MIP California, 14 Year Old

My question involves criminal law for the state of: CA

I have a 14 year old who thought he was old enough to drink-in the new year, and then make life difficult for a police officer who was doing his job (resisting). I have heard from others that kids can get licence suspension from this. Obviously my son has no licence, but the other rumor I've heard is that they can restrict kids from obtaining a licence for some period? Is there any truth or likelihood to that? Or will it be a whole different process, probation or something?

(as a sidenote - would judges these days take a dim view on parents who smack their kids around the head for saying "EVERYone was drinking". Sorry buddy, my apologies.)

2010, good year so far.

Quote:

---

Quoting jnt

---

I have a 14 year old who thought he was old enough to drink-in the new year, and then make life difficult for a police officer who was doing his job (resisting). I have heard from others that kids can get licence suspension from this. Obviously my son has no licence, but the other rumor I've heard is that they can restrict kids from obtaining a licence for some period? Is there any truth or likelihood to that? Or will it be a whole different process, probation or something?

---

It depends on what code section he has been charged with, but if a "true finding" is made, it could restrict him from getting his license for on year beyond eligibility.

13202.5. (a) For each conviction of a person for an offense
specified in subdivision (d), committed while the person was under
the age of 21 years, but 13 years of age or older, the court shall
suspend the person's driving privilege for one year. If the person
convicted does not yet have the privilege to drive, the court shall
order the department to delay issuing the privilege to drive for one
year subsequent to the time the person becomes legally eligible to
drive. However, if there is no further conviction for an offense
specified in subdivision (d) in a 12-month period after the
conviction, the court, upon petition of the person affected, may
modify the order imposing the delay of the privilege. For each
successive offense, the court shall suspend the person's driving
privilege for those possessing a license or delay the eligibility for
those not in possession of a license at the time of their conviction
for one additional year.

Quote:

---

(as a sidenote - would judges these days take a dim view on parents who smack their kids around the head for saying "EVERYone was drinking". Sorry buddy, my apologies.)

---

The court may not enjoy hearing that attitude, but the cops ain't gonna fault you for that ... ask my teenage sons. :D

Quote:

---

2010, good year so far.

---

Rumor has it that their brains return at about age 25.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

It depends on what code section he has been charged with,

---

Ok, PC148 and 25662.
So the part that says if there are no more convictions in a year the court "may modify the order imposing the delay of the privilege" - does that mean he could get some sort of limited license? Not that it really matters that much to ME, he's the one who decided to go out there and get into trouble, really more the inconvenience to me of being in an area where a teenager having their own license/being responsible enough to have a license is a big help. (He'd just have to learn to live with 'if it suits us'.)

I had always thought, have had no actual interactions at all though, that Juvenile sentencing was a whole different process to adult. That the guidelines of fine, community service etc wouldn't be followed absolutely. That it was a more individual approach basically? (probation requirements etc) I don't know why I think that though. (And I wasn't actually that interested in finding out, thank you son)

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

The court may not enjoy hearing that attitude, but the cops ain't gonna fault you for that ... ask my teenage sons. :D

---

Excellent ;)

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Rumor has it that their brains return at about age 25.

---

That's not very comforting right now. I'll be in the corner rocking by then. I guess I have been spoilt with his older brother and sister whose brains didn't roam too far....

Quote:

---

Quoting jnt

---

Ok, PC148 and 25662.
So the part that says if there are no more convictions in a year the court "may modify the order imposing the delay of the privilege" - does that mean he could get some sort of limited license?

---

No, that means that they can petition to shorten the duration. And, yes, he can also petition for a restricted license, but being that he does not yet HAVE a license, I doubt the court will entertain that.

I'd be more concerned with the PC 148 charge. That means he resisted, obstructed, or delayed a peace officer in some way. That is a misdemeanor offense that has the potential of time in the pokey. While that is unlikely, depending on what he did, he could spend time in juvenile hall, get probation, and have some nifty fines to pay off.

Quote:

---

I had always thought, have had no actual interactions at all though, that Juvenile sentencing was a whole different process to adult. That the guidelines of fine, community service etc wouldn't be followed absolutely.

---

They have additional options available, but if convicted of B&P 25662 the Vehicle Code states that the license SHALL be suspended. No waffling in there.

Quote:

---

That's not very comforting right now. I'll be in the corner rocking by then. I guess I have been spoilt with his older brother and sister whose brains didn't roam too far....

