TO: Katie Baillargeon FROM: Alexandra Perez DATE: March 8th, 2018 SUBJECT: People v. Trusting
STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT
My assignment is to research Santa Barbara County Ordinance §48-2 and §48-3 in order to write a legal memorandum. In this legal memorandum, I will examine all the facts in Tommy Trusting’scase according to this law in addition to all relevant case law, making sure to incorporate possible counter-points raised by opposing counsel.
ISSUE & BRIEF ANSWER
I. Although Tommy Trusting admits that he hosted a party at his house where alcohol was present, did he knowingly permit his younger brother Jack to possess alcohol, and if not, did he fail to take reasonable corrective measures according to SB Co. Ord §48-3 upon discovering the distinct beer can in Jack’s possession?
NO: Tommy did not knowingly allow his underage brother Jack to possess alcohol, and upon discovery he promptly demanded that Jack dispose of it, falling into the classification of reasonable corrective measures per SB Co. Ord §48-3.
FACTS
Tommy Trusting is a 21 year-old senior at UCSB who decided to throw a small party at his apartment after his last final on Wednesday of finals week.
He rents a first-floor studio apartment in Isla Vista, California which he shares with his housemate Greg who is also 21 years’ old.
After his last final his 17 year-old brother Jack, who is a freshman at UCLA, came to stay with him that night and through the weekend.
Tommy supplied the party with a few cases of beer, red solo cups, two bottles of wine, a 12 pack of Dr. Pepper, and snacks.
Tommy invited four of his close friends who were also 21, and his girlfriend Haley to come over that evening. Greg was also there for the small party.
His guests arrived to the apartment around 9:00 P.M.
Tommy made Jack promise he would not sneak any beers during the party.
He gave Jack a Dr. Pepper, while he handed beers and cups out to the rest of his friends.
Tommy, his friends, and his girlfriend all sat down and started to play a drinking game called Quarters.
Tommy got up to lower the music and close the windows. At that moment Tommy noticed that Jacks Koozie cup was a distinct silver, not the white and red of the Dr. Pepper he had bought for Jack.
Tommy sternly told Jack to dump the beer before he got back from closing everything. Jack agreed against his will.
Tommy then headed to the front lawn and went to the restroom.
He then saw three more of Greg’s friends who Tommy knew as graduating seniors.
Tommy walked back into the apartment with his red Solo cup in his teeth when he bumped smack into the back of an IV foot patrol officer in his hallway. At this moment Jack was being asked for his ID with his beer and Koozie still in hand.
ANALYSIS
Did Tommy Trusting violate Santa Barbara County Ordinance §48-3?
We must conclude whether Tommy Trusting knowingly failed to take reasonable corrective measures upon the discovery of Jacks underage possession of alcohol in his premises. SB Co. Ord. §48-3(A) states “No person(s) shall permit, allow, or host a party, gathering, or event at his or her place of residence or on other private premises under the person(s) control where alcoholic beverages are in the possession of, or consumed by, any minor or fail to take reasonable corrective action upon learning of the possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages by a minor on such premises. Reasonable corrective action shall include but is not limited to: 1. Verifying the age of the persons attending the social gathering by inspecting drivers licenses or other government-issued identification cards; 2. Making a prompt demand that such minor either forfeit the alcoholic beverages and refrain from the consumption of such or depart from the premises; 3. If such minor does not comply with such request, either promptly reporting such underage consumption of alcohol to the local law enforcement agency or to any other person having a greater degree of authority over the conduct of such minor. Jack is Tommy’s younger brother who spent the night at Tommy’s residence while a party was taking place there. I will now analyze each element of the law thoroughly to decide if it is supported by the facts offered, and assess if this case is strong enough to pursue.
Did Tommy Trusting knowingly host a party at his place of residence, if so, did he knowingly permit his younger brother Jack to possess alcohol?
Next, we must analyze whether Tommy knowingly allowed his younger brother Jack to possess alcohol at the party he hosted at his apartment. According to SB Co. Ord. §48-4(A), [No] person(s) [shall] knowingly permits, allows, or hosts a party, gathering, or event at their place of residence (or other private property under that person(s) control) where alcoholic beverages are in the possession of, or are being consumed by a minor. In order to analyze the prior issue further, we must analyze the meaning of “knowingly” according to SB Co. Ord §48-2(D). It states that “knowingly” signifies being aware of, or having reason to be aware of a party, gathering or event. This definition does not fit with the code language, because the term “knowingly” also should apply to the possession and consumption of alcohol by the minor, rather than just the actual knowledge of the party taking place. Due to this, one might skew towards the code violation language and forget that the knowledge of Jacks consumption is crucial. Without knowledge being a requirement for this element, Tommy’s case would lose strength. Tommy knowingly hosted a small party at his apartment and knowingly allowed his friends above the age of 21 to consume alcohol as well as his girlfriend Haley, but he did not knowingly permit Jack. Jack came to spend the weekend with him and they had a verbal agreement that Jack would refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages. Tommy furnished alcohol for his party, so alcohol was in the presence of his younger brother Jack. Although this may have been tempting for Jack, Tommy not only made a verbal agreement with Jack that he would refrain from consuming alcohol, but Tommy also went out of his way to buy Jack’s favorite soda so that he had something to consume. Jack decided to go behind his older brother’s back to pursue this action. It may have even been possible that the reason his drink was in a Koozie was to make the difference in can color less obvious to Tommy. It is clear that Tommy was keeping an eye on what Jack was up to, because if he wouldn’t have been paying attention, he may have never noticed that Jack had a beer can in his hand to begin with. Thus, Tommy did knowingly permit a party at his house, but was not aware nor did he permit his younger brother Jack to possess alcohol.
