Hmm, what is this about no Police state?
- Thread starter Wildcard
- Start date
- Status
since when? is there some kind of statute or US code that supports this?
i'm genuinely curiousRepublicrat
New member
Ok, your numbers are solid. I was off by a drink. (although BAC does not indicate impairment effectively, and breathalyzers are worse)
However, by your chart above if my wife had 2-3 drinks she would be above the limit. Should she be arrested just for standing in a bar then?
Id have to look for actual cited case law, but it is the same thing with Disturbing the peace, etc. If the public, i.e., people who freely came and and can freely go, from the establishement, and said establishment is open to the public, i.e., anyone can come it without membership, ownership, etc., the public nuisanace laws do apply.
According to the letter of the law, the Bar is no different that the UPS store of the Doctor's Office. If you are there, and you are drunk, and the public is there, you are, in turn, drunk in public. Pretty cut and dry.
I would also assume that when an establishment acquires a liquor license through the state, any and all rights to reasonable search of the premises is thrown out the window when they sign the dotted line, inasmuch the TABC and alny other law enforcement entity can come onto the premises at any time for inspection, and to ensure laws are being abided by.
According to the letter of the law, the Bar is no different that the UPS store of the Doctor's Office. If you are there, and you are drunk, and the public is there, you are, in turn, drunk in public. Pretty cut and dry.
I would also assume that when an establishment acquires a liquor license through the state, any and all rights to reasonable search of the premises is thrown out the window when they sign the dotted line, inasmuch the TABC and alny other law enforcement entity can come onto the premises at any time for inspection, and to ensure laws are being abided by.
ever since those ridiculous laws started banning smoking in bars I was wondering when it would become illegal to drink in them, too 
this is truly amazing. a bar can actually be considered a public place despite the fact that the bartender, bouncer, waitress, or other employee or owner can remove a patron at any given moment for any reason. doesn't seem like being allowed to freely come and go to me. I'm not going to call this an example of a "police state" but it's still a disgusting abuse of the law
America, the land of the free (as long as the free don't have any fun).
this is truly amazing. a bar can actually be considered a public place despite the fact that the bartender, bouncer, waitress, or other employee or owner can remove a patron at any given moment for any reason. doesn't seem like being allowed to freely come and go to me. I'm not going to call this an example of a "police state" but it's still a disgusting abuse of the law
America, the land of the free (as long as the free don't have any fun).
Dex Sinister
New member
In Chico, CA (home of CSU-Chico, sometimes known as the #2 party school in the nation, due to a Playboy survey some years ago) although the ABC officers have not quite thought of ticketing people in bars yet, they regularly stop and breathalyze any students they find walking home, in the hopes of declaring them "drunk in public," and ticketing them.
But in terms of "police stateism," the local police and city government of Chico decided to "cancel Halloween" several years ago. For the last 3 years, they've brought in 200-300 cops in riot gear each Halloween to "control" a 30ish-block area of downtown Chico - complete with elaborate checkpoints at all road entrances, police (in full riot gear) stationed perhaps every 10 feet down the main streets, and specially-dictated hours that various businesses are "allowed" be open.
It's really quite amusing, in a 1984-ish sort of way -- sort of a Soviet-Russia-Totalitarian-Police-State-for-a-Day "masquerade" each Halloween night. We take the kids and drive to Chico and through downtown every Halloweeen so that they can remember what a free country doesn't look like.
I'm sure that someone feels very safe. I'm just not sure who. It certainly isn't any of the college students.
Dex
But in terms of "police stateism," the local police and city government of Chico decided to "cancel Halloween" several years ago. For the last 3 years, they've brought in 200-300 cops in riot gear each Halloween to "control" a 30ish-block area of downtown Chico - complete with elaborate checkpoints at all road entrances, police (in full riot gear) stationed perhaps every 10 feet down the main streets, and specially-dictated hours that various businesses are "allowed" be open.
It's really quite amusing, in a 1984-ish sort of way -- sort of a Soviet-Russia-Totalitarian-Police-State-for-a-Day "masquerade" each Halloween night. We take the kids and drive to Chico and through downtown every Halloweeen so that they can remember what a free country doesn't look like.
I'm sure that someone feels very safe. I'm just not sure who. It certainly isn't any of the college students.
Dex
Denny Hansen
Staff Emeritus
Sadly, it’s probably not that far off…
I was talking to Brett McQueen (International Tactical Training Seminars) today and she told me that in Calabasas, California it is illegal to smoke outdoors if anyone can smell cigarette smoke. This includes your own backyard if the neighbor can smell it. If you are in your own home and the neighbor can smell smoke, you must close your windows, or go into an interior room with no windows such as a bathroom.
