Officials: watered down alcohol laws will not affect U.

Until recently, anyone in Pennsylvania who was under 21 and caught holding a beer faced a possible criminal conviction. But a decision handed down by the state Supreme Court this month now requires that police officers have the beer chemically tested -- in order to prove that it contains at least one-half of one percent alcohol -- before a conviction is made. But while law enforcement officials across the state are in an uproar over the decision, University Police Commissioner John Kuprevich said this week that the ruling will not have a tremendous effect on the University's approach to underage drinking. "As far as the law goes, it really doesn't have a high impact on us, because the way we've handled things up to this point has been more internal than external," he said. Still, the controversial ruling has angered rural police departments, who say they cannot afford expensive lab analysis of beer. State lawmakers say they are already at work to close the new "loophole," which they say waters down one of the toughest underage drinking laws in the nation. Minors in Pennsylvania risks having their driver's licenses suspended for merely possessing alcohol. Meanwhile, it is unclear how the ruling will affect efforts by state police to enforce the drinking age at area bars. But it appears that besides issuing citations, police will have to test the beer before getting convictions. During a raid of a bar, for example, police would presumably have to tag and confiscate each container of beer, keeping track of which container came from which customer. Then police would have to take the beer to a lab and analyze it in order to make sure it is, in fact, beer. The court's ruling suggests the smell and taste of beer are not enough to distinguish it from a non-alcoholic brew. The ruling has led some on campus to assume that University undergraduates, most of whom are under 21, will now face fewer risks in drinking or that the University will have a harder time enforcing its underage drinking policy. University officials, however, said that the ruling will have little effect because the University usually handles cases of underage drinking through its internal judicial system, rather than by referring students to the criminal system. State alcohol laws do not apply to University's judicial system. Larry Moneta, associate vice provost for student life, said he believed that while the police "may have their hands tied," the University can continue to use its judicial process, where "far and away the majority" of underage drinking cases are handled. He also noted that police departments and other groups are now pushing the legislature to revise the laws to counteract the ruling. Kuprevich said that the "seriousness" of the case determines whether University Police officers make an arrest or simply refer the case to the Judicial Inquiry Officer. Such arrests might occur in cases involving assault or something "beyond possession of alcohol," he said. "Arresting and going through the criminal process is an option and we will use it when approrpriate," he said. In those cases, he said the University would comply with the court's ruling on alcohol testing. But in most cases, he said the University's goal is to educate students about alcohol use so that if they choose to drink, they will not hurt themselves "physically or educationally." But, he added, "We don't expect to see them out on Locust Walk with alcohol." The state Supreme Court ruling stems from a case involving the Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity at Penn State University, which was charged six years ago with serving alcohol to minors. The fraternity lost its case in both Common Pleas Court and Superior Court, but won on appeal to the state Supreme Court. In that 5-2 ruling, the court ruled that officer testimony was not enough to uphold underage drinking convictions and that chemical analysis was also necessary.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.