Without the full story on both sides of this I think it is patently unfair to make the judgment you suggest. It is oh so tempting to define your opponents stance in the extreme. It is much tougher to search for the details and hear both sides before you pass judgment. I don't know the story well enough to say how I would want my local gov't to act. I just think the anarchy folks are ridiculous (see, everyone can do it). To be more precise, those who claim a constitutional right to public intoxication are ridiculous. I don't know if truth seeking will find that this was poor judgment by the gov't or by the individuals arrested. But it is no one's constitutional right to be in a drunken stupor in public.
In August, 2005, the agency announced it was beginning a crackdown on public intoxication, using both undercover and open operations.
And from what we've heard from several of those arrested, the methods they are using are pretty much the equivalent of pedestrian DUI checkpoints; posting plain clothes undercover officers in private establishments to arrest people who appear to be intoxicated.
This represents such a leap to a police state, that nothing that TABC does in the future (including sending undercover agents into private parties, your home, weddings, office parties) will surprise me.