Arrested After Calling for an Ambulance

My question involves criminal law for the state of: South Carolina

I was arrested Thursday 12/1/16 for Minor in Possession of alchohol as well as Public Intoxication after calling for an ambulance for my girlfriend. After getting a ride home she fell down a large flight of stairs and hit her head extremely hard. She immediately started shaking with her eyes open and became compliantly unaware of her surroundings and could not make out any of her words. Bleeding from her head i knew i needed to call 911. When the police arrived she was more aware, sitting up with me on my knees holding her hands. She still was obviously in shock to me. For some reason the cops did not believe it was as serious as they should have, despite making comments about the large amount of blood. The 3 officers stood over us and just observed and watched. They didn't do anything. Instead they asked me questions about my age. I am 20 and she is 21. The cop decided to arrest me for Minor in Possession of alcohol and Public intoxication. Despite not having any alcohol on us.

Know being in the police car when the Ambulance comes I wasn't able to tell them what happened. They most of just thought she was drunk. They then let her go with a friend that soon came. The next morning she woke up throwing up blood, and bleeding out of her ear and nose. Her friend then took her to the hospital.

She's has been in the hospital for 3 days now; and has a Fractured Skull, internal bleeding, and other complications they are concerned about.

Im just amazed by the officers inability to recognize the situation and actually arrest me for doing what was obviously the right thing to do.

In addition the officer never used a Breathalyzer on me or any other test. Also never found any alcohol on us. Any suggestions or input would be much appreciated. Also this happened in SC.

It's reasonable to infer that your friend chose to refuse treatment and transport to the E.R. It's reasonable to infer that the friend who took her agreed with that decision, as he didn't take her to the E.R., and you give us no indication that she asked him to do so. But none of that is relevant to your offense.

As you have chosen not to share any facts relevant to why you were charged with minor in possession and public intoxication, we have a limited ability to comment on those charges. It's reasonable to infer, however, that you were visibly intoxicated. It's also likely that you admitted to the police that you and your girlfriend had consumed large quantities of alcohol. Why public intoxication? If I were to guess, it would be because all of this happened in a public location.

The same South Carolina statute outlaws both physical possession and consumption of alcohol by a minor, so it's reasonable to infer that you were charged based upon your admitted and/or obvious consumption:

Quote:

---

Quoting South Carolina Code, Sec. 63-19-2440. Beer and wine purchase, consumption, or possession.

---

(A) It is unlawful for a person under the age of twenty-one to purchase, attempt to purchase, consume, or knowingly possess beer, ale, porter, wine, or other similar malt or fermented beverage. Possession is prima facie evidence that it was knowingly possessed. Notwithstanding another provision of law, if the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a person is under age twenty-one and has consumed alcohol, the law enforcement officer or the person may request that the person submit to any available alcohol screening test using a device approved by the State Law Enforcement Division. A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or must be imprisoned for not more than thirty days, or both.

(B) A person who violates the provisions of this section also is required to successfully complete a DAODAS approved alcohol prevention education or intervention program. The program must be a minimum of eight hours and the cost to the person may not exceed one hundred fifty dollars.

(C) A person eighteen years of age and over lawfully employed to serve or remove beer, wine, or alcoholic beverages in establishments licensed to sell these beverages is not considered to be in unlawful possession of the beverages during the course and scope of his duties as an employee. The provisions of this subsection do not affect the requirement that a bartender must be at least twenty-one years of age.

(D) This section does not apply to an employee lawfully engaged in the sale or delivery of these beverages in an unopened container.

(E) The provisions of this section do not apply to a student who:

(1) is eighteen years of age or older;

(2) is enrolled in an accredited college or university and a student in a culinary course that has been approved through review by the State Commission on Higher Education;

(3) is required to taste, but not consume or imbibe, any beer, ale, porter, wine, or other similar malt or fermented beverage as part of the required curriculum; and

(4) tastes a beverage pursuant to item (3) only for instructional purposes during classes that are part of the curriculum of the accredited college or university. The beverage must remain at all times in the possession and control of an authorized instructor of the college or university who must be twenty-one years of age or older. Nothing in this subsection may be construed to allow a student under the age of twenty-one to receive any beer, ale, porter, wine, or other similar malt or fermented beverage unless the beverage is delivered as part of the student's required curriculum and the beverage is used only for instructional purposes during classes conducted pursuant to the curriculum.

(F) The provisions of this section do not apply to a person under the age of twenty-one who is recruited and authorized by a law enforcement agency to test an establishment's compliance with laws relating to the unlawful transfer or sale of beer or wine to a minor. The testing must be under the direct supervision of a law enforcement agency, and the agency must have the person's parental consent.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting South Carolina Code, Sec. 63-19-2450. Alcoholic beverages purchase, consumption, or possession.

---

(A) It is unlawful for a person under the age of twenty-one to purchase, attempt to purchase, consume, or knowingly possess alcoholic liquors. Possession is prima facie evidence that it was knowingly possessed. It is also unlawful for a person to falsely represent his age for the purpose of procuring alcoholic liquors. Notwithstanding another provision of law, if the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a person is under age twenty-one and has consumed alcohol, the law enforcement officer or the person may request that the person submit to any available alcohol screening test using a device approved by the State Law Enforcement Division.

(B) A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or must be imprisoned for not more than thirty days, or both.

(C) A person who violates the provisions of this section also is required to successfully complete a DAODAS approved alcohol prevention education or intervention program. The program must be a minimum of eight hours and the cost to the person may not exceed one hundred fifty dollars.

