Bar Sweep Sparks Controversy (Drunk People Arrested in Bars!!)

NBC5i.com ^ | March 23, 2006

[CSM]

"Confused...how is being inside a bar public, unless it is owned by the government."

The smoking bans have conveniently changed the definition of private property into public property. You can thank many FReepers for celebrating that change for this next logical step.

[CSM]

"The discussion is about the legality of public drunkenness."

OK, what is your definition of drunk?

[gopheraj]

Our son snuck out of the house one time (NOTE - one time) and met some friends. AN older guy bought them some cheapo wine and he got very plastered. Next day we had to go early to the ranch to plant pecan trees - holes 3 foot wide by 3 1/2 foot deep - by hand. He and his buddy who was spending the night dug them - by hand. LOLLL On the 30 minute drive home, he got sicker and sicker. Puked his guts out that afternoon. Never again had to deal with this. LOLLLL

[unixfox]

TABC Capt. David Alexander

I see a camera in this mans pitiful life.

[Richard Kimball]

Inside a bar is considered a public place. If members of the public are allowed to go into an area, government representatives have the right to go into the area. For example, when I do fire code inspections, I have the legal right to enter, observe and cite any code violations in areas normally open to the public. I cannot enter the storage or office areas without the permission of the owner, though, without a warrant. On a practical basis, owners will not refuse permission. If they did, I would get a warrant. Judges will issue warrants for the purpose of fire inspection.

Additionally, selling liquor is not a "right" but a licensed activity, subject to regulation by the state. In order to get a permit to sell liquor, you must agree to abide by certain provisions. The entry of the TACB officers into the bar is not a constitutional issue (boy I'm going to get flamed for that). The issue is the absurdist way in which the law is being enforced.

[weegee]

If you wish to sit on your front porch a drink yourself into a stupor, feel free.

Until CPS takes your children away for "negligence" due to a neighbor filing a complaint that you are a "drunkard".

[Sax]

Yep, no mercy for a kid's hangover - welcome to young adulthood! You don't get to lay around like you're ill, you gotta get up and hit the ground running. That'll keep ya honest! I gotta say though, over doing it on wine produces a mean hangover!

[CSM]

"If members of the public are allowed to go into an area, government representatives have the right to go into the area."

Do you think that is right? I don't.

[weegee]

Related thread:

Public intoxication stings catch 2,200 in Texas bars

2,200 arrests X $500 fine = $1,100,000 in potential fines.

[NCSteve]

TABC officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights.

We don't really need to know anything more about this, do we?

The underlying issue here is private property rights. This will end up being yet another defining case in the effort to extinguish the concept altogether.

[hosepipe]

Well they might been THINKING of driving..
The thought police are testing the concept..
Don't get crazy YET.. ITS JUST A TEST....

The real thing won't happen till John Mclaim or Hillary Clinton get elected as Prez..

[gopheraj]

LOLL Yep. He was never drunk again. He drank but if you watched closely, you could see him sipping and then getting another after he had placed his mostly full beer some place else. He looked like he was drinking along with the rest of the guys but actually wasn't. BTW, I NEVER saw him drink ANY wine after that. LOLL

[Richard Kimball]

Yeah, I think it's right. I kind of like the idea that a health inspector visits a restaurant and that theaters have fire inspections. I don't like what TACB is doing, as listed on this thread, but this is something that should be addressed politically. It's not a constitutional issue.

[bkwells]

They (TABC) should all be reassigned to the Border Patrol and arrest those who are coming into this country illegally and are actually breaking the law!

[relictele]

We have far too many cops in this country when they have the time and inclination to judge.

I always get a chuckle out of evening news interviews with cops who lapse into police-ese even when discussing the most trivial of subjects. "They got out of the car" becomes "Driver and passenger occupying the rightmost front seat egressed the vehicle." Similar to a nice clear concise word like "suspect" becoming "person of interest." Cops do a dangerous, demanding job but GET OVER THE OFFICIAL BLUSTER!

[Zuben Elgenubi]

The citizens of this town, if they are upset enough, could get the local government to pass a law that completely prohibits LEO's from drinking at any time.

Then we'd see how quick they;d be to pre-emtively confront the citizens.

[CSM]

Much like AAA's rating system for hotels, I'd bet that private commpanies would do a better job inspecting and certifying private property than the government does today.

[Doe Eyes]

Being intoxicated to the point of presenting a danger to yourself or others is grounds for arrest.

That is the Law in Texas, and that is what the State must prove.

Request a jury trial and have everyone with you testify in your behalf (if you really weren't dangerous). Its not an easy thing to prove.

[MRMEAN]

I suspect, that, like with DUI, it's "guilty until proven innocent," and that once the cop "articulates" that someone is intoxicated, by claiming that the arrestee had "Loud or slurred speech, exaggerated movements and unsteady balance..." that in the Texas courts that will be equivalent to "presenting a danger..." -- but I agree, that's what people should do, take the JBTs to court and make them prove it.