Hunter
2007-08-19 10:08:22 UTC
It was brought to my attention that CBS/Endemol maybe violation of state
law because Daniele who is actually as of this writing 20 years old (her
birthday is tomorrow, i.e August 20, 2007 when she turns 21, legal
drinking age. The question is is CBS Endemol is violating law for
providing alcohol to a sub 21 year old, i.e. a minor. To the very strict
reading of th e situation they are. Daniele is/was a minor (depending on
when you read this) and she is drinking alcohol that CBS is letting her
access to However, They are very likely AREN'T violating the law. Here is
why I think that.
First, with my own disclaimer, I want to make clear that I am NOT a
lawyer nor do I present myself as one. I am just a dude that likes to
look up and do research on the subject just like you.
The below is from a 1999 proposed bill to toughen the penalties of the
sale, possession and use of alcohol by a minor or those who would provide
such beverages to one. It goes to the illegal sale of alcohol to a minor
and establishes that 21 is the legal drinking age:
From page 5 of the ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA in a appeal by a merchant convicted of selling alcohol to a
minor. Excerpt:
"Instead, what it shows is that, once the minor was asked for, and was
unable to produce, identification which would show him to be 21, he
simply asked to be treated in the same manner as he believed other
kids, meaning minors, were treated by appellant. Whether or not
appellant sold to other minors, he sold to Springston after Springston
put himself n a class w ith other minors. Such evidence easily supports
an inference that appellant made a knowing sale of alcohol to a
minor. Springstons testimony about the statement attributed to the
second clerk, advising Alaboody not to make the sale, and not wanting him
to sell to teens anymore, was also offered to show know ledge, and not
for the truth, i.e., that Alaboody had previously sold to minors
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:yEt6V0hXz0cJ:www.abcappealsbd.ca.gov
/decisions/pdf/AB_7000/7003.pdf+california+penal+law+alcohol+minors&hl=en
&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us
(cut and paste URL in the adress slot if hyperlink is faulty)
So now this states that it is illegal to sell to anyone under the age of
21 who are classified as minors.
It is against the law for a minor to have alcohol at all? Here is what it
says in existing law in 1999 at least:
6) Establishes as a misdemeanor, the possession of alcohol by a
minor on any street or highway or in any public place,
punishable by six months in jail, or $1,000 fine, or both.
(Business and Professions Code Section 25662.)
This was the proposed change in the 1999 bill to change the existing law:
"8)Establishes the misdemeanor punishment of a fine of at least
$500 or performance of community service of not less than 36
hours and not more than 48 hours for the second or subsequent
offense of any person under the age of 21 who has any
alcoholic beverage in his or her possession on any street or
highway or in any public place or in any place open to the
public."
Both http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_0701-
0750/ab_749_cfa_19990414_114155_asm_comm.html
If the bill passed-and I don't know if it did or not-it maybe moot since
it increased the punishment for having a minor possess alcohol on PUBLIC
property, but does not make minors having alcohol on PRIVATE property
illegal. I will bet the farm and say the "Big Brother" house is private
property.
In 2003 there was this in a proposed bill:
"1) Provides that when all of the following occurs, a parent is
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable up to six months in county
jail and a fine of up to $1,000:
a) The parent, responsible adult relative or legal guardian
knowingly permits his or her child or other person under
the age of 18 to consume alcohol or use a controlled
substance while in the home of the parent, responsible
adult relative or legal guardian;"
Side question: Is Dick culpable? Lets see:
The Big Brother House is not the home of the parent, not the home of a
responsible adult relative, nor it is the home of a legal guardian. So on
this Dick, CBS and Endemol is in the clear in the proposed bill.
In 2003 this was existing law:
"1) Provides that every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or
causes to be sold any alcoholic beverage to a person under 21
is guilty of a misdemeanor. [BPC Section 25658(a).]"
Now to my reading this is a stickier issue for CBS. According to another
link below a "person" can refer to a corporation.
Now the proposal only brings that the above provision in the law over to
cover the parents, adult relative or legal guardian under this clause. At
any rate is CBS is in violation then the violation of this law is only a
misdemeanor and the fines of a couple thousand dollars are laughable to a
multi billion dollar corporation like CBS. It is like you and me being
fined 20 cents, more likely 2 cents, less than the coast of doing
business. Would the law be enforced by the courts if the minor was less
than two months from drinking majority as Danielle was when Big Brother 8
started on July 5, 2007? I don't think so. Would the public be upset? I
don't think so. I am not even it is by the letter of the law *could* be a
violation of it. The risk-benefit ratio of the dramatic gimmick of having
an estranged Dad and Daughter in the house greatly favors CBS/Endemol
both cites from http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_1301-
1350/ab_1301_cfa_20030428_135322_asm_comm.html
I do not know if the law was passed, but if it was at most it would be a
legal divit in the road to CBS, legally a minor thing.
