IANAL but but I worked security, a bar is actually private property. Although it is open to the public for business it is still under the control of the owner or lessor of the property. Short of a warrant the people at the door could refuse entry to the police unless they had some probable cause to believe a crime is being committed. Since consumption of alchohol on private property is not against the law nor is being drunk on private property, the police have little if any business there. I would actually be willing to bet that the great state of texas sells some kind of licence to operate just such an establishment.
If a reasonably well to do club owner decided to dig in and file lawsuits against the city for lost busines and such, I’d be willing to bet you are going to have a hard time finding a jury to side with the department on this.
(Bolding mine) This was your direct response to a statement I made about the possibility of a conviction. In Texas. For being a danger to oneself or others.
griffin, you are making my point for me. The officers you cited gave a dramatically more detailed testimony than “he was driving dangerously.” The prosecution called only one witness, Trooper Robert E. Broome of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.
You do understand what “solely” means, right? I have stressed it several times.
Still waiting for a cite that it happens all the time. If at all.
I will say it again. If these cases go to court, and if the sole restimony of the officers is that the defendants were a danger to themselves or others, there wil be no convictions.
The immediate knee-jerk response is to assume Texas police are behaving like party Nazis. What level of drunkeness are they considering “too drunk”. I assume they aren’t emptying out the entire bar and carting off all the patrons in paddywagons. Are they just arresting people who are falling on the floor extraordinarily drunk and disorderly? Someone like that has a good chance of getting carted away regardless.
I consider myself a bit of an expert on drinking in bars. Fact is you want somewhat of a police presence around to curtail violent behavior.
My concern is that a bar is private property and the cops really have no right to be there unless they suspect a crime is being committed, they have a warrent or have been invited in by the establishment.
I am really not sure why so many people think that bars are treated like private property. While they may be private property, they are held open to the public. That being the case the police may enter at any time during business and need not obtain a search warrant. This does not mean they can search an office or behind the bar, but they can certainly go anywhere any member of the public is allowed.
This is a slight hijack but I have noticed several references to bars being private property, like it affects police right of entry, it does not. Police may go anyplace held open to the public without a warrant.
Excuse me, but isn’t this a bit foolish? suppose you are an out of state businessman who gets arrested. You will have to post bail, hire a lawyer, return to Texas for trial. the whole thing could wind up costing you over $5-6,000, exclusive of travel.
seems like a good reason to steer clear of dallas.
Of course, these are the people who donate to TV preacher/crooks like Robert Tilton.
Contrapuntal try and read what people are trying to say, even if they don’t make it too clear.
No one is trying to say that a police officer can go into court and say “The defendent was driving badly”, say nothing else, and then get a conviction. It seems rediculous that you are reading this from the other posters statements. They are trying to say that convictions do occur where the only prosecution evidence given are the statements from a single police officer. Which though potentially very long and self consistently accurate are none the less the word of just one man. Presumably against the word of the defendant.
Seriously, there is no argument here just some poor writing (including most definately my own) and what seems to be your attempt to read it as literally as possible without reguargs to what the others may be trying to say.
Frank has it right, I think. Write a citation (but do not arrest) an out-of-stater, and you are much more likely to get them to pay their fine than bother to come back for a trial. This is a revenue stream.
If you will fight ypur way through the thread again you will see that I made the original assertion, and the others took issue with it. If there is any misreading, it is on their part, not mine, even after several attempts on my part to clarify it. griffin said that such things happen “all the time,” while failing to provide any evidence. askeptic responded to a thread about Texas law with California cites, and then claimed never to have said what he plainly did say.
I don’t think it was unclear, but it seems it may have been unclear or missed by some people. I’m trying to get this thread back on line without alienating anyone involved. It is common for two sides to be arguing for the same thing, but due to misscomunication think they are arguing against each other, and getting hot and bothered by the resulting confusion.
So would a detailed discription of how a defendant was falling over in a hotel bar room and stumbling into chairs, etc. etc. without supporting evidence or refutation (sp?) from any one else at the scene other than the defendent saying “I wasn’t very drunk, I only had four beers” not be sufficient to hold up in court?
Wouldn’t the jury just decide if they considered the Law Officer or the Bar Patron to me most trust worthy and then decide based upon the statements given?
(this isn’t an attempt at argument, but a serious question about what would happen. Would the judge throw out any case where the only evidence is the statements of police officers and the defendent?)
Ethanol is not a toxin. Calling it so is misleading and is another tool of neo-prohibitionists. Ethanol is a food, it provides calories that can be burned for energy.
Ethanol is not a drug. Anytime you hear someone say “Alcohol and other drugs” they are trying to establish a false equivalency. Under federal regulations, alcohol is not classified as a drug. Current FDA guidelines include alcoholic beverages, in moderation, as being part of a healthy diet.
Of course. That was my point all along. From the article–
Then I said this–
That seems clear to me, but apparently it was not, so I clarified it here–
The OP links to an article, and asks “Isn’t this wrong?” I respond with my opinion, which is that the charges, as stated in the article, will not stand. Two posters assure me that such things “happen all the time.” I ask for evidence. None, save anecdotal, is forthcoming. For example–
We have a situation where by definition there are only two participants, the officer and the accused. Yet** askeptic** somehow knows that the officer “often does embellish the facts.” Is “embellish the facts” not simply a weasel phrase for perjury in a court of law? Has anyone, or can anyone, in this thread show that such things happen all the time? Often? At all?
Of course anyome is free to presume whatever he wants about how things operate in a Texas courtroom. I, however, have only said, in effect, that the charges as stated in the lonk are bogus, and will not be upheld.
OK, under strict definitions, ethanol is a drug. As are vitamins, oxygen, and mosquito saliva. The word ‘drug’ has now come to mean ‘street drug’ in common use and carries a negative connotation.
As I said above U.S gov’t regulations do not classify ethanol as a drug. The brewery in which I work operates under a ‘Food Processor License’.
Referring to alcohol as a drug implies that the only purpose in drinking is it’s effect on the central nervous system, not it’s pleasing flavors and aromas, or compatibility with food, or any other factors that may influence someone to enjoy a beer, or drink, or glass of wine.
I work hard to create a legal beverage that is pleasant to the senses and improves life, and to hear it labelled as a ‘drug’ as if I am cooking up a batch of poisonous meth in a trailer in the woods is extremely offensive to me.
Some definitions of drug specifically exclude food. This might exclude alcoholic beverage as a drug according to those definitions because beverages are typically defined as food.
Biotechnology glossary. (http://www.solvo.hu/glossary.htm
Drug: Any substance which when absorbed into a living organism may modify one or more of its functions.
Hotel ‘common areas’ are considered ‘public areas’ no matter who owns the hotel (and not subject to search rules).
Bars (that allow the general public) as well as restraunts that serve alcohol (as part of their license agreement) are fully public places (even private offices); restrants (and other ‘areas’ open to the general public) are free game for officers (no need to get permission to enter).
Once in (if given permission and/or a public place) police and detain you for any infraction they see.
It is illegal to be drunk in public (different names in different areas), and any area open to the general public (and/or a place with a license to serve) are considered public areas.
It is illegal to serve alcohol to an intoxicated person (this might be a local specific law, and may or may not be the case here).
I think it was a stupid thing to do (esp with their stated purpose), but I don’t think it will have any problem holding up in court.
The question of a public place is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the patrons were being a danger to themselves or others. There is nothing in the article to suggest that agents were doing anything other than parroting the statute without reasonable justification. How in the hell is sitting at a hotel bar and having a drink being a danger to oneself or others?
