MentalFrog wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it is required by law to card anyone who buys tobacco products. I'd look it up but I don't have the time. If it isn't the law they do teach clerks that it is a requirement. Saying she looked old enough is no excuse. I was clerk years ago and it was required. I carded a 75 year old. It's his fault and nobody elses doesn't matter what they look like.
In California, you're required to ID someone who appears to be under the age of 35. This is actually relatively new. It used to be that you had to ID anyone who appeared to you to be underage. However, that got them in a lot of trouble for the reasons I pointed out above. Appearance of age is pretty subjective, and it's darn hard to tell whether someone is 17 or 18. They bumped it to 35 on the idea that if the person looks "young", they're required to ID that person to verify that he/she is actually over 18.
I don't know about other states, but at least here it's absolutely not required that a store clerk ID every single person who purchases tobacco products. Only those who look like they "might" be underage.
And Smash. That depends on what the judge is going to do. Sure. If the standard for an offense like that is to dismiss it and charge a court fee, then take it. However, at least here in California, you'll get nailed for like a 1500 dollar *fine* (not sure if that's for first offense or not, but I know it's freaking expensive for some guy earning a clerks wage), not just court fees. They absolutely don't dismiss them. You get a fine and probation. If you get nailed again during probation you are subject to harsher punishments each time.
If you are in a state that does that, it is very much in your interest to fight for a reduction if you can. If you believe that the case involved entrapment, it's *definately* in your interest to fight it. Unless you're ok with having offenses in your criminal record for something you don't think you did wrong that is...