Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk

[Thomas Rogers]

Kefguy,



Enforcing the law is not profiling. Using some observable unrelated trait to narrow your search for lawbreakers is.



A example of an unrelated observable trait or action would be narrowing the search for terrorists among airline passengers to Muslims only.



However, looking more closely at passengers that pay cash for tickets, have one-way tickets or purchased that day (or the whammy...all three) would be an example of observing behavior likely associated with the lawbreaker. Looking for people that stagger in a bar, or sleep at the bar would be like this example...related, observable behavior that directly indicates likelihood of a lawbreaker. Sure, there could be other reasons for this, but more on that below.



And, sure, it's all profiling, but one is more politically correct than the other. The latter being more politically correct because it is the actions, not the mere ethnicity or gender which endicts the person.



Also, you seem to make assumptions about the TABC's criteria for assuming someone is drunk, (talk too loud, sleep at bar, etc). I don't look at the TABC as the bad guy, so I assume they will do a good job here. Oh, BTW, do you know of any bar rooms that allow sleeping on the bar...I don't; or bars that when people start to fall down drunk, they don't get escorted out pretty quickly? People are already being policed, in a sense, against this type of PI behavior...behavior that if observed by the TABC may mean a citation. You are right, though, there may be many reasons a guy staggers in a bar. I give the TABC credit that they won't use just one observation, but several, and probably some questioning in order to make their determination. I don't suspect they are going to hassle someone who drinks a few, but will go after the seriously "falling down" drunks.



Lastly, you say "And you guys keep forgetting to mention, or choosing to ignore, the second element of the law. I don't buy that an intoxicated person is inherently dangerous to himself or others."



I haven't ignored that. To me it is common-sensical that someone in a significantly altered mental and physical state is without question a potential threat to themselves and others, or if around others may potentially be harmed.



How could you possibly NOT agree with that?



I have been so drunk as to black out, and during that time, I was safe but for the grace of God and my friends. Haven't you? Again, I am talking about "falling down drunks" here, not the guy that has had a few and still under the limit.



Besides, even if you don't agree that a drunk could be in danger to himself or others most people would disagree with you, thus the law. There are a lot of laws I don't agree with, but I don't find myself disagreeing with them to the extent you do on this one. Why do you feel so enthusiastic about making it legal for people to drink to excess in public?



One of your last statements says it best: "They're saying I can't go to hotel for a wedding or a Christmas party and have a good time because I'll be breaking the law"



No, they are NOT saying you can't have a good time, they are saying you shouldn't be drunk in public; unless, of course, you are saying that being falling-down drunk in public is your idea of a good time (is it?)



TJR

 

[Mark Grumpy]

TJR,

although I fundamentally agree with you, you're twisting it a little. You are talking about

significantly altered mental and physical state

and

you are saying that being falling-down drunk in public is your idea of a good time

That is NOT what we're talking about. We're talking about the guy who may have 5, 6, 7 beers. No keys, no weapons, no falling down or beligerant remarks to the next table. He IS drunk though - this is me and I don't feel I should be either cited or arrested just because I may be over .08 BAC. We can all agree that I shouldn't drive and my reflexes maybe impaired, but I'm not going to spit on you while slurring, I'm not going to fall over and I happen to be the happiest drunk in the land, so I'm not going to argue with you either. Should I be arrested and thrown in jail, my career ended? Or should it be the guy next to me who is beligerant, picking fights and causing a general comotion who hasn't even had a drink?



grump

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Grumpy says:

That is NOT what we're talking about. We're talking about the guy who may have 5, 6, 7 beers. No keys, no weapons, no falling down or beligerant remarks to the next table. He IS drunk though - this is me and I don't feel I should be either cited or arrested just because I may be over .08 BAC.

Oh, HOW do you know that is what we are talking about, and more specifically, that is what the TABC is targeting.



I am serious.



I just don't think they are going to "sting" the guy that has no noticeable drunken effects, but might just be over the limit.



I doubt that seriously.



