ForumGarden

I do not go to the bar that often, but this story interested me. What do ya'll think of these crackdowns on bars? Is it lawful in your opinion, or do you feel it impedes on one's freedom?

SAN ANTONIO, Texas - Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said on Wednesday.

The first sting operation was conducted recently in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication, said the commission’s Carolyn Beck.

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness, Beck said.

The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.

“We feel that the only way we’re going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this,” she said.



for rest of article.....http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11965237/

OMG!! How terrible. Who'da thunk that there'd be drunk people at a bar?? O! The humanity!! :yh_cry



What's next? .... um ..... nope, sorry. Can't think of anything stupider.

The comedian Ron White does a great bit on this... he was drinking in a

bar and he says officers dragged him out into "Public"!!



:D

:wah: He cracks me up.

If this becomes a widespread practice, it's going to make my already difficult job 100 times harder.

When I was starting out in the military, it was offensive to be sober! :wah:

Interesting, and I guess it depends on the local law. Maybe it specifies that being seen to have had a couple of beers in a pub in Texas means you are legally drunk - whether you are quietly sitting in a corner reading a book or swinging noisily from the chandelier.

Are random breath tests (we have those in Australia) an assault on our common law rights not to be challenged unless we are showing some evidence of inebriation at the wheel or whatever?? Should people be randomly searched???? I guess it's a question of how far to go narrowing the old common law by overwriting it with specific legislation, bills of rights etc. For the perceived common good.

Frinstance, it's specifically illegal now here to drive while holding a mobile phone. Before this was enacted you could always be charged for driving in a dangerous manner - very much wider - if in fact you were driving in a dangerous manner while holding a mobile phone. Much harder to prove in a court of law of course - and maybe this is behind the Texas law. Like traffic laws... you fail to stop at a Stop sign or traffic light and get photographed - you're automatically guilty of an offence even if there was no other vehicle around for miles.

Putting a shop item in your bag while in a store - here at least - isn't stealing until you try to leave the store without paying. But lawmakers could change that any time, I guess.

Enough raving on...

AussiePam wrote: For the perceived common good.


And there's the operative phrase, right there. Who's perception?? Slippery, SLIPPERY slope here.

Anything random like this, searches, breath tests, etc., are a violation of my rights and I would fight tooth and nail to prevent such laws being enacted.

I'm 100% with you BR!!

They have got to be kidding, surely the police have enough crime to fight without using resources like this. We have problems with drink induced violence with all the pubs shutting at the same time and dumping drunks on to the street at the same closing time so they get in to fights but I think if the police tried this they would be laughed out of the pub. Like Arnold i wonder is just being drunk an offence in the states?

Do they breathalyse drunk drivers in the states?

gmc wrote: They have got to be kidding, surely the police have enough crime to fight without using resources like this. We have problems with drink induced violence with all the pubs shutting at the same time and dumping drunks on to the street at the same closing time so they get in to fights but I think if the police tried this they would be laughed out of the pub. Like Arnold i wonder is just being drunk an offence in the states?



Do they breathalyse drunk drivers in the states?GMC...this gives me an opportunity to say i think you're brilliant! i really like reading your posts. all of them. yes, we breathalyze. it's the only way to prosecute in court. we need numbers. and if they won't blow we take blood. also, drunk and disorderly is a charge.

Big brother inching closer and closer. Keep your eyes open people cause if you dont before you know it its just the way it is. Can you say patriot act ?

Look up, see the cameras on the corners ?

See the high powered microphones in high crime areas ?

They are there.

I have a customer who can be perfectly sober one minute, totally sloshed within minutes. He would breathe under the legal limit because of all the pills he takes in combination with his drinking. They're all legally prescribed. Then what?

That's what I wonder bout to Peg, in Texas you can get a Pubic Intox standing in the middle of a street. If the cop had reason to believe you were not sober, you could get in trouble.



I was talking to someone bout this whole deal, their opinion was that it was to cut down on binge drinking. :rolleyes: I always thought the binge drinking occured at parties and dorm rooms.

Peg wrote: I have a customer who can be perfectly sober one minute, totally sloshed within minutes. He would breathe under the legal limit because of all the pills he takes in combination with his drinking. They're all legally prescribed. Then what?Peg, what meds defeat a breathalyzer?

lady cop wrote: Peg, what meds defeat a breathalyzer?
I think the point was that the meds enhance the alcohol, so it takes less than the legal limit to get buzzed.

