Underage Possession/Consumption

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Ohio

I was cited this past weekend for underage possesssion/consumption. I was tested for my blood alcohol level upon being caught and blew a .00. Can i still be charged with consumption? Also what are the consequences that i may face in court? Should i get a lawyer? Please let me know for my court date is this Friday.

When the officer asked you if you consumed alcohol, did you say "yes"? That's evidence of consumption, even if you blew a zero. But it may not make much difference. I assume you're charged under ORC 4301.69(E)(1). That charge is the same for possession and consumption ("No underage person shall knowingly order, pay for, share the cost of, attempt to purchase, possess, or consume any beer or intoxicating liquor in any public or private place.") If you're charged with the one offense, they don't need to prove both possession and consumption. Violation is a misdemeanor of the first degree, carrying a maximum penalty of imprisonment for not more than 6 months and a fine of not more than $1,000.

Possession and consumption are 2 distinct charges. You can possess but not consume.

Admitting you drank, but blew a zero is prima facie evidence you did NOT consume, even if you admitted it.

IF the sole basis for a consumption charge is your admittance, you need not say it on the witness stand as it will incriminate you, therefore the officer would need more evidence than your statement, such as red eyes, blurred speech, etc.

Blowing zero after drinking alcohol is evidence that you've metabolized the alcohol, not that you didn't consume the alcohol. There's a potential issue of an unsworn statement being used as the sole evidence of a crime, but that's something else entirely. (And it seems possible that being in possession of alcohol could be viewed by a court as sufficiently corroborative of the confession.)

But take the time to read my post, including the quoted statutory language. If there was possession, that possession/consumption statute still applies even if there's no evidence of consumption. Those are not distinct charges under ORC 4301.69.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

But take the time to read my post, including the quoted statutory language. If there was possession, that possession/consumption statute still applies even if there's no evidence of consumption. Those are not distinct charges under ORC 4301.69.

---

Sure they are distinct seperate charges, as E1 also lists attempt to pay for. So how is attempting to pay for possession?

Where did you see that he was attempting to pay for alcohol?

I'm assuming that he was caught in possession of alcohol. In that case, consumption is not necessary to proceed with the offense. All the BAC would have done is make the possession charge that much more solid addin the element of "consumption" as well.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Where did you see that he was attempting to pay for alcohol?

I'm assuming that he was caught in possession of alcohol. In that case, consumption is not necessary to proceed with the offense. All the BAC would have done is make the possession charge that much more solid addin the element of "consumption" as well.

- Carl

---

My point was that the statute lists MANY charges, they are not seperated by E1, E2, E3 etc.

(E)(1) No underage person shall knowingly order, pay for, share the cost of, attempt to purchase, possess, or consume any beer or intoxicating liquor in any public or private place. No underage person shall knowingly be under the influence of any beer or intoxicating liquor in any public place.

You can not charge consumption without probable cause simply because E1 lists it.

Given the facts here, they may give PC to charge consumption. IF a person just bought some beer and did not drink it yet and was totally stable, you can't charge consumption just because E1 lists it, possession and pay for, yes.

But the section INCLUDES "possession". So, the same statute covers any of the articulated offenses. The OP stated he/she was charged with "possession/consumption". That is probably the term the officer used as that is probably the common shorthand utilized for the offense even if no consumption is definitively shown.

If the defendant were accused only of consumption, you might have a point (provided no other objective signs were present, and coupled with the admission). But, I strongly suspect this is more about possession than consumption.

- Carl

I understand that, my point was simply because E1 lists more than 1 charge, ALL can't be included simply because 1 is broken.

As I said, given the facts of what the poster stated, as he said he admitted to drinking, this may give rise to the combo charge.

IF he said "NO I have not been drinking as I just bought it", and blew a zero, then possession/consumption is out, it would be possession/pay for.

But, we do not know the facts here as the OP has not returned to clarify them. Heck, for all we know, the OP bought it, walked outside, and took a swig while under the watchful eye of the officer. All are included in the same charge and go to support the offense. The officer would not be required to cite the OP three times for the same incident for each occurrence. When they go to court, the officer will articulate what he observed, the judge will decide whether said observations violate the cited section, and the court will evaluate the case to render his or her decision.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

But, we do not know the facts here as the OP has not returned to clarify them. Heck, for all we know, the OP bought it, walked outside, and took a swig while under the watchful eye of the officer. All are included in the same charge and go to support the offense. The officer would not be required to cite the OP three times for the same incident for each occurrence. When they go to court, the officer will articulate what he observed, the judge will decide whether said observations violate the cited section, and the court will evaluate the case to render his or her decision.

- Carl

---

Well, technically he could cite for a violation of E1, possession.

2nd citation; E1, consumption.

One citation is sufficient though, and can list both. The court, even if cited seperately, will consolidate the charges.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Well, technically he could cite for a violation of E1, possession.

2nd citation; E1, consumption.

One citation is sufficient though, and can list both. The court, even if cited seperately, will consolidate the charges.

---

If our section covered both possession and consumption, we would just cite for the one section even if both were present. It's not the description written on the cite that matters, it is the code section and the elements contained within.

If the officer can articulate ONLY an admission of consumption as "proof" of a violation, then the case stands a good chance of being dismissed with a .00 BAC. An admission, by itself, is insufficient grounds for conviction in most any crime. I seriously doubt that the only thing here is an officer walking by and asking a kid if he had a drink.

- Carl