Minors, You Are What You Drink!: Arkansas's New Spin on Minors in ...

1000 ARKANSAS LAW REVIEW [Vol. 65:977
these uncertainties in order to prevent unnecessary
litigation involving these issues. As illustrated above, every
state that has enacted an internal-possession law has
included provisions governing how and when an officer
may obtain evidence from the minor’s body, and Arkansas
should do the same. 141
Furthermore, the Arkansas General Assembly should
include some indication as to whether its minor-inpossession
law is a strict liability offense. Alternatively, the
Arkansas General Assembly should include some provision
that provides an affirmative defense for lack of knowledge.
Such a provision would avoid the wrongful prosecution of
minors who were drugged or simply unaware that they
ingested alcohol.
Lastly, in response to the recent United States
Supreme Court decision regarding when a minor is
considered to be in custody, Arkansas’s law enforcement
should anticipate challenges to the administration of breath
and blood tests due to the lack of a Miranda warning. As
evidenced by the Supreme Court’s decision, depending on a
minor’s age, an officer may be required to issue a Miranda
warning before making any requests or asking any
questions. The decision affects when and how an officer
may request a minor to undergo a blood or breath test, and
Arkansas law enforcement should be informed that such
discretion could result in the inadmissibility of evidence on
constitutional grounds. Therefore, Arkansas’s amended
statute might not make things as easy for law enforcement
as originally intended.
Altogether, the Arkansas General Assembly has taken
a bold stride in its battle against underage drinking, but
several questions are left unanswered. The Arkansas
General Assembly should take a proactive stance and
address the problems raised in this note to avoid confusion
and unnecessary litigation.
141. See supra Part V.A.
JERVONNE D. NEWSOME