---

I have two sons that are teens ... they also have the unfortunate fate of being in a small town where there dad is the #2 guy in the police department and knows everyone - including their friends and their friends' families. So, they have a hard time getting away with much. Heck, I find out when they weren't wearing a bicycle helmet! :D

But, there are days that my wife sits in our room and growls at me, "Go talk to YOUR son ..." Then I know those brains are still MIA.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

No, that means that they can petition to shorten the duration.

---

Right, gotcha.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I'd be more concerned with the PC 148 charge. That means he resisted, obstructed, or delayed a peace officer in some way.

---

Ok. Yes I understand he gave them some difficulty. He probably acted like a 14 year old who can't hold their alcohol...

Although his version is that he did 'nothing'. :rolleyes: Call me crazy but I suspect that's not accurate. I told him I hope he realizes that he's going to have to take responsibilty for his behavior at some point.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

That is a misdemeanor offense that has the potential of time in the pokey. While that is unlikely, depending on what he did, he could spend time in juvenile hall, get probation, and have some nifty fines to pay off.

---

Right, well I think basically he was a pain in the butt for them. I was just looking that up and saw $1000....my son might have to go around the neighborhood, lay down some lawns, tend to them and....theeeen mow them. I'll be interested to see what he thinks of the whole juvenile hall, $1000 scenario.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

They have additional options available, but if convicted of B&P 25662 the Vehicle Code states that the license SHALL be suspended. No waffling in there.

---

Nope, pretty cut and dry.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I have two sons that are teens ... they also have the unfortunate fate of being in a small town where there dad is the #2 guy in the police department and knows everyone - including their friends and their friends' families. So, they have a hard time getting away with much. Heck, I find out when they weren't wearing a bicycle helmet! :D

---

Haha. Poor kids. I knew I should have become a police officer.

Quote:

---

Quoting jnt

---

Haha. Poor kids. I knew I should have become a police officer.

---

Well, it sounds like you are on the right track with the kids. Always keep your mind open to the possibility that the kid could be lying, and you should do all right. I operate under the Reagan rule: "Trust, but verify." I give them some benefit of the doubt, but before I am willing to go the whole ten yards, I want to know that I'm not being made the fool.

I liked the bit about laying the lawn and THEN mowing it. :) It reminds of the time back in the old days (when not only parents, but neighbors got to whip your behind when you did bad stuff) when I was 12 and my friend was 11 and we were caught playing "ding dong ditch" on a neighbor. The neighbor dragged us to our homes, and then our parents and ANOTHER neighbor conspired as to our penalty.

You see, there was this huge stump from a pine tree that had been in the back yard ... and it needed moving ... but, first, it needed to be soaked, chopped, soaks again, pulled, and pried out of the ground. So, over the next two days from nearly dawn to dusk, I learned how to use a pick, an axe, a shovel, and how to rig a chain to a winch on a nearly new 1972 Ford truck. Oh ... I stopped playing that game after that weekend.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I operate under the Reagan rule: "Trust, but verify." I give them some benefit of the doubt, but before I am willing to go the whole ten yards, I want to know that I'm not being made the fool.

---

Yeap, good advice.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

You see, there was this huge stump from a pine tree that had been in the back yard ... and it needed moving ... but, first, it needed to be soaked, chopped, soaks again, pulled, and pried out of the ground. So, over the next two days from nearly dawn to dusk, I learned how to use a pick, an axe, a shovel, and how to rig a chain to a winch on a nearly new 1972 Ford truck. Oh ... I stopped playing that game after that weekend.

---

:) That sounds like a pretty firm response to ding dong ditch. I think that manual labor is a good response to kids around this age. (and as a bonus, all those things your wife has been bugging you to do for months suddenly get done!)

Is there a list somewhere, or could you post a basic list from a police officer's point of view, of behaviors that would be considered resisting, obstructing, delaying an officer? I sat down beside my son while he looked PC148 up on the internet, made sure he saw the part about $1000, jail time. I asked him what he thought of that. "Didn't do it". :rolleyes: :wallbang:

Maybe he really doesn't understand. I haven't found anywhere that really expands beyond 'resisting, obstructing, delaying'. And I'm guessing it's fairly open to a police officer in terms of interpretation depending on a situation?

Before that court date I will be telling him that he's going to be better off being honest, that a judge isn't going to be very impressed with a kid who just keeps denying everything, I'm assuming there's going to be a police report (even THE police officer?) with a VERY clear account of it all. (not getting a lot of information about the alcohol and where that originated from either, the father of a friend of his called me with "where'd they get it??" aswell so none of them are being very informative.)

Maybe he doesn't even remember :rolleyes:

Many things can constitute 148.
Most anything that prevents or distracts the officer from his ability to do his job can be considered 148. Merely expressing First Amendment rights is not sufficient for a 148 charge, but lipping off such that the officers cannot interview others or are constantly having to focus their attention on him can be.

