Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk

[Richard L]

TJR,

Well siad.



In my previous post, I was trying to state that the controvery is whether the police have to prove that the drunk in a danger to themselves or others.



kefguy,

The law does not require the police to prove that you might do something that may endanger yourself or others, it's a matter that you are drunk in public and that is an arrestable offense. Even if you plan to sleep it off at the bar, makes no difference. You are drunk in public.



To get drunk enough to stagger and have slurred speach requires a lot more alcohol than the typical .08 Blood Alcohol level used for DUI charges. For anyone to assume that a staggering drunk is NOT a danger to themselves or others, is out of touch with reality, and is either a drunk in denial, or has never had alcohol and has not experienced its effects.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen says:

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.

Sure Caymen, I will agree that it is unwarranted for police to pull someone over for no other reason than they saw them leave a bar.



However it is not "illegal" for a police officer to sit outside a bar, and then pull a driver over if they then get behind the wheel and commit a driving offense. Examples of such witnessed driving offenses might be the driver pulling away from the bar forgetting to use a turning signal, or going to the intersection at the end of the road and slow-rolling through a stop sign, etc.



Regardless of where the police were before, IF they witness a driving offense then they can and should pull the driver over, wouldn't you agree?



If you agree with that, then you agree that police should enforce the law when they see it broken.



And if you agree with all that, then why shouldn't the same police or authorities for that matter enforce the "public intoxication" law when they see someone drunk in a bar, in public?



TJR

 

[Joe Willey]

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.

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.

The assessment many to most of the people arrested will bite the bullet and plead guilty is probably very accurate. The cost of fighting such an arrest in court could be greater than what many people care to pay or can afford. And there will be those who dismiss it as only be a misdemeanor and will not fight it. Then there will be those like the lady featured in NBC’s segment who was a traveler, staying in the same hotel in which she was arrested, and who won’t want to foot the bill to come back and fight the charges. These are all factors TABC probably took into consideration when suggesting and implementing the operation. The agent who proposed the operation likely sold his bosses on it using descriptive phrases like, “It’ll be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel” and convincing them that of the low probability of people contesting the charges.



Following the nationwide publicity this operation has received, I’ll bet there are 1 or 2 attorneys who for no other reason than publicity will offer their services pro-bono to defend some of those arrested. Not just at the initial hearings, but through whatever appeals may follow. The ripple effect will be a stronger standard of proof imposed by the courts and not the statute. In other words, the courts will require law enforcement to clearly demonstrate defendants are a menace to others or themselves. In effect, a liberally written statute written to provide law enforcement officers with a tool will be lost because it was abused by the very people it was intended to help.

 

[Dale Carlson]

If I read TJR and Rich right, you're saying that a person can be arrested for being drunk in a bar, and that's all it takes, that no other observed behavior or situation is required by law enforcement to ticket/arrest that person?



Guys, are we reading the same things in this thread or what?

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.

In a hypothetical situation, I'll give you the "element" that somebody will be over the legal alcohol limit of .08, in a public bar. Not too hard to imagine...

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.

As for the second element that somebody may endanger themselves or another - my feeling is that a judge is going to require more from a state prosecuter and his/her witnesses than our guy was drunk in a bar - that, in fact, our hypothetical drunk was observed demonstrating dangerous, or potentially dangerous, behavior.



Reasonable doubt. Hmmm. What a concept.



Caymen, concur - very sad indeed.



Another thought for you. How selective is the TABC going to be with this? You think they're going to be on South Padre Island in force during Spring Break this year? NOT. Think of the revenue losses there if that started happening. And the call's to the governor's office...



hear, hear, Joe!

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Kefguy says:

If I read TJR and Rich right, you're saying that a person can be arrested for being drunk in a bar, and that's all it takes, that no other observed behavior or situation is required by law enforcement to ticket/arrest that person?

Right!



There are laws against public intoxication. A bar is a public place.



I would assume that public intoxication laws require that the arresting officer observe what he or she feels is a person behaving in a drunken manner. I further assume once in custody, a breath/blood test will tell for sure.



