Case Study: Evaluating Host Liability in Shoulder Tap Crime Scenarios

This case study examines the legal implications of shoulder tap crimes, specifically focusing on the liability of hosts at private parties where alcohol is furnished to both adults and minors. It delves into whether strict liability should apply to hosts, considering exceptions for religious or traditional settings. The analysis includes the potential for hosts to offer evidence of reasonably believing a minor was of legal drinking age, referencing CALCRIM No. 2964 and the importance of verifying age with government-issued documents. The study also considers the impact of allowing such defenses, similar to those available to bars and liquor stores, and emphasizes the need for balanced accountability for both adults and minors involved in underage drinking. References to relevant research and legal precedents are included to support the arguments.

Running head: SHOULDER TAP CRIME 1
Shoulder Tap Crime
Name
Institution

SHOULDER TAP CRIME 2
Question: should the same strict liability apply to a host of a private party that is
attended by both adults and minors where alcohol at the private party is furnished to both?
Depending on the theme of the private party, the host should be or should not be
subjected to the same strict liability. The laws restricting furnishing alcohol beverages or drinks
to minors have some exceptions. These exceptions are situation in which furnishing alcohol to
minors may not be an illegal act. For instance, the law allows the furnishing alcohol drinks to
minors during a religious setting or a tradition setting like cerebrating a family members’ life or
such tradition practices. If the private party was a practice of religion or some tradition, the host
should be subjected to the strict liability. Instead, the host should be allowed to proof that the
party was indeed a religion practice or tradition. If he/she proofs this, he should be let free.
However, if the party’s theme does not fall in the any of allowable situations, the host should be
subjected to the strict liability. The host together with other adults in the party should be held
liable for furnishing alcohol to minors. The law stipulates that adults who do not prevent minors
from consuming alcohol are liable for furnishing alcohol to minors (Surette, 2014).
Question: should a host be able to offer evidence that he reasonably believed the
minor was old enough to drink?
According to CALCRIM No2964, the defendant (in this case the host) may not be guilty
of furnishing alcohol to minors if he/she reasonably and actually believed that the minors was at
least 21 years old. However this has to be backed up with some evidence. The host is not guilty
if; he demanded to see a government-issued document as a proof age and identity. If the host
himself demanded for the proof of age, or one of his employees did, and is able to proof this,
then in this case the defendant is no guilty. In case the minor showed the host or his employee a
fake government issued document or something similar to government issued document as

SHOULDER TAP CRIME 3
evidence of age, then host is not guilty. If the host relied on documents provided as proof of age,
then he/ she is no guilty if the documents provided is legit or not. So as no compromise the law,
the host should be able to offer evidence that he/she was reasonably convinced that the minor
was of age. (Fell, Scherer, Thomas & Voas, 2016).
Question: Would it help your case if the jurisdiction made such a defense available
to bars and liquor stores that required buyers to provide proof of age?
Allowing the defendants, accused of furnishing minors with alcohol, offer evidence that
they were convinced that the minors were of the right age will help the case. This will allow the
law to be balanced to both the defendant and the accuser. It will be easy to administer the right
verdict. Both parties involved should be held liable since the law is known to both minors and
adults. The minors who for instance fake government documents should be held accountable for
this (Wagoner, Francisco, Sparks, Wyrick, Nichols & Wolfson, 2012).

SHOULDER TAP CRIME 4
References
Fell, J. C., Scherer, M., Thomas, S., & Voas, R. B. (2016). Assessing the impact of twenty
underage drinking laws. Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs, 77(2), 249-260.
Surette, R. (2014). Media, crime, and criminal justice. Nelson Education.
Toomey, T. L., Lenk, K. M., Nelson, T. F., & Jones, A. M. (2013). Impact of Alcohol Policies on
College Student Health (Including Alcohol Access Restrictions, Policy Enforcement,
Amnesty Policies) .In Interventions for Addiction (pp. 903-915).
Wagoner, K. G., Francisco, V. T., Sparks, M., Wyrick, D., Nichols, T., & Wolfson, M. (2012). A
review of social host policies focused on underage drinking parties: Suggestions for
future research. Journal of drug education, 42(1), 99-117.