Busted for being Drunk.... in a bar
 

Texas busting drunks ... in bars
Seems rather like shooting fish in a barrel and takes the sport out of catching drunks to me.

A person does not have a constitutional right to be drunk, however, this law seems to me a way to prevent things that MIGHT happen rather than what actually does happen.

I'll be the first person in line to suggest a person be drawn and quartered for driving drunk, but being drunk in a bar, well, that might be annoying, but it hardly seems illegal... Yes, they might run into traffic, or scale a fence and drown in a swimming pool, but they also could just entertain the masses with their idiocy...

for you texas residents, what sayeth you... would this prevent you from going out and getting drunk... Will this law do any good at all?

Yea this sounds like they needed a new revenue stream.

I'm glad I'm not in Texas. Yeesh. I have a question...I'm familiar with public drunken laws (don't be drunk on the street), but are bars considered "public"? Aren't they the private property of the owner, and are thus private property? Maybe I'm way off base here, I dunno.

Yeah me too. That is shitty.

I always thought bars were private property as well...

"but i didn't want to be drunk in public. i wanted to be drunk in a bar..."

I'm thinking of the bar i went to in college...literally a stones throw from my apartment building. (we had many serious criteria in picking our location...namely bar proximity). And if we went elsewhere, we had a DD. The culture of drinking got changed, and most folks i know just don't DUI because it's a social stigma to do so.

Get serious about the people who get behind the wheel. But leave the rest of us alone.

what a bunch of bullshit.

this type of thing is exactly why cops get called pigs. if they do shit like this, they are pigs. plain and simple.

I had another stand up comic in mind, martinguerre.

"No. No smoking in bars now...and soon no drinking and no talking!"


I don't really think anybody should get in trouble for being drunk. Arrest them after they do something illegal after they get drunk, eh? But arresting someone for simply being drunk? Get the fuck outta here.

I'm going to assume, until evidence to the contrary surfaces otherwise, that the people being arrested are just way too fucking drunk to function. I doubt the cops want to arrest every person drinking, so they figure out where the line is. It's probably not too hard to figure out where that line is...does everyone in this thread actually get so drunk at a bar that they can't function?

there are lots of other reasons to remove people falling off their chairs drunk from public spaces than just to keep them from driving, in my opinion.

This also sounds like one of those laws that can be easily abused by being arbitrarily enforced .

Is a nearby bar is hurting your property values? Call the cops.

Going through a bitter custody battle with an ex spouse who drinks every Friday at the same bar? Call the cops.

A bunch of "those people" crowding out your favourite local? Call the cops.

Political Activists might disrupt the big event next week? Call the cops.

Granted these scenerios are pretty extreme and require shady authorities, but the scope of these laws allow for them and people can be petty.

This is happening in Texas? When I lived there, it was still legal to drink in the car and drive. That way you could drive all the way to a 'wet' county and return to your 'dry' county with a buzz on. From what I understand, a lot of teenagers died that way.

Pendulum swing, perhaps?

Because they are being forced enforce the law, doesn't make them pigs, they are doing their job. I'm sure the directive to arrest people comes from higher than Office Friendly on the street.

Yep.

The job of the police is to uphold the law, not to interpret it. That is what we have judges for.

Individual officers don't institute policy like this. If detectives are shifting time from robberies, drugs, etc, someone is directing them to do so, and at the expense of dealing with those other issues. If it's happening at the state level there's some weird politics going on.

Didn't Texas just get rid of their alcohol serving drive-through grocery stores in the last five years? This would be a very fast pendulum swing.

I'm still not sure how someone could be arrested for being drunk on private property. As far as I know, it's still legal for those over 21 years of age to be intoxicated on private grounds. Bars are not owned by a government (federal, state or local), therefore they are private property.

Yep. The Reuters quotes from Beck leave too much room for interpretation. In my experience these press releases are usually done in combination with highly visible enforcement events. They're meant to score political points, and possibly deter some perceived nuisance. Still, if they're really arresting people it'll only take one annoyed victim with funds for this to hit the fan.

