You won't believe what this Michigan law can be used for and how it can haunt you.

Can They Do That?

 

Do you feel that an officer of the law has unlawfully, or at least questionably, pulled you over, ticketed you, searched you, your vehicle, and or your occupants or even arrested you? WE NEED TO KNOW. There are many laws that are broken by citizens and our police officers. Some laws allow an officer to decide, on the spot, when your constitutional rights can be abused. Because the law is so vague, an officer can use his or her ability to search essentially unchallenged. This ability is mainly targeting our younger citizens because they are easier to scare, less informed of what an officer can and cannot do, and quicker to convince that it’s in their best interest to allow the officer to do and search whatever he or she wants.

Not that we want our children out drinking under age, but did you know that our children that are under the age of 21 are being targeted and illegally tested by our police officers so that they can get them in the system, cost you, as a tax payer, and them a lot of money in attorney fees, court costs, probation obligations, etc. In Federal court, on Wednesday, September 26th 2007, the Judge ruled that it is unconstitutional for a police officer to have anyone under the age of 21 take breath-alcohol test without first obtaining a warrant. However, the test could be performed in an emergency circumstance.

CONTRIBUTING TO MINORS

 

Here is a story where a law can come back to haunt you, where a stiffer fine and or jail term could be the result because of the fact a Judge can assume that you were giving alcohol to a minor (Contributing to Minors). This offense, when read by you or a Judge, lends itself to the assumption that the person convicted of this was providing alcohol or cigarettes to someone underage. Well think again.
This law was enacted in 1931: revised in 1939: and again in 1945.

750.145 Minor; contributing to neglect or delinquency.

With this law you can be cited with contributing to delinquency of a minor.
 

Sec.145. law reads:
 

Contributing to neglect or delinquency of children—Any person who shall by any act, or by any word, encourage, contribute toward, cause or tend to cause any minor child under the age of 17 years to become neglected or delinquent so as to come or tend to come under the jurisdiction of the juvenile division of the probate court, as defined in section 2 of chapter 12a of Act No. 288 of the Public Acts of 1939, as added by Act No. 54 of the Public Acts of the First Extra Session of 1944, and any amendments thereto, whether or not such child shall in fact be adjudicated a ward of the probate court, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

In other words, if you are not the parent or legal guardian of a person under the age of 17 and they are with you after 11:00 p.m. (the time may differ in your area), you are contributing to a minor. This could cost you court time, possibly probation, jail time up to 90 days, definitely a fine of up to $500.00, all because you took your son or daughter and their friend to the movies, store, anywhere essentially. This is not usually the case if a parent, who looks mature, is traveling with teens after their curfew, but legally you can be ticketed for this offense.

This begins our story of a young man, who we will call Bill. Bill, who was 17 years of age at the time, with good grades and in his last year of high school, stayed over at a 16 year old friend’s house for the weekend. He was there to study for exams. Saturday evening, Bill, his friend, along with his friend’s parents, began watching movies. Around 2:30 a.m., Bill and his friend went up to a fast food drive through to pick up burgers and fries for everyone. On the way back, they stopped at the store to pick up a couple 2 liters bottles of pop. As Bill and his friend exited the car, a police officer pulls into the parking lot, turns on his flashers and approaches the two of them. Bill was questioned on what they were doing. He explained to the officer that they had picked up some burgers and fries and was going to purchase some pop to take back to his friend's house, where they and his friend's parents were watching movies. The officer told Bill that he was lying and that he had pulled into this parking lot to avoid a traffic light. Bill showed him the food and that no drinks were purchased as of yet and that he could verify what they were doing by calling his friend’s parents. The officer then asked for his friend’s identification. After noticing that his friend was 16 years old, the officer stated that he was out after curfew. The officer arrested Bill and his friend, took them both to the police station, impounded Bill’s car and called his friend’s parents to have him picked up at the police station. After his friend’s parents had left, the officer let Bill go, along with a two tickets, one for Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor and the other for Diverting a Traffic Device. Bill, who didn’t want to wake up his parents at that time in the morning, ended up walking several miles to get home. Together, Bill and his father went to court to fight the tickets. The Judge read the charges, looked up at Bill and said “So, you were giving alcohol to a minor?” Bill said, “No, Your Honor,” and explained what had happened that night. This story ends like so many others. Bill ended up having to pay both tickets as well as paying to get his car from the impound. The cost of this was $425.00, a long walk home by himself in the middle of the night, time wasted to retrieve his car, time wasted at court, and a charge on his record that looks as if he had given alcohol to or helped a minor commit a crime.

Now, of course, we can say this could have been two young men out causing trouble but they weren’t. We just as easily might say this could have been two young men protecting the United States in Iraq. If this happened to a person who was in their mid 30s, and they had a 16 year old with them, none of this would have happened. The two young men had given the officer an easy way to verify their story. The officer chose to give tickets, impound a vehicle, and telephone the parents to pick up one of the boys because he was 16 years old, write reports and go to court, when a simple phone call would have cleared this up. But, of course, there’s no money in that.

This law, like many others, has cost thousands of people hundreds of dollars because, for the most part…who is going to hire an attorney for a few grand to fight a few hundred dollar ticket. The trick to this, for the officer, is to have a back up ticket, so that in the event the person complains too much, the Prosecutor has the option of making a deal with you by offering to drop one of the charges, usually the larger one, if you will agree to lie and pled guilty to the lesser charge. By doing this, you have confessed to a crime that you didn’t commit, given up all rights to fight for or defend yourself and gave the courts what they need to legally sentence and fine you.

By the way, the other part of this law, which is listed under a sub-category, says:

722.752 Curfew for minors under age 16.

Sec. 2. A minor under the age of 16 years shall not loiter, idle or congregate in or on any public street, highway, alley or park between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 a.m., immediately following, except where the minor is accompanied by a parent or guardian, or an adult delegated by the parent or guardian to accompany the minor, or where the minor is upon an errand or other legitimate business directed by his parent or guardian.

History: 1960, Act 41, Eff. Aug. 17, 1960 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 20, Imd. Eff. Feb. 19, 1972

BECOME A MEMBER AND HELP STOP THIS CYCLE.

TOGETHER, WE CAN MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD!

STARTING WITH MICHIGAN