Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: MIP w/ out breathalyzer or admittance to alcohol

You were not charged with being drunk or with drinking any of the beer. You also were not charged with owning the beer. Instead, you were charged with possessing it. Possession is not the same thing as ownership, and when you agreed to hold on to your friend's beer you took possession of it. You are evidently guilty as charged.

Since possession of alcohol does not involve drinking it, there is no need to run a breathalyzer test. The fact that you didn't confess to drinking is also beside the point.

All the prosecution needs to prove is that the liquid you were holding onto was an alcoholic beverage, that you possessed it and that you knew what it was. The possession part seems very easy to prove, and the fact that the police did not recover the beer will not prevent them from proving what the liquid was. After all, you *told* the police it was beer; this statement takes care of both the second and third requirements. (This is a good example of how talking to the police can make things much worse for a suspect.) Even if there is some doubt, the police will be able to testify that the liquid looked like beer and smelled like beer. We all know what beer looks and smells like, so their testimony would be enough to prove the charge even if you hadn't admitted that it was beer.

If you think you can make this charge go away because of the facts you describe in your question, you are wrong. You need to get a lawyer.