And, what's the worst thing that happens if they do "sting" the guy that is just over the limit? They cart someone away that might otherwise feel confident enough to get behind the wheel, confident because he isn't sluring his speech or staggering. (but that opens the whole can of worms about what MIGHT happen, which isn't my point at all).



Again, if they sting the sober-looking drunk, that is actually over the limit, then they still got someone who broke the law.



TJR

 

[Mark Grumpy]

Again, if they sting the sober-looking drunk, that is actually over the limit, then they still got someone who broke the law.

That's the part I agree on. Yes, as written we break the law. So does the guy doing 51 in a 50. And none of us have ever done that!



If they do as they say, and uphold the PI law, then after they watch me drink two beers in say 45 mins, they can and should arrest me. That's the part I disagree on. It is arbitrary and subjective.



If I'm sitting in an armchair, quietly (or politely conversing with my neighbor) what part of the basic law below applies? Answer: The word "may". It's too ambiguous, selective, subjective, judgmental blah, blah, etc., etc.!



TABC Agent: "Yes your Honor, it is solely my opinion that he may have hurt himself when he went to the bathroom."

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.

 

[Richard L]

grumpy,

The law regarding the .08 blood alcohol level does not appy to being drunk in public, and the police are not sitting in bars counting the drinks of the various patrons.



The police are look for two violations. Bing drunk in public and/or the bartender continuing to serve alcohol to an obviously drunk person. If any patron shows signs of being visibley drunk , such as staggering or having slurred speach, they are suspected of being drunk in public.



The police then give either a field sobriety test or they may be asked to blow into a a breathalizer machine. The suspect can refuse the breathalizer (since they are not driving). If the suspect fails the breathalizer or the field sobriety test, and they have someone who is sober enough to escort the person home, the suspect is given a ticket and sent home with their sober companion.



If the suspect fails the sobriety/breathalizer and has no sober companion to take them home, they are arrested and held in jail until they sober up.



This procedure for determining if someone is suspected of being intoxicated in public has not changed. The only thing new about the procedure is that the police were going into bars undercover and making arrests for public intoxication. That is where there is a lot of objections. People feel that a bar is a private place, but it is a public place. Nobobdy in the Texas judicial, and polital arena are stating these arrest or citations are illegal, and there is no mention that there are doubts about the intoxicated persons danger to himself or to others.



The only reason this has become a national media event is because the police are going into bars to seek out people who may be inoxicated in public. Many of those who object to this police/TABC action feel that a bar is a safe sanctuary, but in Texas that is not true, and it is not true in many other states!



....Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Grumpy,



The rest of that law says that another definition of drunk is you have a BAL above a certain level.



IF you or someone else gets "stung" in the way you describe, just like we often say when we get stung speeding, we should and probably will say "show me the radar reading"...er, "show me the blood test / breathalyzer reading".



Then, if the instrumentation shows you are over the limit, they gotcha.



But again, WHY do you think the TABC will do what you are saying...going after those that are technically drunk but not displaying any of the ill effects?



I don't expect them to do that any more than I expect to get a ticket when doing 51 in a 50mph zone (but I do expect a ticket doing 65 in that zone).



That's like the difference between being technically drunk, and being unquestionably drunk. I suspect the TABC will go after those "unquestionably" drunk.



Don't you?



TJR

 

[Mark Grumpy]

I'm afraid I don't - revenue is revenue.



Don't get me wrong - I'm all for taking drunks off the road - LOCK 'EM UP!! I'm all for taking drunks out of the parks and "other public places". Hypocrite?? Maybe, I guess. I guess I kind of view the bar as a sanctuary - not the "I gotta get a drink" sanctuary, but as the responsible thing/place to be, out of the public eye - public being the kids and adolescents that we don't want to see certain behaviors.



grump

 

[Bill V]

RichardL--

If the suspect fails the breathalizer or the field sobriety test, and they have someone who is sober enough to escort the person home, the suspect is given a ticket and sent home with their sober companion.

What is the breathalizer level that is considered "failed"? .08? I assume not, because you also said,

The law regarding the .08 blood alcohol level does not appy to being drunk in public

So then, what is the value used to determine failure?