Laws like this beg the question, “Where will it end, and how much will people take.”
Denny
What constitutes a "Public Place?"
There seems to be some genuine confusion about this phrase. So allow me to throw a little sense into this.
A public place is anywhere that the legislature of your state defines as "Public" for any given statute. The meaning actually changes, depending upon what the intent of the legislation is.
I'll give an example of a legislative definition of a "public place:"
This means that what is considered "public" for the purposes of tobacco use, may be entirely different than for alcohol use.
So the short answer is that a "public place" is any place that the legislature defines as public. Further, the courts have upheld such definitions, private property be damned.
Once you understand this, you may begin to understand how your rights are eroded.
There seems to be some genuine confusion about this phrase. So allow me to throw a little sense into this.
A public place is anywhere that the legislature of your state defines as "Public" for any given statute. The meaning actually changes, depending upon what the intent of the legislation is.
I'll give an example of a legislative definition of a "public place:"
The above is the Idaho definition of a "public place" as it relates to our smoking laws. Your state laws are most likely similar. The point being, that for each enactment regarding the public health and/or safety, the act must define "public place." Such a definition pertains only to that act and therefore the definition changes with the intent of the act. State legislatures very seldom set a general definition of a term for overall use by every act. If it does, then that term is referenced by each and every act that uses the term.
This means that what is considered "public" for the purposes of tobacco use, may be entirely different than for alcohol use.
So the short answer is that a "public place" is any place that the legislature defines as public. Further, the courts have upheld such definitions, private property be damned.
Once you understand this, you may begin to understand how your rights are eroded.
Denny, there have been news reports on the California smoking law(s) you speak of.
One scenario posed in the news report by a retired judge stated that if you were out in public on one side of the street, alone, you could smoke as you are not a public health risk. But if someone saw you smoking they could cross the street and ask you to properly dispose of your cigarette -- if you refuse -- you are in violation of the law.
He then went on to pose a scenario similar to the one you describe about smoking on your own property, and a neighbor smelling the smoke...
It's absolutely crazy. Makes me wonder where things are going...
One scenario posed in the news report by a retired judge stated that if you were out in public on one side of the street, alone, you could smoke as you are not a public health risk. But if someone saw you smoking they could cross the street and ask you to properly dispose of your cigarette -- if you refuse -- you are in violation of the law.
He then went on to pose a scenario similar to the one you describe about smoking on your own property, and a neighbor smelling the smoke...
It's absolutely crazy. Makes me wonder where things are going...
Not sure if I understand this right.
It is not illegal to go to a bar to consume alcohol.
But once you have done so you become a criminal for being drunk in public.
You are then arrested before actually committing any real crime on the pretense you might committ a crime.
Is the term, "Not illegal" subjective in Texas?
How does that differ from undercovers going into gun stores and arresting people who buy guns because they "might" go out and kill someone.
It's disturbing to me because it seems that there are constitutional issues here. I mean don't they need probable cause or something. What, it's reasonable to assume someone entering a bar is going to get behind the wheel in the near future?!
Why do they send undercovers inside? Why not have them wait outside and see if anyone staggers to a car and gets in it. That is a crime.
I think drunk driving is one of the most dishonorable things anyone can do and I would gladly pass a law sentencing offenders who get caught doing it more than once to death. But this just seems too much like that Tom Cruise movie with the psychics who predict murders and the police arrest the offenders before the murder actually happens. I forget the name.
It is not illegal to go to a bar to consume alcohol.
But once you have done so you become a criminal for being drunk in public.
You are then arrested before actually committing any real crime on the pretense you might committ a crime.
Is the term, "Not illegal" subjective in Texas?
How does that differ from undercovers going into gun stores and arresting people who buy guns because they "might" go out and kill someone.
It's disturbing to me because it seems that there are constitutional issues here. I mean don't they need probable cause or something. What, it's reasonable to assume someone entering a bar is going to get behind the wheel in the near future?!
Why do they send undercovers inside? Why not have them wait outside and see if anyone staggers to a car and gets in it. That is a crime.
I think drunk driving is one of the most dishonorable things anyone can do and I would gladly pass a law sentencing offenders who get caught doing it more than once to death. But this just seems too much like that Tom Cruise movie with the psychics who predict murders and the police arrest the offenders before the murder actually happens. I forget the name.