Here is a discussion from CPOLS published by the CA A.G.:

Resisting Public Officers in the Performance of Their Duties (Pen. Code, § 148) Misdemeanor

"Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician . . . in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both . . . ."

There is no violation of this section unless the suspect "actively impedes" an officer. For example, where a suspect through his conduct, the use of force, or even the threatened use of force interferes with the performance of an officer's duty there is a clear violation of section 148. (Pool (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1051, 1070.) Flight during a lawful detention constitutes "resisting" (see Quiroga (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 961, 967), as does running and hiding when an officer is about to effect a detention (Allen (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 981, 987). Providing officers with a false name following a lawful arrest constitutes "obstruction." (Christopher (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 418, 431-432 [separate chargeable offense under Pen. Code, § 148.9 irrelevant].)

However, when it comes to basing a violation of section 148 strictly on a suspect's use of words (other than threatening to use force against you), you must proceed very carefully because "the statute must be applied with great caution to speech." "The areas of unprotected speech are extremely narrow." (Quiroga (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 961, 968.)
For example, there is no violation where a suspect merely challenges your actions ("You need a warrant to be in here"), shouts obscenities, throws down an ID, or obeys your orders very slowly. "While the police may resent having abusive language directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment." (Quiroga (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 961, 966; see also Pool (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1051, 1070.)

On the other hand, if a person's speech goes beyond criticism of the officer and constitutes an attempt to intimidate a suspected victim, then a section 148 violation has occurred. In other words, although a person has a right to criticize the manner in which you are conducting an investigation, the First Amendment is not a license to intimidate a suspected victim into denying commission of criminal conduct. (Green (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1438.)

Likewise, while a person has some leeway not to immediately respond to a police command, responding with defiance, whether by words or actions, may constitute a section 148 violation.

* Example: Defendant stepped up to a police vehicle where an arrested suspect was sitting and began talking to him. When officers ordered him to step away, he acknowledged them with a hand gesture but continued talking. This was a section 148 violation. (Muhammed C. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1325, 1330.)

* Example: It was a violation of section 148 for the defendant, upon observing an undercover operator attempting to purchase narcotics from a suspect, to shout to the suspect, "Get away from that guy! The guy's a cop!" (Robles (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 6-7.)

* Example: It was a violation of section 148 for a father, when officers entered his house to investigate possible child abuse, to enter the bedroom with them, yank the covers off his child (the suspected victim) and say, "Son, get up. The police are here because they think I have been beating you. You know that didn't happen, but that's what they think." (Green (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1437-1438.)

Additionally, there can be no violation of section 148 , unless the defendant knows, or reasonably should have known, that the person attempting to make the arrest was a peace officer. (Lopez (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 592.)

This section also prohibits a person from removing a firearm or other weapon from the person or immediate presence of an officer. It makes no difference whether or not the person is "resisting" at the time he takes the firearm or other weapon. Furthermore, if he takes the firearm, it makes no difference whether or not the person intends to permanently deprive the officer of its possession.

Lastly, it is also a violation of section 148 for a person to knowingly and maliciously interrupt, disrupt, impede, or otherwise interfere with the transmission of a communication over a police radio frequency.

Thanks for that.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

but lipping off such that the officers cannot interview others or are constantly having to focus their attention on him can be.

---

I suspect that kind of thing did form part of it.

I had him sit and digest all that. He let a few things slip while he was reading it. I managed to pry some things out of him.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Flight during a lawful detention constitutes "resisting" (see Quiroga (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 961, 967), as does running and hiding when an officer is about to effect a detention (Allen (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 981, 987).

---

He read this and said "I didn't run". Asked him what he meant it seems that when the officers decided to "get him" he was walking away, backing away from them (I don't know how much further things went from that - I asked him if he struggled with them and he shrugged his shoulders...knowing this kid that usually means 'yes but I don't want to say yes'). He also seems to have done something similar when they wanted to look in his backpack (which had alcohol in it), walking away, swinging the backpack away from them. He seemed to think they didn't have the right to search his backpack. He already admitted that he had a drink in his hands when officers approached them...which would make me think they DID have the right?

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

For example, there is no violation where a suspect merely challenges your actions ("You need a warrant to be in here"), shouts obscenities, throws down an ID, or obeys your orders very slowly.

---

Seems he swore at them a couple of times, and after he read that he thought that was all fine and good to do - infact, he was perfectly happy to admit to it, "look you can". :mad: Ok kid, how about a discussion about respect? I think probably that helped draw attention to himself to start with...

