The Law Offices of Alexandra Perez P.O. Box 16421 Santa Barbara, California 93140-0452 Telephone (805) 939-4387 [email protected] www.aplaw.com
March 15, 2018
Katie Baillargeon PO Box 1825 Goleta, CA 93117
RE: People v. Trusting
Dear Dr. Baillargeon:
Our office represents the People of Santa Barbara County in the above-referenced case. Your client, Mr. Tommy Trusting, has filed an appeal in the Superior court arguing against the violation of SB Co. Ord 48-4, Social Host Liability. After review, we find Mr. Trusting’s appeal to be meritless in correspondence with the available evidence. As a result, this case should be dismissed promptly.
On a Wednesday night in the middle of finals week at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Mr. Trusting decided to host a party at his residence. Knowing that this party would consist of drinking games, and a rowdy crowd, he permitted his 17 year old brother Jack to stay the night. Mr. Trusting bought beer, wine, and a pack of Dr. Pepper for all of his guests. Although Tommy alleges that he bought the pack of Dr. Pepper for his brother to consume at the event, he actively placed alcoholic beverages in Jack’s presence. Jack was a guest at this gathering similarly to the other people there. Tommy and Jack had a verbal agreement early in the night that Jack would refrain from consuming alcohol, and Tommy said he made a “mental note” to watch over Jack. Considering he is simply Jack’s older brother, Jack seems to have taken this simply as a suggestion rather than an authoritative demand. After some time went by, Tommy discovered that Jack had a beer can in hand and he requested that Jack dispose of it, as he walked away to continue hosting the rest of his guests. He neglected to keep an eye on Jack throughout the night until that very moment. When Tommy came back into his residence, holding a red solo cup filled with beer in between his teeth, he ran into the back of the Police Officer asking Jack for a verification of his age. Jack still had the beer in hand. Although Tommy purports that he took action to stop Jack from drinking, it appears that those actions were insufficient. Jack’s possession of alcohol was never terminated.
Your client’s allegations do not meet the criteria under SB Co. Ord 48-4 because he knowingly hosted a party where he furnished alcohol to his underage brother Jack. According to SB Co. Ord. 48-4 no person may knowingly host a party where alcoholic beverages are in the possession or being consumed by a minor. As noted in Sagadin v. Ripper (1985) 175 Cal. App. 3d 1141, 1158, 221 Ca;. Rptr. 675, “In order to furnish an alcoholic beverage the offender need not pour the drink; it is sufficient if, having control of the alcohol, the defendant takes some affirmative step to supply it to the drinker.” Although your client did not pour Jack his beer, he bought alcohol to supply the guests at his party. As Jack was also a guest at this party, Mr. Trusting took a step to supply him as well as the rest of his guests buy buying the alcohol. Mr. Trusting alleges that he did not have knowledge of Jack’s possession of alcohol, but as a college student, he must recognize the pressures that come with being at an event where alcohol is easily accessible. Mr. Trusting actively furnished alcohol in his residence where a minor was present. Due to his prior knowledge that his brother is under the legal drinking age, he should’ve either postponed his brothers visit, or refrained from supplying alcohol to his guests. Analysis of the facts show that Mr. Trusting failed to meet the standards as a host of a party by furnishing alcohol where a minor was present.
Secondly, Mr. Trusting’s actions are in violation of SB Co. Ord. 48-4 because he did not take “reasonable corrective action.” As broken down in SB Co. Ord. 48-3(A) reasonable corrective action shall include but is not limited to, verifying the age of each person attending, promptly demanding the minor forfeit or refrain from consumption, and if the minor doesn’t comply, promptly reporting it to the local law enforcement or a higher authority. According to Biscan v. Brown, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXIS 875, “persons who are chargeable with a duty of care toward children must anticipate that children will act upon childish instincts and impulses” and “teenagers, like young children, are often heedless of dangers or warning and exercise less discretion in avoiding potential harm than adults. Thus, reasonableness of conduct… must take into consideration these foreseeable weaknesses… Thus, the law recognizes both the dangers inherent in consumption of alcohol by minors and their weaknesses in judgement.” Jack, being only 17 years old, does not think of the repercussions that may come with drinking. Mr. Trusting, as an adult had a duty to make sure that Jack would not act on his impulses and weaknesses. Your client’s concept of taking corrective action was inefficient. His prior verbal agreement, and his request that Jack forfeit the beer were done in a passive manner. Also, his prior knowledge of his brother’s age should have stopped him from allowing Jack to be among alcohol. Mr. Trusting didn’t take into consideration that teenagers act on impulse. Moreover, his negligence to make sure that the beer was disposed of properly and promptly upon his discovery displays that he did not enforce his corrective action as is required by the law. Mr. Trusting should have been more aware of Jack’s vulnerability and his inability to make correct judgements when exposed to such temptations. He didn’t make an effort to call any sort of authority. If anything Mr. Trusting facilitated Jacks possession by having a susceptible teenager at a drinking party. As stated above, adults must anticipate and consider these weaknesses when in control of a situation like this one. Because of these indisputable facts, Mr. Trusting has failed to take proper corrective action according to SB. Co. Ord. 48-4.
Two distinct and mandatory elements of SB Co. Ord. 48-4 have not been met. Subsequently, your client’s appeal has no merit in light of the available evidence. After extensive review of the facts, we urge you to dismiss the appeal against the County of Santa Barbara at once. If your client chooses to not dismiss his appeal, we will take the appropriate steps necessary to obtain the relief provided in the act from your client. Please contact me with any questions or concerns, so that we may resolve this in a timely manner without any confusion by either party.