<p>“And how can the prosecute the other students? Arrest? Hmmm, days later, no evidence except for a kid, a very he said she said.”</p>
<p>A plausible story from an informant is plenty of probable cause to arrest someone under these circumstances. Kids typically don’t drink alone on prom night. Realistically, some of those kids are likely to ignore their Miranda warnings and confess (or otherwise incriminate themselves) when arrested. The police have been over this ground before.</p>
<p>i have told my kids to say NADA NOTHING if they get arrested. Don’t say a word. Ask for attorney and shut up.</p>
<p>If they have Kid A who is saying he got alcohol from Kid B, and Kid B says, I didn’t give you alcohol, then what?</p>
<p>And if a minor gives a minor alcohol, what is the punishment for that?</p>
<p>Seahorserock – the actual punishment that the other arrested kids face is probably in the area of slap on the wrist. No mandatory jail time because they weren’t caught driving. It’s very possible that they will go to court and be told that they can plead guilty, pay a fine, and go home. Because of that, they might just do that – even though they could win their cases if they fought – but their parents may not have the money or be willing to spend a lot on fighting what they perceive to be a petty offense. Where I live, the value to the prosecutor in getting that sort of conviction would be that it would be accompanied by a period of unsupervised probation – so if the kid got caught a 2nd time, there would be a record of the first and a possibility of revoking probation whether or not the kid was convicted on the subsequent offense.</p>
<p>This is a very valuable thread but I did delete numerous posts that were focused on abortion/teen pregnancy rather than the DUI issue. (don’t want the thread to get sidetracked and possibly closed)</p>
<p>NorthCarolinaDad, thank you for sharing this important story with us, and best wishes to you and your family as you work through this challenging situation. I am sure that many families have had some very worthwhile conversations thanks to this thread.</p>
<p>“If they have Kid A who is saying he got alcohol from Kid B, and Kid B says, I didn’t give you alcohol, then what?”</p>
<p>This kind of thing happens at trial all the time (for more serious offenses – the other kids in this case will never go to trial). If 5 witnesses all point the finger at Kid B, he’s probably going down. Just one, maybe not. But nowadays, teenage co-conspirators probably exchanged text messages all week, both before and after the events (see Steubenville). If the police think something serious happened, they get the texts from the phone company, and the kids have usually shot themselves in the foot.</p>
<p>Whether minors can be guilty of distributing to minors will vary according to state law. I don’t know about NC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This got me thinking about our household rule of telling mom when you take the last one of something so she can buy more (nothing more annoying than finding an empty box of something when you need it). Maybe we would have to let that rule slide if we were doing that at our house. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is this window before they are “arrested” when they haven’t been read their rights yet, but the police are asking them questions. Interestingly, the US Supreme Court is considering a case right now about whether silence during that type of questioning can be used as evidence against the person in a trial if they are arrested later. (Only know this because I heard a Constitutional Law class do oral arguments on it this week). Probably not going to come up in a drunk driving case like this, but it really got me thinking about the nuances of what to tell my kids if they are questioned by the police. Don’t have an answer, just learned that it is not as clear cut as I expected.</p>
<p>It’s really not as easy as telling your kid not to talk whenever questioned by police, because of that pre-arrest situation. Not all police contacts result in arrest, and in some cases (particularly traffic stops) a cooperative spirit may be what results in the officer letting the person off with a warning rather than a ticket.</p>
<p>Obviously a person who has been drinking probably is going to “incriminate” themselves with the first words out of his mouth – he’ll slur his words and the officer will smell alcohol on his breath – but that inebriated person is also unlikely to remember the well meaning advice of his parents. </p>
<p>In many context outside of DUI, the person who is arrested may feel that he is innocent or in the right, and in that case is strongly motivated to tell his side of the story or explain himself. For example, imagine that you are involved in a minor traffic accident, caused when the other driver ran a red light. When the officer arrives at the scene, he has no way of knowing what the traffic lights were when the cars entered the intersection. So you probably are going to want to tell the cop that the light was green before the other driver insists that you are the one who had the red light.</p>
<p>You can carry this out to other situations – for example, your kid is involved in a physical altercation. Who hit first? </p>
<p>Keep in mind that your kid may in fact be totally innocent when he starts talking, but that doesn’t mean the police officer will believe him. </p>
<p>Arrests are stressful situations anyway. Even sober, the best-remembered advice tends to fade away.</p>
<p>So I agree, it’s good advice to tell your kid that if he is arrested, to exercise his rights and refuse to talk to the police about what happened … but don’t count on him actually following that advice when the situation arises. (Same is true of the condom advice as well, unfortunately.)</p>