Lastly I found this:
"SELECTED CALIFORNIA STATUTES, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
The following California statutes regulate the use, sale, or distribution
of alcoholic beverages:
(1) Civil code:
Section 1714(a)
No social host who furnishes an alcoholic beverage to any person shall be
liable for injuries suffered by such a person or for injuries to a third
person resulting from the consumption of such beverages. But where the
social host knows that his guest is someone who"can't handle alcohol" the
host may be liable for injuries suffered by the guest or third party."
Unless Daniele or anyone else gets wildly drunk and attacks another
houseguest CBS is well clear of this. Next:
"(2) Business and Professions Code:
Section 23399.9:
No license is required for serving or disposing of alcohol if all three
conditions are met:
(1) There is no sale;
(2) Premises are not open to the public during the time alcoholic
beverages are being served, consumed or otherwise disposed and
(3) The premises are not maintained for the purposes of keeping, serving,
consuming or disposing of alcoholic beverages.
If all three conditions are met, then no license is required. For the
purposes of the statute, a "sale" has been defined as the purchase of a
"drink" or the purchase of a "ticket" entitling the purchaser to an
alcoholic drink. Furthermore, if "guests" are allowed to walk in from
the streets then the premises will be considered "open to the public" for
the purposes of the statute, and a license may be required."
Section 23301:
Any person serving or disposing of alcoholic beverages without a license,
when a license is required, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The term
"person" includes any individual, firm, co-partnership, association,
corporation or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
http://www.greeklife.ucla.edu/officialpolicies/alcoholstatutes.htm
With (1) BB doesn't sell alcohol.
With (2) The BB house is not open to the public at any time.
With (3) it is a bit murkier, it can be said that alcohol is kept there
but that is not the sole purpose of the BB house. It is more like
maintaining a home supply in your fridge than a tavern.
And the definition of "guest" in this case doesn't apply to BB. They
didn't walk in from the streets to the BB house and the house is not open
to the public so the term "guest" doesn't apply in this context.
So it seems that CBS and Endemol is clear of furnishing alcohol without a
license.
So pending some law that California may have passed since 2004 outlawing
the providing of alcohol to minors or having it availiable to them under
any circumstances or at least circumstances that match the circumstances
the BB house is under, CBS and Endemol are clear of legal liability in
providing alcohol to a minor even though in fact she is a minor and has
according to witnesses on live feeds have drank alcohol.
Again, I am not a lawyer and I am willing to hear from those who are,
particularly those who actually practice in California on this subject.
law because Daniele who is actually as of this writing 20 years old (her
birthday is tomorrow, i.e August 20, 2007 when she turns 21, legal
drinking age. The question is is CBS Endemol is violating law for
providing alcohol to a sub 21 year old, i.e. a minor. To the very strict
reading of th e situation they are. Daniele is/was a minor (depending on
when you read this) and she is drinking alcohol that CBS is letting her
access to However, They are very likely AREN'T violating the law. Here is
why I think that.
First, with my own disclaimer, I want to make clear that I am NOT a
lawyer nor do I present myself as one. I am just a dude that likes to
look up and do research on the subject just like you.
The below is from a 1999 proposed bill to toughen the penalties of the
sale, possession and use of alcohol by a minor or those who would provide
such beverages to one. It goes to the illegal sale of alcohol to a minor
and establishes that 21 is the legal drinking age:
From page 5 of the ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA in a appeal by a merchant convicted of selling alcohol to a
minor. Excerpt:
"Instead, what it shows is that, once the minor was asked for, and was
unable to produce, identification which would show him to be 21, he
simply asked to be treated in the same manner as he believed other
kids, meaning minors, were treated by appellant. Whether or not
appellant sold to other minors, he sold to Springston after Springston
put himself n a class w ith other minors. Such evidence easily supports
an inference that appellant made a knowing sale of alcohol to a
minor. Springstons testimony about the statement attributed to the
second clerk, advising Alaboody not to make the sale, and not wanting him
to sell to teens anymore, was also offered to show know ledge, and not
for the truth, i.e., that Alaboody had previously sold to minors
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:yEt6V0hXz0cJ:www.abcappealsbd.ca.gov
/decisions/pdf/AB_7000/7003.pdf+california+penal+law+alcohol+minors&hl=en
&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us
(cut and paste URL in the adress slot if hyperlink is faulty)
So now this states that it is illegal to sell to anyone under the age of
21 who are classified as minors.
It is against the law for a minor to have alcohol at all? Here is what it
says in existing law in 1999 at least:
6) Establishes as a misdemeanor, the possession of alcohol by a
minor on any street or highway or in any public place,
punishable by six months in jail, or $1,000 fine, or both.
(Business and Professions Code Section 25662.)
