Don't drink in Texas!!

Wow - leave it to Texas. heh.

Seems a bit crazy tho - one can't be drunk in a bar....even with a Designated Driver? Eek.
 
Michael said:
well, that is the law. I believe all states have public intox laws.
Click to expand...


Usually the law reads Drunk AND Disorderly. The Texas law is different. Wonder what the bar owners think?
 
Makes you wonder about Public Intoxication. Can you be charged with it inside a bar? Once you step outside, aren't you automatically guilty of the "crime"?
 
Well if bars are "off limits", does that also mean other things like parties, ie: holiday, wedding, graduation, etc. etc. will come under the gun too? Tell you right now.. all it would take is one "Foster Brooks" type situation at about 2 mil or so and it would all stop real quick.

Dakota Duce

"May All Your Flights Be Of Good Weather!"
 
Isn't a bar a private establishment? And a public place sort of like the sidewalk?
Seems a bit over the top... maybe our living rooms are next.
 
It's causin quite a stir around here!
What ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Commission) folks are saying, it the law allows them to arrest someone that is a danger to themselves or the community. That these folks must do something to bring attention to themselves in the bar; the ABC guys aren't just walking in and checkin everyone.

The most controversial seems to be where they have arrested people in a hotel bar where they were staying. No reason or intent to drive afterward.

I'm not for it unless these folks were unruly or putting a key into an ignition. The folks in the hotel should certainly be left to stew in their drink unless unruly. They also carted off the bartenders that served them.

I'd like to know more before I criticize, but doesn't sound good.

Dave
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Isn't a bar a private establishment? And a public place sort of like the sidewalk?
Seems a bit over the top... maybe our living rooms are next.
Click to expand...

No, a bar is a public place, your living room is not. Drunks have been getting arrested out of bars for years, but it's usually after some sort of altercation. The interesting thing about the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) sting is that they are targeting the drinkers and not just the bar establishments which is usually their goal.

The TABC agents have full arrest powers for any criminal offense, and they have and do arrest intoxicated people, but this is the first state wide sting I've heard of that concentrates on the drinkers (except the underage drinkers). It's getting a lot of media play around here. It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out. With our DWI problems though, I suspect you won't see a whole lot of pressure to stop the program completely. Maybe tone it down a little.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
The most controversial seems to be where they have arrested people in a hotel bar where they were staying. No reason or intent to drive afterward.
Click to expand...

But how do you prove that there is no doubt that the person won't decide to jump in the car after the officers leave and drive down the street for a late night snack? Liability plays a lot in these arrests. The officer has reason to believe that the person is intoxicated. If they leave them where they are and that person does get in a car after the officer leaves and ends up killing someone. The officer and his/her department is liable and they WILL get sued.

It's the same reason the old salt officers preach to the younger ones.. "Never, ever give an intoxicated person a ticket for ANYTHING and them let them go. Because as sure as you do, that person will get in a car minutes after you leave, drive down the street and kill a family of 10. They will find your citation in the drunks pocket with the time written on it proving you let an intoxicated person loose on the street when you could have arrested them and saved that poor family. Save yourself the grief and arrest said drunk and let them sober up in a place where you don't have to worry about that."
 
ausrere said:
But how do you prove that there is no doubt that the person won't decide to jump in the car after the officers leave and drive down the street for a late night snack?
Click to expand...

Better get out the crampons and carabeeners, that is one slippery slope. Areesting someone for something they MIGHT do?
 
ausrere said:
But how do you prove that there is no doubt that the person won't decide to jump in the car after the officers leave and drive down the street for a late night snack?
Click to expand...
THEN you arrest them for DUI - when they've committed a crime. Not before.

Chip
 
N2212R said:
Better get out the crampons and carabeeners, that is one slippery slope. Areesting someone for something they MIGHT do?
Click to expand...

Not arresting for something they might do.. your arresting for something they have already done (i.e, public intoxication). Your just deciding to make an custodial arrest as opposed to writing them a ticket and letting them go.
 
gibbons said:
THEN you arrest them for DUI - when they've committed a crime. Not before.

Chip
Click to expand...

