Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk

[Richard L]

kefguy,

That's simple, but I don't think you will like or accept the answer because it has already been covered.



The TABC and the police are making PI arrest in bars where the person appears to be obviosly drunk. The police will conduct a field sobriety test or give the suspect a breathalizer test (the suspects can refuse to take either test). If the police feel that the subject is intoxicated, they are permitted to make a judgement call as to whether this suspect is a danger to himself or to others. If that person has an escort or a sober friend, the suspect is ticketed for PI and released in the custody of his sober companion. If the suspect does not have a sober companion they are taken to jail to sober up.



You may not like the fact that the police can use a judgement call as to what constituteds a danger to the intoxicated person, but it is legal for the police to make that call. As to whether he can convice a judge that the intoxicated subject presented a danger to himself or others is only speculation now. The judge may accept the police officers experience guided by statistics that an intoxicated person is more likely to be involved in an incident that causes injury to them or others.



Perhaps all police officers are trained that any person who is physically impaired, with dimished brain function, and stunted reactions represents a danger. The police only have to believe a law has been violated to make an arrest. If the prosecutor does not find that there is sufficient evidence to convict the suspect, the charges will likely be dropped. As you stated earlier, the suspects are innocent until proven guilty, however, you kept imply that he was being convicted simply because he was arrested.



So to answer your question in two sentences, "The officer only has to believe that a law was violated to make an arrest. He is not required to "Prove" anything, that is the prosecutors job, and at the trial, the police officer is pretty much just an expert eyewitness.



...Rich

 

[Dale Carlson]

Well, I guess what you're calling a "judgement call", I'm calling an assumption. I can see that a TABC officer or a regular beat cop are going to have some experience in dealing with drunks. I just haven't figured out how they can see the future. I've got a feeling, that of the people who have a problem with these busts, that's what they have a problem with. I especially take issue with giving citations for those who had a DD. What kind of idiocy is that?



I've also got a feeling that outside (meaning not a part of) a TABC task force, that regular city/county/state cops aren't going to make these kinds of arrests (unless there's a pretty damn good reason). Y'see, after all of this, we agree on one thing - that the legality of these arrests is going to be decided by a judge. I think he/she is going to throw most of these arrests out. And, cops being like most folks (even welders) (sorry, I couldn't resist), want to do a good job at their job. Having arrests thrown out of court for a lack of PROBABLE CAUSE, some REASONABLE DOUBT, and because of an inherent PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, not only waste's the cop's time, it makes them look bad, and makes them feel bad.



My bottom line: Legal or not, this is wrong on many levels (but you might of figured out that was where I stood).

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Kefguy asks:

How is it that the TABC can ASSUME that the drunks they're arresting are a danger to themselves or others (intoxication-level not required for the purposes of this question)?

I think your question really isn't so much about the TABC but is questioning of the PI law in general, Kefguy. Your questioning is one of the fundamental "righteousness" of the PI law, IMHO.



But, the law, as written seems to make it a judgement call and requires that the officers view the intoxicated person as potentially dangerous to themselves or others.



As far as "you not being able to see how they can see the future", well that's understandable, but they don't really HAVE to see the future. The law only requires that there be the "potential" that they be dangerous to themselves or others.



And, that is where the other part of the law comes into play; the legal limit part. If an officer sees someone who they feel is intoxicated in public, and that person is over the legal limit THEN they by DEFINITION AND THE LAW are "potentially dangerous to themselves and others", because, being over the legal limit means that your physical and mental abilities are impaired.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

defguy,

TJR is correct. The police do not have to assume anything. They have the full support of the law in making an arrest if they "Believe" a law was vioulated. His experience an training allow him to assess the potential danger that the suspect or others may be exposed to due to his intoxicated condition.



I agree, you are questioning the legality of arresting people in bars for PI. That is what is the most controverial part here in Texas. There is no agrument that the arrest are 100% legal. Nobody is questioning how the police are targeting the obviously intoxicated people and nobody is questioning that these intoxicated people were a danger to themself or others.



I think you and Caymen, are getting sidetracked by a lot of details regarding the proof and the guilt of these suspects, or it's just a tacktic to increase revenues for the state, when you just feel that arresting drunks in bars in inherantly wrong, or unfair. Many people in Texas who believe that the arrest are legal, don't like the use of those tactics.



Personally, I applaud the TABC and the police, but I never knew that the PI arrests would occur in a bar.



Politicians appear to be split along party lines. Who would have guessed ?? Most Republicans support the actions of the TABC while most Democrats feel the arrest were legal but want a review of the operation to insure there were no abuse of power on the part of the police.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

I don't think I said it wasn't legal. I simply said it wasn't right. Even though it is the law, sometimes the best thing to do is keep those that pay your salary happy.