This was the proposed change in the 1999 bill to change the existing law:
"8)Establishes the misdemeanor punishment of a fine of at least
$500 or performance of community service of not less than 36
hours and not more than 48 hours for the second or subsequent
offense of any person under the age of 21 who has any
alcoholic beverage in his or her possession on any street or
highway or in any public place or in any place open to the
public."
Both http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_0701-
0750/ab_749_cfa_19990414_114155_asm_comm.html
If the bill passed-and I don't know if it did or not-it maybe moot since
it increased the punishment for having a minor possess alcohol on PUBLIC
property, but does not make minors having alcohol on PRIVATE property
illegal. I will bet the farm and say the "Big Brother" house is private
property.
In 2003 there was this in a proposed bill:
"1) Provides that when all of the following occurs, a parent is
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable up to six months in county
jail and a fine of up to $1,000:
a) The parent, responsible adult relative or legal guardian
knowingly permits his or her child or other person under
the age of 18 to consume alcohol or use a controlled
substance while in the home of the parent, responsible
adult relative or legal guardian;"
Side question: Is Dick culpable? Lets see:
The Big Brother House is not the home of the parent, not the home of a
responsible adult relative, nor it is the home of a legal guardian. So on
this Dick, CBS and Endemol is in the clear in the proposed bill.
In 2003 this was existing law:
"1) Provides that every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or
causes to be sold any alcoholic beverage to a person under 21
is guilty of a misdemeanor. [BPC Section 25658(a).]"
Now to my reading this is a stickier issue for CBS. According to another
link below a "person" can refer to a corporation.
Now the proposal only brings that the above provision in the law over to
cover the parents, adult relative or legal guardian under this clause. At
any rate is CBS is in violation then the violation of this law is only a
misdemeanor and the fines of a couple thousand dollars are laughable to a
multi billion dollar corporation like CBS. It is like you and me being
fined 20 cents, more likely 2 cents, less than the coast of doing
business. Would the law be enforced by the courts if the minor was less
than two months from drinking majority as Danielle was when Big Brother 8
started on July 5, 2007? I don't think so. Would the public be upset? I
don't think so. I am not even it is by the letter of the law *could* be a
violation of it. The risk-benefit ratio of the dramatic gimmick of having
an estranged Dad and Daughter in the house greatly favors CBS/Endemol
both cites from http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_1301-
1350/ab_1301_cfa_20030428_135322_asm_comm.html
I do not know if the law was passed, but if it was at most it would be a
legal divit in the road to CBS, legally a minor thing.
Lastly I found this:
"SELECTED CALIFORNIA STATUTES, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
The following California statutes regulate the use, sale, or distribution
of alcoholic beverages:
(1) Civil code:
Section 1714(a)
No social host who furnishes an alcoholic beverage to any person shall be
liable for injuries suffered by such a person or for injuries to a third
person resulting from the consumption of such beverages. But where the
social host knows that his guest is someone who"can't handle alcohol" the
host may be liable for injuries suffered by the guest or third party."
Unless Daniele or anyone else gets wildly drunk and attacks another
houseguest CBS is well clear of this. Next:
"(2) Business and Professions Code:
Section 23399.9:
No license is required for serving or disposing of alcohol if all three
conditions are met:
(1) There is no sale;
(2) Premises are not open to the public during the time alcoholic
beverages are being served, consumed or otherwise disposed and
(3) The premises are not maintained for the purposes of keeping, serving,
consuming or disposing of alcoholic beverages.
If all three conditions are met, then no license is required. For the
purposes of the statute, a "sale" has been defined as the purchase of a
"drink" or the purchase of a "ticket" entitling the purchaser to an
alcoholic drink. Furthermore, if "guests" are allowed to walk in from
the streets then the premises will be considered "open to the public" for
the purposes of the statute, and a license may be required."
Section 23301:
Any person serving or disposing of alcoholic beverages without a license,
when a license is required, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The term
"person" includes any individual, firm, co-partnership, association,
corporation or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
http://www.greeklife.ucla.edu/officialpolicies/alcoholstatutes.htm
With (1) BB doesn't sell alcohol.
With (2) The BB house is not open to the public at any time.
With (3) it is a bit murkier, it can be said that alcohol is kept there
but that is not the sole purpose of the BB house. It is more like
maintaining a home supply in your fridge than a tavern.
And the definition of "guest" in this case doesn't apply to BB. They
didn't walk in from the streets to the BB house and the house is not open
to the public so the term "guest" doesn't apply in this context.
So it seems that CBS and Endemol is clear of furnishing alcohol without a
license.
So pending some law that California may have passed since 2004 outlawing
the providing of alcohol to minors or having it availiable to them under
any circumstances or at least circumstances that match the circumstances
the BB house is under, CBS and Endemol are clear of legal liability in
providing alcohol to a minor even though in fact she is a minor and has
according to witnesses on live feeds have drank alcohol.
Again, I am not a lawyer and I am willing to hear from those who are,
particularly those who actually practice in California on this subject.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907