"internal possession" while in the back seat?

[kickinandtickin]

It's been a while since I've been by ..
the computer crashed ... a friend built me a new one ..  and
since then I've been active in a variety of waves...

continuing to build this http://z7.invisionfree.com/E_Pluribus_Unum/index.php?showforum=163 and http://z7.invisionfree.com/E_Pluribus_Unum/index.php?showforum=165
and reading Brian Wright's "SNaP" and
finding my way over to the Deep Politics Forum http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/ and ...

But I thought I'd drop by to share this little story you folks already know about.. in the scheme of things, it's not that big a deal ... it wasn't about three buildings giving up the ghost on the same day, or whole cultures being taken out, or trillions in corporate welfare, or any of the other things that pass for law and political leadership these days... but it was about law, and respect, and common sense, and what we teach our children.

I know of a young man ...  perhaps he is an older adolescent, still maturing... perhaps he is wiser than his youth would indicate .. who was detained, arrested and charged by local police officers in New Hampshire several weeks ago after he and friends celebrated that quintessential (but dangerous) rite of passage known as high school graduation.

As someone in his 60's who crossed state lines with others in order to be able to buy six-packs of brewskis at my high school graduation party and whose two children are now long out of college, I'm familiar with the social phenomenon we call alcohol.  As an EMT, I've also dealt with the results of drunk driving and later coordinated a statewide awareness campaign in Massachusetts for the state society of emergency physicians.

This kid, in his own world of both youth and parents, is no stranger to drugs and/or alcohol. And I'm sure he's had parental and societal warnings about drinking and driving. Indeed, that night, he'd had a few beers .. he says two, but who am I to know? ... and then asked the 'designated driver' of the group to take the keys.

On the way home, the wary local constabulary  in the squad car was greatly concerned himself with the safety of the four teens out on the road at 2 AM as they drove slowly, carefully and sanely down the road, and he pulled them over. The driver rolled down the window; the officer said that he smelled beer, and asked if anyone had been drinking.

The child/man in the rear seat said to Officer Obie something like this:

"Yes, Officer [Obie], [I cannot tell a lie] I did... I had two beers [who am I to know? – and what does it matter?]", and then he was asked to hand over his driver's license ... the rear-seat passenger I'm talking about here and the driver was tested for  sobriety (and passed), and the rear-seat passenger was arrested (without having been read his rights) for "internal possession of alcohol in a motor vehicle" and taken down to the Po-leace station [I'm not clear as to whether they had a seeing eye dog there along with some 8x10 glossy photographs with circles and arrows on the back] where the child/man had to call his father to come 20 miles out of bed at 2:30 AM to pick him up and take him home.

After further discussion that night and again later with the ranking and arresting officers, it was explained that there was no need to read him his rights because the matter was a misdemeanor ["There is a $250 minimum fine for the first offense and $500 minimum fine for subsequent offenses, with possible additional penalties including a driver's license suspension even if the violation does not occur while operating a vehicle."], but the matter will also become part of the boy/child's legal record [he has applied to a specialized vo-tech school to become a firefighter in the state of New Hampshire so – he says – he can help people when they need help, but the application requires the applicant to have a clean driving record] and the nice officer said that the boy might as well plead guilty because he admitted his infraction to the arresting officer – - pardon me, officer, said the sleepy dad, I don't wish to be rude here, but what the hell is internal possession of alcohol? and why does it matter if the individual was a passenger in the back seat of the car? – well, intoned the man in blue, we need to be sure that the car full of youngsters doesn't go down the road to find some more beer and maybe be out all night with a drunk driver behind the wheel.

Aha!!

The officers were duly certified in the enforcement of "might have beens".

So there are more than a few people scratching their heads wondering why the law would penalize a young man who had clearly made the correct decision, his friends who clearly had taken the proper steps, his parents who had taught him not to drink and drive, and why the law would create a social hindrance for the youth because he'd been honest with the police officer, acted in good faith, did the right thing by not driving and by insuring that there was a sober driver, and why the law would further jeopardize his chance at a meaningful vocational education and possible career.

What attitude will that young person who did all the right things for all the right reasons and now has significant expense and grief for it have about police, authority and the law?

"By jiminy, Billy, we got ourselves another one of them terrorists-in-training."

[KBCraig]

All that formatting is difficult to read, but let me just say that I agree the "internal possession" BS is... well, BS.

This young gentleman also needs to learn to STFU, and that "cooperating" means giving evidence against himself to the police. If he hadn't admitted drinking (he was under no obligation to answer the question), and hadn't presented his ID (again, no obligation), he might have saved himself and his parents a lot of money and aggravation.

[kickinandtickin]

I apologize for the unreadability... I'm still experimenting and learning on what looks like what to whom, so thanks for the feedback.  I'm trying to improve readability, and I just struck out; back to the dugout to ponder...

I hear what you say, KB, but isn't it sad that we have to teach our children to STFU in any circumstances, let alone in front of the law?  One would think we were supposed to be on the same side as the law and therefore didn't have to hide anything from it, but that went out the door some time ago. Next month, I guess, we are going to have to keep our mouths shut (and maybe our eyes and ears closed?) to avoid being arrested, arraigned, inspected, detected, and all the rest for possession of thought and mind. Why is it that we can't see or know what government is doing but government's intrusion and surveillance of us is pervasive?

[Pat McCotter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

[John Edward Mercier]

Internal possession is when someone under the age of 21 has consumed alcohol.
The government, collective majority of reprentatives of the majority of voters, deems you to be an adult... but not really able to decide on whether to consume alcohol.

Worse, they've done this because of some contractual obligation to a federal department as part of a bribe. Its a really bad hold over from Prohibition.