Indiana’s Lifeline Law has been in effect since July 1, however, with the holiday season in full swing, advocates are alerting and reminding Hoosiers of the law to help keep minors safe.
Senate Enrolled Act 274, now known as the Indiana Lifeline Law, was designed to protect minors when alcohol consumption endangers a friend. Specifically, the law grants immunity from certain charges, including public intoxication and minor consumption, to youth who call 911 when a friend has ingested a dangerous quantity of alcohol. If the minor(s) stay with the friend and cooperate with law enforcement, they are immune from prosecution.
“Underage drinking is illegal, but there needs to be a little gray area. Everyone makes mistakes including our children. But you don’t have to pay for it with a life,” said Sen. Jim Merritt, R-Indianapolis, the author of the bill.
He went on to say that more than two dozen Hoosier students under the age of 21 have lost their lives to alcohol poisoning since 2004 and many of these deaths could have been prevented if bystanders sought medical attention immediately for the victims. The Lifeline Law encourages students to do just that.
Students from Indiana University, University of Southern Indiana and Purdue University sought out Merritt to author the Lifeline Law this past session of the 2012 General Assembly. The students had relationships with law enforcement in their respective cities but wanted to make the practice state law.
“The senators said they are proud that students stepped up to make this happen,” said Justin Kingsolver, former president of the IU Student Association, in a previous interview.
The bill passed the entire Indiana Legislature without a “No” vote and became effective on July 1, 2012. Other states have a law similar to the Lifeline Law, however Merritt said the states of Oklahoma and Utah are modeling a law after Indiana’s.
The Lifeline Law will protect teens, but the senator said prior to authoring the bill, he pondered if this legislation overlooked teen drinking. Merritt also considered the concern students had about the repercussions for the drunk teen. Youth were grateful for the law but didn’t want to “get the drunk teen in trouble.”
“I’d much rather them help him or her than attend a funeral,” said Merritt.
The senator said he wants to make clear that the Lifeline Law does not condone underage drinking. In fact, teens and their parents should understand that while those who call for help won’t be prosecuted, the inebriated teen can be prosecuted to the fullest of the law.
Also, the bill will not shield those who drive under the influence of alcohol or apply to any other type of drug possession.
Over time binge drinking has evolved from beer to hard alcohol oftentimes coupled with prescription and non-prescription drugs and can have adverse effects on teens.
Risks include harm to brain development; increases in alcohol dependence; vehicle crashes resulting in death; increased rates of suicide; risky sexual behavior; and decreased academic achievement among others.
Since the legislation became effective July 1, law enforcement officers and medical first responders have been briefed on the law’s provisions. Fliers were also distributed through Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers (IABR) members, who will help spread the word that buying liquor for minors and using fake IDs are serious crimes, and that help is available for youth who make bad decisions.
“We are in a unique position to help spread the word about the law. We can actually inform consumers at the point of sale about this,” said John Livengood, president of the IABR.
The organization partnered with Monarch Beverage Co. to create the flier that reminds adult consumers that: youth drinking is both illegal and dangerous; those that help youth drink can be fined and jailed; they should read the law in its entirety; and that ID carding is still in full effect.
“The beverage retailers were one of the first groups to support mandatory carding of all customers and we think it’s still one of the best ways to prevent underage drinking,” added Livengood.
Many recognize the positive attributes equated with the Lifeline Law and are standing with Merritt in support of it including Dawn Finbloom, whose son Brett Finbloom died on Aug. 5 of alcohol poisoning. He was in a situation where his friends present panicked and were unaware of the new law.
“We cannot bring Brett back,” said Dawn Finbloom in a previous interview. “We will work night and day to stress to kids to make good decisions in all walks of life including the consumption of alcohol. It is imperative that one makes the call and saves a life.”
Even Attorney General Greg Zoeller has teamed up with Merritt in support of this law. He, the Finbloom family and Merritt have been visiting high schools and college/university campuses to inform Hoosiers under age 21 about the dangers of and prohibition of underage alcohol consumption and the Lifeline Law. Minors have taken the information seriously.
“The thing with (schools) is that each year, there are new kids so you have to keep repeating the story so they know what the law is and make them more sensitive to helping each other,” said Zoeller.
In addition to fliers and others going out and speaking to teens to help get the word out about the Lifeline Law, soon there will be an information campaign and radio and television public service announcements.
For more information, visit Indianalifeline.org or ProjectRAD.org.
Senate Enrolled Act 274 prohibits a law enforcement officer from taking a person into custody for a crime of public intoxication, minor possession, consumption, or transportation of an alcoholic beverage if the officer, after making a reasonable determination and considering the facts and surrounding circumstances, reasonably believes that: (1) the officer has contact with the person because the person requested emergency medical assistance, or acted in concert with another person who requested emergency medical assistance, for an individual who reasonably appeared in need of medical assistance due to alcohol consumption; and (2) the person meets other requirements. Specifies that a person may not bring an action against a law enforcement officer based on the officer’s compliance with or failure to comply with this prohibition.