Wow that ranks high among the "stupidist things I have ever heard list" (getting longer by the hour). Why not nail people who might drive drunk as they are getting in their cars? You know, at the point the crime is being commited.
Sounds like the cart before the horse sort of thing to me.
Sounds like the cart before the horse sort of thing to me.
invention_45
New member
As we hobble around on our bandaged, shot feet...
Anti: you are correct about that. I always try to find two things when I look at statutes.
1 - a "definitions" section;
2 - a "legislative intent" section.
Sometimes they aren't clearly placed, i.e., you have to go to some other related chapter of the code to find them, so it can be time consuming.
I still haven't found a clear definition of "public place" for intoxication laws. The closest I came was an implied definition that I quoted before, but it's not a definition.
Anti: you are correct about that. I always try to find two things when I look at statutes.
1 - a "definitions" section;
2 - a "legislative intent" section.
Sometimes they aren't clearly placed, i.e., you have to go to some other related chapter of the code to find them, so it can be time consuming.
I still haven't found a clear definition of "public place" for intoxication laws. The closest I came was an implied definition that I quoted before, but it's not a definition.
So many folks have bought into this idea... It's no wonder the Court has been changing its stance on privacy in the last few decades.joab said:
It used to be that you had a reasonable expectation of privacy, when you were out and about. The Court once held that you did. You had a right to be anonymous. What greater expectation of privacy is there, than in anonymity?
But in todays political climate, where there are drug dealers behind every other bush and terrorists behind the rest... Government absolutely needs to know who you are and what you are doing. They can't protect us if they don't have the proper tools, yes?
In a couple of more years, we will have a national ID. In case you were asleep, it's already been passed as law. Implimentation will take some small amount of time.
Meanwhile, many States have laws in place that make it a crime for you to fail to identify yourself, when asked by Law Enforcement. Exactly two years ago, in Hiibel v Nevada, the US Supreme Court found that you had no right not to identify yourself when commanded by police for an investigatory stop (reasonable suspicion) that did not meet probable cause for arrest.
It did not matter to the Nevada Supreme Court, nor to the US Supreme Court, that Hiibels arrest occurred in 2000... Both Courts cited that on 09-11-01 "that things changed." Talk about ex post facto application of Law!
Some of you will argue that if we can't protect society, we can't protect the individual. Or something of similar vein.
I would counter that argument with: If we can't protect the individuals Liberties, then we can't protect a Free Society. A Free Society is based upon the Freedoms of the Individual. Take away those individual freedoms and the society becomes a Police State. Full Stop.
In a bar, private property, indulging in a lawful activity, you can now be arrested for "public intoxication" because some legislation has defined "public" to include all private property, usually in which some sort of business is conducted, in which the public can freely come and go.
An absolutely fascinating study in acclimatizing the people to accept total control.
spacemanspiff
New member
if a place has an 'Open' sign, and hours of business posted, as far as my legal understanding goes, its a public place.
i think another aspect being confused is what criteria is used to determine the intoxication of an individual. body weight charts are not 100% accurate, because if a person is say 200 lbs but has a high body fat percentage, the alcohol will have a greater effect, since fat doesnt absorb alcohol. also have to consider how much food is in the stomach, the rate of the drinks consumed, any medications.
its not an exact science. some people may have really high tolerances and may never appear to be drunk, even though their BAC is well over the legal limit to operate a vehicle.
look at your average bar. how many patrons do you think get behind the wheel when they are hammered? this isnt simply a matter of safety, its also financial. when that drunk kills someone, who do you think the family of the victim will sue? the bar. the state may also levy fines, or even bring criminal charges against the server/bartender.
with that in mind, i'm sure most bars would welcome police arresting drunks in their bars.
i think another aspect being confused is what criteria is used to determine the intoxication of an individual. body weight charts are not 100% accurate, because if a person is say 200 lbs but has a high body fat percentage, the alcohol will have a greater effect, since fat doesnt absorb alcohol. also have to consider how much food is in the stomach, the rate of the drinks consumed, any medications.
its not an exact science. some people may have really high tolerances and may never appear to be drunk, even though their BAC is well over the legal limit to operate a vehicle.
look at your average bar. how many patrons do you think get behind the wheel when they are hammered? this isnt simply a matter of safety, its also financial. when that drunk kills someone, who do you think the family of the victim will sue? the bar. the state may also levy fines, or even bring criminal charges against the server/bartender.
with that in mind, i'm sure most bars would welcome police arresting drunks in their bars.
- Status