Minor in Possession (MIP), Westminster, Judicial Diversion

Our client, age 19, was home from an Ivy League university for summer break and went out with some friends to have some fun.  The group wanted to go out dancing, but they knew they could not get into “adult” bars because they were all under 21.

They decided to get some wine coolers because one person in the group had a fake I.D.  She went to a local liquor store and then the group decided to meet up in the parking lot of the Bleu Restaurant and Dancing, located at 14160 Beach Boulevard in Westminster.  Once at the parking lot, a few of the girls enjoyed a wine cooler or two.

The group then went into the restaurant and had dinner together.  The restaurant serves “fusion cuisine.”

The group went into the restaurant to also evaluate if the “dancing” available at the restaurant looked good and whether they wanted to stay there to enjoy that after dinner.  They decided to look elsewhere instead.

The group then hung out while looking at their cellphones for another place to go. 

Their loitering in the parking lot apparently caught the attention of two Alcohol and Beverage Control officers on patrol, as it was an early summer evening and everyone was eagerly enjoying the post-COVID 19 freedom.

The officers pulled into the parking lot and immediately got out of their marked car.  The surprised girls put away their wine coolers, but not quickly enough to avoid being noticed by the officers.

Our client was immediately questioned by the officers and candidly stated that the group did have alcohol with them, as she knew denying it might just result in arrests.  She naively hoped that her candor would be reciprocated by the officers in kindness and just a warning.

Instead, however, our client and several of her friends received tickets for violation of Business & Professions Code § 25662(a), which makes it illegal for a person under age 21 to have possession of alcoholic beverages.  It did not matter that our client was not the owner of the car and that she did not purchase the alcohol.  She certainly had enjoyed the alcohol by drinking one or two wine coolers and was free to enjoy another if she wanted.

The officers then left the parking lot, leaving several shocked girls holding tickets as reminders of their encounter.

About two months later and just two weeks before her arraignment, our client and her mom called Greg Hill & Associates.  The client described what had happened.  The client was particularly articulate, as was her mom.  The two wanted to know what might happen in court and whether there was anything the client could do in advance to mitigate the punishment.  The client also wanted to know if she needed to fly back from Boston to Orange County for the arraignment at the Westminster courthouse.

Greg first explained that he could appear on the client’s behalf in court, so the client did not need to fly back to California for the court appearance or further appearances.

Greg then explained how a minor in possession (MIP) matter could be handled and what the worst case scenario might be, as that is commonly feared by clients.

Greg described how prior cases he had handled for this charge were resolved with a dismissal after the client attended a dozen or more Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings and perhaps wrote an essay to the judge about why the mere possession of alcohol by a person under 21 is illegal. 

Greg also explained that under California law, the maximum and minimum penalties for a conviction for violation of Business and Professions Code § 25662 were severe.  If one is convicted of violating this code section, the judge must, at a minimum, impose: 1) a $250 fine, plus penalties and assessments that make the total owed about $1300; 2) a minimum of 24 hours to a maximum of 32 hours of community service; 3) a youth offender DUI program; and 4) a one-year California driver’s license suspension.

However, in Greg’s experience, this punishment is never imposed.  Instead, the client is usually offered a form of diversion wherein the client is given the opportunity to “earn a dismissal” through education about the dangers of alcohol.  Greg then explained what Judicial Diversion was and how he would request this for the client from the judge.

Greg then recommended that the client attend the LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs) program online, which is free and give Greg proof of attending the program before he went to court for the client.

The client then retained Greg Hill & Associates and immediately took the LEAD program and sent Greg her certificate of completion of this.  Greg then took this to court and showed it to the judge.

Greg then asked for judicial diversion for the client after showing the judge the LEAD certificate earned by our client.  The judge was very impressed with this and agreed to judicial diversion, placing our client on diversion for two months with a promise to dismiss the case if our client attended 15 AA meetings.

Our client was happy with this resolution and immediately attended the 15 AA meetings and the case was indeed dismissed two months later.

This dismissal was critical for our client in applying for summer internships, as she then petitioned to have the detention record and court case erased from her criminal history, which otherwise might diminish the value of her Ivy League education.