Man faces prison after allegedly trying to deposit 10,000 bottles in Michigan

[Wingnut]

Life imitates Seinfeld !

In a memorable episode of Seinfeld, two characters hatch a plot: instead of returning bottles in New York for a 5-cent refund, round up a load of containers and run them to Michigan, where the return is double, at 10 cents each.

In reality, the ploy – returning bottles purchased outside of Michigan to capitalize on the refund – is illegal under the state’s bottle deposit law. And a Michigan resident is finding out just how steep the penalties could be.

Garbage in, energy out: creating biofuel from plastic waste

Brian Everidge, who is accused of attempting to “return” more than 10,000 bottles from other states, faces up to five years in prison for one felony count of beverage return of non-refundable bottles.

The incident dates to late April, when a Michigan state trooper pulled over Everidge – who was driving a rented Budget box truck in Tyrone Township, Michigan, about 40 miles north-west of Detroit – for speeding.

The officer, Clifford Lyden, testified at a court hearing on Thursday that Everidge’s truck was filled with plastic bags holding thousands of aluminum cans.

“I don’t think you could have put another five or 10 cans in here,” Lyden said. “It was packed.”

Everidge indicated the cans were from Kentucky, the officer said, “and his intent was to return them; he just didn’t say where he was going to return them”.

Livingston County district judge Suzanne Geddis found on Thursday that there was probable cause that Everidge violated state law, court records show, and Everidge will go to trial.

William J Vailliencourt, the prosecutor for Livingston County, declined to comment, citing the pending trial. But he said his office “has never had a case like this”.

Everidge couldn’t be reached, and his attorney, Marcus Wilcox, declined to comment.

In court, Everidge’s attorney Marcus Wilcox argued the state improperly charged Everidge, according to the Livingston Daily Press & Argus. He said his client’s situation didn’t meet the legal threshold for “attempting” to deliver the bottles for the deposit refund.

“They caught him too early,” Wilcox said on Thursday. “He attempted to attempt to return the bottles.”

Legal experts said Wilcox’s argument was tantamount to a “law school exam question”.

“This is the kind of stuff you torture students with,” said Peter Henning, a Wayne State University law professor and former federal prosecutor.

more:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man-faces-prison-after-allegedly-trying-to-deposit-10000-bottles-in-michigan/ar-BBuKwpR?li=BBnb7Kz

[geronl]

This is a dumb law. Plus states cannot make laws about interstate trade.

[RoosGirl]

Thank God the gov't is protecting us from illegal bottle returners.

[Cripplecreek]

This is a dumb law. Plus states cannot make laws about interstate trade.

The store owner who pays for the return out of his till isn't real fond of out of state cans.

Personally, I'd just make them all the same return rate and call it good.

[Oceander]

This is a dumb law. Plus states cannot make laws about interstate trade.

It doesn't have anything to do with interstate commerce; it has to do with a state limiting the deposits it returns to deposits it actually accepted in the first place.  Since a state can only collect deposits on bottles/cans that were sold within the state, limiting deposit refunds to bottles/cans that were purchased in the state is the only way to achieve that end, and that end is perfectly rational.  In fact, the law limiting refunds to bottles/cans purchased in-state does not discriminate against interstate commerce because bottles/cans purchased out-of-state are apples to the oranges of bottles/cans purchased in-state because no deposit was ever collected on the bottles/cans from out-of-state, unlike bottles/cans that were purchased in-state.  A state discriminates against interstate commerce only when it treats identical out-of-state items differently from identical in-state items (e.g., imposing additional restrictions on wine from out-of-state wineries that are not imposed on wine from in-state wineries).

[jmyrlefuller]

This is a dumb law. Plus states cannot make laws about interstate trade.

Well, technically, no.

As far as it goes in New York, the law expressly states that the bottle deposits have to be paid in New York in order to be redeemed in New York. Otherwise, they're trying to collect a deposit that was never actually paid—technically, a form of fraud.

[geronl]

It doesn't have anything to do with interstate commerce; it has to do with a state limiting the deposits it returns to deposits it actually accepted in the first place.

I didn't realize that bottles were a state-owned enterprise

[geronl]

Well, technically, no.

As far as it goes in New York, the law expressly states that the bottle deposits have to be paid in New York in order to be redeemed in New York.

That sounds more reasonable.

[mountaineer]

We used to attend an LPGA event each year in Rochester, NY, and finally got the bright idea, a la Kramer and Newman, of taking our empty bottles with us "the next time" we drove there. Then they cancelled the tournament. Oh well, all those empties went to the recycling center and we got nary a dime for them.  :nometalk:

[Jackson]

This is a dumb law. Plus states cannot make laws about interstate trade.

This guy will be acquitted at trial since he never made the slightest attempt to return the cans for the deposit, and therefore never violated any law. This is tantamount to charging a man for murder just because he had a gun in his glove box.

[guitar4jesus]