College kid fails breathalyzer inside football stadium, now unable to get car insurance
Official: Michigan law merits scrutiny
Before the 18-year-old from Birmingham, Michigan, went to a college football game, he thought nothing of having a few beers with his buddies. He never expected to encounter a university police officer who would administer a breathalyzer test inside the stadium, issue a citation for minor in possession of alcohol and leave the college student unable to get car insurance — even though the incident did not occur in or near a motor vehicle.
“Unfortunately, people don’t always know the law, especially in situations like this,” said St. Clair County Circuit Court Judge Cynthia Lane. “If you have children in college, they’re going to be exposed to alcohol and they’re likely going to be drinking. People need to know the law.”
In Michigan, your son or daughter’s first offense for a “minor in possession” (MIP) is a civil infraction. The penalty involves a $100 fine and maybe community service.
Here’s the key: Because of a different, unrelated statute on the books, the incident gets reported automatically to the Secretary of State’s office, and it goes on their driving record for three years.
It can trigger an insurance nightmare for drivers under the age of 21 caught with alcohol on their breath or in their possession.
“This basically has the impact of a drunk driving offense even if they aren’t driving,” said Royal Oak-based lawyer David Findling, who is working on behalf of his client to help fix a legislative mistake and keep other families from getting mired in a situation that lawmakers never intended.
The incident at Waldo Stadium on the Western Michigan University campus in Kalamazoo ended up spiking the family’s car insurance to $18,000 a year for four vehicles in 2025.
(Though the ticket was issued in November 2023, it didn’t not appear on the driving record until after the student completed his court-ordered community service in August 2024. The young man’s family initially thought their insurance carrier had just become too expensive, so they sought coverage with another company. The second insurer agreed to provide car coverage at a lower cost but required that the ticketed young man be excluded.)
Findling learned that the legislative effort to make the minor in possession law less harsh actually worsened the situation. He has been on a scavenger hunt trying to figure out how this happened in Michigan and how it can be addressed.
Let’s just back up for a minute to better understand the situation.
Change in law had a ripple effect
Findling synthesized discoveries that few lawyers, parents, lawmakers or reporters may know:
In 2019, the Michigan Legislature reformed No-Fault insurance law. It enacted prohibitions against the use of non-driving related factors to determine the cost of car insurance. An insurance company would no longer be able to consider your credit score, sex, marital status, home-ownership, education level, or occupation to set your rates. These changes required insurance companies to base their premiums on driving safety. But, a little-known factor changed in 2020 and now directly impacts drivers under 21 who are ticketed for being in the possession of alcohol.
In Michigan, as everyone knows, it’s illegal for people under age 21 to purchase, consume or possess alcohol. The statute originally made the first offense a misdemeanor with criminal penalties. Because it was a criminal offense, a judge was permitted to place the “minor” under 21 on probation and ultimately, dismiss the charge. In an effort to decriminalize a minor’s initial violation, the legislature changed the first offense from criminal to civil, with a fine of up to $100.
Through a quirk in drafting, the new minor in possession statute and the old abstracting statute ended up requiring notification of the Secretary of State of the first offense, but not the second. The first conviction must appear on the minor’s driving record, even if they’re not driving.
“I don’t think there’s any way that anybody could know about the consequences of this kind of situation. It’s hidden,” Findling said. “I had to reverse engineer the law to find out why this (college student) had a drinking conviction on his driving record. Nobody would know a civil infraction has such onerous consequences.”
When state lawmakers switched a “minor in possession” (MIP) offense from criminal to civil, they intended to make it less severe not more severe, Findling said. “Kids do stupid things when they’re kids. The legislature wanted to give them an opportunity to rectify their mistakes and not saddle them with a conviction, a criminal record or a misdemeanor. The legislature’s intent was good. They changed it to a civil infraction.”
Nowhere near a car
The young man struggling to navigate this legal situation agreed to have me tell his story but declined to be interviewed and asked that his name not be printed. He was concerned that the incident would haunt him, despite having an otherwise clean record, when potential employers or others searched his name on the Internet.
He acknowledged making a mistake, completed community service and the court waived the fine. But now he can’t drive because he can’t get insurance.
The political science major never imagined getting an alcohol conviction on his driving record. Neither the judge nor the prosecutor has discretion on whether to report to the Secretary of State’s office.
“Now you have a kid who was nowhere near a car but the offense is on his driving record,” Findling said. “This had nothing to do with driving a car. We don’t have to condone drinking by minors but the law is designed to allow young people to make mistakes without long lasting consequences.”

Clint St. Mosley of St. Mosley Insurance and Financial Services in Sterling Heights said he hasn’t had any clients with minor in possession incidents but people do need to understand that insurance companies have limited data on which to base rates now. Companies no longer may consider race, ethnicity, age, zip code or credit scores.
While the company St. Mosley uses only considers driving offenses when writing car insurance, he did say he is not able to write auto insurance if someone has had a DUI (drinking under the influence) within the past three years. “But anything non-driving, we don’t punish.”
He was surprised by the idea that young people caught drinking in a setting that doesn’t involve a motor vehicle would have that information added to their driving record. St. Mosley said he personally thinks the situation merits legislative review.
Findling has contacted judges, private practice lawyers, prosecutors, elected officials and legislative staff in an attempt to find answers to how this situation can be remedied.
He finally struck gold.
‘Not intended’
Peter Ruddell, chair of the Michigan Law Revision Commission, confirmed to me in recent days that he spoke to Findling.
“This is exactly the reason our commission was formed, to find these kinds of inconsistencies within the law. We’ll take this up,” said Ruddell, a partner at the Honigman Law Firm who was appointed by the Michigan Legislative Council five years ago to lead the commission.
He is only the fourth chair since the commission was established in 1965.
“I just think this was not intended when the legislation was updated,” he said. “We haven’t dug deep into the legislative history but we have to see why it gets posted on someone’s driving record. We’ve got to do some due diligence. And we’ll do that in advance of our meeting, which hasn’t been scheduled yet. Then we’ll make recommendations” to the legislature.
Findling told me, “My hope is that we’ll get this fixed for families in Michigan.”
More:
Powerhouse lawyer from Detroit plays key role in Uber, Lyft sexual assault lawsuits
Jeopardy! winning streak spotlights Ford engineer
What makes Gold medal goalie Connor Hellebuyck different
For happy readers who may be inspired: Buy Me a Coffee
I’m honored to be part of The Iowa Writers’ Collaborative that includes journalists, novelists, songwriters and poets.




Thank goodness for the law revision commission and that you contacted them. Hopefully they are effective and can bring about action. This kid got 🪛
Scott County Iowa probably arrests at least 2 to 3 people a day for Intoxication only....
Though often paired with interference with official acts or other charges...
They sometimes arrest people for underage tabbacco or alcohol....mostly black and other minorities...extreme discrimination........
They target minorities and homeless people especially for Intoxication charges....and other charges too ....