P.S. I found the site below which gives additional verbiage to what Joe W posted before, and it seems that an arresting officer's observation and assessment of drunkenness, as well as mental capability, potential endangerment are of primary issue and of course, those are very subjective:



TJR

 

[Jim Thompson]

You know, I rarely get involved in these discussions, mostly because I'd really like to tell a few folks here what I think of their absurd comments, and its probably better that I don't. But, this one is at the very pinnacle of hypocracy (don't know if that is spelled right, but then I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night)....I do however, know how to spell extortion (at least I think I do), and to even suggest that a legitimate attempt to reduce automobile deaths....very often caused by drunk drivers, is extortion....is beyond belief ! To equate one's purchase of a fast automobile as the root cause of speeding in America, gives very little credit to the driver in the equation as well. I submit to you, that the best way to reduce drunk driving is to arrest drunks before they drive (duh), then penalize them severely...and use public intoxication as the reason....if that is what it takes. The results will very likely slow the flow of alcohol behind the wheel, and blood in the floorboard! Hey....LIVE with it (literally)!!! I applaud the authorities.

 

[Richard L]

Jim,

Very well said. That's my exact sentiments.



kefguy,

You are the one who is convicting these people. All I;m saying is that it is the sworn duty of a police officer who violate the law, and if that means they arrest people who are drunk in a bar, then so be it. It is the law. The fact that they have been arrested does not mean they are guilty.



If a person is staggering drunk, I think the evidence is overwhelming. However the suspected drunk has the right to a trial and to be represented by a lawyer of his choosing. The fact that a person charged with any crime may experience a financial hardship because of the arrest really does not have any bearing on the issue.



Some people are insinuating that the police are only doing this to increase the revenue for the state or local governments. I think it's probably the most significant attempt to get drunk drivers off the road.

Catch them before they get behind the wheel... BRILLIANT !

Catch them in bars where they drink...BRILLIANT !



It all boils down to "Drink responsibly". It will not only save lives on the highway, but will reduce a lot of the violence, crime, and stupid accidents and makes for a better quality of life for everyone.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

I do however, know how to spell extortion

Does that mean your comments are more important or your feeling carry more merit? Did my spelling cause you to not understand what I was saying?

and to even suggest that a legitimate attempt to reduce automobile deaths....very often caused by drunk drivers, is extortion....is beyond belief !

I dont think I even implicated that trying to prevent drunk driving is extortion. I will quote what I said regarding extortion..

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.

Nowhere did I say it is extortion, or extorsion as I misspelled it, when trying to stop a drunk driver. Where did you read that I said that, I would like to know so I can take away my comment.

To equate one's purchase of a fast automobile as the root cause of speeding in America, gives very little credit to the driver in the equation as well.

Did I say that was an equation of the root of speeding in America. Please find me saying that quote and I will recant that also.



Why does anyone need a car with 400 HP? 100 HP will get you to drive over the speed limit, so 400 HP allows you to do it quicker with more fury. That is the only reason someone wants a car with 400 HP.



< sarcasm on >We know everyone that goes to a bar plans on getting drunk and then drive. It is a proven fact that there is really no such thing as a designated driver.< /sarcasm off >





Tom

 

[Richard L]

A number of years ago, I read a survey of police chiefs across the nation that indicated they felt that most people who regularly drive 5-15 mph over the speed limit were generally more attentive, more aware of the traffic around them, and overall better drivers. So the typical person who enjoys a more powerful engine, is more likely to maintain their vehicle better, and they are a more alert driver because they do drive a little faster than speed limits, if for no other reason than to keep their eye out for the police.



ON the other hand, one of the recongnizable symptoms of a drunk driver is they often drive below the speed limit. So drunks and speed do not necessarily go together. What is common to drunk drivers is dificulty mantaining control, and very slow reaction to almost everything.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

A number of years ago, I read a survey of police chiefs across the nation that indicated they felt that most people who regularly drive 5-15 mph over the speed limit were generally more attentive, more aware of the traffic around them, and overall better drivers. So the typical person who enjoys a more powerful engine, is more likely to maintain their vehicle better, and they are a more alert driver because they do drive a little faster than speed limits, if for no other reason than to keep their eye out for the police.

The still doesn't stop a police officer from giving you a citation for speeding.



Being drunk in a bar does not guarentee you are going to drive a car. Also, a bar is a place to consume alcohol. Almost everyone here, one time or another, has consumed too much alcohol. Looking back, would you have felt it was "right", though legal, to get arrested for public intox?



