....they can't do that in my parents home....don't know where you got that. I could go out and drink at a restaurant when I was 18 so long as I was with my parents.

I think cops should be worrying about a whole lot more than pulling over a bus full of responsible kids who are trying to get a safe ride home after drinking.

Actually, yes, they can. If the cops break up a function at your home, they can fine the hosts for a variety of things including serving alcohol without a license, serving alcohol to minors, and so much more...

As far as drinking alcohol with your parents in a restaurant when you were underage, the restaurant could have been fined and so could your parents, with some parties serving jail time if there had been a cop present.

I guess this isn't consistent across all 50 states (?) or you've been very lucky, but it occurs enough to where it's commonplace.

Personally, I think the drinking age is absurd. Only 4 countries in the entire world have imposed a drinking age of 21-- USA, Ukraine, Malaysia and South Korea. That being said, people are still going to drink underage-- and some are going to get caught which sucks for everyone involved.

ETA: While I agree it seems that cops should have much better things to do than pull us over for going 50 in a 40 MPH zone, or drinking underage, they don't seem to. While you don't need to be a nun, just be careful out there.

That depends on where you live. This article
http://www.boston.com/news/local/con...n.com+%2F+News

discusses new legislation making it illegal for someone who owns or controls private property to knowingly allow a minor to possess alcohol, or fail to make reasonable efforts to stop a minor from possessing alcohol.

I'm not in law, but it seems to me that, in some places, police can come in to your parents' home. I don't know about the restaurant situation you talked about - seems to me that a restaurant would still be liable for serving alcohol to a minor, even if said minor was with his/her parents. Don't know for sure, though.

I agree with adpiucf. I can see why Emory did what they did. I think the hang-up here is that the topic of the thread (underage drinking vs dui) is a false dilemma. By providing the shuttle service, Emory was not condoning underage drinking (although some people would make an argument for that). By removing the shuttle, Emory is not condemning people to DUI.

Just my two cents, anyway.

Actually, no......they can't.

I wasn't talking about a "function" or a party at my house.....and you didn't mention that either. Obviously if my parents were handing out alcohol to a bunch of different people that aren't me or my siblings, it makes a difference.

My father is an attorney....we are well aware of what can and can't be done in the home/at a restaurant/etc. etc. No, its not consistent across all 50 states.

It reminds me of a case I learned on TV.

This guy was pulled over because of speeding. The cop gave him a speeding ticket, but also found drugs in his car. However, the cop cannot arrest him because the cop does not have a warrent to search his car. The guy got pulled over for speeding at that's it. The cop would have to petition a search warrent to arrest the guy.

Could the same be said about that bus? As long as the driver is driving safe, the cop has no reason to pull over the bus (but obviously the cop could see a reason) until he has warrent. Is that the same?

Where did you see that? I'm pretty sure I have seen multiple multiple instances where routine traffic stops led to drug arrests. I mean, watch Cops sometime.

If you see the cocaine in the car, isn't that probable cause? IE: If you pull someone over for excessive use of the horn and you see the open container in the car, you don't need a warrant to give the person a breathalyzer!

Don't believe everything you see on TV. If the drugs were in plain sight when the officer looked into the vehicle, a warrant is not needed.

Actually, it was mentioned in the first post -- I quoted it above.

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but the way I read the situation, the bus was being paid for with student organization funds which were supplied by the university. That seems like the same thing to me as the bus being paid for by university funds at the end of the day, which gives the university the right to cancel the service -- or at least withdraw the funds from the organization. Even if cancelling it is the wrong thing to do, which in my opinion, it is.

However, the university allegedly feels that the service was fostering drinking among underage students. I'm not sure how to prove that, but I guess it's still a decision they can reach and react to as they see fit.

I'm not sure where the bus driver liability issue comes from. The driver and company are hired to deliver people from one place to another. I doubt that it's up to them to enforce liquor laws.

The bar or restaurant certainly have liability when it comes to serving minors -- or even allowing those of age to drink too much if they become a hazard to others.

It depends if the Officer saw items that may seem like drugs or related items.

It used to be illegal to search a glove box if it was locked or the trunk on a car stop. But the US Supreme Court changed that law.

Now, if the Officer feels in fear of or worrys about safety then they do have the right.

In applying to the bus, there can always be a reason found or so said.

It also applies to the Home.

Yeah, I gotcha.........we were having a little side discussion about Safe Ride in Norman...that is why I made the comment.

Yeah you're right. I asked someone and they told me if the cop see it, they can act on it. But they can't ask you to open your trunk to serach unless they have a warrent. :)

yes they can.......

Really? Now I'm confused...:confused:

If the officer has probable cause to believe there is contraband or evidence of a crime in a vehicle, they may search it without a warrant.

