www.elawfacts.com

RCW 66.44.270 (2) (a) makes it unlawful for a person under 21 to possess or consume alcohol. This charge is commonly referred to as minor in possession or MIP. Conviction for MIP may result in imprisonment, loss of license and fines of health. Law enforcement often make the mistake of thinking that the law allows them to arrest and charge a minor if the minor showing signs of having consumed alcohol. As we shall see, this is incorrect.

Pure alcohol in your system is not sufficient to prove the MIP

Court of the State V. Roth, 131 Wn. App. 556 (2006) addressed the question of whether the evidence showing any signs of having consumed alcohol was sufficient to justify a conviction under RCW 66.44.270 (2). In Roth, the defendant worked 20 years at a party where alcohol was present. No one saw accused of drinking alcohol, but when the police contacted Mr. Roth they noticed he was swaying and exuding a strong odor of alcohol coming from his breath, so they issued a ticket for MIP. Mr. Roth was subsequently convicted in municipal court MIP.

On appeal, Roth Court reversed the conviction Defendant for lack of evidence. Roth the Court:

The defendant possesses a controlled substance, when he knows that the presence of the substance, the substance is readily available, and the defendant exercised dominion and control over substance. State v. Hornaday, 105 Wn.2d 120, 125, 713 P.2d 71 (1986). Possession may be actual or constructive. State v. Dalton, 72 Wn. Of the application. 674, 676, 865 P. 2d 575 (1994). The accused was in possession of a substance should be determined by the trier of fact in all circumstances. State v. Partin, 88 Wn.2d 899, 906, 567 P. 2d 1136 (1977). The mere presence of alcohol in your system is not enough by itself to justify a conviction. Dalton, 72 Wn. Of the application. at 676. However, if consumer testing before it is combined with other corroborating evidence may be sufficient to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt. Identification No single factor is determinative of the existence of domination and control. State v. Turner, 103 Wn. Of the application. 515, 521, 13 234 P.3d (2000). Emphasis.

This means that a minor charged under MIP should be able to get the case thrown out of court before trial, unless there is more evidence to prove possession. If you find yourself or a loved one charged with MIP based solely on the odor of alcohol, you should talk to a lawyer immediately to have the case dismissed.