Nothing Sacred - Day Three

Subtitled:
How long can James blog about drinking without actually blogging about drinking?

Over the last two days I have blogged about the series of infiltrations performed by the highly specialized counter-drunkard forces of the Irving Police Department and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comission last Friday. First I leveled my amoral outrage at the fact that they would do something like this and yesterday I mocked the appropriatedly named Nameless Reuters Wire-Monkey (NRWM) and then pointed you guys to some useful information out there on the web. Sorry I couldn’t jazz it up with some boobies or something else, but every once in a great while I will stumble across something on the Internet that is neither geek nor porn. It was one of those days.

So now we are on day three of James blogging in minuscule outrage about TABC’s strategic plan to rid the state of drunk drivers 36 bars at a time. In this episode we learn that, yes my friends, the long arm of Johnny Law has been a bit busier than I first suspected. While discussing the events in Irving with a coworker I was pointed to this article in my very own Houston Chronicle (Viva la Post!):

Public intoxication stings catch 2,200 in Texas bars

More than 2,200 people have been arrested in Texas bars in the six months since the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission announced a crackdown on public intoxication, primarily targeting bars.

The arrests included people who were drunk in bars, who sold alcohol to a drunk person, or a drunk employee on the premises of a bar or restaurant with a license to sell alcohol, said Carolyn Beck, a spokeswoman for the TABC.

Sweet Monkey Jesus! 2,200 people?!?!? This is really the only new news the article has to offer. Well, that and the fact that this is called Operation Last Call. Excellent name choice! I can imagine some TABC bureaucrat giggling to himself as he came up with that whopper of a name in much the same way I giggle to myself when I come up with something Damn Funny. However, unlike the previous articles, this article had an actual person’s name attached to the article, with email address. This being the case I thought I would fire off an email to the author of the article and ask whether she knows if anyone has done any statistical analysis to see if this program is actually paying off or is the TABC just wasting people’s time. Here is the email:

Ms. XXXX,

I just read your March 23rd article titled “Public intoxication stings catch 2,200 in Texas bars.” While I have been aware of the TABC program since earlier in the week when a friend of mine pointed me to some coverage from the Dallas area, this is the first time I have read anything to indicate it is has been more widespread than just the thirty people arrested in Irving. Since the program is clearly fairly large and has been going on for just over six months I was wondering if the TABC or anyone else has taken a look at the DWI/DUI statistics from the areas where they have been active to see if there has been a decrease in the number of incidents since the program’s inception. While this program offends my inner drinker, if it is actually working and saving lives then I will come to a grumbling acceptance of it, however if not it seems that the officers involved in the program could be put to more productive use.

Sincerely yours,

James XXXX

Almost immediately I got the following response:

Thanks for your response. I am at a loss right now to answer your questions. I do know that in the Houston area, the TABC works closely with Houston police intracking DWI arrests, then working “backwards,” so to speak. For example, it is not uncommon for a Houston police officer to ask a person suspected of DWI where he/she had his/her “last” drink. In many cases, the same taverns/pubs come up, or are mentioned. TABC then tries to monitor that establishment, in an effort to prevent people from driving under the influence.

TABC does allow publicly intoxicated people to go home with a designated driver, if they really do know that person. For example, if you are in a bar with a friend or significant other, and that person is intoxicated, they might give you a ticket, but not arrest you. They want you to get home safely. The spokeswoman for the agency said it would be extremely rare to allow a person who was clearly intoxicated to simply call a cab, because that person might not make it home – they could easily ask the driver to pull into the next bar. Or, they could get out of the cab a few blocks away. In Houston, that would mean danger. Trust me on this. There’s either a dangerous person lurking around, a Metro bus, or one of our little trains to run you over.

Personally, I find it very interesting that people are surprised to learn that a bar is a public place.

First I would like to give some serious props to the author of the article for responding within twenty minutes of me sending the email. While there seems to be a bit of boilerplate in her response, it is a clear and well thought out response, although I do take umbrage with the implication that I do not know about the rough streets of Houston. Of course she then turns around and takes a piss out of Metro. That makes me happy.

It is clear to me that it is now time to go straight to the source on this. Through a little bit of digging I found out how to contact people directly at the TABC via email (sometimes websites are so helpful!) and I intend to email Carolyn Beck directly and ask if the agency is keeping records of the arrests and citations issued in connection with the sting operations and then comparing them to the DUI/DWI arrests in the area to see if the program is having a measurable effect. As soon as I get the email composed and sent I will post it here and of course post Ms. Beck’s response.

One last thing. Pete over at A Perfectly Cromulent Blog finally weighed in on this issue, expressing much the same sentiment but, as always, in a much more concise and funny manner. Additional blogging about this issue can be found here.

Nothing Sacred Follow-Up Segment

Yesterday I posted about the proactive arrests of fellow imbibers made recently in Irving, Texas and Scott suggested I keep an eye on the story and see what else develops. While I am at a loss on how to go about doing this without spending too much time or money on this, I did do a little more looking into the background on this.

The first (I keep typing Frist instead of first, clearly I have politics on the mind too oft of late) thing I came across was this Reuters piece on MSNBC which I found through the Crime and Punishment section but the article itself seems to be in the peculiar postings section.

Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk
Undercover agents pursue inebriates in a pre-emptive strategy

SAN ANTONIO, Texas [which is nowhere near Irving, where the pre-emptive strategery took place, and is not Austin where the TABC, the nefarious commission behind the strategery, is based] – Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comission 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 comission’s Carolyn Beck.

