Police officers are now required to use observable signs of intoxication or admissions of drinking as the basis for a Minor in Possession citation instead of a breathalyzer.
A state court of appeals upheld a decision from a U.S. District Court to prevent police officers to ask for breathalyzer tests on minors in non-driving cases without a warrant.
A preliminary breath test, or PBT, can now be given to a minor with a warrant, but it is unlikely a warrant could be issued in time for a breathalyzer to provide any evidence.
Public Information Officer Dave Sabuda said the Mount Pleasant Police Department has operated under this practice for the last few years.
“We can’t request they (minors) take PBTs to show they are in fact a minor in possession,” he said. “Now I’m looking for signs of intoxication. I’m looking for bloodshot eye, smell of alcohol on their breath, slurred speech and staggered speech.”
Central Michigan University Police Chief Bill Yeagley does not believe the new rules will greatly impact the CMU Police Department.
“When we have a conversation with someone about a minor in possession, we have a lot of tools we can use,” he said. “We’re going to continue doing things the way we do, minus the PBT. Before there were PBTs, we used our senses to determine whether minors were in possession.”
Isabella County Undersheriff Laude Hartrum said most minors normally submitted to a request for a PBT before the ruling.
He thinks the impact will be small, but there will be some minors who avoid an MIP citation without a PBT.
“Obviously, it’s going to have some impact, because it’s affording minors a protection they didn’t have before,” he said.
The Isabella County Sheriff’s Department will look for more warrants for PBTs in MIP cases if the situation calls for it, Hartrum said.
Drivers give implied consent to a PBT when they sign for their license, and refusal is an issue with the Secretary of State. If they continue to refuse, a blood test can be administered and their license can be suspended.
E-mail the author: Ryan Czachorski
This post was written by:
Ryan Czachorski – who has written 131 posts on Central Michigan Life.
Ryan was a senior reporter at Central Michigan Life in the spring and fall of 2010, before graduating in December of that year.
Stopping Unconstitutional Breathalyzers of Young Adults
In 2003, the ACLU of Michigan successfully sued Bay City on behalf of a 20-year-old rollerblader who, even though she was not drinking, was threatened with a civil infraction under a local Minor in Possession ordinance if she did not submit to a breath test. Despite sending letters to city attorneys across the state alerting them to the Bay City ruling, many police agencies – including the Michigan State Police – continued to violate young people’s rights. In August 2005 the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging a state law that is identical to the Bay City ordinance, suing the State of Michigan, Thomas Township, Saginaw County, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant and Isabella County. In September 2007, Judge David Lawson, in an opinion that will affect hundreds of young adults and teens across the state, held that the provision of the state law that required pedestrians to submit to a PBT violated the right to be free from searches without a search warrant. In 2009, the Michigan Court of Appeals, relying on the two ACLU cases, issued a similar decision. (Platte, et al. v. Thomas Township, et al.; Cooperating Attorneys: Marshall Widick, William Street and David Moran.)
Todd Levitt, CMU Student Lawyer, has been fighting MIP’s for students for over 17 years.
Todd Levitt, is a CMU Alumni, and can be reached at 989-772-6000, [email protected]