But that's just it. The attorney who takes the civil suit case will argue that you didn't arrest them for the crime of public intoxication in the first place which gave them the opportunity to commit the worse crime of DWI.. or manslaughter etc. It's a dilemma the cops have to deal with on each and every arrest without the benefit of months/years of review to figure out if it's the correct choice. Don't get me wrong, I miss the days of calling someone to come get the drunk and take them home. That's the way we did it back in the day. The choice is taken away from officers today because of the liability and that's a shame. It's taken away in other area's of enforcement for the same reasons..i.e. the "Someone goes to jail" policies some departments have on domestic disturbance calls.

Just so readers understand. I'm not condoning TABC's policy. Personally I think they are tasked with the licensing and regulation of the distribution of alcohol not PI and DWI enforcement. I'm just presenting the other side of the argument for the sake of discussion.
 
Im sort of amazed our law enforcement has this type of resources available to throw around like that. Where I am, there has to be shooting, or at least some amount of spilled blood before you would get the po-lice to come! Do they have that many officers free with no other duties, that they can spare them to stake out bars?!
Who has read the articles, were the arrestees causing a ruckus or picking fights?
 
Dave Siciliano said:
It's causin quite a stir around here!
What ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Commission) folks are saying, it the law allows them to arrest someone that is a danger to themselves or the community. That these folks must do something to bring attention to themselves in the bar; the ABC guys aren't just walking in and checkin everyone.
Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, Do you have a UNICARD? (http://www.unicardsystems.com/)
I've only seen them in Texas.

With this card, if you are caught DWI after visiting a participating establishment, the number and type of drinks purchased by you are on record. No telling the LEO, "Honesht, occifer, it was jus' one little drinky winky".
I've got mine. Got it a Appleby's. No card, no beer. Period.
 
I think that TABC has gone over a line on this one. I'm left wondering "what's next"?

It's getting a lot of press down here, and supposedly the policy is being "looked at".

Unfortunatly, the way Texas politics works, it's not always the "will of the people".... :eek:

And I still remember a time where it was legal to drink-and-drive in Texas, and you didn't venture out in West Texas without a "cool one between your legs"...
 
Keith Lane said:
Dave, Do you have a UNICARD? (http://www.unicardsystems.com/)
I've only seen them in Texas.

With this card, if you are caught DWI after visiting a participating establishment, the number and type of drinks purchased by you are on record. No telling the LEO, "Honesht, occifer, it was jus' one little drinky winky".
I've got mine. Got it a Appleby's. No card, no beer. Period.
Click to expand...

Purchased. Not consumed. Causes a little problem.

While I wish we could stick a breathalyzer at the door to every establishment and require people to get a cab if they're over the limit (or even over a limit the establishment sets), or even check alcohol levels before allowing them to order a drink, I don't know how much people would go up in arms over it, and I also have no clue how well it'd work. The cab thing would either require getting paid by the intoxicated individual (perhaps on their tab?) or one of the free ride services offered in cities. The breathalyzer could be seen as violating someone's privacy. And in the end, the intoxicated individual could persuade someone else to purchase the alcohol. Just don't have an easy answer for this.
 
Keith Lane said:
Dave, Do you have a UNICARD? (http://www.unicardsystems.com/)
I've only seen them in Texas.

With this card, if you are caught DWI after visiting a participating establishment, the number and type of drinks purchased by you are on record. No telling the LEO, "Honesht, occifer, it was jus' one little drinky winky".
I've got mine. Got it a Appleby's. No card, no beer. Period.
Click to expand...

Keith:

No, I don't have a unicard, but the servers will take a driver's license number, and my put me in the same position. Fortunately, I don't drink much and when I do, it's usually with something to eat.
 
Of course, the press is playing this up real big. The folks singled out may be in real bad shape. That's the problem; the public doesn't know. I don't see where the press is attempting to balance this much; course, if they did; wouldn't be much of a story.

Dave
 
gibbons said:
THEN you arrest them for DUI - when they've committed a crime. Not before.

Chip
Click to expand...

exactly

I really hope these cases are thrown out before they ever get to court.

who is to say it would stop there?
what if people who drive sports cars are arrested because they have the potential to speed in them?

