Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeFederal lawsuit against state law has no merit
August 25, 2005 —
Should a minor in the state of Michigan be forced to take a Breathalyzer test under any conditions? That's the question that will be in front of a federal judge, as SVSU honors student Katie A. Platte decided to bring a lawsuit against the State after she was forced to do just that.
Michigan is the only state that gives its police the right to order any minor suspected of underage drinking to take the test. If the minor refuses, he or she is suspect to being taken to jail and given a citation. A sober Platte was given this same ultimatum last year as a 19-year-old at a small party in Thomas Township, and, innocent, was not happy about it.
A federal judge recently ruled a Breathalyzer as a search covered in the Fourth Amendment - in short, in order to give each test, an officer must have probable cause, or, in an extreme example, must have a search warrant.
But in the case of a Breathalyzer test, what constitutes probable cause? It's actually quite simple.
Go to a party where drinking is involved, and you should be suspected of drinking. Period. Similar to the way in once you attempt to board an airplane you are subject to a thorough search of your person and luggage, once you arrive to a party, you should be subject to a Breathalyzer.
Clearly, this only affects minors - for those over 21, drinking at a party is legal; even having a drink and then driving is legal, as long as a certain limit is not passed. But zero tolerance is zero tolerance: minors cannot consume alcohol, under any circumstances. And being at a party where drinking is involved should be enough for an officer to suspect each partygoer of drinking. If this means Breathalyzers for each and every minor, then so be it.
Platte's and most other minors' complaint with this is that if they are not drinking or acting drunk, then they should not have to take the test. But the question we propose is this: if you are a minor and aren't drinking, then what is the big deal? If you're innocent, you're innocent, and you are vindicated once the result comes up in your favor. If you're guilty - and remember, zero tolerance - then you deserve an M.I.P., and, more importantly, the Breathalyzer.
We certainly sympathize with Platte, and every other innocent minor who has had to take a Breathalyzer against their wishes. But there are consequences to every action taken; one of the many consequences - good and bad - to going to a party where drinking is involved is the possibility of the party being broken up. And when a party is broken up, more times than not Breathalyzers will be given.
If you don't like it, don't party with underage drinkers. Just like the class clown would ruin plans for everyone in second grade by talking during class, underage drinkers ruin a fun time for those not drinking.
Maybe something should be said to those breaking the law instead of those trying to enforce it.