Dale Carlson
Active Member
This is about the most idiotic thing I've ever heard of. Looks like I'll be staying out of Texas until some "drunk" challenges this and gets this commissioner thrown out on her keester.
Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk
- Thread starter Dale Carlson
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Greg Grimes01
Well-Known Member
those LOUSY #$%$#%*. i guess i'll have to drink at home..lol:angry:
dimas C
Member
DANG!!
I know allot of drunks in TEXAS! This could be really bad. After all, our Prez hails from this state. Let's see, you can't get drunk in a bar here but you CAN drink and shoot people while hunting quail out of season....go figure.
I know allot of drunks in TEXAS! This could be really bad. After all, our Prez hails from this state. Let's see, you can't get drunk in a bar here but you CAN drink and shoot people while hunting quail out of season....go figure.
Nelson Atwell
Well-Known Member
This is happening in Oklahoma City too. We had a troop arrested last weekend. He was just out drinking with his buddies in a local club, and he got picked out of the crowd and was busted. He wasn't being belligerant or anything. Our Commander couldn't believe it, but our First Sergeant had to go downtown to pick him up and bring him to the Base. The guy had only been back a week after a four-month deployment to Iraq. Welcome back to the USA! :angry:
Kerry Matthews
Well-Known Member
What? They're trying to stop Darwinism!! If you're that drunk that you step off the curb into the path of an oncoming truck, so be it... thinning of the herd!
I guess I've got mixed feelings on this one... I've been a bartender most of my adult life, and to some extent I can understand their thinking, because a bartender isn't allowed to serve someone who is visibly intoxicated, but that what a bar is for, right? To get drunk in! I had plenty of 'neighborhood drunks' that would walk down every night for a couple of cocktails. Now they're gonna get popped for walking home drunk?
Here in Kollyfornya, as in serveral other states, a person serving alcohol can be held responsible if the person they served alcohol to goes out and hurts or kills someone because they were too drunk to operate a motor vehicle. Look at the lawsuits being brought against Giants stadium in N.J. for millions of dollars because they overserved a person at a sporting event, and he got into his car and killed a little girl in a traffic accident.
I guess I've got mixed feelings on this one... I've been a bartender most of my adult life, and to some extent I can understand their thinking, because a bartender isn't allowed to serve someone who is visibly intoxicated, but that what a bar is for, right? To get drunk in! I had plenty of 'neighborhood drunks' that would walk down every night for a couple of cocktails. Now they're gonna get popped for walking home drunk?
Here in Kollyfornya, as in serveral other states, a person serving alcohol can be held responsible if the person they served alcohol to goes out and hurts or kills someone because they were too drunk to operate a motor vehicle. Look at the lawsuits being brought against Giants stadium in N.J. for millions of dollars because they overserved a person at a sporting event, and he got into his car and killed a little girl in a traffic accident.
Dale Carlson
Active Member
Here's what gets me:
1) How can anyone know what a drinker's intentions are going to be while they're still in the bar? Could be said drinker is going to call a cab, or walk (or crawl) home, or go home with the cutie at the pool table, or stick around long enough to sober up. While I was stationed in Germany, the polizei used to bust people outside of bars who were headed to their cars or just outside of their cars with their keys in hand. Still kind of flaky to me, but at least the law could make a case about intent.
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.
1) How can anyone know what a drinker's intentions are going to be while they're still in the bar? Could be said drinker is going to call a cab, or walk (or crawl) home, or go home with the cutie at the pool table, or stick around long enough to sober up. While I was stationed in Germany, the polizei used to bust people outside of bars who were headed to their cars or just outside of their cars with their keys in hand. Still kind of flaky to me, but at least the law could make a case about intent.
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.
Robert Stanton
Active Member
I would have thought something like this would have started in California. You already have to be an outlaw to smoke in that state...
shawn stonbraker 2
Well-Known Member
kefguy, doesn't make sence to me either. I could see them waiting OUTSIDE the bar or even inside the bar and fallow someone outside and if that said person is trying to get into a car bust them then. Never understood the whole "walking home and getting picked up for public drunkeness" unless they were being a nusence to others. But why should someone who realizes that they may have had to much to drink and decided to just walk home be punished. The whole thing of getting them while they are still in the bar is rediculus. unless the person was being an ass at the time causing problems. But the article doesn't state that.
kefguy,
The drunks are arrested for being drunk in public. The additional benefit is that many of them drunks would stumble out of the bar and into their cars to drive home. This police action is designed to catch the drunks before they endanger others by, by simply charging them with being drunk in public before they ever get to their cars.
