Minor in Possession of Alcohol by Consumption

 RCW 66.44.270(2)(a) makes it illegal for a person under 21 to possess or consume alcohol.  This criminal charge is commonly referred to as Minor in Possession or MIP.  Conviction for MIP can lead to jail time, loss of driver’s license and healthy fines.  Law enforcement often makes the mistake of thinking that this law allows them to arrest and charge a minor if the minor is exhibiting the signs of having consumed alcohol.  As we will see, this turns out to be incorrect.  

Mere presence of alcohol in one's system 
is insufficient to prove MIP

          The Court in State v. Roth, 131 Wn. App. 556 (2006) dealt with the issue of whether evidence that a minor exhibited the signs of having consumed alcohol was sufficient to support a conviction under RCW 66.44.270(2).  In Roth, the 20 year old Defendant went to a party where alcohol was present.  No one saw the Defendant consume any alcohol, yet when police contacted Mr. Roth they noticed that 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 of MIP in municipal court.

On appeal, the Roth Court reversed the Defendant’s conviction on the basis of insufficient evidence.  According to the Roth Court :  

  A defendant possesses a controlled substance when he knows of the substance's presence, the substance is immediately accessible, and the defendant exercises dominion and control over the substance. State v. Hornaday, 105 Wn.2d 120, 125, 713 P.2d 71 (1986). Possession may be either constructive or actual. State v. Dalton , 72 Wn. App. 674, 676, 865 P.2d 575 (1994). Whether the defendant had possession of a substance is to be determined by the trier of fact by the totality of the circumstances. State v. Partin, 88 Wn.2d 899, 906, 567 P.2d 1136 (1977). Mere presence of alcohol in one's system is not enough on its own to support a conviction. Dalton , 72 Wn. App. at 676. However, if evidence of prior consumption is combined with other corroborating evidence, this may be sufficient to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. No single factor is determinative of the existence of dominion and control. State v. Turner, 103 Wn. App. 515, 521, 13 P.3d 234 (2000).  Emphasis Added.

This means that a minor charged under MIP should be able to get the case thrown out of court before trial, unless there is additional evidence to prove possession.  If you find yourself or a loved one charged with MIP based only on the odor of alcohol, you should talk with an attorney right away about getting the case dismissed.