No wonder kids are getting into trouble nowadays. You arent allowed to ride your biles in the street, in the smae of public safety. You can't shoot BB Guns...in the name of safety. Fireworks are illegal. Skate boarding is illegal in many places. Places like Arcades and movie theatres cost too much for the average kid can afford. The kids find recreation in other places. In the woods with a neighborhood girl, theft, and drugs.



This is nothing more then another step towards control of our actions in the name of safety. What happens when all safety issues are resolved? Will the government require us to eith be in our house or work to keep less people on the street. Are we going to allow the government control our every action?



Sometimes we need to see everything in the big picture and not just one situation.





Tom

 

[Richard L]

Tom,

You are correct. It does not stop the police officer from giving you a ticket for speeding. It also does not make me a bad driver, or necessarily a danger to myself or to others. But the officer does not have to prove that. He only needs to prove that I was speeding, and going X MPH's over the posted limit. That is a simple misdemeanor offense, and I have the right to fight the ticket in court or simply pay the fine.



The point you are trying to make is that the police are arresting these drunks because they assume they will get behind a wheel of a car. That is not true, and that is not the basis for the arrest (and some are only ticketed). They are violating the Texas law of being intoxicated in public. If the bar is open to the public, it is by definition a public place.



Yes, the police feel this will reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road. Whether this subjective specutlation by the police is true or not, is not an factor in these cases.



You statement that people go to bars to drink, but not necessarily get drunk it probably true. But if you cannot control your drinking and quit before you get drunk, they you have an alcohol problem. You may not be an alcoholic, Yet... But if you continue to drink and continue to get drunk, you probably are an alcoholic.



If you are not an alcoholic and you get a ticket for being drunk in a public bar, that may be a good time to make an objective assesmsnt of your drinking habits. That may be a wake up call that points out you and alcohol should not mix. That may stop some people early enough from becoming alcoholics in denial !!



Yes, I'm sure many of us have had too much to drink in our younger years, however the laws were different then and what happened then doesn't mean much now. I know I have not been drunk at anytime, let alone in any public place in well over 30 years. Again, I don't object to drinking, and I have a few drinks myself every so often. The key is to know when to quit. If you are young and immature, you may not know when to quit, and if you are older and don't know when to quit, you are probably an alcoholic or at least have a serious drinking problem.



Consider Natlie Holloway's situation. I doubt that she was an alcoholic, but she was drinking, and probably had too much to drink, or at least enought to impare her judgement. She made a decision to leave the cumfort and safety of her friends, and go out with 3 men who were complete strangers in a strange country. It has now been about a year since she was last seen alive. I can only assume that her excessife drinking made her drop her guard, and she fell into a deadly trap. So don't say that getting drunk will not endanger yourself or someone else unless you are prepared to pay the consequences if you are wrong.



...Rich

 

[Jim Thompson]

The still doesn't stop a police officer from giving you a citation for speeding.



Being drunk in a bar does not guarentee you are going to drive a car. Also, a bar is a place to consume alcohol. Almost everyone here, one time or another, has consumed too much alcohol. Looking back, would you have felt it was "right", though legal, to get arrested for public intox?



No wonder kids are getting into trouble nowadays. You arent allowed to ride your biles in the street, in the smae of public safety. You can't shoot BB Guns...in the name of safety. Fireworks are illegal. Skate boarding is illegal in many places. Places like Arcades and movie theatres cost too much for the average kid can afford. The kids find recreation in other places. In the woods with a neighborhood girl, theft, and drugs.



This is nothing more then another step towards control of our actions in the name of safety. What happens when all safety issues are resolved? Will the government require us to eith be in our house or work to keep less people on the street. Are we going to allow the government control our every action?



Sometimes we need to see everything in the big picture and not just one situation.





Tom

You are absolutely right about at least one point Tom....and that is: I don't unerstand anything you said above!

 

[Tom Schindler]

I can only assume that her excessife drinking made her drop her guard, and she fell into a deadly trap. So don't say that getting drunk will not endanger yourself or someone else unless you are prepared to pay the consequences if you are wrong.

