United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Your Government at Work: Trying to Prosecute Restaurateur for Tweeting Photo of Underage Kids Who Tried to Buy Beer
Source:
Reason
URL Source: http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/07/y ... nment-at-work-trying-to-prosec
Published: Feb 7, 2017
Author: Brian Doherty
Post Date: 2017-02-09 14:59:58 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1593
Comments: 12
John Horvatinovich is on trial this week because he tweeted out a photo of a couple of 17 -year-old kids who tried to buy alcohol at his Omaha, Nebraska, restaurant, Salt 88. He's facing a misdemeanor charge of interfering with a government operation. [UPDATE: And today, February 8, he was fortunately acquitted by a jury.] Why? Because the kids were sent there by the Nebraska State Patrol as part of an attempted sting to entice him to illegally sell them alcohol. His resistance to selling Bud Lights to the kids, who presented their real underage I.Ds and were turned away, indicates his intent to sternly obey the law. Yet that act turned into what the state considers lawbreaking when he thought he'd do a solid for the community by exposing the would-be lawbreakers. He tweeted out a photo showing the faces of the two teens from his restaurant surveillance camera on August 13 of last year, according to a report from the Omaha News-Herald, with these words: "Omaha restaurant peeps: These two are trying to ruin your night w/sting operations in town." (The tweet has since been deleted.) Despite using the word "sting" in his tweet, Horvatinovich told local TV station WOWT News 6 that "We were presented with two minors trying to buy alcohol at our restaurant. Had I known they were minors working with authorities in a compliance check, I would have deleted it immediately. But we didn't find that until 12-days after the tweet." According to the News-Herald, "Assistant City Prosecutor Makayla Maclin said in her opening statement [in his trial] Monday that...'(The teens) couldn't perform any more compliance checks as a result of the tweet.'" Their police handlers feared with them being identifiable on the internet that future use of those same teens in bars could result in possible violence against them. Horvatinovich's maximum possible sentence for posting a picture of people who tried to break the law in his restaurant is a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. The trial was ongoing as of today. [UPDATE: As noted above, today February 8 he was acquitted.] Why is government mad? The kids were sent by cops to entrap him into selling them the beer
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Damn, does the stupidity of LEO know no bounds ? These guys need a different vocation !
What if these "kids" in the sting were really 21, yet presented fake IDs that showed they were 17? If he sold them beer, would it be illegal?
If the restaurant owner actually asked if the identification's were legitimate, then liability would fall upon the "kids". I've heard of many youths getting fake id's and getting into clubs. But if the owners are aware these kids are under age, then the burden would lie on the owner of the business.
According to the article, these kids were 17 and their ID showed they were 17. They were testing to see if the owner would sell them alcohol despite them being underage. But what about a police department that has a policy of not using minors in sting operations (for, say, safety concerns)? So they use someone who is actually 21 but looks 17, and who presents a fake ID that says he's 17? If the owner sells him beer, did he break the law? After all, he's really 21.
#9. To: misterwhite (#6)
Of course police use minors. So does the FBI. The point I made is that either the "kids" were offering themselves for sex or to purchase alcohol under false pretenses or they were working as a team Sting Operation. This is where "entrapment" can get messy and the issue then becomes an illegal sting due to fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine. Getting information under false pretenses taints the information and therefore is thrown out in court by arguments made by attorneys for the defendant.
If the owner was presented with an id showing an kid allegedly underage and wanting to purchase alcohol and the owner sells beer to this underage kid, the owner goes to jail (despite the fact that the kid is 21). The owner relied upon information that should have stopped him right there and proceeded no further. As a matter of fact, if the owner was smart he would have a notice placed in front of his store informing underage kids or anybody else for that matter that the use of false identification will get the underage some time in jail and that the owner requires the right to deny service to anybody they suspect of holding false identification or failing to produce other forms of identification to prove they are of legal age to purchase alcohol, cigarettes, etc.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest" Your Government at Work: Trying to Prosecute Restaurateur for Tweeting Photo of Underage Kids Who Tried to Buy Beer "
#2. To: Stoner (#1)
#3. To: misterwhite (#2)
What if these "kids" in the sting were really 21, yet presented fake IDs that showed they were 17? If he sold them beer, would it be illegal?
#6. To: goldilucky (#3)
(Edited)
"But if the owners are aware these kids are under age, then the burden would lie on the owner of the business."
Replies to Comment # 6. But what about a police department that has a policy of not using minors in sting operations (for, say, safety concerns)? So they use someone who is actually 21 but looks 17, and who presents a fake ID that says he's 17?
#10. To: misterwhite (#6)
If the owner sells him beer, did he break the law? After all, he's really 21.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]