Citation Without Proper Cause

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Pennsylvania

Last night I received a citation for 'underage purchase, attempt to purchase, consumption, possession or transportation of alcohol. I am 19 years old.
I was a passenger in the car. I did not purchase, consume, or even touch the beer in the back seat. In fact, the vehicle did not even move after the beer was placed in it. The man who purchased the beer (he was, to my knowledge, 21 years old) and placed it in the back seat, was asked to exit the car by officers in a black crown victoria and was not allowed to re enter upon request. 15 minutes after handing our ID's over to the pair of police officers, they returned our ID's and informed us that we will be receiving underage alcohol citations by mail. When the driver, and owner of the car asked why we were being cited, the officer responded by saying that he did not believe that the beer was not intended for our consumption. The man who purchased the beer was then arrested at the last minute, at the request of a nearby plainclothes police officer.

So here's my question: Did these officers have proper cause to cite me for underage purchase/consumption/possession/transportation? And what do you suggest as my course of action in court?

Quick summary:

I was:

-In Pennsylvania
-19 years old
-Not the owner of the car
-Not driving, a passenger in a stationary car
-Not intoxicated
-Not purchasing OR attempting to purchase alcohol
-Not holding/touching the beer

Quote:

---

Quoting nj1992

---

So here's my question: Did these officers have proper cause to cite me for underage purchase/consumption/possession/transportation?

---

Yes.

Arrests are made when a police officer has probable cause to believe that a crime is or has occurred and the person arrested did it. Probable cause is less than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" needed to convict in court. The scenario you describe gave the police probable cause to believe that the alcohol was intended to be shared among everyone in the car and you were in "constructive possession" of the alcohol to the same degree as the person who bought it.

Quote:

---

Quoting nj1992

---

And what do you suggest as my course of action in court?

---

Try to show a judge or jury a reasonable doubt that the alcohol was intended for your consumption. Without a lot more information, I have no idea how to advise you to do that.

What information would help you advise me?

I don't think I made this clear in my original post, but the two original officers that approached in the black ford were literally about to let us leave without arresting the 21 year old, the plainclothes police officer had to speak up in order to have him retained. this leads me to believe that the uniformed police officers were not aware of any criminal activity (neither was I) on the part of the 21 year old.

Another question, what is the most likely outcome of receiving this citation? Is it likely that I can get it dropped in court?

Any other opinions on this subject?

Quote:

---

Quoting nj1992

---

What information would help you advise me?

---

Well, for instance, who was the guy who "to your knowledge" was 21? Is he well respected member of the community, with an impeccable reputation for honesty and integrity, who knows you well, and is willing to speak on your behalf? Or, is he some fruitloop that you met at a frat party earlier that night, in his third year in college but still can't pass English 81, has a record for dope possession, and would be expected to lie for you as a "bro?"

Where did this occur? Was it in front of a local grocery store in a respectable, middle class part of town? Or was it in front of the local stop & rob, out on the edge of town, that has a known reputation for accepting a library card as proof of age?

Who else was in the car with you? Just you and the 21 year old? Or were there 3 more under age buddies in the back...two of which were sporting marijuana leaf tshirts and the third has a neck tattoo that says "Thug Life" in 3 inch old english script?

In other words, do the circumstances tend to give you credibility or prevent you from being believable?

I was in the front passenger seat, a GOOD friend of mine in the driver's side rear seat and his cousin was driving. Both of them are 20. The 21 year old was basically a nobody to me. I came along for the ride to avoid being alone in an apartment. Your description of the 21 year old is probably about right, though I would describe him more as shaggy from scooby doo. It occurred outside the nearest place the driver could find that sold beer, which happened to be some random 6 pack shop with a large 'cold beer to go' sign. While I appreciate your honesty, you could do well not to generalize people my age as pot-smoking dropouts. With the exception of the 21 year old, the 3 of us in the car were your average respectably dressed young adults that you might see on a regular basis and not have a second thought about.