Accountable wrote: I think the point was that the meds enhance the alcohol, so it takes less than the legal limit to get buzzed.but unless i misread, she said he'd breathe under the limit. you cannot fool the machine.

lady cop wrote: but unless i misread, she said he'd breathe under the limit. you cannot fool the machine.
Doesn't matter anyway, right? If somebody is sloshed, can't the police arrest them based on behavior, regardless of the breathalizer?

just for fun/info....we have a little portable breather. when we pull into jail sally port, they don't go in unless they are at a certain level or below. over that level, we transport to hospital for blood alcohol. if we think they are really trashed, but under that limit, we take them inside jail and do a more sophisticated breath. make them walk the line, etc. throw them in drunk tank and observe for vomiting/aspiration.

Accountable wrote: Doesn't matter anyway, right? If somebody is sloshed, can't the police arrest them based on behavior, regardless of the breathalizer?no. you need numbers for court.

let me also say, we can arrest for disorderly intox. stupid behavior. it's a mis. but we still make them blow.

What happens LC if they blow below the illegal limit?

In other words LC, one beer would not put him over the legal limit but he has the appearance of being way over. The medicine enhances it, not lowers it.

Sheryl wrote: What happens LC if they blow below the illegal limit?then they are sober. but whatever caused us to arrest them is still a factor. disorderly conduct.

Peg wrote: In other words LC, one beer would not put him over the legal limit but he has the appearance of being way over. The medicine enhances it, not lowers it.that is an interesting point. we get 'special' training because a diabetic can appear drunk. the breathalyzer doesn't lie. he can appear drunk, and be charged for whatever infractions. but if he's not drunk, he's not.

Diuretic.. I've seen a few great posts from you. Did you do an introduction thread?? Sorry I missed it, if you did. Welcome to the Forum Garden, fellow aussie.

Hang on a monet!!

Being arrested for being drunk in a PUB?? If that was the way things were over here, then I would have a criminal record as long as my arm (wish something else was a long).

So what would happen to the person who orders a cab to get home?

Sheryl wrote: I do not go to the bar that often, but this story interested me. What do ya'll think of these crackdowns on bars? Is it lawful in your opinion, or do you feel it impedes on one's freedom?

SAN ANTONIO, Texas - Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said on Wednesday.

The first sting operation was conducted recently in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication, said the commission’s Carolyn Beck.

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness, Beck said.

The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.

“We feel that the only way we’re going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this,” she said.



for rest of article.....http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11965237/


It just seems a little curious, since it's "illegal" to drive a car when intoxicated, (as it should be) then WHY DO BARS HAVE "PARKING LOTS" for the patrions to park their cars?:-2 :wah:

lady cop wrote: that is an interesting point. we get 'special' training because a diabetic can appear drunk. the breathalyzer doesn't lie. he can appear drunk, and be charged for whatever infractions. but if he's not drunk, he's not.


I'm non too sure of this reliance on numerically verifiable results. Whilst it does give the court a consistant rule to apply it does cover a variety of situations.

The chosen limit is, after all, an arbiary value. It was set as the alcohol level at which the average person's ability was reduced by a set amount.

As previously pointed out, a given person with a blood alcohol level of 40 mg/ml could be seriously impared (whether through the influence of drugs or an alcohol intolerence) whereas another person could have a blood alcohol level of 80 mg/ml and operate at 95% of his ability

To say that, if the breathalyser is negative the person cannot possibly be drunk might be the legal truth but is not the case biologically.

Diuretic wrote: In my jurisdiction there are two separate offences. The first is driving or attempting to drive a vehicle whilst under the influence of liquor or a drug. So even if someone has one beer and it ineracts with their medicine and they really can't drive safely then they are pinched. The second offence is to drive a motor vehicle with a prescribed concentration of alcohol in the blood. For the second offence there's no requirement to prove impairment, the bac level itself is sufficient.


What is the level of proof required for the first offence?

It must be a delicate balancing act - it cannot be just the unsupported word of one person but, equally, it cannot be so onerous that the offence is never procecuted.

That's why the courts like simple numeric cut-offs.

Talented Drunk Driver Video on Metacafe.........i hope you can view this field sobriety test.:wah: