Bowling Green, Ohio Lawyer Underage Drinking, Public Intox, Open Container

Underage Drinking / Possession of Alcohol / Prohibitions Bowling Green, Ohio

Underage Drinking and Possession of Alcohol is always a popular charge in a college town. Bowling Green, Ohio is no exception. In fact, Underage Drinking is one of the most frequently heard cases in the Bowling Green Municipal Court.

If you or your son or daughter was charged in with Underage Drinking / Possession of Alcohol under Revised Code Section 4301.69E you may be surprised to know that you are facing the same maximum penalties that could be imposed for an Assault, Domestic Violence or DUI. Underage Drinking / Possession is actually a First Degree Misdemeanor, punishable up to a $1,000 fine and up to six months in the county jail.

If you are a first offender, you may be eligible to enter the court’s diversion program. However, if you are not a first offender, or are facing accompanying charges (such has public intoxication, littering, Fake ID, Public Urination, Obstructing, Open Container), you may not be eligible to enter the program at arraignment. Moreover, while diversion ultimately leads to dismissal, if you fail to complete the program requirements, you may face being sentenced as first degree misdemeanor offender.

If you do not qualify for diversion, your case is not hopeless. You may have a legal defense to the charge. Moreover, Attorney Schuman may be able to work with the prosecutor and court to put you through alternative programs and still obtain a dismissal. Such alternative programs may include counseling, recovery meetings and community service. Attorney Schuman is familiar with the various types of programs offered in the community and can help find the right options to satisfy the prosecutor and the court.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that even if the charge was dismissed, you must take the additional steps necessary to get the record sealed or expunged as soon as possible. We can help you with this as well.

Disorderly Conduct Public Intoxication Bowling Green, Ohio

Is it possible to get charged for walking while intoxicated? The answer is yes! And it happens all the time in Bowling Green, Ohio. While such charges may be justified in certain circumstances, the police often wrongfully issue charges in cases when a person is only intoxicated in a public place.

The Disorderly Conduct ordinance does not prohibit a person from merely being found in a heavily intoxicated state. See Committee Comment to R.C. 2917.11(B)(2); City of Westlake v. Majercak (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 2011), 2011 Ohio 2261; State v. Waters (Ohio App. 5 Dist. 2009), 2009 Ohio 1338; State v. Graves (Ohio App. 6 Dist. 2007), 2007 Ohio 4904; State v. Parks (Ohio App. 2 Dist. 1990), 56 Ohio App. 3d 8. Rather, the DOC by Intoxication statute is aimed at individuals that while intoxicated, engage in some affirmative conduct that creates a significant possibility of them physically harming themselves. Id.

The law states: “[n]o person, while voluntarily intoxicated, shall engage in conduct or create a condition which presents a risk of physical harm to himself . . . .” Revised Code §2901.01(A)(7) defines risk as a “significant possibility, as contrasted with a remote possibility, that a certain result may occur, or that certain  circumstances may exist.”  Further, the committee comments to R.C. 2917.11(B)(2), the state disorderly conduct-intoxication statute provides in pertinent part as follows:

Former law merely prohibited being found in a state of intoxication, whereas this section is aimed at particular conduct rather than at the condition. . . . It [becomes] . . . a violation if, [for example] when alone and drunk or under the influence of drugs, he attempts a tightrope act on a bridge parapet or curls up to sleep in a doorway in freezing weather.” (Emphasis added.)

In State v. Graves (Ohio App. 6 Dist. 2007), 2007 Ohio 4904, the Court found an officer did not even have probable cause to arrest an individual for DOC by Intoxication. The individual, Graves, was found alone, at 2:30 A.M., outside in a downtown area, in the cold, while highly intoxicated. The officer testified that Graves had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, his speech was slurred, his movements were slow and deliberate, and he was unsteady on his feet. The officer described his movements as “weeble wobble.” The Court correctly pointed out that the law does not prohibit merely being intoxicated in public. Id. at ¶21. The Court continued, “[t]he law focuses, not on the drunken state of the accused, but rather upon his conduct while drunk.” Id.  The Court found there were no allegations that Graves engaged in some dangerous activity that put him at a significant risk of harm. Id. at ¶24. The Court reasoned that the possibility of Graves falling down and hurting himself, or venturing out into the street, or passing out in the cold, etc., were too remote to fall within the intended meaning of the statute.  Id.

In State v. Waters (Ohio App. 5 Dist. 2009), 2009 Ohio 1338, the Court found that an officer did not have probable cause to arrest a group of individuals for DOC by Intoxication. The defendants were found in an extremely intoxicated state. One of the defendants so intoxicated that when the officer asked if he was “OK,” the defendant began answer but started vomiting mid-sentence. The Court found that the statute was not intended to punish individuals for becoming extremely intoxicated, but rather required the individual to engage in some dangerous activity while intoxicated that created a significant possibility that the person would be physically harmed.

Accordingly, if you were merely walking home after leaving the bars (not found lying in the street; curled up in a corner in the freezing cold; attempting a tightrope act on a bridge parapet etc.). you may have a case! Please call Attorney Schuman today to discuss the particulars of your case.