(D) The provisions of this section do not apply to a student who:

(1) is eighteen years of age or older;

(2) is enrolled in an accredited college or university and a student in a culinary course that has been approved through review by the State Commission on Higher Education;

(3) is required to taste, but not consume or imbibe, any alcoholic liquor as part of the required curriculum; and

(4) tastes the liquor pursuant to item (3) only for instructional purposes during classes that are part of the curriculum of the accredited college or university. The alcoholic liquor must remain at all times in the possession and control of an authorized instructor of the college or university who must be twenty-one years of age or older. Nothing in this subsection may be construed to allow a student under the age of twenty-one to receive alcoholic liquor unless it is delivered as part of the student's required curriculum, and it is used only for instructional purposes during classes conducted pursuant to the curriculum.

(E) The provisions of this section do not apply to a person under the age of twenty-one who is recruited and authorized by a law enforcement agency to test an establishment's compliance with the laws relating to the unlawful transfer or sale of alcoholic liquors to a minor. The testing must be under the direct supervision of a law enforcement agency, and the agency must have the person's parental consent.

---

Minor head wounds do tend to bleed a great deal. And LEOs are not physicians/medics.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

It's reasonable to infer that your friend chose to refuse treatment and transport to the E.R. It's reasonable to infer that the friend who took her agreed with that decision, as he didn't take her to the E.R., and you give us no indication that she asked him to do so. But none of that is relevant to your offense.

---

It's also reasonable to infer that the ambulance never came. And if the OP asked for an ambulance, why did the police come instead?

Or, if the ambulance came, why did the police come at all?

This is why people don't want to call 911. Why risk getting arrested?

Next time something like this happens, perhaps the OP should just drive his girlfriend to the hospital himself.

Edited to add: It is kind of ridiculous that the police were more focused on arresting a 20-year-old for possessing alcohol, than on helping a person with a head injury get to the hospital. It's not exactly a huge crime for someone who is old enough to go to war and die, to possess alcohol.

Quote:

---

Quoting BooRennie

---

And LEOs are not physicians/medics.

---

Which is why the police should have gotten that woman to the hospital.

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

It's also reasonable to infer that the ambulance never came. And if the OP asked for an ambulance, why did the police come instead?

Or, if the ambulance came, why did the police come at all?

---

We always get dispatched to aided calls and I have seen this throughout my travels. This is usually done to safeguard anything valuable that the aided may have as well as to reasonably ensure that no foul play or crime was involved.

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

Which is why the police should have gotten that woman to the hospital.

---

Exactly. We always call for an ambulance if one has not been called already. If the aided refuses medical aid or is deemed not to need a ride to the hospital the liability is then off of our shoulders. Not calling an ambulance, even if just simple intoxication is suspected, is incredibly stupid.

Quote:

---

Quoting BooRennie

---

Minor head wounds do tend to bleed a great deal.

---

And that large quantity of blood would be clearly visible at the scene and ON the person who was injured.

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

It's also reasonable to infer that the ambulance never came. And if the OP asked for an ambulance, why did the police come instead?

---

If you read the original post, you will find,

Quote:

---

Quoting Mpav673

---

Know being in the police car when the Ambulance comes I wasn't able to tell them what happened. They most of just thought she was drunk. They then let her go with a friend that soon came.

---

So we know than an ambulance came. Under the facts as stated, it is beyond absurd to suggest that the police had some sort of duty to force the woman to go to the hospital.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

So we know than an ambulance came. Under the facts as stated, it is beyond absurd to suggest that the police had some sort of duty to force the woman to go to the hospital.

---

But if the woman was out of it and the boyfriend was in the police car, then the only people who could tell the paramedics anything were the police. So, what did the police tell the paramedics?

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

But if the woman was out of it and the boyfriend was in the police car, then the only people who could tell the paramedics anything were the police. So, what did the police tell the paramedics?

---

If the paramedics couldn't figure it out for themselves, the police would have told them where to find her. Not that it matters.

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

But if the woman was out of it and the boyfriend was in the police car, then the only people who could tell the paramedics anything were the police. So, what did the police tell the paramedics?

---

as long as the patient is conscious and not deemed mentally incompetent (through a short exam), the injured party is free to accept or decline medical aid including transport. The op states the injured party was setting up and conscious and "aware" (alert). A reasonable conclusion is that the injured party refused the transport.

It it wouldn't matter what the op said as long as the injured party refused transport.

Quote:

---

Quoting TechWorker

---

It's also reasonable to infer that the ambulance never came. And if the OP asked for an ambulance, why did the police come instead?

Or, if the ambulance came, why did the police come at all?

This is why people don't want to call 911. Why risk getting arrested?

Next time something like this happens, perhaps the OP should just drive his girlfriend to the hospital himself.

Edited to add: It is kind of ridiculous that the police were more focused on arresting a 20-year-old for possessing alcohol, than on helping a person with a head injury get to the hospital. It's not exactly a huge crime for someone who is old enough to go to war and die, to possess alcohol.

Which is why the police should have gotten that woman to the hospital.

---

The OP said

Quote:

---

Know being in the police car when the Ambulance comes I wasn't able to tell them what happened. They most of just thought she was drunk. They then let her go with a friend that soon came. The next morning she woke up throwing up blood, and bleeding out of her ear and nose. Her friend then took her to the hospital.

---

This means that the ambulance came and she was examined, but not transported to the hospital- probably because she refused transport.

Added: Mr K. beat me to it by noting same.