Underage drinking and the Fifth Amendment

[CTLawGuy]

This is a fictional case I made up. It was inspired by a recent Supreme Court decision. Tell me how you would rule if you were on the Supreme Court.


---------------
Paul Johnson is 18 years old. He is attending a local all-day rock festival at an outdoor concert hall. He asks his 21 year old friend, Joe, to buy him a beer at a nearby concession stand. Joe does so without incident.

As Paul walks away from the stand, a police officer assigned to cover the festival notices that Paul looks a little young to be carrying a beer. He did not witness Joe give the beer to Paul.

The officer confronts Paul and asks him for his identification. Paul had been taking Civics that past school year, and he remembered his Fifth Amendment lesson - that you do are not compelled to incriminate yourself. Knowing he is too young to legally possess alcohol, Paul tells the officer, "I refuse to show you my ID on the grounds I may incriminate myself."

The officer gets upset and asks him again, less politely. Paul refuses, repeating his previous statement in a non-chalant fashion. After repeating this exchange a couple more times, mixed intermittently with threats on the officer's part and defiance on Paul's part, the officer arrests the young man for refusing to identify himself to a police officer, which is a crime in that state. Paul says "my name is Paul Johnson! Don't take my ID." Upon arrest the officer takes Paul's wallet out of his pocket, checks the date of birth on the ID, and confirms that Paul is drinking underage.

Upon confirming Paul's identity, the officer adds the charge of Minor in Possession, which in that state carries a $300 fine. Paul contests the fine in court. The case reaches the Supreme Court.

Paul argues as follows:
The fifth amendment says that no one can be compelled to tesify against himself. That also means no one can be compelled to provide incriminating information against himself. This is the basis of the "right to remain silent." The recent Supreme Court decision, Hiibel v. Nevada, says that I have a right not to give "disclosures that I reasonably believe could be used in a criminal prosecution " I had every reason to believe my age was the sole evidence necessary to convict me of MIP.
Furthermore, I told the officer my name. That was all he had a right to expect. He didn't need to rip my ID out of my wallet. He did it specifically to get the evidence of my age.
If I had been able to exercise my right against self incrimination, the officers would not have gotten the evidence and I would not be facing the $300 fine. Therefore, you should overturn the conviction for MIP.

The officer argues as follows:
My actions were completely justified to stop a crime which was in the progress of being committed. Under the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, the police have the right to temporarily detain a person if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is committing a crime, or about to commit a crime. I saw Mr. Johnson carrying an alcoholic beverage, and in my opinion he did not look 21 years of age. That is grounds for reasonable suspicion that Mr. Johnson was committing a crime.
The recent Hiibel case said that the police have the right to compel you to identify yourself in the situation I described above. If I suspect Mr. Johnson is committing a crime, This case gives me the right to ask him who he is, and state law compels him to tell me. The Court reasoned that someone's identity is not in itself incriminating. I was merely trying to ascertain who the kid was.
He told me his name, but only after I had to arrest him. The way he was acting, I could not be sure he was giving me a correct name, since he was being very smart-alecky. I had to see his ID to confirm his real name.
Furthermore, the laws of the state allow me to examine the ID of a person who unlawfully refuses to identify himself.
In sum, I acted completely within the guidelines of the law. If, in the course of my lawful action, I uncover evidence of the crime which I am investigating, it should not be excluded. Its the same idea as if I lawfully enter someone's house to handle a domestic dispute and I find kilos of Marijuana in plain view. I am allowed to use the kilos of marijuana to charge the owner with drug trafficing, since it is in plain view. I did not force Mr. Johnson to confess he was underage, the information was merely apparent, in plain view, next to another piece of information I had a legal right to have, his name.

------------------

Should Paul Johnson have to pay the $300 fine?

[Loonman]

1. Officer had PC when he suspected the youth's age

Probable cause, that is.

Paul should have poured it out if he did not want to produce his ID.

Hypothetically.

[shimmergal]

2. The larger question is,

How can we possibly justify forbidding 18-20 year olds to drink, when adulthood starts at 18 by most every other measure?

At the least, before states let the feds impose this law vis blackmail with highway funds, there should have been some good studies from countries with lower legal drinking ages _proving_ that it contributes to higher accident rates, esp. those caused by drunken drivers.

I've never seen this. I doubt such studies exist. And I'm as opposed as anyone to driving under the influence. But what about the millions of times no driving is involved--including your example?

I get the point about the 5th Amendment etc., but think there is another issue here. Nobody talks about it, because most teenage drinking is done illegally _and_ quietly, and most everybody "grows out of" this restriction, but still. . .

Under-25 male drivers have the highest accident rates, drunk or sober. It would make more sense to raise the driving age to 25 (not that I'm suggesting it <G>).

[Loonman]

3. What does that have to do with the hypothetical case?

????

[qazplm]

4. pretty clear to me

that the officer had probable cause to arrest the kid based on his suspicion of the kid's age and his drinking.

[CTLawGuy]

5. but can the kid

refuse to show his ID on the grounds of self-incrimination?

[northzax]

6. sure,

but on that same note, since there was probable cause, the police officer would be well within the law to arrest the kid, handcuff him and take him downtown.