...Rich
The drunks are arrested for being drunk in public. The additional benefit is that many of them drunks would stumble out of the bar and into their cars to drive home. This police action is designed to catch the drunks before they endanger others by, by simply charging them with being drunk in public before they ever get to their cars.
...Rich
Nelson Atwell
Well-Known Member
They are assuming too much. The guy that was arrested last weekend in our unit doesn't own a car. Many of our younger troops live on base in the dorms, and take the shuttle bus to work. He and his buddy took a cab to the club he was arrested at.
Kerry Matthews
Well-Known Member
Bahb,
Not if you've got your doctor's recommendation card with you...
Not if you've got your doctor's recommendation card with you...
In other words, if I buy a Corvette of a Ford GT, I should get a ticket for "Planning to Speed" because that is what I will do with a car with over 400 HP?
If I own a gun, I should be charged with "intent to kill" because guns could be used to kill someone?
If I am in a store to buy a fishing rod, should I be charged with "intent to fish illegally" because I don't have a fishing license?
Get real!
Another step closer...
Tom
Rick Kent
Well-Known Member
All men should have to pay child support...
I mean, everyone knows what our intention is when we date....
I mean, everyone knows what our intention is when we date....
Joe Willey
Member
The California law has been around since the 1980’s. It was prompted by a DD who killed several people after leaving either a bar where according to witnesses the bar tender kept serving him when it was obvious he was obliterated and unable to drive. I think the guy was a repeat offender. The law sparked a lot of discussion, pro and con, and when passed actually was a catalyst for more responsible drinking both in public and at private parties.
Oh by the way, all those shoes you see on the shoulder of the road. They belong to DD’s who failed field sobriety and agility tests and were hauled off to jail.
We had a friend in Northern VA leave our favorite watering hole one Friday night. He went straight to his car, climbed in and slept it off. The next morning he was rousted and arrested for public drunkenness.
It will be interesting to see how the courts treat the arrests of people in bars. Everyone knows it doesn’t take much booze to blow the limit, but those limits were established for and relate to driving. Seems to me if there are witnesses that can refute police allegations of intoxicated behavior and it can be demonstrated the person had no intention or means of driving there may be grounds for the court to dismiss the charges. Should that happen, it will send a clear message to law enforcement agencies that the courts will expect such arrests to be supported by sufficient justification to merit making the arrest in a public venue licensed to serve alcoholic beverages. Quite possibly the courts could perceive these sting operations to be excessively intrusive. If these arrests go un-prosecuted or are routinely tossed out by the court, it could open the door for law suites against departments and individual officers.
It might be more prudent for the agencies doing this to employ a team approach with observers inside and officers outside. If a mark leaves, gets behind the wheel, and starts to operate a vehicle, then based on the totality of police observations made both inside and outside the establishment could probably produce enough probable cause to justify a stop. Based on the officers observations following the stop, they might administer field sobriety and agility tests. The results of those tests could lead to an arrest.
Oh by the way, all those shoes you see on the shoulder of the road. They belong to DD’s who failed field sobriety and agility tests and were hauled off to jail.
We had a friend in Northern VA leave our favorite watering hole one Friday night. He went straight to his car, climbed in and slept it off. The next morning he was rousted and arrested for public drunkenness.
It will be interesting to see how the courts treat the arrests of people in bars. Everyone knows it doesn’t take much booze to blow the limit, but those limits were established for and relate to driving. Seems to me if there are witnesses that can refute police allegations of intoxicated behavior and it can be demonstrated the person had no intention or means of driving there may be grounds for the court to dismiss the charges. Should that happen, it will send a clear message to law enforcement agencies that the courts will expect such arrests to be supported by sufficient justification to merit making the arrest in a public venue licensed to serve alcoholic beverages. Quite possibly the courts could perceive these sting operations to be excessively intrusive. If these arrests go un-prosecuted or are routinely tossed out by the court, it could open the door for law suites against departments and individual officers.