The majority of citizans do not respect police officers. There is a reason for that.



You don't have the police force to attack crime, but you got them to arrest some guy getting hammered at a bar. Thier priorities are in the wrong place and it is nothing more then a tacktic to raise revenue at a high cost.



A Mayor in Cleveland wanted red light camera's. She got them. She lost re-election. The mayor of Akron wanted spped camera's. He will be up for re-election. He is going to loose. He has been mayor for almost 20 years. The things they did was legal, but the citizans do not feel it is right.



PI arrests in bars is not cool. Those drinking in bars do not look at those arrests as upholding the law. It is wrong, though legal, but FLAT OUT WRONG!!! If a guy is fighting everyone and causing trouble, police coming into bars will get the crowd cheering the police. Arresting a guy having fun and not causing trouble will cause more people to hate the cops.



As if enough people don't hate the cops as it is.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen says:

The majority of citizans do not respect police officers. There is a reason for that.

Bwahahaha!



Do you REALLY believe that?



I have seen JUST THE OPPOSITE! Most everyone I know and the people I have talked to have nothing but RESPECT for police officers.



Seems to me that you are projecting your feelings on everyone in order to try to prove a point.



I respect all police officers that do their jobs and do it well. And, arresting a drunk in a bar would fall under that category. It is not only LEGAL, it is RIGHT!



But, then again, my time and money are too valueable to consider getting drunk in a bar a form of entertainment...there was a time when I thought that way, but then, I guess I grew up...(trolling here folks)



TJR

 

[Richard L]

Caymen,

I understand your distrust of the police and your belief that tickets and many petty laws are just a way for communities to generate revenue. That was also my belief about 25+ years ago, but if you continue to focus on how things were in the past you will never see the actual progress that has been made and is unfair to the many police officer who are just trying to do their jobs.



I’m sure we have all hear about some of the infamous speed traps that thrived for years until the various state governments stated to shut them down.



Two of the more famous speed traps are in Ohio:



Rome, Ohio was very notorious and appeared on several TV shows. Rome is just off I-70 west of Columbus. The state and the township went after them and finally got their city incorporation revoked, the police department was dissolved, the city council and the mayor were fired and the township took over all police and administrative duties.



Another Ohio speed trap that was on TV is Linndale, Ohio. This is a small city incorporated within the city of Cleveland, Ohio (where I was born and raised). This little town is was only about 3-4 square blocks and they had a worthless traffic light planted in such a location that oncoming traffic’s view of the light was blocked by an overhead railroad bridge. 96% of Linndale’s revenue was from people running that red light because they did not see it as they exited the from under the overpass.



When I-71 was built it cut out about half of Linndale, including the infamous traffic light and the source of all their revenue. The town police noticed that about a 1/4-mile of the north bound lane of I-71 was within the city limits so they started clocking speeders on I=71. I know the state of Ohio thought it was an inappropriate speed trap and were looking for legal means of shutting them down.



In Texas we had several notorious Speed Traps but the state of Texas got them shut down. Some small towns were clocking motorist in the Interstates and major state highways. Those highways were to be patrolled only by the state police so the small towns could keep their police forces small and not have to worry about cost of expensive radar equipment and pursuit vehicles, etc. About 10 years ago, the state took away the money from the towns with the speed traps by directing all traffic fines had to be collected by JP’s and forwarded to the state. The city of Nolandville (population about 1000) had one of the most notorious Texas speed traps and had to lay off 16 police officers after the city could no longer keep the fines.



Yes there probably other speed traps in many states that only exist to generate revenue, but I feel that they are making an honest effort to clean it up and the new, young police officers deserve our support. Even Los Angeles, with all the police brutality incidents should not be condemned because of a few bad apples.



…Rich

 

[Jim Thompson]

...can't believe that I went off (to Martinsville btw...good one!)for a few days and this is still going. Beyond that, I read all this crap...maybe the problem is me! Perhaps I can't follow it; certainly not Pedro's welds. I think tho, in that scenario Tom, that the REAL Texan was Pedro, not Tex, at least in my minimal capacity to remember a little of the history of that region. ALL I CAN SAY is: more power to the law! If they save one single life, their efforts are worthy, and I don't care what you call their motives in doing it. I also respect lawmen and women generally. I trust them, I need them...and I don't believe for a minute that "most people" don't.



Now just one more point and I'm done (completely), I don't understanding the logic of the following statements ...sorry:



"I know there are statistics out there, just maybe they are not for public used. Like it says 100% of second time DUI offenders have had a prior DUI. IIRC, 10% of all first time DUI offenders are alcoholics. 40% of all 2nd time are alcoholics, and something like 90% of all 3rd time offenders are alcoholics. So, it is reasonable to say that the first time offender is not an alcoholic, while a 3rd offender most likely is one."

