# Texas police sweep bars & arrest intoxicated patrons in hotel bars- Isn't this wrong? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 22, 2006, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500 "2006-03-22T22:56:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/21 "2006-03-23T03:05:27Z")
“Going to a bar is not an opportunity to go get drunk,” TABC Capt. David Alexander said. Since when? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/22 "2006-03-23T03:05:40Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > 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](http://living.scotsman.com/books.cfm?id=257022006)) Color me confused. Your link says nothin about alcohol arrests, or arrests being made because the arrestees were a danger to themselves, or that the events in the link happen “all the time.” ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/23 "2006-03-23T03:07:56Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > 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. Do people get convicted all the time of being a danger to themselves based simply on an officer’s say so? That was my point. Sorry if it was not clear. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/24 "2006-03-23T03:09:25Z")
> [@Aarinsky](#): > > 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 […] I’d say that just about any amount of ethanol consumed “may endanger the person or another.” Seems to me that in order to interpret it that way, you have to ignore half of the text of the law. If the legislature meant to outlaw the consumption of _any_ amount of ethanol, why would they have written “to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another”? The fact that they did write it shows that they were aware of a level of consumption that _doesn’t_ endanger the person or another. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/25 "2006-03-23T03:30:35Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Color me confused. Your link says nothin about alcohol arrests, or arrests being made because the arrestees were a danger to themselves, or that the events in the link happen “all the time.” The point was that people get convicted “based simply on an officer’s say so” all the time, regardless of whether its about “being a danger to themselves” or any other reason. Admittdely was a famous example of people getting convicted purely on the word of a police officer, rather than proof that its a common occurrence. A more every day example is speeding tickets, it perfectly normal for police to give a speeding ticket “based simply on an officer’s say so” without any radar detector or other corrobarating evidence (friend of mine even challenged this in court, to no avail). ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/26 "2006-03-23T03:34:39Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Do people get convicted all the time of being a danger to themselves based simply on an officer’s say so? That was my point. Sorry if it was not clear. Well maybe not CONVICTED per se, merely for being a danger to themselves, because that in and of itself is not a crime. But they do go in to custody. Ca. Penal Code Sec. 5150 1. When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated members of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7, or other professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/27 "2006-03-23T03:42:32Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Do people get convicted all the time of being a danger to themselves based simply on an officer’s say so? That was my point. Sorry if it was not clear. I’d assume most dangerous driving convictions would fall under this category… ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/28 "2006-03-23T03:42:58Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > Well maybe not CONVICTED per se, merely for being a danger to themselves, because that in and of itself is not a crime. But they do go in to custody. > > Ca. Penal Code Sec. 5150 > > 1. When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger > to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace > officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of > an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated members > of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7, or other > professional person designated by the county may, upon probable > cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place > him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the > State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour > treatment and evaluation. Still confused. From post #11– > [@](#): > > § 49.02. PUBLIC INTOXICATION. (a) A person commits an > offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to > the degree that the person may endanger the person or another. This is what I am talking about. A guy sitting at a hotel bar is arrested for being a danger to himself or others. Are you suggestiing that at a trial the officer need provide no more evidence then his impression? No corroborating testimony? No description of dangerous behavior? As I said– > [@](#): > > 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. (Bolding added) ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/29 "2006-03-23T03:43:59Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > I’d assume most dangerous driving convictions would fall under this category… What exactly is a “dangerous driving conviction?” ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/30 "2006-03-23T03:46:25Z")