It might be more prudent for the agencies doing this to employ a team approach with observers inside and officers outside. If a mark leaves, gets behind the wheel, and starts to operate a vehicle, then based on the totality of police observations made both inside and outside the establishment could probably produce enough probable cause to justify a stop. Based on the officers observations following the stop, they might administer field sobriety and agility tests. The results of those tests could lead to an arrest.
Last edited by a moderator:
michael b
Active Member
"Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness", Beck said.
My guess is the law looks at it like this: It's perfectly ok to go to a bar & drink & spend time with friends etc. But it is not legal to drink to the point of being "drunk", just as it's not legal to be drunk out on the public streets---makes legal sense to a point if their interpretation of the "public drunkenness" law is correct.
My guess is the law looks at it like this: It's perfectly ok to go to a bar & drink & spend time with friends etc. But it is not legal to drink to the point of being "drunk", just as it's not legal to be drunk out on the public streets---makes legal sense to a point if their interpretation of the "public drunkenness" law is correct.
Dale Carlson
Active Member
Like Caymen says "Another step closer..."
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Tonka Trac has given one of the most thoughtful posts I have seen on this thread. My sentiments exactly Tonka.
Though many may CLAIM it is, this cannot be about the "potential" of drunk driving. This can only be about public intoxication. You can't be arrested for a crime you might commit, though the movie "Minority Report" showed a different viewpoint (but that is Hollywood, this is the real world).
Oh, BTW, I think in most every state it is a CRIME for a bartender to serve alcohol to an intoxicated person.
Though many may CLAIM it is, this cannot be about the "potential" of drunk driving. This can only be about public intoxication. You can't be arrested for a crime you might commit, though the movie "Minority Report" showed a different viewpoint (but that is Hollywood, this is the real world).
Oh, BTW, I think in most every state it is a CRIME for a bartender to serve alcohol to an intoxicated person.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark Grumpy
Well-Known Member
I'm having a hard time seeing a bar as a public place. (exceptions being airports, outdoor seating and such). If I own a bar and the folks that enter are entirely at my discretion, then how is it a public place? What's next, raiding my backyard barbecue or my living room looking for drunks??
grump
grump
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Grumpy said:
A bar is a public place if you allow any and everybody within. If you have a bar that is open to "members only", then that would be exempt, IMHO (but that is only my opinion); but if it is a bar that allows anyone to come in through the door of age, well, then that's a public place.
Drunk people can be a danger to themselves and other patrons even within the bar.
As for "raiding your backyard bbq, etc...", that can happen IF illegal activity is assumed (say like serving underaged drinkers). Other than that, no, you won't likely be raided, but if you serve someone to the point of being drunk, and they drive and hurt someone, expect a big lawsuit. Like it or not, personal responsibility in this country is shot to hell, and everyone wants to play the blame game.
A bar is a public place if you allow any and everybody within. If you have a bar that is open to "members only", then that would be exempt, IMHO (but that is only my opinion); but if it is a bar that allows anyone to come in through the door of age, well, then that's a public place.
Drunk people can be a danger to themselves and other patrons even within the bar.
As for "raiding your backyard bbq, etc...", that can happen IF illegal activity is assumed (say like serving underaged drinkers). Other than that, no, you won't likely be raided, but if you serve someone to the point of being drunk, and they drive and hurt someone, expect a big lawsuit. Like it or not, personal responsibility in this country is shot to hell, and everyone wants to play the blame game.
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnny O
Well-Known Member
I have a problem with it based on presumption of guilt and what is essentially unreasonable search and seizure. I don't want to see drunks causing accidents, OTOH this isn't some Tom Cruise movie and the cops should catch you fair and square.
I don't drink as much as I used to but I was, and am, an excellent drunk driver. :lol:
Believe me, if I wasn't I couldn't run the gauntlet home on Rt. 65 from Pittsburgh on a Saturday night.
I was in Texas only once, two years ago, and I thought it was unusual that all the bars had signs outside saying it was against the law to enter a drinking establishment with a firearm.
George Orwell calling on line one.
I don't drink as much as I used to but I was, and am, an excellent drunk driver. :lol:
Believe me, if I wasn't I couldn't run the gauntlet home on Rt. 65 from Pittsburgh on a Saturday night.
I was in Texas only once, two years ago, and I thought it was unusual that all the bars had signs outside saying it was against the law to enter a drinking establishment with a firearm.
George Orwell calling on line one.
Last edited by a moderator:
