To go into a hotel bar hunting for intoxicated people to arrest. Isn’t that just wrong somehow?
Via Fark Bar Sweep Sparks Controversy
I’d say it was over the top and destined to the wrath of voters. Wouldn’t surprise me if it start a riot or two.
Yep. Texas (especially Dallas-area) cops are worthless. Since this isn’t the Pit, I can’t express my true feelings about them, but when I heard about this story it surprised me not a bit.
“Texas law states that inebriated individuals could be subjected to arrest anywhere for public intoxication.”
Looks more like a stupid law than poor policing. Basically it is illegal to get drunk in a public place in Texas, and even (presumably privately owned) bars count as public places.
This statement seems to be a contradiction in terms, how can one be subject to arrest for public intoxication when one is not in public. It would seem like being in public would be a requirement (unless they have a law against private intoxication as well).
But this action by the police is just wrong on all levels, including common sense.
I think this is the attitude that has been adopted to justify all law enforcement activities. It is an attitude that deserves to be Pitted.
I have an idea! Why don’t we just completely ban the importation and sale of all acohol! That would surely end all society’s problems!
There aren’t words strong enough to express my disgust for TABC. Raiding HOTEL bars? I’ve been stuck on plenty of business trips stuck in hotels in the middle of the suburbs with one rental car to 4 people. Look, if someone is being a complete jerk, deal with him/her. But, if someone is too intoxicated to drive, but they’re sitting in a hotel bar and walking back to their room, leave them alone. Business travel sucks.
:eek: The way that law is written, a person could get arrested for public intoxication while getting a ride home from a sober person. That’s just not right! Do they also count a person’s yard as public? What about if it’s got a privacy fence? Where is the line drawn with this?
I was going to say, why the assumption everyone in the bar is driving home?
Evidently, if they haven’t got anything better to do with their time, maybe they need to re-evaluate their priorities…
We had a case in our office where a man was arrested for public intoxication by a waiting officer as he was stepping into the cab he had called to take him home so he wouldn’t be driving while intoxicated.
The actual text of the Penal Code reads:
I would love to hear each of these officers articulate in court the dangerous conduct being displayed on each of these occassions.
Of course these people were endangering themselves :smack: they were putting themselves in danger of getting arrested 
Wow–I was drunk in public in Texas for almost five consecutive days last week. Good thing they didn’t raid Austin. (Of course, with SXSW going on, they would have to have rented out the county’s school buses to bring us all in.)
IAAL - but not in TX! I will play the devil’s advocate here.
First, the law above says that the person must be in a “public place.” I would say a hotel bar is a public place. Indeed, the word “pub” comes from the term “public house.”
Second, the law indicates that a person must be “intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.” So one need only be potentially endangering oneself to fall withing the ambit of the law. Considering that ethanol is a known toxin (known to be toxic to virtually every organ of the body), is known to cause profound psychological and/or physical depedency in many individuals, is known to be directly or indirectly responsible for a substantial percentage of crime, domestic violence, accidents… I’d say that just about any amount of ethanol consumed “may endanger the person or another.”
Thus, I would say that the TX cops are within the law. Of course, the bigger question is whether the law is well-conceived or not. Undoubtedly most here would say that it is ill-conceived. I don’t necessarily agree. Given the known dangers of ethanol, some of which I enumerated above, I don’t think it’s so outrageous for TX to want to ban its use in public. Many other, less dangerous drugs are completely banned in TX and elsewhere in the U.S, whether used in public or in private. If that must be so, then why should ethanol not be similarly restricted? Of course, there are many reasons why total prohibition of drugs may be counterproductive. Consider the many known problems that arose out of the Prohibition Era, as well as the current War on Drugs. For that reason, I don’t personally favor a total prohibition on private use of drugs, including ethanol. Public consumption is a different matter. If public consumption of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. is not permitted, why should the law treat a dangerous drug like ethanol in a more lax fashion?
Of course it’s wrong. But it’s the natural consequence of preemptive policies that prevent people from making bad decision.
We hold these true:
All are equal in the right of peaceful quest.
All are innocent of crime until proven guilty of denial of peaceful quest.
It is the duty of the state to secure peaceful quest for all through regulation and justice.
This is the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. This is the heart of the constitution.
Any law or authority that violates these principles is unconstitutional.
Drunks are less likely to threaten peaceful quest than power drunk sheriffs and politicians.
ItS
peace through liberty
r~
Your ideas intrigue me, might you have a news letter to which I might suscribe. I am particularly interested in the “peaceful quest” you advertise.
I cannot imagine these arrests holding up in court if the only reason for them was that the arrestees were “a danger to themselves and others” based solely on the officer’s say-so.
I was of the opinion people convicted based on this all the time (Most of the non-white population of Tulia, TX being a case in point Lifestyle | The Scotsman)
Are you kidding, people get cited and convicted all the time based on the officers say so. Think resisting arrest, wreckless driving, even drunk driving where the blood alcohol is under .08., loitering, solicitation, prostitution (wher no recording of actual conversation is made) many many many crimes are succesfully prosecuted on nothing more than some cops say so. Most infractions are based on nothing other than some cops say so. Many misdomeanors. In fact many many people are in prison for life based on nothing more than one person saying they did it.