<p>Around here the minors drinking would not be likely to get more than a slap on the hand and not even have to go to court. There is some kind of juvenile sub court that deals with issues like that. Where the consequences often are in these cases are from the school. Schools have wide latitude to impose consequences on those who get into trouble or are so implicated, and they don’t have to prove a danged thing. They hold the college thing over all of those kids’ heads. </p>
<p>The legal issue that the OP has to worrry about right now is whether the DA will deal. That new law makes it difficult for a DA to do so. When my son got into trouble the jr prosecutor refused to budge an inch as did another one in another son’s case, In the latter, he could not, the way things were done. It went to court and the judge ordered a total refile or he would dismiss which forced the issue. </p>
<p>NY is not considered easy at all in these cases. There just isn’t much mandatory in the sentences. The problem here is that the judge is hamstrung. I know why the mandatoy is put into these situations, but the problem is that it leaves judges no leeway under circumstance. For instance, someone driving at 50 in a 30 mile zone is a whole other story than someone driving 34. A lot of times if a cop wants to pull over to check out the drivers, he’ll just claim he saw weaving. </p>
<p>I was stopped once and told I was speeding and weaving, both which I was not doing. When the officer saw my age on my license, and my son woke up (college trip in the south), he changed his tune entirely. He was looking for likely drug transport, is what he told me. They were staked out along the road, and I fell into the time when the transport was supposed to happen. The problem with this is that I was NOT speeding, nor was I weaving. But had he issued the ticket, it would have caused me a lot of problems. The speeding he would have had to drop as there was no measure/record of it, but weaving is a visual thing. </p>
<p>Yes, the police do target, and well they should. They wait around the bars at their closing times, and they look for the cars with the teens and young adults. The problem is there seem to be some that cross the line. They got their hands slapped here after harassing the designated driver car pools. They can get a whole carful of MIPs that way. I’ll tell you, I have mixed feelings about all of that.</p>
<p>But, yes, your kids when minors or even young adults should tell the police that they have sworn to their parents not to say anything until the parent/attorney is called, and so they have to wait. They can say it tearfully, sadly, barely, and with great fea but should never say it spitefully. The police are not on their side. </p>
<p>Usually,when you cooperate with the cops without any stated deal around here, you get nothing You get nothing for telling all either. Now if you have info they want later when negotiating, that’s a different story.</p>
<p>I think that my Garmin Nuvi has tracking capabilities but I don’t know if that includes speed - it might just track where you went. I could see a product that also tracked your speed and direction and it could be accurate enough to tell whether or not you were weaving. If the GPS weren’t accurate enough, then there are other sensors that could record that.</p>
<p>Apparently this technology may already exist in some mobile phones or other devices.</p>
<p>[Man</a> Uses GPS Data To Get Out Of Speeding Ticket | GPS Fleet Tracking System](<a href=“http://www.fieldtechnologies.com/man-uses-gps-data-to-get-out-of-speeding-ticket/]Man”>Blog:Man Uses GPS Data To Get Out Of Speeding Ticket)</p>
<p>It seems to me that this could be a growth area for Garmin. I don’t particularly like using my mobile phone as a GPS given the distracted driving that can result. My Garmin Nuvi is generally a lot easier to use without getting distracted.</p>
<p>
If that were the case, NCDad’s attorney wouldn’t have said something different to him than what he actually said. I may not know much about local procedure in NC, but I’m an expert on “attorney-speak”. The lawyer pretty much told NCDad that there would be a deal, probably for a level 2 (7 day) or level 3 (72 hours) sentence, and that the kid could expect that deal at the first appearance. The new law doesn’t make it harder to deal – it makes it easier, because specific allegations are so directly tied to penalties.</p>
<p>The lawyer knows his territory - he probably wouldn’t promise what he can’t deliver. (That makes for very unhappy clients at the end, and difficulty getting the client to cooperate at a reasonable level during plea negotiations). He certainly wouldn’t tell the father that the case would likely be resolved at the first appearance if he thought there would be any major hassles in getting the level 2 deal. </p>
<p>For example, the prosecutor can drop the “minor in the car” allegation, which is the source of the level 1 (30 day penalty) (See [NC</a> DWI Sentencing Guide | DWI / Criminal Defense Lawyer, Raleigh, NC | (919) 727-9227](<a href=“http://www.hiltzheimer.com/dwi-resource/nc-dwi-sentencing-guide/]NC”>http://www.hiltzheimer.com/dwi-resource/nc-dwi-sentencing-guide/) for a good outline of the current law)… </p>
<p>To get from level 2 to 3 I think the prosecutor would have to also drop the high BAC allegation. My hunch is that will be a tough call; if the BAC reading was .15 rather than .16 it would be a little easier. Alternatively, the prosecutor could agree to a Level 3 by agreeing with that the aggravating factor of high BAC is offset by mitigating factors. (Voluntary assessment by a mental health facility; or “any other” which might include his cooperation with the police in providing the names of the others involved).</p>