Did Tommy Trusting fail to take reasonable corrective action upon learning of the possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages by Jack on such premises?
Moreover, we must determine whether Tommy’s actions upon his discovery that Jack possessed an alcoholic beverage, are considered reasonably corrective. SB Co. Ord. §48-3 states that reasonable corrective action shall include but is not limited to: 1. Verifying the age of the persons attending the social gathering by inspecting drivers licenses or other government-issued identification cards; 2. Making a prompt demand that such minor either forfeit the alcoholic beverages and refrain from the consumption of such or depart from the premises; 3. If such minor does not comply with such request, either promptly reporting such underage consumption of alcohol to the local law enforcement agency or to any other person having a greater degree of authority over the conduct of such minor. We should look into each of these actions to see if Tommy took reasonably corrective actions according to the law.
Tommy and Jack are brothers, and have been for 17 years, thus I would say that Tommy has prior knowledge about his brothers age and verification through a government-issued identification is unnecessary. This element has been met.
When Tommy went to close the windows, he spotted the silver can and sternly demanded that Jack dispose of the beer. Jack said he would throw it out even though it was against his will. This is a clear example of Tommy enforcing his prior verbal agreement with Jack, rather than just turning his head. This element has been met.
It is not clear whether the issue was that Jack did not comply with Tommy’s demand to throw the beer out, or if the Police Officer could have potentially stopped Jack while he was on his way to dispose of the beer. Regardless, we would have to also take into consideration that their parents have been stationed in Antarctica for 2 years for work. In SB Co. Ord. §48-3(C) it states that there are certain exceptions for minor alcoholic consumption such as legally protected family gatherings where the use of alcohol beverage which occur exclusively between a minor and his or her parent or legal guardian. Due to this, we would need to further investigate who his legal guardians or higher authority may be. If Tommy has been left legally in charge of Jack this element may be met. It is unclear if Tommy would be considered a higher authority or if he has been made the legal guardian while their parents are away. Further research is needed to decide if this element has been met or not.
Upon Tommy’s discovery that Jack had alcohol in his possession, he promptly took reasonable corrective action. Even though Jack agreed to dump the beer against his will, the agreement still indicated that Tommy took responsibility upon his knowledge of the underage possession. Since reasonable corrective action is not limited to all the above sub issues, I believe that all in all, the element has been met.
CONCLUSION
In my opinion, Tommy’s case is valid and he has provided substantial evidence to prove that he is not in violation of SB Co. Ord. §48-3(A). Upon further examination, we can gather more information to fully validate his corrective action as reasonable. Tommy had a verbal agreement with Jack which led him to trust that Jack would not consume alcohol; due to this Tommy was unaware of Jack’s possession of alcohol, but once he discovered it, he demanded Jack dispose of the beer. Given that all the elements above have been met, with deeper analyzation of Tommy’s corrective action, specifically in the sense of his level of authority over Jack while their parents are away, we can prove that Tommy is not in violation of SB Co. Ord. §48-3(A) by any means. Tommy can establish a solid claim against the violation of SB Co. Ord. §48-3(A).
RECOMMENDATION
I think we should accept Tommy as a client and pursue his case. I recommend we conduct more legal research concerning what being a “higher authority” consists of, and potentially consulting with Jack as well as the Police Officer as to whether or not Jack was on his way to dispose of the beer; this would determine if Jack was in the process of obeying Tommy’s orders. Tommy’s corrective action was reasonable within the sub elements of SB Co. Ord. §48-3(A), but if we could determine Tommy’s level of authority over Jack, we could possibly have more supporting evidence for his case. Tommy had verification of Jack’s age through prior knowledge, and he promptly demanded Jack forfeit his beer instantly upon discovery, thus, if we can determine that he is considered a legal guardian, then his corrective action would be sufficient, and these details could solidify this case. All these elements could strengthen our case significantly making the claim more valid. After that research has been done, we may be assured that Tommy Trusting is not in violation of SB Co. Ord §48-3(A).