 

[Gerald Pierce]

I think all the bars should go "private" and charge a quarter for membership.



No longer a public place

 

[Dale Carlson]

TJR,

Lastly, you say "And you guys keep forgetting to mention, or choosing to ignore, the second element of the law. I don't buy that an intoxicated person is inherently dangerous to himself or others."



I haven't ignored that. To me it is common-sensical that someone in a significantly altered mental and physical state is without question a potential threat to themselves and others, or if around others may potentially be harmed.



How could you possibly NOT agree with that?

I don't agree with that because you are freezing a point in time. In fact, human beings have choices and make decisions every single second that can change the course of moment, or an evening, or a lifetime. I'll agree that many make poor decisions, but the time to provide corrective feedback (in the form of a ticket or arrest) is not while they're still enjoying time in their favorite sanctuary. As others have pointed out, there's plenty of time outside of the bar to ambush the poor decisionmakers. Y'know, a lot of people also make good decisions, too. You ought to give people a chance to make'em.



Anyway, what I've come to realize is that there are some quite literal-minded people who see this law as straight-forward, black and white, no ifs ands or buts. Then there are others who see the grays and the fuzzy edges in this law. It doesn't look like there's a lot of middle ground.



So I've decided that I need to go to Texas, and party until I can get arrested, so I can challenge the law in court. Could take a while...



It's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it. :lol:

 

[Richard L]

Bill V,

I don't know what the breathalizer must read to be cited for public intoxication. It may be .08 which is the legal level for driving drunk. But most people who blow .08 or even a .10 are legally too drunk to drive but often are not staggering or have slurred speach.



So other than possibly the smell of alcohol that showed that they had been drinking, there would be no indication that they are drunk in public. To blow a .08 only takes 2-3 beers or drinks for most people. The larger you are the more blood you have and the more the alcohol is diluted so for smaller people .08 may come with fewer drinks, and alcohol effects people more than others so there is not exact number of drinks.



If you are staggering and have obvious slurred speach, you will very likely blow well over the .08 limit for drunk driving. My guess is that most people would have to be blowing at least .08.



The TABC is also indicating that they are investigating all these arrests to insure that no abuse of authority on the part of the police.



The only part of this issue that is making the big stink is the fact that police staked out bars and made arrests there. Too many people think the bar is, or should be a sanctuary and off limits to police, as if it was a church or holy shrine. That is not haw any business is that is open to the public.



cruzrtwdgt,

The bars could convert to private clubs, but it involves a bit more than just charging and entry fee, or membership fee. To be a private club, requires the bar to keep membership records, and membership cards. In some states the private club members must have some common interest or hobby (other than drinking). VFW's and Shriners, etc would qualify as private clubs.



I have been in a number of cities/towns that require a membership but the common interest is very questionable. I stayed at a hotel in Overland Park, KS and the hotel resturant and the hotel bar allowed people staying at the hotel to join their private club, for $1.00 and you got your first drink free. If you wer not a guest at the hotel you could join, but the prices was much higher.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Right, Bill V, there are those that see this law as black and white. I don't. Black and white interpretation of the law would be that TABC is waiting until someone is technically drunk, then sweeping in and throwing the cuffs on them. I *seriously* doubt that is what is going on. I said that I expect the TABC will take a much more subjective and cautious view of the law, and only target those that are unquestionably drunk.



Many keep posturing about the casual drinker that is JUST AT or JUST OVER the legal limit but with no visual signs of impairment. I just really don't think that the TABC is going to waste their time on such cases, or risk the exposure should such people end up to not be over the limit.



It wouldn't be logical for them too focus on those fringe cases when there are clearly others in most bars that are without question over the limit.



What does this all mean? If done properly, bars in Texas will have very few DRUNKS in them.



Is that a bad thing?



Remember, ONCE DRUNK, the bartender is legally required to STOP serving a patron anyway, so what's the real issue here? And, most states hold establishments liable if they serve a person to the point that they get drunk, and then that person commits a drunk driving accident that results in a death.



At least this way it takes much of the responsibility away from the bar owner.



TJR

 

[Mark Grumpy]

Hhhmmm - according to this thread, a bar is a public place. Using the same logic presented here so are sports stadiums, gas stations, shopping malls etc. They all open the doors and allow people to freely enter - therefore, public.



Man, are we going to be hurting.

California court: Peeing in public illegal

It 'interferes with comfortable enjoyment of life and property'



Friday, March 10, 2006; Posted: 7:34 a.m. EST (12:34 GMT)



SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Emptying one's bladder in a public place is a crime, even if there is no specific law prohibiting the practice, a state appeals court ruled.

The story goes on to say that the guy was out in the open - a parking lot. But the debate in this thread is of "public" and whether or not a bar is such a place. You can't have it both ways - full view or in a building, public is public.



So, apparently you can only pee in a private home or establishment.



Just stirring the debate :blink:



grump

 

[Thomas Rogers]

You are kidding, right, grump. There are designated public restrooms in public places (stadiums, malls, etc), just so that not all the world is a urinal.



To take this back to the main thread; Should there be designated public intoxication areas? Sort of like the public smoking areas/tents? In such areas one can get as ****-faced as they want?



We just can't call those places: "Bars!"

 

[TomT]

Should there be designated public intoxication areas?

There are. Here in Texas we call them University's.

 

[Mark Grumpy]

No, not kidding. The gist of the thread, after obligatory comments is/was whether or not a bar is a public place. About the sixth post

2) If you are drunk in a bar, isn't that bar considered private property - as opposed to public property? Seems like the commish is overstepping the law here.

If it is a public place, and peeing in public is illegal then...



Now, I'm not saying we should be allowed to let it all hang out on the street. What I am saying is public is public. You cannot have it both ways.



And yes, there should be public intox' areas - we should call them bars.



Where's my spoon?



grump

 

[Richard L]

Why are these people dragging all these totally unrelated items in other states into this debate ?????? The prvacy expected in restrooms has nothing to do with the issue of arresting people for public intoxication in Texas.



If you wish to start a debate regarding privacy issues in a public restroom, then start another thread.



The problem appears to be that some people don't like the fact that Texas law allows police to go into a bar and arrest people who are obviously intoxicated. Since they don't like the way the police have enforced this law, they immediately assume it is illegal, or has some sinister agenda. So to obscure the issue and muddy the waters, they make obsurd, and unfounded claims that the police and the TABC are doing somethin illegal or abusing their power to enforce the law.



It has been discussed by all the legal minds and found to be legal. The athorities are looking into whether or not there was any abuse or misconduct by the police in making these arrests, but there was nothing illegal about making the arrest.



Will all these people be convicted?? Nobody knows that. So please, let's stop with the conspiracy theories !! I know some people just love to fabricate a good conspiracy plot when they don't like the alternative.



...Rich

 

[Mark Grumpy]

Richard,

it's not unrelated. regardless of the State, regardless of whether or not I agree with either, it IS about the definition of "public".



grump

 

[Richard L]

grumpy,

How does someone peeing on a public street in San Francisto, CA have to do with arresting someone in Texas for public intoxication ??? So, most cities have laws against urinating in public, and San Franciso does not and the Judge convicted the guy anyway. So what! He could have easily been convicted the man for exposing himself in public? Also realize that many of the things you read in the paper or the Internet, and not the whole story, and not necessarily factual. Many of the stories that show up here are debunked on Snope as myths or stories that were exaggerated or altered from the original facts.



So, He was not in Texas, he was not in a bar, and it was never stated that he was arrested for public intoxication. Where is the connection ????



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

Richard,



Let me make this simple. Since a bar is considered a "public place", and it is illegal to pee in a public place, if you pee anywhere but your home, you should be arrested.



I know it is hard for you to understand. Nobody said what the TABC is doing is illegal, we just said it isn't right, though legal.



What defines a "public place"? Does a bar become a public place once the general public is allowed access to the establishment?



So, since a bar has been determined to be a public place, urinating in the restroom, is a public place, therefore illegal. It would have to be illegal, since that same bar it is illegal to be intoxicated.



Figure it out yet, or do you think everyone is saying it still illegal.





Tom