I'm sure the undercover agents just love pulling this duty. :rolleyes:

Thank you willravel

I also have a problem with this... What constitutes drunk? Above the legal limit? Belligerent? Visibly intoxicated? Seems to me to be a pretty hard standard to uphold. Also, what about those who walk to the bar and get drunk with the intention of calling a cab/DD later? To many unknowns to fairly enforce, if you ask me this is just asking for trouble from officers on a power trip.

I honestly don't know. I moved out of Texas in 1992; thirteen years ago. Even so, I agree that the former democratic state of Texas has swung far right in a bit more than a decade. A very fast pendulum swing for an entire state, under any measure.

I really would like to know how bar owners/managers feel about this. After all, they are in the business of serving people liquor, and this is putting their patrons in a bad position. I mean really....who has the intention of going to a bar to remain completely sober unless they are the DD?

That's how things tend to go. Good to see someone else who uses the pendulum analogy as well.

It seems there has been a pendulum for the word pendulum in this thread. Something to think about...

This speaks to my post about the potential abuse of a law like this. If you want to shut down a bar, whether you're a crusading teetotaller, or have a conflict with the business itself, (maybe as a landlord or competitor) these laws are awfully convenient.

The officers are obligated to enforce the law, so once a call is made and the wheels are set in motion, the lives of the owner and patrons get complicated very quickly.

I guess since the Texas courts over turned the Sodomy Laws now all of those cops policing the bedrooms needed some other foolish law to enforce...

I once started to learn bartending, and the first thing they taught us was to never let the patrons get drunk... If the bartenders are doing their jobs properly and not just looking for tips, then they wouldn't have any "drunk" people in the bar. Maybe they should start arresting the bartenders at these facilities along with the drunks? Just my 2 cents worth.

At what point is a person considered drunk? The legal limit to drive a car? When he/she starts to slur? After a certain number of drinks? Passing out? Are the cops going to go in and give everyone a breathalyzer test? There is just too much room to manuever with this law and that makes me uncomfortable...I just hope Utah legislature doesn't get wind of this, or it'll probably be the next crazy alcohol law on our books.

its not the police doing it its the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) their a completely seperate organization...
i dont really know much about the TABC... other then a lot of people feel they overstep their bounds

maybe we can get some more of the Texas guys in here...

http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/enforce/Insp.htm
I still don't get it. I put a call in to the TABC, and am expecting a call back by tomorrow. It's not illegal to be drunk in a bar, so no matter if you're a member of the TABC, FBI, NSA, BBC, or Jack Bauer....you have no right to arrest, detain, or harass ("nudge") anyone for being drunk in a bar. If they get roudy and cause trouble they can get slapped with disorderly/assault/etc...but that's not the case here.

Sooooooo.... let me get this straight. Not only are they arresting people for getting drunk at drinking establishments but they raided 36.....count them......36 bars and only found 30 drunks?

Shalafi, I'd say that those numbers indicate that they really were just looking for the fall down drunks who're likely to have blown their reserve of cab money on one more for the road.

Either way, the concept behind this stinks of the Minority Report plot of arresting people before they commit a crime.

As I was reading down the posts, you know what? I was thinking the *same* thing right when I got to yours... it made me smile.

As far as this goes, way too much room for interpretation... I always thought that Texas was a rather lax state anyway - who wants to go to a bar and not get drunk? Do you avert the ticket by not having your car at the bar, so you either have to have a DD or call a cab? I'm not too sure about the diving into swimming pools from deadly heights thing... I'd chalk it up to substance assisted Darwin.

Also, it partially is the cops' role to interpret the law. That's why they've got the power to issue warnings. After all, there were many more people drunk in those bars than were arrested...

Just wanted to comment on the "Drunk in Public" in a privately owned bar issue...

It's my uneducated understanding that an establishment can be privately owned bar, but as long as it is open to the general public, all the public decency laws still apply... public nudity, public urination, public drunkenness, y'know, the good stuff. If it were a membership establishment, or a private party in a normally open-to-the-public establishment, these laws do not and cannot apply. Again, that's just my crap understanding, I would love it if somebody could clarify more.

So, if a bar has a cover (pay $5 to get in) they could make a case that they are operating as a private club and be protected under "private property"? I think this is the way that some local establishments have avoided the enforcement of a smoking ban recently.

