Hmm, what is this about no Police state?

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wildcard

Moderator
Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk
Undercover agents pursue inebriates in a pre-emptive strategy
Reuters
Updated: 7:12 p.m. ET March 22, 2006

SAN ANTONIO, Texas - Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said on Wednesday.

The first sting operation was conducted recently in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication, said the commission’s Carolyn Beck.

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness, Beck said.

The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.

“We feel that the only way we’re going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this,” she said.

“There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they’re intoxicated, other than get behind the wheel of a car,” Beck said. “People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss.”

She said the sting operations would continue throughout the state.
Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11965237/
 
No, a police state is when they arrest you for drinking in your home. I'm sure it's coming, they'll use those nifty "sneak and peak" warrants to get in.
 
They been doing it in my area of TN for as long as I can remember. and it's not the guy just sittin' and having a cold one, it's the Staggering, Sloppy, kind.
 
All I can say is that any of you who support Prohibition II and the tactics and methods used to support it have shot yourselves in the foot.
 
What if the drunk intended on calling a cab or spouse to get home after drinking. When will the .08 blood alcohol content begin to be enforced against those in the bar?

“We feel that the only way we’re going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this,”
Click to expand...

They are never going to "get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk". This is just a way to raise revenue.

They will never get the problem of gun violence under control until they have gotten all those guns off the street.

There is also a problem with the stupid doing stupid things. I think there should be arrests of those caught doing stupid things.
 
Bartenders should not keep serving someone who is apparently inebriate. It is a judgement call but if you are not in control of your faculties in a public place then a drink is the last thing you need. (Yes, I worked as a Bartender for several years.)

I don't believe people who drink in a responsible fashion are the target of this action. Folks who are not in control of their faculties can and do pose a danger to themselves as well as society at large. I don't think the criteria should be a breathalyzer. You know someone is drunk when you see them.
I think folks staggering or speaking incoherently passes the test. God knows how many people drink themselves into a black out!

I agree with the Texas enforcement. If you want to get "drunk" do it on your own property.
 
And Kansas has started fingerprinting everone in simple traffic stops
using the new Automatic Fingerprint Identification System.

It's going to come to a city near you soon. Test will next be conducted in New York (Who just installed over 500 surveilance cameras.) Milwaukee and Hawaii.

Do "We the People" want all this BS ??? Is this how our taxdollars are best spent? :confused:

I'm going to laugh when reports of tickets for jaywalking and crossing when the sign says stop at the cross walks , start coming out with these cameras.
 
The Letter of the law says that you cannot be drunk in a public place, including bars. The color of the law, however, dictates that if youre not drunk in the bar, your drinking too slwo. I, as a cop, have far bigger fish to fry than going into bars to catch drunks. There are more than enough out in the REAL public to deal with, why go to the bar?

Sounds to me like the TABC is trying to justify their existence.
 
Letter of law vs Color of law...I like that.

If the TX ABC actually has enough people on payroll to take such actions, the taxpayers are simply paying too high a personnel tab. What's next? Weddings? Irish Wakes? LEO Bar-B-Q's?

And just how do they select the establishments that will be targeted for economic ruin? After all, there's a bar on every corner....who's gonna go to the one where people get arrested for drinking? :rolleyes:
Rich
 
What I dont grasp is that they enough agents to do this in Texas, yet in Oklahoma, we dont have enough ABLE commision (the TABC counterpart) to even do under age buy stings....
 
When enforcing this law, how does the TX ABC define "drunk"?

It can't be just slurred speach, excessive laughter, staggering, and talking loudly?

If so, then everyone in the bar will qualify for a citation.

Do you think the bar has a leg to stand on if business goes down the tubes due to being targeted for this type of harassment?
 
Do you think the bar has a leg to stand on if business goes down the tubes due to being targeted for this type of harassment?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I do not. The letter of the law, at least in Oklahoma, maitains that it is against the law to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place. "Under the Influence" is a very fluid concept. All I must do is articulate that you have consumed an intoxicating substance, and that you exhibit behavior consistent with that consumption. Red, watery eyes, slurred speech, odor that I associate with an alcoholic beverage on or about your person, etc... The bar falls under the same law, but Ive never heard it enforced this way. Hell, in Texas, unit 2001 or 2002, it was legal to transport an open container in your vehicle, and drink while you drive, as long as you werent drunk.