(And you're really SOL if you're on a boat- there are a few safeguards if you are on a vehicle, esp. the "probable cause" bit, which don't apply to boats. _

There wouldn't be any liability on the university, even if someone died on the bus. The University didn't supply the alcohol, nor sell it, neither did the SGA. That would fall on the restaurant that sold it to them.

Otherwise, as I stated previously, ever cabbie that ever picked up a drunk that anything happened to would be held liable, and that doesn't even remotely make sense.

Now, on the issue of the University's reputation getting tarnished if a busload of kids were pulled over and underage drinkers were cited? That sounds more like the REAL reason that they stopped the service.

Well if the school pays for the buses they can cancel them whenever they want. They also will have the authorization to come on them at any time and apparently breathalize the riders for any reason.

It happens at my undergrad all the time. A sober driver is pulled over for a routine traffic stop, all the passengers are breathalized and arrested..nothing happens to the driver.

There are many ways that schools will try to cut down on underage drinking, unfortunately the only way kids will not drink is if the booze is too expensive. It has been proven that the only way to cut down on use of anythign is the raise the price, it prevents people from starting or continuing. The fact is, when not faced with a sober driver option pepole will attempt to get a DD but many will not. It's sad but true and also there is is the issue of having girls walking home from the bars due to lack of a ride/common sense to call for a taxi.

Here's the thing...they can ASK you to open your trunk, and if you willingly do it, then they don't need a warrant. If they ask you, and you refuse, (if they want to pursue it further) they hold you and get a warrant (which they can now get, because by refusing, you've given them reasonable suspicion), and then search your trunk. So, basically, if they want to search your trunk, they're going to search your trunk, and if they have to go get a warrant, they're not going to be very nice about it, so you're better off just cooperating, no matter what's in there.

**ding ding ding ding** thank you, we have a winner.

From what has happened to me in the past, the officer can ask you to open your trunk. At that point it is your choice......but as I said that was several years ago......and I had nothing to hide but for several of the worlds best cheese cakes.....:) :D

Ahhh, now understood, thanks everyone! :)

jon1856: ummm, cheese cakes....you're making me hungry now....:D

Go to: http://www.newskete.com/shopping/sho...categories.asp
Order is better known for their world classs dog training program and breeding and raising of German Sheperds.:) ;)

mmmm cheesecake.....

You are right. However, atleast where I am from.....it takes no time at all to get a warrant.......mabye a couple of minutes.

Yeah, but you make them do twice the amount of paperwork for the same amount of donuts, and they're not going to be nice about it.;)

As it is here as well. And as indicated, not only will they take your car apart, but your life as well......

Of course....if you simply tell the cop who your father (aka your Attorney) is.....there should be no problems.

No offense, but if I were a cop, and an adult tried to play the "Don't you know who my daddy is?" card, I'd do as much as I could to get said adult in as much trouble as humanly possible.

But, I don't think that's what the situation is here with the Emory bus being pulled by the University.

It's far more effective to cooperate with the cop and let his boss ream him out when they find out who your daddy is, anyway.

Hummmm-my father was both an Attorney and an Officer and he never played that game and told me never to to it either.

Told me to always treat the Officer as you would wish to be treated by them....and to put myself in their position.

True-I would agree with that..

First part I agree with and the second part may depend on where you are, size of police force, type of department et al....In New York State, the husband of a candidate for AG has been pulled over several time by patrol units....and if they are doing it more than once: the guy has problems driving and the troopers are not being told to stop doing their jobs.....

I know you're too young to remember this, but your posts are starting to make me think of that song The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia.

Personally, I think most cops are power tripping assholes and deserve to get somewhat embarassed in public. Obviously, this is from my own experience.......but I just think it is far more pleasurable to actually see the cop get told over the phone or in person that there isn't a damn thing he can do and that it would be in his best interest to simply let me go.

It is even more hilarious when you have someone like the Chief of Police or the Smith County Sheriff on speed dial in your cell phone.....and get them to tell the unfortunate officer these things.

true story.

Reba McEntire?

That was a remake...I believe the orginal was Vicki Lawrence.

:eek:

PLEASE tell me you're kidding.

My true story is that I have NEVER met or known any officer who seemed to be a "power tripping asshole' (and by your own posting that would also include the Chief of Police of Smith County [would that not be the Sheriff of Smith County himself?])

My parents brought me up to respect Officers and other public servents.
As I posted before, if one put themselves in the positon that the officer is in and treats them as one would like to be treated, matters generaly come out rather well.

But that is just my POV based upon my experiences.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

My opinion is that most adults who can't handle a situation without calling daddy are the power tripping assholes who deserve to get somewhat embarrassed in public.