For me, this is just one more reason not to go to Texas. Apologies to all those friends who are from Texas, but I think we would be better off if Texas was part of Mexico.

This has already been touched on briefly, but there are some legal ramifications here. If a bar or restaurant knowingly OVERSERVES someone, the business is on the hook for their actions later. If you drink 10 shots in 10 minutes and get in your car an hour later, the people you hit can sue the bar for serving you those 10 shots and letting you get in your car. They will most likely win, too.

From the article posted, it's not clear what criteria the police were using for deciding who was intoxicated, what sort of BAC those people had or even if they had their car keys on them. The 36 bars raided may have been the starting point for a significant number of drunk drivers pulled over the weekend before.

I know that I'm going to be unpopular saying this, but if you're drinking heavily in a bar (i.e. BAC over .15) and you have your cars keys in your pocket, I applaud the arresting officer even if you aren't within eyeshot of your car. Clearly your intention is to drive home, and you're most likely not going to wait out your drunkenness. One of the insurance coverages that I sell a lot of is liquor liability, and I typically only see the ones where there's been a problem. Once there's a claim on one of these policies, it's usually $250,000 to start with and goes upwards pretty quickly.

In my past when I bartended in NJ and in Mass (in the early 80s) it was against the law to serve an intoxicated person, for the reason that the bar could be held liable for any damage that the drunken person causes. Some people would get a little beligerent when approaching the cut off stage, so what most bartenders would do is make the drink with all mixer then just float a little bit of booze on the top.. the drunk would never know...

I have no problem with the cops waiting outside of a bar, and pickup people as they get into their cars and drive off, but when they go into a bar, and randomly check people and arrest them, (this of course is without me knowing the facts of how they determined who is to be arrested) that is wrong.

The whole paradigm from when I lived in Charlotte is now starting to make sense.

There are no bars in Charlotte because drinking is sinful.

However, if you want to build a "club" that you let people "join" for a quarter, who are we to tell you what to do with your private club? Every bar in Charlotte is actually a private club with closed access. But access can be gained by submitting an extremely nominal sum, or if you come buy on oxygen night, everybody who breathes oxygen gets in.

Question: what is the purpose of a "drunk and disorderly" law?

Seems to me it is a prophylactic law. In other words, it is used to prevent you for breaking other laws.

Now I can see how this might be applicable if the person was drunk and about to drive off in their car. This makes sense. However, if am passed out in my car, sleeping off the alcohol, clearly I have taken the right course of action. I am not driving. Would you rather I slept in the street?

As for someone drunk and walking down the street... who am I hurting? If I am making excessive noise, I am disturbing the peace. Seems to me, a rather arbitrary law.

I knew there was a reason i shouldn't have started breathing fluorine! :lol:

In NJ - and i don't know how many other states... you can be sitting in your car, drunk as a skunk, and until you put your key in the ignition (not turning the key - just having it in the ignition) you are not doing anything wrong...

Sleeping in the street would probably be some sort of violation of a vagrancy law...

I find this amusing/absurd/astounding that this is happening in texas - a state where a gun permit is issued upon birth (sarcasm...) does this mean that if a person owns agun, that they can be arrested because they MIGHT kill someone someday?

Enforcing the law != setting up bullshit operations

Last night, me and a friend walked around Shinjuku drinking beer.

We sat outside of our bar, drinking. There is a police station some, 20 feet away.

I guess, people don't really drive as much, so that isn't a problem.

But there is puke Everywhere...

The second richest country in the world, doesn't give a shit who, what, where, or when you drink.

there *has* to be more to this story.
i wonder what the legal logic behind this operation is---it would be a state law with what i would imagine is really poor wording--rosy scenario--or it is a state law that passed with language that appears to blur alcohol in with other drugs, which was passed in part because it did so....which i would hope would be challenged and thrown out.
but who knows, maybe there is a neo-prohibitionist tendency in texas.

the only way in which these "stings" would even start ot make sense to me is if the bars raided are all located in places that can only be accessed via car, in places where there are no cab services and no drunk driver shuttle things that you could call---and if the cops could plauibly make the argument in court that these folk--trashed though they were--could only drive home. but even then, i cant imagine this being legit.