Would people be arrested who legally own firearms because they might at some point be used in a crime?
(i know those 2 examples are sarcastic and far fetched, but to me they seem similar to what is happening in the bars)

To me it seems that this whole crack down is based on stopping people who possibly have the "intent" to drive while under the influence, but without them actually commiting a real crime. It is insane to arrest the people who are hotel guests drinking in a hotel bar if they are worried about DWI's.
 
I am curious what they'd do in a case of having a designated driver. The law is the law, and public intoxication is illegal, but seriously, who hasn't had a few too many at a bar?

The important thing is that those that have too many don't drive. Public Intox seems like one of those crimes they tack onto other charges to up the sentence, not a sentence in and of itself.
 
SkyHog said:
I am curious what they'd do in a case of having a designated driver. The law is the law, and public intoxication is illegal, but seriously, who hasn't had a few too many at a bar?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for TABC, I don't work for them, but I can tell you that if I were the responding officer it would all depend on the circumstances of why I was called there to begin with. A designated driver who obviously can't control a drunks behavior with officers on the scene most likely couldn't control them when officers aren't there. That'd play in the decision to arrest or not. If you have one that does seem to have some control, and it wasn't a fight or other violent disturbance I was dispatched to, I might be inclined to let the designated driver take them home. Lots less paperwork for me! :D

Of course, we are also talking about me getting dispatched there to begin with because of some disturbance.. not some undercover detail where a drunk is picked out of a crowd just because they look fairly intoxicated. Never been part of that kind of assignment, and since I don't do that kind of LE anymore, it ain't likely to happen any time soon either..thank goodness!
The important thing is that those that have too many don't drive. Public Intox seems like one of those crimes they tack onto other charges to up the sentence, not a sentence in and of itself.
Click to expand...

Nope.. PI is a common arrest in and of itself. Just ask any officer who works on an average Friday and Saturday night..the tanks are full of PI's. It's a class C Misdemeanor... like getting a traffic ticket. Spend 4 hours in Jail to sober up, bond out or plea and pay your fine and go about your business.
 
ausrere said:
Nope.. PI is a common arrest in and of itself. Just ask any officer who works on an average Friday and Saturday night..the tanks are full of PI's. It's a class C Misdemeanor... like getting a traffic ticket. Spend 4 hours in Jail to sober up, bond out or plea and pay your fine and go about your business.
Click to expand...
Lisa,
Your background gives you a unique perspective on this topic. Thanks for the posts.

As a follow up to the quote above, what impact (if any) does a PI arrest have on one's standing with the FAA. Is it reportable like a DUI? Just curious here, no PI arrests in my past.

Chip
 
Eamon said:
WTF????

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060323/od_nm/bars1_dc;_ylt=AkDiCnj38zl5sVpmugISkOys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-


Many arrested for being drunk inside a bar.
Click to expand...

Texas has some interesting drinking laws. When I lived there it was in a dry country. But if you were a member of a private club you could have alcohol. On Friday and Saturday nights we would go downtown to a whole strip of 'private' clubs and pay our dues. Usually about $10/night to be a member. Sounded like a cover charge to me but it worked.
 
gibbons said:
Lisa,
As a follow up to the quote above, what impact (if any) does a PI arrest have on one's standing with the FAA. Is it reportable like a DUI? Just curious here, no PI arrests in my past.

Chip
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that PI convictions must be reported. Someone else here probably knows much better than I. I wonder if MIP (minor in possession of alcohol) convictions have to be reported as well. Never gave it much thought since I've never had one.
 
smigaldi said:
Texas has some interesting drinking laws. When I lived there it was in a dry country. But if you were a member of a private club you could have alcohol. On Friday and Saturday nights we would go downtown to a whole strip of 'private' clubs and pay our dues. Usually about $10/night to be a member. Sounded like a cover charge to me but it worked.
Click to expand...