Its one of those things where we, as law enforcement, need to pick our battles. This is kind of stupid, IMO. Its the same concept with preaching "designated driver, designated driver", then arresting the passenger of a vehicle for public intoxication. There are times when that is necessary, but it is rare.
 
The idea that they are only going after the "drunks" is foolish.

The blood alcohol limit is now so low in most places that most people are "drunk" after one drink. Even less than that for women and smaller men.

Imagine, the British raiding the colonial taverns to arrest the early American settlers for "drunkeness". I doubt many of them would have stood for it.

I guess it's good though, and the checkpoints, and the fingerprinting, and the drug tests for kids, etc. etc.

This is about revenue as well as getting people into the criminal justice system.

Imagine, you have a couple of drinks, get busted by the "drunk squad" and now you lose all your guns because of an alcohol/drug conviction.

It's so free!
 
"most people are "drunk" after one drink"

How do you arrive at that conclusion? Even a 100# person can have 2 drinks without hitting .08.

Body Number of Drinks per Hour
Weight 1 2 3 4 5 6
100 lbs. ..038 .075 .113 .150 .188 .225
120 lbs. .031 .063 .094 .125 .156 .188
140 lbs. .027 .054 .080 .107 .134 .161
160 lbs. .023 .047 .070 .094 .117 .141
180 lbs. .021 .042 .063 .083 .104 .124
200 lbs. .019 .038 .056 .075 .094 .113
220 lbs. .017 .031 .047 .063 .078 .094

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Drink = 1.5 oz. of whisky, 5 oz. wine or 1.25 cans of beer.
Yellow: Indicates serious impairment - do not drive!
Rate of Elimination: - .015 per hour after drinking has stopped.
 
Cost vs. benefit

I was listening to talk radio one day during the debate over the patriot act. I heard a caller argue that the loss of civil liberties is the price that must be paid to protect the US from terrorists. He also said that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be afraid of the government gathering information on you.:eek:

Mathmaticaly, alcohol has posed a much greated risk to the US than terrorists. We lose 15,000 people per year in alcohol related auto wrecks alone. (see, http://www.ncadd.org/). We take drivers liciences away from repeat DUI offenders and they drive without them. Something needs to be done about it. If not this (the topic) what? The alternative is to accept the loss of life as a cost of our freedom.
 
I could easily be wrong about this, but I'll eventually check the Florida Statutes because I'm now curious.

Isn't a bar owned by a private individual or corporation?

Doesn't that make it a private place rather than a public place?

I have been walking down a street with a friend who was holding an open beer. At the time, I knew nothing about drinking laws (I don't drink). A cop met us on the street corner and told him to "take it inside". The friend was looped and didn't respond, so the cop generously looked at me and ordered me to get him inside or he'd be arrested. The way he ordered me implied he thought I knew about open containers in public places, but I did realize that he could have simply arrested my friend.

So it seems to me that cops here consider the truly public places like parks and sidewalks public and inside anywere to be private.
 
The letter of the law, at least in Oklahoma, maitains that it is against the law to be under the influence of alcohol in a public place.
Click to expand...
A bar is not a public place.


What bothers me about this law is that the only way they'll be able to enforce it evenly is to use BAC as the measure. BAC measures one thing and one thing only: blood alcohol content. It is not a reliable measure of intoxication. If a man is sober at .078 he will not suddenly be drunk at .082.
 
Somehow I edited out the statute # by mistake. Sorry.


1) No person in the state shall be intoxicated and endanger the safety of another person or property, and no person in the state shall be intoxicated or drink any alcoholic beverage in a public place or in or upon any public conveyance and cause a public disturbance.


The fact that a clear distinction about a "public conveyance" is made suggests that, so long as you aren't driving or actively consuming, it's OK to be drunk as a passenger in a private car. This would suggest the law here sees a public place as a publicly owned place.

There's another provision I didn't copy. It gives the officer the right to not arrest somebody violating 1) and to, instead, in a nutshell, make sure he gets home or to a medical facility. So there's a great deal of discretion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top