Now Accepting New Clients!

Can Passengers Drink Alcohol in a Car?

Can Passengers Drink Alcohol in a Car? - drinking_and_driving

Original post: 07/06/2017

You and your friends go out for the evening, and they drink and you stick with coffee. You’re the designated driver, after all, and you take the job seriously.

But one of your buddies sneaks a beer out of the last bar. It’s literally “one for the road,” the last drink on the way home. You don’t take any, so no crime, no foul--right?

Not so fast.

Be very careful about drinking and driving, even if the driver isn't the one doing the drinking.

Can Passengers Drink Alcohol in a Car?

In Michigan, you and your bud with the Bud have both broken the law. The state is one of 40, along with the District of Columbia, that forbids the presence of open alcoholic beverage containers in the passenger area of vehicles. They must be kept in the trunk. If you have no trunk, store open containers in a locked glove compartment or other area inaccessible to anyone in the vehicle.

What are the Consequences for Passengers Drinking Alcohol in Cars?

In the above scenario, you’re the driver and you haven’t touched a drop, but you’re still subject to a misdemeanor charge if pulled over. So are your passengers. The offense could result in fines of as much as $500 and up to about three months in jail. The penalties could escalate from there if you have, in fact, been drinking with your friends, and you’re found to be an impaired driver.

Are There Any Exceptions to Passengers Having Alcohol in the Car?

The only exception to open carry laws in Michigan are if you’re licensed to drive a limo, entertainment bus or similar chartered commercial vehicle in which your passengers can legally drink. Unless your responsibilities are in this narrow area, and you have proper licensing for it, do NOT let your passengers crack one open. The party ends once the final tab is paid and your car heads for home.

Work with an Experienced Defense Attorney for Your Case

As a driver, you have a responsibility to be sober and focused on driving. It is also your responsibility to make sure no one else in the car has drinks open. If you get a ticket or arrested with an open container of alcohol in your car, call the legal experts at Aldrich Legal Services. Our team will bring more than 21 years of experience to your case to get you the best outcome possible.

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

REAL ESTATE 59: Concluding that the one-year period contained in the parties’ home purchase agreement was not a statute of limitations, but rather akin to a statute of repose, and that it was plain and unambiguous, the court held that it barred plai

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against...

CRIMINAL LAW 16: The trial court did not err in refusing to order a Daubert hearing as to the reliability of the DataMaster breathalyzer device as MCL 257.625a(6)(a) shows the Legislature has determined that the device’s results are valid and reliabl

UNDERLYING FACTS In the early afternoon of November 4, 2016, defendant was pulled over after an officer was dispatched for a possible drunk driver. The officer had defendant exit his vehicle and perform several field sobriety tests. Those tests...

FAMILY LAW 52: Defendant-mother was not entitled to relief on her claim the trial court did not comply with the requirements for a de novo hear, the trial court did not err in using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and its best interest f

PERTINENT FACTS In July 2017, plaintiff and defendant divorced by consent judgment. Under the judgment of divorce, the parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000