I'm sorry if I came across as generalizing, I was actually trying to do the opposite. I was trying to show both favorable and unfavorable examples. My point is that, on first blush, the circumstances you give seem to favor a reasonable conclusion that the beer was intended for group consumption...3 underage people wait in the car while the one person over 21 in the group (who you now say portrayed a less than credible appearance) brings them beer. So, I was asking if there were other factors that would tend to support your credibility...credibility in the eyes of police, prosecutor, and/or judge who might tend to be somewhat cynical by nature or experience.

So, if you, your friend, and his cousin are respectable, upstanding citizens? No history of similar minor offenses (multiple traffic offenses, paraphernalia, loud parties, etc,), reasonably good grades, and such? Do you have someone (who would be viewed as unbiased and not likely to lie for you...a teacher, coach, or such would be ideal) who would be willing to give a statement that underage drinking would be out-of-character for you?

In order to contest this cite, you will need to establish enough credibility to overcome the reasonable conclusions that a prosecutor or judge (who again, is likely to be somewhat cynical) is likely to make from the original circumstances. Basically, your only defense is your word. You need to establish the credibility of your word.

ok, thank you.

Keep in mind that however cynical the prosecutor may be, he does have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the beer purchased by someone you barely knew who was over the age of 21 was actually intended for your consumption. You are not required to prove that you weren't planning on drinking it; affirmatively proving a theoretical negative is pretty much impossible anyway.

Proximity to beer doesn't imply possession of it; you weren't drinking it, you weren't holding it, you weren't intoxicated, so your chances of getting the charge dismissed really depend on how fair the court is.

Quote:

---

Quoting TheArgumentative

---

Proximity to beer doesn't imply possession of it; you weren't drinking it, you weren't holding it, you weren't intoxicated, so your chances of getting the charge dismissed really depend on how fair the court is.

---

You are correct that mere proximity does not establish possession, either actual or constructive. However, there is much more circumstantial evidence in the OP. While mere proximity does not establish possession, not having physical possession or consuming also does not refute constructive possession. Here we have a 21y/o going into "some random 6 pack shop," buying beer, and placing it in a car where 3 under 21's are waiting. Further, the 21y/o did not place the beer in the trunk, where it would be unavailable to the underage passengers, but in the back seat, where it was readily accessible by the 2 underage persons there and available to everyone in the car.

While that does not absolutely establish that the beer was intended for consumption by all 4, it is compelling. A jury is allowed to make reasonable conclusions, based on circumstantial evidence, when deciding guilt.

I am not versed in Pennsylvania law, but here are a couple of quotes from the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 1, in the recent decision of State Of Washington v Harlin (2012).

"We defer to the trier of fact to weigh the evidence, resolve conflicts in testimony, and evaluate witness credibility. Circumstantial evidence is no less reliable than direct evidence and is sufficient to prove any element of the crime." and;

"To determine whether there is constructive possession, courts examine the “totality of the situation” to ascertain if substantial evidence exists that tends to establish circumstances from which the trier of fact can reasonably infer the defendant had dominion and control over the contraband. Constructive possession may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Proof of the defendant’s exclusive control is not necessary to establish constructive possession, but the defendant’s mere proximity to the contraband is insufficient."

So, this circumstantial evidence can be presented and a judge or jury can make reasonable inferences when deciding guilt. That means that, while it is not up to the defendant to prove innocence, he would certainly have to explain that circumstantial evidence in such a way that the judge/jury could reasonably infer a doubt that the "totality of the situation" established constructive possession. If the circumstances presented above are not reasonably explained, you give the judge/jury no means of finding a reasonable doubt.

In order to do that, the judge/jury has to BELIEVE the defendant's explanation...that requires the establishment of some credibility.



BTW, I forgot to ask the OP - how much beer was in the car? If we are talking a 6-pack, that would make it more credible that the 21 y/o intended it solely for himself. If it was 2 cases, that strengthens the impression that it was intended to be shared.

Also, another thing I forgot to ask...did any of the underage people in the car chip in money for the beer? If so, did the exchange of money happen right there in the parking lot where it is possible that one of the officers witnessed it?

If so, the OP is sunk.