I didn't waste 20 minutes watching the video. I appreciate your description of events.
Walgreens does that on cigarettes.
To those that don't like the ID thingy. Go to work at one of those stores and don't ID. I'll send the ABLE guys by and you'll love it.
Interesting stuff on wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Oklahoma
They felony arrest the clerk not the store owner.
Landowners cannot lawfully permit a person under 21 years of age to consume alcohol on their property. Punishment for this crime is a fine between $2,500 and $5,000 and up to 5 years of imprisonment.
Fired, probably, but that's store policy, not law. Can you cite a statute that would get him fined specifically for not checking (as opposed to fined for furnishing alcohol to a minor)? Say I, at 38, go try to buy, and don't get carded; heck, say somebody age 21-and-a-day doesn't get carded. Can you cite the statute the clerk would be violating? I couldn't find one.
OK. But, that has nothing to do with scanning said ID and it being a matter of law.
The manager should simply told the vet to leave. If he didn't comply then she should have told him "you're trespassing now leave." If he still refused then the police have a valid reason to arrest him for trespassing. My official police report would have read "Warned trespasser, arrested same". All this bullchit chit chat with this fellow was not needed. It accomplished nothing. Sometimes we talk too much.
I just read this whole thread! I think quivering protoplasm is HAWT!!!
The irony is that they changed the law about 20 years ago to require ID for anyone under 27 to purchase tobacco products (although you only had to be 18 to buy). I can't cite the statute, but I remember thinking that it was a stupid law when it went into effect.
No one has seen the vid before this happened, or I missed it. This guy is a cop baiter. I hate these guys. They just cause problems and video the parts they can sue for. They just cause problems for cops that maybe needed elsewhere. No wonder cops are retiring and leaving in record numbers.
Might keep in mind, these guys are looking for a payday. Cities are partly self insured. So idiots that try to screw them ending up screwing people of fixed incomes that pay taxes.
Might keep in mind, these guys are looking for a payday. Cities are partly self insured. So idiots that try to screw them ending up screwing people of fixed incomes that pay taxes.
And th
And all this is all true.
The statute is 63 O.S. 1-229.13. In pertinent part:
...
B. A person engaged in the sale or distribution of tobacco products or vapor products shall demand proof of age from a prospective purchaser or recipient if an ordinary person would conclude on the basis of appearance that the prospective purchaser may be under eighteen (18) years of age.
If an individual engaged in the sale or distribution of tobacco products or vapor products has demanded proof of age from a prospective purchaser or recipient who is not under eighteen (18) years of age, the failure to subsequently require proof of age shall not constitute a violation of this subsection.
C.
...
3. Proof that the defendant demanded, was shown, and reasonably relied upon proof of age shall be a defense to any action brought pursuant to this section. A person cited for violating this section shall be deemed to have reasonably relied upon proof of age, and such person shall not be found guilty of the violation if such person proves that:
a. the individual who purchased or received the tobacco product or vapor product presented a driver license or other government-issued photo identification purporting to establish that such individual was eighteen (18) years of age or older, or
b. the person cited for the violation confirmed the validity of the driver license or other government-issued photo identification presented by such individual by performing a transaction scan by means of a transaction scan device.
Provided, that this defense shall not relieve from liability any person cited for a violation of this section if the person failed to exercise reasonable diligence to determine whether the physical description and picture appearing on the driver license or other government-issued photo identification was that of the individual who presented it. The availability of the defense described in this subsection does not affect the availability of any other defense under any other provision of law.
B. A person engaged in the sale or distribution of tobacco products or vapor products shall demand proof of age from a prospective purchaser or recipient if an ordinary person would conclude on the basis of appearance that the prospective purchaser may be under eighteen (18) years of age.
If an individual engaged in the sale or distribution of tobacco products or vapor products has demanded proof of age from a prospective purchaser or recipient who is not under eighteen (18) years of age, the failure to subsequently require proof of age shall not constitute a violation of this subsection.
C.
...
3. Proof that the defendant demanded, was shown, and reasonably relied upon proof of age shall be a defense to any action brought pursuant to this section. A person cited for violating this section shall be deemed to have reasonably relied upon proof of age, and such person shall not be found guilty of the violation if such person proves that:
a. the individual who purchased or received the tobacco product or vapor product presented a driver license or other government-issued photo identification purporting to establish that such individual was eighteen (18) years of age or older, or
b. the person cited for the violation confirmed the validity of the driver license or other government-issued photo identification presented by such individual by performing a transaction scan by means of a transaction scan device.
Provided, that this defense shall not relieve from liability any person cited for a violation of this section if the person failed to exercise reasonable diligence to determine whether the physical description and picture appearing on the driver license or other government-issued photo identification was that of the individual who presented it. The availability of the defense described in this subsection does not affect the availability of any other defense under any other provision of law.
I didn't find a parallel provision in the alcohol laws. Interestingly, in the old statute (37 O.S. 538, now repealed and passed in different form cited above), there was a "knowingly" element to the furnishing-to-a-minor crime that is not present in the new statute. I had some personal involvement in a case along those lines--the accused served an undercover informant after misreading his ID, which had lines saying both "Under 18 until" and "Under 21 until." Charged as a felony, reduced to a misdemeanor and given deferred adjudication when pressed.
Similar threads
