Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk

[Dale Carlson]

TJR,



I guess where the arguments come from is that they're busting people INSIDE the bar. It could be argued whether that is public drunkedness or not. I don't have any problem with the law itself - just the TABC's interpretation of it:

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness

Which they justify by saying that they want to:

detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Kefguy, it seems their flaw (or your's) is that you see that 2nd quote as a justification for the fact given in the first quote. The fact is, they are right; being in a bar DOES NOT exempt one from the state laws against public drunkeness...thus no further justification needed in upholding that law.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

What constitutes a person being drunk? Slured speech? Loss of balance? Who decides someone is drunk? Is it with a BAC machine or the TABC officer?



The government has always said one thing to justify another.



Domestic Spying. It is "for" the safety of the USA. If they say it is, it must be so.



They should say wwhat they mean and mean what they say. The article said two totally different reasons why they are doing this.



Kefguy hit the nail on the head. Is it because it is illegal to be drunk in public, or is it because they are trying to crack down on drunk drivers? It can't be both.





Tom

 

[Johnny O]

One one hand, inside a bar is inside a privately-owned establishment. On the other hand, it's a public place if anyone can walk in. Mostly I have a problem with the presumption of guilt aspect in this situation.

If the govt is listening in on Mohammad's phone calls and emails to Afghanistan and Iran, then I'm all for presumption of guilt and racial profiling. Call me a hypocrite but I call 'em as I see 'em.

[Broken External Image]:

JohnnyO dons tinfoil hat.

Note that back in the 90's when we had a Democrat President and this crap started, no one had a problem with Project Echelon or the Carnivore program, in fact the NY Times thought it was a good idea (then). So it's okay when they do it but not when we do it.

If you think I'm FOS, then Google it and wave to the nice NSA people.

 

[Richard L]

I live in Waco, Texas and according to the Police interviewed on the local news broadcast this morning, they are not targeting people who have 2 or three drinks. They are arresting people who are obviously drunk based on their behavior like staggering, sleared speach, etc and unable to pass a field sobriety test. There is no Blood Alcohol limit for being Drunk in Public. It's a subjectve call based on the subjects behavijour in the eyes of the police.



That consitutes a Drunk In Public. Even the an attorney and former prosecutor on NBC stated that it was legal for the police to make these arrest. The bars are open to the public and therefore if you are drunk in the bar, you are drunk in public and can be charged.



The Drunk in Public charge is a simple mistemeaner offence and has never been quiestioned in the past. What makes this so different is the police are going into bars and making arrests.



This same former prosecutor who said the arrest were legal said that she doubted that the charges would stand up in court, but did not say why???



...Rich

 

[Paul Maurer 2]

They are missing the boat- they should target wedding receptions.... my wife sure would have been mad if I spent our wedding night in the slammer.....

 

[Thomas Rogers]

RichardL says:

This same former prosecutor who said the arrest were legal said that she doubted that the charges would stand up in court, but did not say why???

It probably wouldn't stand up in court because a good lawyer could come up with any number of credible reasons why a person might slur their speech or stagger, and could also shoot holes in the claims of the arresting officer creating reasonable doubt in the part of the jury or judge. However, that's a lot of cost, time and effort for the average person to fight a misdemeanor, so most would probably juts pay the fine and move on.

 

[Tom Schindler]

They need to just admit that it is all about revenue and not about safety.



A few years back, then Cleveland Mayor Jane Cambell, wanted red light camera's installed. The first thing she spoke about was the money it would bring in to the city. Over and over she spoke money. Once the media got that info, it changed. It was safety and not money.



Just the same, it is about being guilty until proven innocent of a crime. Say it is because of public into laws, but then continue to comment about trying to prevent drunk driving.



Can't anyone see that this is prohibition from a different angle? Condition us to let things happen for the good of all, but when it is all done, no good was done.





Tom

 

[Joe Willey]

Probable Cause and Reasonable Cause are legal terms used in support of actions taken by police. Probable Cause (PC) is harder to establish than Reasonable Cause (RC). This link will help you understand the differences between the 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_cause



Following is Texas’ Public Intoxication Law

Public Intoxication Statute of Texas

49.02 Public Intoxication



"Public Intoxication" means:



A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.

"Intoxicated" is defined as: Not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or Having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.



An offence under this section is a Class C Misdemeanor. An individual adjudged guilty of a Class C misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00. However, for a minor, the punishment terms are in the same manner as if he committed the offense of Possession of Alcohol by a Minor.



All persons are presumed innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that a person has been arrested, confined, or indicted for, or otherwise charged with the offense gives rise to no inference of guilt at that person's trial.

What are the elements to this crime:



1) A person in a public place intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person (themselves) or another.



2) Not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or Having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.



So while a person may by Texas’ definition be intoxicated, unless they present a danger to themselves or to others a court cannot find them guilty. RichardL that is the reason the person you saw on TV said she doubted the charges would hold up in court. The burden rests with the police to provide evidence to the prosecutor that all elements of the crime have been committed. If they can’t and the defendant decides to go to court, odds are the charges will be dropped.

 

[Richard L]

Joe,

Your are correct. but the former prosecutor did not state why she thought the cases would not stand up in court. It could be like you said, or perhaps some other reason.



I know one lady who was arrested in the hotel bar where she was staying. She was no danger to herself or anyone else, and was just going to go to her room. Can the police prove she was a danger to herself or others??? Who knows? It's possible that she may have fallen and hurt herself, or walked out the wrong door and got hit by a car? If people are visibly staggering drunk, nobody can predict the odds of them herting themselves or someone else.



It's a pretty tough call, and I'm sure the Judges will know how to rule.