<p>BCEagle, Cpt was not ticketed for weaving, that was just a pretense stop that occurred when the cops were staked out looking for a drug offense and Cpt just happened to drive through at that time. </p>
<p>A police officer cannot ordinarily stop a vehicle without “probable cause.” (except for situations like a formal checkpoint). So police will often have a pretext for a stop. That OP’s son was stopped for driving 34 in a 30 mph zone is an example – cops aren’t generally stopping cars for driving 4 miles over the speed limit. </p>
<p>If the cop’s suspicions aren’t borne out after the stop – cpt turned out not to be a drug dealer - then the cop just lets the person go. No harm done as far as the cop is concerned. The citizen who is stopped is just happy to be let go, and unlikely to complain. If the suspicions are borne out – the cop finds drugs in the car or the driver turns out to be drunk – then it will be hard for the arrested person to disprove the cop’s claims, especially if they are moderate. </p>
<p>That is…maybe NCDad’s son was being extra careful because he knew he was drunk, and only going 30. If the lawyer could successfully show that the stop was unlawful, then none of the evidence gained from the stop could be used, and the case would be dropped. But how could the son possibly prove that the cop is lying? Who would believe him, given the known level of alcohol in his system at the time? So the lawyer isn’t going to waste his time with that – that is the type of thing that might be litigated by someone who had multiple convictions for DUI and was facing serious time, but not in this case. (On the other hand, the DA isn’t stupid. The DA knows that speeding charge is bogus – and that may be a factor that comes into consideration in terms of the deal the DA agrees to.)</p>
<p>So…</p>
<p>I got ticketed in a school zone, and went to court. The sign said, “20 MPH when children are present.” I got pulled over at 26 mph. But I asked the cop to show me the children. There weren’t any, in any direction. It was before school. There would be children in five minutes.</p>
<p>Anyway, I went to court. The officer came. I put him on the stand. I drew a map. I asked him where the children were. He responded, honestly, that there weren’t any, in any direction.</p>
<p>The judge found me guilty, and said, "Well, there should have been children. Within a month, they put up a blinking light. (It’s named after me.)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m talking about the case where the police are wrong (whether by operator error or intentionally) about the speed of a vehicle and the use of technology to counter a charge. The Shaun Malone case was widely followed in technology websites.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Some parents put tracking devices in the vehicles that their kids use to track speed, trip, time and location. These devices are more normally used by fleet operators that want to know how their drivers are driving and where their vehicles are at any moment.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The local signs don’t have the caveat in our area. It’s just school zone and the speed limit and the flashing light. My only traffic ticket was back in the 1970s and that was due to carelessness. Just observe the speed limit and you should be okay unless it’s one of these things where they are trying to catch people for other things.</p>
<p>LOL. The problem is that wording of the sign – what they really mean is that the law is enforced on school days, not on holidays. Blinking light solve the problem - either it’s on or it’s off. </p>
<p>I’d have to know what the actual statute said at the time to know whether the judge was right or wrong-- it’s not what the sign says, but what the law says – but I can see the rationale. A driver who hits a kid is generally hitting a kid he didn’t see.</p>
<p>Judge never told me.</p>
<p>I would have appealed, except I liked the result so much, 'cause I get to tell a good true story! ;)</p>
<p>(I should add: the normal speed limit was 30.)</p>
<p>Actually, in our area, there are two kinds of school zone signs:
<p>My son was dinged during his test when he slowed to 20 mph in a school zone with the first type of sign at 1pm, no kids. The tester said he was being a hazard because he slowed traffic down unnecessarily.</p>
<p>Sorry. Derailment!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually most new cars have built in “black boxes” that record speed and other information for use in accident reconstruction but it could be used to exonerate you or beat a speeding ticket if you could access it and get it admitted in court…provided you weren’t sppeding. On th eother hand it could be used against you if had an accident and were speeding…
[Yes</a>, Your New Car Has A ‘Black Box.’ Where’s The Off Switch? : All Tech Considered : NPR](<a href=“Yes, Your New Car Has A 'Black Box.' Where's The Off Switch? : All Tech Considered : NPR”>Yes, Your New Car Has A 'Black Box.' Where's The Off Switch? : All Tech Considered : NPR)</p>
<p>It’s not clear how much they record and whether GPS information is included. It seems like speed, as measured by the car’s wheels and acceleration are recorded. The other problem is how do you get at the data? Many already have inexpensive GPS devices for navigation. Adding a little flash memory and a little software to record speed and location data shouldn’t add much expense to GPS devices.</p>
<p>It’s funny how the strictness of school zones vary with levels of schools. Try going over one mph in an elementary school zone and it’s an automatic $170 ticket. For my high school, the cops couldn’t care less. Especially in the last five minutes where people zoom by at 40 mph…(yes, I know this because I am one of them…). After school the cops don’t care either.</p>