 

[Tom Schindler]

Rich,



Boston Heights is another. I think they have 1 mile of Rt. 8 and in one year, the made something like 3 million dollars in traffic citations alone. it was so bad, the state got involved. Every 1/4 mile of road, the speed would change. From 55 to 45. Then it would go to 60 , then back down to 45. It was sso bad, Boston heights was know as "The home of the Boston Strangler". They have lightened up a little after one officer pulled in front of a truck and was hit. The city tried to sue to truck driver, fortunatly for the truck driver, 4 other people, who were fed up with the police, stood up and witnessed for the driver. The officer was killed by the truck. That truck driver has to live with that guilt for the rest of his life.



I read in the local paper that the actions of the TABC is starting to hurt tourism in Texas. I think it is a great thing.



jimthompson, I am sorry you don't understand the stats I posted. I don't know how I could make them easier to understand. Think if I type slower, it might be easier for you to read?





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, maybe when you start with stats like this, it's a little hard to take the rest seriously:

100% of second time DUI offenders have had a prior DUI

 

[Tom Schindler]

TJR,



I wondered who would notice that first. Some stats are obvious, while others are more obscure. That is why I put that in there.





Tom

 

[Jim Thompson]

Well, I just thought I was done...but Tommy Boy, you just have a gift for stirring controversy. Stats are Stats Caymen...they are neither "obvious" nor "obscure". And while we are on that topic, just where did you get those "stats" in the first place? Are you really telling us that you put this statement in: "100% of second time DUI offenders have had a prior DUI", just to see if we were paying attention???? You also missed the point of my comment..."I don't understand the logic of the .... statements". Its the LOGIC that I didn't get...not the stats! Also Tom, you don't need to slow your typing....I don't think it would help your statements one bit....well, except to give you a little longer to edit before you post; but then, why would you want to do that?



Another question for you Tom, if you will....do you really think that "to hurt tourism in Texas"....." is a great thing."?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Makes one wonder what other stats "you put in" Caymen.



I read somewhere that 90% of all stats stated on the Internet are fake.

 

[Mark Grumpy]

I read somewhere that 90% of all stats stated on the Internet are fake.

And the other half are all lies :blink:



grump

 

[Tabjo]

After reading this thread I need a drink...

 

[Tom Schindler]

just where did you get those "stats" in the first place?

The first one I made up. It is obvious that 100% of all 2nd DUI offenders had a prior DUI. Duh! I did study DUI stats some years ago. I worked in a bar and I wanted to look up anything I could about DUI's. I was 18 at the time. It has been a few years since I was in that type of employment. Actually, it has been 15 years since I worked in a bar.

Are you really telling us that you put this statement in: "100% of second time DUI offenders have had a prior DUI", just to see if we were paying attention????

Yippers. I started laughing when I first wrote it.

Another question for you Tom, if you will....do you really think that "to hurt tourism in Texas"....." is a great thing."?

Yup. It proves that the general public, the ones with money, are making a statement that they feel the tactics of the TABC is not right, though legal. The only way to hurt the government is with your wallet.



I hope nobody goes to Texas for vacation until they quit the games.



Commit a DUI crime, arrest them and throw the book at them. Be a menace in a bar picking fights, arrest them and send them to jail. Get hammered in a bar with a Designated Driver, Cab, Buss, etc. to take you home. Leave the guy alone.



I know if I were planning a vacation, Texas would not be my last choice. It wouldn't be a choice. I would just stay home.



I don't even visit bars. I hate the loud music.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Given that this thread and it's heated debate has died down, I thought y'all might find this humorous as a closer...



[Broken External Image]:

 

[Tom Schindler]

Speaking of stats and hw they can be misleading.



Ohio's maximum speed limit on interstates is 65 MPH for cars and 55 MPH for trucksw such as semi's, Heavy dump trucks, non-commercial busses.



The Ohio Turnpike Commission (toll road) is a private road. To increase revenue, they allowed all vehicles to go 65 MPH. People screamed that the higher speed of trucks would cause more accidents.



After the speed limit went up, accidents went up.



I guess they were right...or were they.



They forgot to mention, traffic on the turnpike increased by 30+% while the accident rate actually was lowered because the accident ratio per vehicle is less.



How accurate are stastics? Only as accurate as the ones presenting them allow them to be.



Stats can be very misleading, like my example above.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Translation of Caymen's last post:



"Statistics don't lie; statisticians do!"

 

[Tom Schindler]

And those lies can be used to promate an agenda for "the protection of all", or so they say.





Tom