TJR and Caymen are probably also correct in that many will just pay the fine rather than fight it in court since they might avoid the fine but the lawyers fees would be more expensive. And since there is not direct proof that these people were about to drive their cars, it cannot be proven that a drunk driver was prevented from getting behind the wheel, although I think that would be a pretty positive assumption.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

It's possible that she may have fallen and hurt herself, or walked out the wrong door and got hit by a car?

People do the same thing stone cold sober.

TJR and Caymen are probably also correct in that many will just pay the fine rather than fight it in court since they might avoid the fine but the lawyers fees would be more expensive.

That is the game the courts play. They drag it out and in the end, it is cheaper then going through the whole system to prove your name. It is a type of extorsion, plain and simple.

And since there is not direct proof that these people were about to drive their cars, it cannot be proven that a drunk driver was prevented from getting behind the wheel, although I think that would be a pretty positive assumption.

...and you know what they say about people that assume something.



If the person they arrest proves that they had a designated driver, or in fact already called a cab to go home, does that mean they are let go because they were doing "the right thing"?



Nope, it is about the money. It is always about the money.





Tom

 

[Dale Carlson]

In addition to the revenue generated by these arrests, and I can't help casting a cynical eye on this, the Chairmain of the TABC Governing Board, John T. Steen, has aspirations for a higher position in the Texas state government. Maybe he thinks he can get there by proving that he's Tough on Drunk (which sounds like it oughta be a Toby Keith song...)

 

[Richard L]

Caymen,

I agree there is not direct evidence that the drunks will all get behind the wheel of a car, the majority of of the drunk drivers started out by getting drunk. I would guess that at least half the people arrested would have left the bars and gotten behind the wheel of their cars.



While that is only my assumption and the assumption of the police, the people are not arrested or charged, or even suspected of drunken driving. They are simply being charged for being Intoxicated in Public, and that is a legal and justifiable charge. The only thing different about this issue is the police are going into the bars looking for the drunks instead of picking them up staggering down the street or weaving down the road in their cars.



Yes, anybody can have an accident like tripping and falling down, or getting hit by a car. However, statistic have show that you are far mor likely to have an accident if you intoxicated. That is where the safety issue comes in. Another safety issue is that where people are drinking heavily, there is a good percentage of those drunks who become very beligerant and obtain a certain amount of courage from the bottle and pirck fights, etc. Because of the tendancy for many drunks to become violent further justifies a safety concern by the police.



I am not against anyone having a drink or two. I enjoy having a few beers, a glass of wine, or even a mixed drink every so often, so I am not against drinking. What I am against is drunk drivers! If the police can find away to remove all the drunk drivers off the road, car accidents would become a rare event, insurnace would go down, and perhaps vehicle cost would go down because of the lack of need for additional safety devices.



So I applaud the police in Texas for taking some drunk drivers off the road before they get behind the wheel and kill someone.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Why does everyone keep talking about there being "no proof" that publically intoxicated people would then go on to commit the crime of drunk driving?



That's not the issue, IMHO.



The issue is public intoxication. There are laws on the books in most states against public intoxication, and the BENEFIT of now enforcing those laws will logically be fewer drunk drivers.



The two are related, yes, but the offense is public intoxication.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

That question is valid because Texas law requires that police show that the drunk is a potential danger to themselves and to others. You are correct that it has been proven time and time again that drunks have more accidents and are involved in more incidents of violence as victoms or perpertrators.



Does that history represent sufficient evidence that the drunk is a danger to himself or to others??? That is what people are whining about. Most people seem to think that the only dangerous drunk is the one behind the wheel. Personally, I don't kare if the drunk kills himself, it's the other innocent victoms that get killed or injured that bothers me.



...Rich



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I wasn't aware that the Texas law requires that the police show that a drunk is potentially danger to himself or others.



Furthermore, I find that ironic, because the simple fact that someone is falling down drunk and has various abilities impaired makes, by circumstance, the drunk "potentially dangerous to themselves and others".



Isn't that the major reason for the "public intoxication" law in the first place, to avoid the nuisance and to protect people from the drunk and the drunk from other people (some people don't like drunks)?



TJR

 

[Dale Carlson]

Joe W.'s well-researched post (above) points out that the state's burden of proof is that the person has to be a danger to himself or others, not just drunk.



I've fought traffic tickets before and won. If I got a public intoxication ticket while I was in a bar, I'd probably fight that, too. Why? Because I KNOW that I'm going to walk home (if it's the neighborhood place), take a cab, ride with a DD, or even stay at the bar drinking Diet Coke until I'm sober. How the hell do the cops know what I'm going to do while I'm still in that bar?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Kefguy says:

Joe W.'s well-researched post (above) points out that the state's burden of proof is that the person has to be a danger to himself or others, not just drunk.

You say the burden of proof is that the person "has to be a danger to himself or others".



I don't read it that way.



Joe W's quote said "may be of danger to himself or others", and RichardL stated the law is attempting to prevent the "potential" harm to self or others.



So, there is no burden to proof that a drunk is actually endangering himself or others; the burden of proof seems more that the drunk "may" be endangering himself or others.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

kefguy,



Essentially, what the TABC is really doing is shooting at an easy target. It is a known fact that bars sell alcohol. It is also well known that people will get intoxicated while drinking alcoholic beverages. It is a "loophole", so to speak, to abuse alcohol laws.



Laws, such as public intoxication, are used when someone is acting like a fool out in public. While, it is illegal for a police officer to sit outside of a bar and pull people over leaving the bar, I guess the TABC is exempt.



It is sad...very sad.





Tom

 

[Cory Richards]

Caymen that was a great analysis, I agree completely with you.