Court ruling on minors and alcohol has little effect statewide

A September ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals regarding the use of preliminary breath tests on minors suspected of being in possession of alcohol has caused one city to change its ordinance on the matter. But several other cities say the ruling will have no impact on law enforcement.

Earlier this month the Troy City Council changed its minor in possession law to reflect the court ruling which said that requiring minors to submit to preliminary breath tests was a violation of constitutional rights against illegal searches. Until that ruling, the law required officers to arrest minors who refused the test, commonly known as PBT.

Under the new ordinance, officers can request a minor suspected of being in possession of alcohol to take the test, but he or she can decline. Previously, state law required minors to take the test.

And while the city of Troy changed its ordinance, the cities of East Lansing and Ann Arbor said such a move is unnecessary in their jurisdictions because they have not been requiring PBTs for some time.

Kristen Larcom, a senior assistant city attorney for the city of Ann Arbor, said a change to Ann Arbor policy was made years ago.

“The whole search-and-seizure thing was first ruled on in a federal district court decision,” Larcom said. “And although a federal district court decision is not binding on a district court in Michigan, the feeling was that it would be better to follow the federal district court decision, or do as the federal district court says.”

Larcom said she has also found that the PBT was not necessary to prove a case of minor in possession. She said often officers stop minors who have a cup or glass in their hand and when they are asked what is in the cup, “it is quite common they will say beer or vodka and tonic.”

In East Lansing, Police Chief Tom Wibert said the city was also not impacted by the ruling, because it too changed its policies in 2006 to reflect the federal court ruling.

Wibert said the city has not issued an MIP citation since for minors who refused a PBT.

He also said that all alcohol related offenses are on a downward trend — except drunk driving. To highlight this, he shared the following numbers related to MIP citations:

2005: 1141
2006: 1041
2007: 746
2008: 842

And the reason for the change?

“My theory is that our population is changing. The students of today are more responsible,” Wibert said of the downward trend of MIP citations. “It’s tougher now to get into MSU than ever before. The people they are accepting today are more interested in academics.”

He also said that the upward trend in drunk driving charges does not reflect an actual increase in the number of drunk drivers. He said it has more to do with the fact that officers are more keyed into identifying and taking drunk drivers off the road.

“I tell my officers that that is the surest way to save a life,” Wibert said of the drunk-driving crack downs.

The new strict MIP law was brought about in the mid-1990s in part by lobbying from East Lansing city officials, who continue to lobby for alcohol-related laws. It is currently supporting legislation to give amnesty to minors and others if they seek medical attention for a person who is sickened by alcohol over-consumption.