I guess we need to start prohabition again. You know that is what the ultimate goal is. Eliminate Guns, Alcohol, and Tobacco. The government has an agency for just that. The ATF.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen says:

I guess we need to start prohabition again. You know that is what the ultimate goal is. Eliminate Guns, Alcohol, and Tobacco. The government has an agency for just that. The ATF.

Tom, though we don't often see eye to eye, I have to think you will agree me when I give my opinion on the government's "ultimate goal."



I suspect it is the ultimate goal of the government to continue Guns, Alcohol and Tobacco for as long as possible, and regulate them as needed so that they can make money on BOTH SIDES of the fence (those that want to use, and those that want to abuse)....and to that end and through said regulation make people safer from themselves and others (or so the govt will claim).



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Sorry, while I do agree that there is money to be made, the government doesn't really like it and they would like nothing more then to eliminate it. Control in the name of protection.





Tom

 

[Richard L]

Tom,

Yes, the government will take control of, and legislate any entity that makes money. They tax or control everything we do. If we make money, we pay taxes. If we drink or smoke, we pay taxes. If we just want telephone service or electric service, we pay taxes.



So yes, the government's main goal maintain itself by collecting taxes, fines, and other revenues. Pretty much what most businesses do. But I don't think that the recent arrest in Texas by the TABC is necessarily to increase revenues.



Texas has one of the highest number of drunk drivers of any state and I think either the Federal covernment or the local athorities decided to get a spine and see if they could do something. This may prompt a lot of other states to start the same kind of program.



I don't think any cases have gone to court yet, so it's too early to tell if the procecutors will get convictions out of these case. But people at every level of the legas system, lawyers, judges and the Texas Attorney General have indicated that the tickets and arrest for being intoxicated in public are perfectly legal



I guess I feel that it is a positive step to getting drunk drivers off the road by stopping them before they get behind the wheel. If the number of drunk drivers in Texas drops as a result of these arrest, I hope it will spread like wildfire.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

Texas has one of the highest number of drunk drivers of any state and I think either the Federal covernment or the local athorities decided to get a spine and see if they could do something. This may prompt a lot of other states to start the same kind of program.

Be hyarsher on offenders, not those that drink and become intoxicated.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

Be harsher on offenders, not those that drink and become intoxicated.

They *ARE* offenders...they are breaking the public intoxication law!

 

[Tom Schindler]

They *ARE* offenders...they are breaking the public intoxication law!

In Ohio, it is illegal to get a speeding ticket if you are on your way to, or from your place of worship, but that doesn't stop officers from writing tickets and judges to convict someone of speeding.



Whats your point? It is illegal for an officer to run a red light unless it is an emergency, they do it just because they don't feel like waiting.



I guess my ultimate beef with that is why doesn't the officers sit outside the bar and wait for someone to stager out of a bar and into the car then drive away? Why enforce one stupid law when the real problem is not being drunk in public, but operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated?



Even though the action of the TABCis legal does not mean it is right. No wonder people have issues with law enforcement officers and state/government officials. They do it to themselves and I don't feel sorry for them.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, you and many others talk about the "illegal" actions of the police.



I think the word you are looking for is "unwarranted".



There is a difference. For example; police stopping a person without a reason is "unwarranted"; whether or not it is "illegal" is a whole different matter. If it truly were "illegal" than police would be fined or imprisoned for such things, right (they aren't are they?).



Oh, and in Ohio I can go 135MPH to and from Church and the police are not supposed to be able to give me a ticket?



All I can say to that if true is: WTF!



And, Caymen, you say:

I guess my ultimate beef with that is why doesn't the officers sit outside the bar and wait for someone to stager out of a bar and into the car then drive away? Why enforce one stupid law when the real problem is not being drunk in public, but operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated?

Because enforcing that one stupid law, which is a law, avoids the potential of the other stupid law getting broken. And, maybe because waiting for the drunk to stager out of the bar, and into the car and then pull away means you have someone behind the wheel that can back up or drive into traffic BEFORE the police can react, or because you have someone behind the wheel that might try to evade the cops, etc. Avoid all that, shoot the fish (lushes) when still in the barrel.



I have no problem with this...but I haven't been fallen down drunk in a bar in about 20 years...and then found it wasn't that much fun the one or two times I did it.



TJR