed because of the mistakes. Incredible. And even if the judge uses every bit of his discretion and finds the guy guilty, upon appeal, the chances are very good they get away. </p>

<p>So many loopholes for those who truly plan to drink and drive. So, yes, Mini, this case was premeditated, but not anywhere near the premeditation of the pros that I saw. They know they are not allowed to drive, but they are not going to stop driving, and they want to drink, so they do and if they want to drive after drinking, they do it. They know the drill and they prepare for it. No paperwork in the car, no id, refuse to talk, refuse the field sobriety, breathlyzer or any test, or know how to blow that breathalyzer and get a big fat zero there., want the attorney that they already have on call since this is a routine for them right away, or ask for the court appointed one if they have no money, have some other meds on hand that can make you act, look drunk (and yes, that is considered a mitigating factor in these cases), have air/mouth sprays so that it’s difficult swear that the smell of booze was there, and they often use some that deliberately smell like booze, yes, you can buy those, so the prosecutor’s got nothing. And the cops, dumb as they usually are in these cases (and I am saying this from seeing a number of them and seeing how they act and react) usually get ticked off and do something stupid, to boot. </p>

<p>So the ones who don’t know the system, cooperate, are truly sorry and upset, ashamed, humiliated, sick about all of this get the book thrown at them because that’s the way our system works. </p>

<p>So, yeah, I think throwing out that jail sentence would be a smart thing to do. You get the perp, the family all on the same side as the laws and the cops, and the kid isn’t getting off scot free. There are still some pretty hefty penalties there. My bet is that he won’t be driving for a long, long time–parents certainly won’t be facilitating it for a while.</p>

379

<p>I’m curious, cptnofthehouse (and anyone else). Would you feel better about mandatory jail time if there was an option for “mandatory inpatient drug/alcohol rehab” instead?</p>

<p>If a DUI conviction, with mitigating circumstances such as the OP’s, came with mandatory time spent in rehab, would you be less angry?</p>

<p>Because what I care about most is that the kid really, really learns something from his mistake, so that it never happens again. I don’t believe jail time for drug/alcohol offenses teaches the offender much of anything (other than how to do it better, how to find a better supplier, and how not to get caught next time). And all the scrambling to secure an attorney to reduce the charges teaches your kid a lack of respect for the intent of the laws that, in the case of a DUI, are mostly there to protect the rest of us from the actions of a person who drives drunk.</p>

<p>I think many of us are upset by the prospect of a DUI conviction sticking with our loved ones, and limiting their future options. Do you think our still developing young “adults”, and society as a whole, would be better served if every first DUI charge came with a rehab option that would allow the charge to be expunged if the person completed an inpatient, intensive rehab program? Perhaps an inpatient program that requires the person to plead guilty, and successfully complete rehab along with a year or more of outpatient followup, random testing, driving restrictions, whatever. Pile on the requirements. The point being that if your kid completes them that one conviction could be expunged? Perhaps a “rehab” program that is based within the “jail” system? Not a cushy, comfy, “available only to those with a lot of money” place, but one that is uncomfortable enough to make an impression?</p>

<p>Would you be more supportive of something like that?</p>

<p>These are just random, not-fully-formed thoughts, and I trust that many of you with much more experience with these issues will tell me why this wouldn’t work.</p>

<p>However, I will say that my own son’s diversion program for an underage citation (no car involved) was an eye opener for him. He attended classes, some AA meetings, did some community service in exhange for expungement after three years of a clean record. I asked him what he had learned, and he said, among other things, “I learned that I am not an alcoholic. I learned that there are a lot of really messed up people out there. I learned a lot, actually…”</p>

380

<p>

</p>

<p>This highlights the whole problem. The “child in the car” is the same age as the driver who is being considered an adult. So if you’re in the driver’s seat, you’re an adult and if you’re in the passenger seat, you’re a child even when you’re the same age, did the same thing, and made the same decisions (to be in a car with a drunk driver). That seems very contradictory to me.</p>

<p>I totally missed where NCDad said this boy was drinking and driving after track meets. I saw the drinking part, but not the driving part. Is that an assumption posters are making? Kids don’t drive to and from their athletic events in our district. They take buses.</p>