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Likewise, while a person has some leeway not to immediately respond to a police command, responding with defiance, whether by words or actions, may constitute a section 148 violation.

---

He seemed interested in this and wanted it explained another way. But he wouldn't say why. Did he do something along those lines, "maybe" (progress from "nothing"). I suppose the thing with the backpack fits into that definition. I suspect there were more actions that he hasn't mentioned yet...is this beginning to sound like resisting/obstructing?

I am astounded by my son right now, I really am. All this hasn't come completely out of the blue, there have been a couple of things over the last few months that indicated the brain was becoming MIA but I didn't think this would be right around the corner.

Quote:

---

Quoting jnt

---

He seemed to think they didn't have the right to search his backpack. He already admitted that he had a drink in his hands when officers approached them...which would make me think they DID have the right?

---

If they could articulate that they believed he was in possession of more alcohol (and that's not a stretch) then that could be sufficient probable cause for a search. Plus, as a minor in possession of alcohol he was subject to arrest, so the argument can be made that he was searched incident to arrest.

Quote:

---

Seems he swore at them a couple of times, and after he read that he thought that was all fine and good to do - infact, he was perfectly happy to admit to it, "look you can". :mad: Ok kid, how about a discussion about respect? I think probably that helped draw attention to himself to start with...

---

That attitude thing goes a long way!

Quote:

---

He seemed interested in this and wanted it explained another way. But he wouldn't say why. Did he do something along those lines, "maybe" (progress from "nothing"). I suppose the thing with the backpack fits into that definition. I suspect there were more actions that he hasn't mentioned yet...is this beginning to sound like resisting/obstructing?

---

You put it all together, it sounds like it could be there.

Quote:

---

I am astounded by my son right now, I really am. All this hasn't come completely out of the blue, there have been a couple of things over the last few months that indicated the brain was becoming MIA but I didn't think this would be right around the corner.

---

Well, I have had some surprises pop out in my conversations with my oldest boy. When we popped several kids at a house for drinking, he casually mentioned he had been there a few times over the summer. He thought that since he did not drink that it was okay and did not understand (and still doesn't) why I expect him to beat a hasty retreat if he pops in on such parties.

Kids!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

If they could articulate that they believed he was in possession of more alcohol (and that's not a stretch) then that could be sufficient probable cause for a search. Plus, as a minor in possession of alcohol he was subject to arrest, so the argument can be made that he was searched incident to arrest.

---

Right, yes, I didn't think there would be anything too wrong with them searching the backpack.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

That attitude thing goes a long way!

---

Yeap, I don't think acting like a brat is a smart thing to do...

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Kids!!!

---

Baffling. Even my 17 year old son said to me "I can't believe that he just told you that he told a cop to f-off".

It seems like this PC148 charge might be something he could definitely do with talking to a lawyer about. To make sure it's accurate to his behavior. If it turns out there's no legal consequences, from what I know so far he's still getting a kick up the backside for his behavior from me anyway. He did not deal with the police in a very smart, or respectful, way. The alcohol charge, seems pretty clear that's what he was up to.

Typically, if he appears before a court or a juvenile probation officer (depending on the process in your county) a contrite and apologetic demeanor can result in counseling and some informal penalties. If he comes off with an attitude, all bets are off!

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Typically, if he appears before a court or a juvenile probation officer (depending on the process in your county) a contrite and apologetic demeanor can result in counseling and some informal penalties. If he comes off with an attitude, all bets are off!

---

Ok, he's still got some time to decide on how he wants to present himself. I'll give him my advice but if he insists on being the brat he appears to have been on new years...well, he can deal with that.

Will an informal hearing, which he may attend depending on what happens, still result in the license restriction? Or is that county specific? (of course, if he continues to act like this he's not getting near our cars anyway) Or does this just rotate back to the "license SHALL be suspended"?

Do kids typically need a lawyer for an informal hearing? From what I understand an informal hearing only occurs if the kid accepts the charges.

If informal and being done before a probation officer, an attorney is not likely to be necessary, initially. It would not hurt to consult one, but it shouldn't be vital.

And the license suspension only occurs upon a CONVICTION (aka a "true finding") in a court. So, if a judgment is withheld or deferred, then it should not effect him.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

If informal and being done before a probation officer, an attorney is not likely to be necessary, initially. It would not hurt to consult one, but it shouldn't be vital.

---

Ok.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

And the license suspension only occurs upon a CONVICTION (aka a "true finding") in a court. So, if a judgment is withheld or deferred, then it should not effect him.

---

Got it.

Thanks for all this, I really appreciate it.