Years ago, I went to Tulsa twice a year to monitor a long term land farming project to dispose of tank farm sludge. The first time we were there, we went to a downtown pedestrian mall and walked into a bar. Looked like a bar, sounded like a bar, and smelled like a bar. When we sat down to order a beer, we were challenged to provide ID and "proof of employment". When we asked why about the "proof of employment" we were told we needed to prove we didn't work for the Tulsa Police Dept. because selling alchohol was illegal in Tulsa. We explained we were from Atlanta, and were told to fill out the application forms provided at the table. Applications for the "bottle club". When we asked what the dues for the "club" cost, we were told "$1.75 a bottle". (this was in 1982).
According to the locals, this was all a product of having Oral Roberts as a local icon in the community.
On another trip to Tulsa, we took the local client rep to dinner at a nice restaurant and had no such problems getting drinks. I asked the waiter about that and he responded that the restaurant paid dues to a "higher authority". The owner of the establishment was a large contributor to Oral Roberts University from which he had graduated.:dunno:
 
Frank Browne said:
Where do you suppose the $1.75 a bottle was going?:dunno:
Click to expand...

Dunno, each bottle we drank had a mailing label on it with the name/address of another "member". We were told that we were drinking their beers, and that those would be replaced with beers labeled with our names. The $1.75 was the full price of the beer. Maybe some part of the price went to the local temperance league or somthingorother.
 
It sounds like Civil Liabilty issues are driving more pre-emptive behavior in our society. For fear of huge monetary settlements we are being systematically herded into a more banal existence. Inane warning labels on products from coffee to firearms and the lack of common sense driving juries to award huge sums for people's stupidity. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability?
 
Anthony said:
It sounds like Civil Liabilty issues are driving more pre-emptive behavior in our society. For fear of huge monetary settlements we are being systematically herded into a more banal existence. Inane warning labels on products from coffee to firearms and the lack of common sense driving juries to award huge sums for people's stupidity. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability?
Click to expand...

Ooooh don't get me started on that subject.
A large part of our business is expert testimony on behalf of railroads in defense of lawsuits by people/families of people who get hit by trains, drive into the side of trains, lay down on the tracks and sleep off a drunk, etc,etc,etc.
 
Drinking laws in this state can be confusing. I worked for a city that had city limits in three different counties. One was completely dry, one was "semi" dry and the other was wet. You could literally order a drink at a bar on one corner, only buy beer by the package on the other.. and get arrested for having a beer on the third. Talk about an enforcement nightmare! :eek:

I've never understood the private club (aka unicard) concept.. but there is a lot of it in this state.
 
Yeah, the last couple of paragraphs sum it up nicely. Show me the money. Can you say...legislative lobbying?
 
Keith Lane said:
Dave, Do you have a UNICARD? (http://www.unicardsystems.com/)
I've only seen them in Texas.

With this card, if you are caught DWI after visiting a participating establishment, the number and type of drinks purchased by you are on record. No telling the LEO, "Honesht, occifer, it was jus' one little drinky winky".
I've got mine. Got it a Appleby's. No card, no beer. Period.
Click to expand...


I'm a Unicard employee and thought I would take a minute to clear a few things up. Restaurants that are in dry areas in Texas can still serve alcohol if they act as a private club. The Unicard is simply a card that allow you to enroll in all of the clubs we service without having to manually fill out an application at each location. Alternately a Texas license may be used to enroll if you choose, but it's not required. Additionally, there is no tracking of drinks or tracking of any kind for that matter outside of determining your membership status in the particular club you are visiting. There are some companies similar to ours who routinely sell copies of their database of customer's and their patrons to market research companies, but we do not, both because it is technically illegal if the information was obtained from the magnetic stripe, and because it's a crappy, classless thing to do. There is also no linkage of any sort to enforcement agencies so a cop can't just sit in his car and know who's in a bar and what they've had to drink. The only records we keep and that get distributed to to private club that generated them, are those pertaining to private club operations, minutes, rosters, etc.
 
ausrere said:
It's a class C Misdemeanor... like getting a traffic ticket.
Click to expand...
I realize this thread is old and my question is off-topic:

At least in California, most traffic offenses are not misdemeanors. Some are (like driving the wrong way on a divided highway), but most are infractions. Is this different in other states? Or are infractions the same as misdemeanors? I thought they weren't.

-Felix
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top