By Travis Taylor

This crash course in civil liberties uses information from “A Guide for Law Enforcement Investigating and Prosecuting Underage Drinking Offenses ”, a handbook compiled for the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board by Jackie Atherton Bernard, a Pennsylvania Assistant District Attorney. John Hall’s “Entering premises to Arrest; The Threshold Question” from the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin also provided useful information.

As the bi-college community learns more about the raid, they can compare the written law with observed police conduct. This article focuses on laws broken, students’ rights, and specific information for students who were cited.

Who Were Those State Police Officers?

“Liquor Enforcement Officers (LEOs) are State Police Troopers responsible for conducting investigations performed through undercover operations or open inspections of licensed or unlicensed establishments.” <http://wapedia.mobi/en/Pennsylvania_Liquor_Control_Board>
 
Undercover Cops?

Having young-looking undercover cops pose as college students is an entirely legal, according to Bernard.

“Law enforcement officers/personnel are not prohibited from approaching individuals in a public place, asking if them if they will answer questions, asking questions if they are willing to listen or using answers given voluntarily to develop probable cause or as evidence in a criminal prosecution. Cmwlth v. Gibson, 638 A.2d 203 (Pa. 1994). Law enforcement needs no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to engage a willing individual in a consensual encounter. Cmwlth v. Bradley, 724 A.2d 351 (Pa.Super.  1999).”

Everybody cited was charged with a Section 6308 offense: “A person commits a summary offense if he, being less than 21 years of age, attempts to purchase, purchases, consumes, possesses or knowingly and intentionally transports alcohol.” <http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/>

Behaviors such as littering and disorderly conduct are also examples of summary criminal offenses in Pennsylvania, according to Bernard.

The penalty for underage drinking is a $300 fine, a 90-day license revocation, having your parents contacted, and getting the citation on your vehicular background check.

Haverford students probably got lucky. The state police could have charged the Lloyd hosts with a section 6310.1 misdemeanor: “A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if he intentionally and knowingly sells or intentionally and knowingly furnishes, or purchases with the intent to sell or furnish, any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to a person who is less than 21 years of age.”

However, “knowingly” and “intentionally” as defined in Commonwealth. v Scolieri , 813 A.2d 672 (Pa. Superior 2002) requires the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person furnishing alcohol to a minor knew that he or she was under the age of 21.

Legal Differences between Summary Offenses and Misdemeanors:    

Underage drinking citations do not appear on criminal background checks because, unlike misdemeanors, they do not require you to get finger printed.

Students’ Rights:

Students’ may not use force to resist a legal or illegal arrest, but if given a ticket, they have a right to a hearing in front of the District Justice. If they do not agree with the District Justice’s decision they have a right to appeal. <http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Aug/1/129468.html>

Police don’t always need a warrant. What someone exposes to the public, even if it is inside their own home, is not protected by the federal government.  Students were exposing the alcohol in public space. The police were legally allowed to arrest anyone who appeared publicly drunk on campus.
 
“Under the plain view doctrine, evidence in the plain view of the police can be seized without a warrant, but prior intrusion by law enforcement must be valid, the discovery of evidence must be inadvertent, and the evidence must be immediately apparent as contraband,” Bernard wrote. “In the Pennsylvania Case Commonwealth v. Gibson, 638 A.2d 203 (Pa. 1994), the court rejected the argument that the evidence of alcohol and the police observations were admissible under the plain view doctrine where the court found that the police had not lawfully gained entry. In effect, the Court found that underage drinking was not of such gravity of a criminal offense as to justify warrantless entry. The decision resulted in the suppression of observations by the police of minors consuming alcohol, as the products of an illegal arrest.”

That case does not apply to what happened at Haverford, however. “Because all police intrusions onto private property do not implicate the same fourth amendment interests as does an entry into a private residence, the courts have permitted warrantless arrests in the yard of a residence, on the porch, or even in the hallway of an apartment building,” Hall said.