I see nothing in the OP’s cite, or in the article I read on CNN(?), to indicate that the businesses were cited for serving intoxicated patrons. That should go hand-in-hand with arresting people who are drunk in a bar, shouldn’t it? Sounds to me like they found what they think is a good way to get money from tourists. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/31 "2006-03-23T03:55:36Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > What exactly is a “dangerous driving conviction?” Something like this: Ca. Penal Code Sec. 23103 23103. (a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. or this: 23103.5. (a) When the prosecution agrees to a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a charge of a violation of Section 23103 in satisfaction of, or as a substitute for, an original charge of a violation of Section 23152, the prosecution shall state for the record a factual basis for the satisfaction or substitution, including whether or not there had been consumption of any alcoholic beverage or ingestion or administration of any drug, or both, by the defendant in connection with the offense. The statement shall set forth the facts that show whether or not there was a consumption of any alcoholic beverage or the ingestion or administration of any drug by the defendant in connection with the offense. ---
**Author:** ![Aarinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Aarinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aarinsky)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/32 "2006-03-23T04:01:08Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Seems to me that in order to interpret it that way, you have to ignore half of the text of the law. If the legislature meant to outlaw the consumption of _any_ amount of ethanol, why would they have written “to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another”? The fact that they did write it shows that they were aware of a level of consumption that _doesn’t_ endanger the person or another. I see your point. The text of the law does seem to evidence a legislative assumption that a “non-endangering” level of consumption exists. That said, it would seem that Texas has quite a bit of leeway in deciding where the break off point is for a particular individual. It doesn’t strike me as unreasonable for Texas to determine that some (many? most?) people who drink in bars are consuming enough ethanol to endanger themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/33 "2006-03-23T04:08:03Z")
> [@Aarinsky](#): > > It doesn’t strike me as unreasonable for Texas to determine that some (many? most?) people who drink in bars are consuming enough ethanol to endanger themselves. Do you believe that the purpose of the (in general) state is to protect us from our own decisions? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/34 "2006-03-23T04:11:36Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > Something like this: > > Ca. Penal Code Sec. 23103 > 23103. (a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in > willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is > guilty of reckless driving. > > or this: > > 23103.5. (a) When the prosecution agrees to a plea of guilty or > nolo contendere to a charge of a violation of Section 23103 in > satisfaction of, or as a substitute for, an original charge of a > violation of Section 23152, the prosecution shall state for the > record a factual basis for the satisfaction or substitution, > including whether or not there had been consumption of any alcoholic > beverage or ingestion or administration of any drug, or both, by the > defendant in connection with the offense. The statement shall set > forth the facts that show whether or not there was a consumption of > any alcoholic beverage or the ingestion or administration of any drug > by the defendant in connection with the offense. And is it sufficient for the officer to merely state that the defendant was driving dangerously, or must he provide some further justification? ---
**Author:** ![urban1a](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47c2d/32.png) [@urban1a](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/urban1a)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/35 "2006-03-23T04:19:49Z")
> [@Stentor 2.5](#): > > 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! Gee. What a great idea. I wonder why they’ve never done that before. 😃 Bob ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/36 "2006-03-23T04:24:09Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > And is it sufficient for the officer to merely state that the defendant was driving dangerously, or must he provide some further justification? I think I see what you are getting at. No the officer cannot just state in court that the defendant was driving recklessly. He must articulate facts that would allow a jury to conclude that the driving was reckless. But still the officer is free to and often does embellish the facts he offers to the jury. So in a sense the conviction is based on the officers statements that the defendant was in fact driving recklessly. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/37 "2006-03-23T04:25:16Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > And is it sufficient for the officer to merely state that the defendant was driving dangerously, or must he provide some further justification? Yes, thats what we’ve been trying to tell you… You would think that to convict someone “beyond reasonable doubt” (whether its a traffic violation, or a seriours offense) would require corroborating evidence but in reality a jury will convict based on the say-so of police officer. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/38 "2006-03-23T04:46:14Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Yes, thats what we’ve been trying to tell you… You would think that to convict someone “beyond reasonable doubt” (whether its a traffic violation, or a seriours offense) would require corroborating evidence but in reality a jury will convict based on the say-so of police officer. Can you provide a cite for an instance where the **only** testimony was the officer saying “he was driving dangerously”? Can you provide a cite that it happens “all the time”? That is what you claimed, and I have yet to see the first piece of evidence. > [@askeptic](#): > > I think I see what you are getting at. No the officer cannot just state in court that the defendant was driving recklessly. He must articulate facts that would allow a jury to conclude that the driving was reckless. But still the officer is free to and often does embellish the facts he offers to the jury. So in a sense the conviction is based on the officers statements that the defendant was in fact driving recklessly. I am going to repost what I said, not to be a smartass, but to re-emphasize that I was referring to a very specific situation. : > [@](#): > > 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. You stated that being a danger to oneself was not against the law in Texas. Apparently it is. You then said that a person would not be\* convicted\*, but could be\* confined\*, citing \*Californ\*\*ia \*law. You will pardon me if I consider this to be non-responsive. I don’t think that these arrests will hold up in court in Texas. Any half-assed defense attorney will ask the officer to describe the behavior that showed the defendant to be dangerous. Simply being intoxicated is not enough. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/39 "2006-03-23T04:59:20Z")
Man Contrapuntal your name is apt. I did not post what you claimed. I never said what is against the law in Texas. I am done beating my head against this particular wall. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500/40 "2006-03-23T05:02:50Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Can you provide a cite for an instance where the **only** testimony was the officer saying “he was driving dangerously”? Can you provide a cite that it happens “all the time”? That is what you claimed, and I have yet to see the first piece of evidence. OK first two transcripts from google… > [@](#): > > HALL v. STATE > 1977 OK CR 31 > \*\*The prosecution called only one witness, Trooper Robert E. Broome \*\* of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. Trooper Broome’s testimony, being quite lengthy, will here be reduced to the basic facts. Broome testified that at approximately 6:55 a.m. on the morning of February 13, 1976, he stopped a blue, two door, 1967 Pontiac on I-44 in the eastbound lane between Memorial Road and 21st Street overpass in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He testified that his attention had been drawn to the vehicle as it moved eastbound at a rate of speed which was in excess of the rate of the general flow of traffic. He testified that as he observed the automobile he noticed that the driver changed lanes several times, cutting in front of several other vehicles which were proceeding at approximately 55 to 60 miles per hour. In addition, he watched as the other vehicles were forced to break hard to avoid colliding with the vehicle he was observing. The officer then turned on his single, righthand, red spotlight and maneuvered into position behind the vehicle. After pursuing the vehicle at a pace of approximately 70 miles per hour, Trooper Broome determined that he had not as yet caught the driver’s attention. At this point Trooper Broome turned on all of his emergency equipment, including bright lights, overhead light, siren, and honked his horn to attract the driver’s attention. Broome further testified that he had to pull up even with the vehicle in order to catch the driver’s attention and get the driver to pull the vehicle off the road. The trooper then apprehended the driver of the vehicle and cited him for reckless driving. Trooper Broome identified the driver of the vehicle as being the defendant. > > For the reasons hereinbefore stated, AFFIRMED > [@](#): > > State v. Rieger, 281 NW2d 252 (ND 1979) > > The State called as its **only witness a man who had been a deputy sheriff of Benson County at the time of the alleged reckless driving**. The deputy testified that, while parked at a service station in Esmond, he heard a loud engine noise and observed a vehicle, containing two persons, that accelerated quickly as it left a stop sign about one block from the service station. The deputy stated that he followed the vehicle, which proceeded westerly from the stop sign on a highway having a maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour, and described the road on which he traveled pursuing the vehicle. He testified that as he chased the vehicle it was “pulling away” from him, even though he drove his own automobile at speeds as high as 90 to 100 miles per hour. The deputy stated that he continued to follow the vehicle and saw it turn off the road into the yard of a farmstead owned by LeRoy Rieger, the defendant’s father, approximately two miles from Esmond. He testified that when he turned into the yard, he saw no one around the vehicle, and, as he approached the vehicle, he noticed that it was emitting smoke from beneath its hood. According to his testimony, he knocked on the door of the farmhouse; when no one answered, he waited in the farmyard for about 15 minutes. … > > Rieger, however, asserts that the insufficiency of the evidence lies in the State’s failure to present eyewitness testimony establishing that he was driving the vehicle at the time that it was driven recklessly. We rejected a similar argument in In the Interest of N. N., a Child, > > The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-police-sweep-bars-arrest-intoxicated-patrons-in-hotel-bars-isnt-this-wrong/349500.md?page=3)