The Facebook group would have provided more than enough information for probable cause and the anonymous tip attested to information worthy of a warrant, but the police had only slighter longer than one day between the tip and the party, which is not much time to obtain a warrant. The tip and Facebook event gave police the time and place, they just had to show up for the party.

Options for Students with Citations:

Legal Option 1:
Participate in “ARD”, the Accelerated Rehabilitation Disposition, which is a pre-trial intervention program that is designed to divert first-time, non-violent offenders from the criminal justice process. The state police will recommend that all students cited at Lloyd become eligible for ARD, according to a e-mail sent midday Friday by President Dr. Stephen G. Emerson ’74, Dean of Student Life Steve Watter, and Director of Safety and Security Tom King. If a person successfully completes the ARD program, the all records of the arrest and ARD disposition are destroyed from PA government agency files and databanks.  People must be referred to the program by the District Attorney. http://www.hillesduilaw.com/PracticeAreas/ARD.asp>, http://www.timgeorge.us/

Legal Option 2:
Plead guilty, pay the fine and be done with it.

Legal Option 3:
Plead not guilty, find a lawyer and contest the citation. This could be done as a group — where students split lawyer costs — or as individuals.

No matter which legal option is pursued, students should consult with a lawyer.

Remember, the burden of proof is on the police. They need to prove that every student is guilty and that their detention of every student was legal.

In a similar case, the court found that the detainment caused a significant interference with the individuals’ liberty, and no evidence was offered to establish how the methods employed by the LCE and police would reduce underage drinking.  Because of the absence of any evidence to support a “paramount public interest,” the court found that the stops violated the constitution.

Individual Cases

“Officers can stop an individual only long enough to verify or dispel the suspicion of criminality for a short period of time. Cmwlth v. Ellis, 662 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 1995). Courts will consider given circumstances confronting the police and will examine whether the police diligently pursued a method of investigation that was likely to quickly dispel or verify their suspicion.

“Courts will consider given circumstances confronting the police and will examine whether the police diligently pursued a method of investigation that was likely to quickly dispel or verify their suspicion,” Bernard said. Being made to sit in a circle for two hours to get a breathalyzer might not be considered a quick way to verify preexisting suspicions.

An individual may be detained briefly by law enforcement for investigatory purposes on less than probable cause if the police have articulable suspicion to believe that the individual has committed a crime, according to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.1 (1968). According to Bernard, reasonable articulable suspicion is decided by the police officer and can be based upon the officer’s observations, students exhibiting obvious signs of intoxication, or reliable information supplied by a known informant.

There is a chance that the officer did not have reasonable articulable suspicion for every student. If the police can’t prove reasonable suspicion, all charges against them will be dropped.

The 5th Amendment

“Miranda warnings preserve the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by requiring that individuals be informed that one cannot be compelled to be a witness against one’s self,” Bernard wrote.

If students were not visibly drunk, drinking or being disorderly, and were then detained by the police and held in the circle and were not told their Miranda Rights at any time, anything students told them is not admissible in court.

However, Bernard said "it is well-settled that spontaneous utterance, unsolicited by the police, is admissible." Cmwlth. v. Clark, 311 A.2d 910 (Pa. 1973).”  So if a student said anything like “I’m so drunk” to friends and a cop overheard, that is admissible evidence. Also, police don’t need to tell suspects Miranda rights to administer a breathalyzer, Cmwlth v. Benson, 421 A.2d 383. 

Related articles

• Criminal Defense Experts Offer Legal Perspective on Lloyd Raids
• What Happens If You Are Arrested?
• State Police Cite 31 Students for Underage Drinking at Lloyd Around the World
• What the Cited Students Are Doing Now
• Five Students Found Guilty of Underage Drinking, 24 Take Com Serv
• Bryn Mawr student arrested at Swat
• A sobering thought: underage drinking in the bi-co
• PLOUT — Students Evaluate Drinking Before, After Lloyd Raid
• HC Reflects on Raid and Fire in Forum
• JSAAPP Modifies Alcohol Policy; Policy Will be Up For Approval at Plenary