Now here I would like to take a short break from transcribing the entire article (it is a short piece) to kick the writer of this article around. Read that sentence again paying particular attention to the “…where agents INFILTRATED 36 bars…” I don’t know about the rest of you, but the last time I had to infiltrate a bar was…no, wait, never in my life have I had to infiltrate a bar. I think it is clear that the nameless Reuters wire-monkey who wrote this piece has been watching a bit too much of the Mission Impossible lately. Seriously NRWM why must you make it sound so much more epic than a couple of guys who were probably in slightly better shape than 50% of the bar patrons walk into the bar and arrest some people for being drunk. That’s what happened. There was no Iron Curtain they had to piece, no great secret cabal to track down, and there were no secret police after them for they were the secret police. Using NRWM’s definition I have been infiltrating my underpants for years. Make of that what you will. Now back to the article.

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness, Beck said. [I find this somewhat ironic coming from a rocker-type…oh wait, they mean Carolyn.]

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.

“There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they’re intoxicated, other than get behind the wheel of a car [like let Scott order drinks for them],” Beck said. “People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss.”

She said the sting operations would continue throughout the state.

Another brief bit of invective for you before we move on. “…people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss.” Ms. Beck people do that kind of crap stone cold sober. Stick to the drunk driving defense because if you’re going to spend your time trying to keep people from doing stupid things you, let’s just say you have a bit of an up-hill battle.

In all seriousness I liked this piece. It put a face on the sting operation and served notice to all us unrepentant drunkards that they will be infiltrating our local watering holes any day now. Also MSNBC had one of their intsa-polls in which they had received 38,270 responses. The question asked was “Does it make sense to arrest people for being drunk in bars?” 83% of the respondants chose the option that states, “No, people go to bars to drink, and if they get drunk but stay safe, it should be OK.”

After this I swung on by the TABC website to see if I could find the chapter and verse on public intoxication and related subjects. I was not able to find the legal definition of public intoxication on the TABC site, however I did find a PDF containing the TABC code, which some of you might find interesting, so I linked it here. I also stumbled across the TABC press release announcing this new strategy, or rather Sales to Intoxicated Persons stings. The following section appears in the press release:

Myths About Public Intoxication

• A person can’t be in a bar or nightclub for public intoxication. Yes they can.
• If a person is arrested for public intoxication, the officer has to offer them either a breath or blood test to determine their level of intoxication. No they do not. Agents may conduct routine field sobriety tests, but breath or blood samples are not required.
• Just because a person has a designated driver, it’s okay to become intoxicated. No it’s not. Being intoxicated to the point of presenting a danger to yourself or others is grounds for arrest.

Then we get down to the good stuff:

Some Facts About Public Intoxication And Nightclubs

Many people do not understand how they can be arrested when they are inside a bar or a private club. Chapter 49.02 of the Texas Penal Code states: "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." Any location permitted to sell or serve alcoholic beverages is a public place.

People also confuse public intoxication with having a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08 or higher, which is the legal limit for driving in Texas. But an individual’s BAC is only half the story. Chapter 49.01(2)(a) of the Penal Code defines public intoxication as "not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; OR (b) having an alcohol concentration of .08 or more."

Alcohol affects different people in different ways. Just two or three drinks can cause some people to act in ways that they normally would not. Loud or slurred speech, exaggerated movements and unsteady balance are the most common symptoms exhibited. These are some of the things that law enforcement officials look for when dealing with individual suspected of being intoxicated. If an agent can articulate that a person does not have the normal use of mental or physical faculties, due to alcohol or drug consumption, then the agent can arrest that person for public intoxication.

Sales to Intoxicated Persons: Section 101.63 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code makes it a crime to sell alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person. Bartenders and wait staff are legally obligated to look out for these signs of intoxication and to refuse to continue serving someone who appears to be intoxicated. People in the service industry are encouraged to attend a TABC-approved Seller Training Course and be trained in how to identify minors and intoxicated persons.

Consequences: Public intoxication is a class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $500 for each occurrence. Not only that, most jails now require that a person arrested for public intoxication be held for at least 4 to 12 hours before being released. Selling alcohol to an intoxicated person is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500 and/or up to a year in jail. Just having either of these offenses on a person’s criminal record could affect their ability to get a job for the rest of their lives.

Contact: Carolyn Beck, Public Information Officer, 512-206-3347

Now we’re getting somewhere. We have the chapter and verse on where the PI clause exists in the state penal code AND they gave us Carolyn Beck’s phone number. If I had more cojones I would call her and ask if they have bothered to do a study on the impact of the program. If I was even more daring I would call her, ask that question and then when I received the inevitable no, I would ask for arrest details on the program so I could analyze the data myself. I bet I would not get that either.

After reading this I swung by Google to try and track down an online copy of the Texas Penal Code so I could read the entry on PI myself. Here is what I found in Title 10. Offenses Against Public Health, Safety, and Morals. (Morals, nice touch.)

Sec. 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.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the alcohol or other substance was administered for therapeutic purposes and as a part of the person’s professional medical treatment by a licensed physician.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under this section is not a lesser included offense under Section 49.04 [Driving While Intoxicated].
(e) An offense under this section committed by a person younger than 21 years of age is punishable in the same manner as if the minor committed an offense to which Section 106.071, Alcoholic Beverage Code, applies.

There you go loyal readers. I really don’t have any commentary on the law itself except to say that I do not like that it is left to the officer’s judgment. I promise to keep my eyes peeled for further developments on this case.

Nothing Sacred

Initially I was going to write about vodka and my not so recent adventures in drunkenness at a Russian New Years party, however today a friend brought the following articles to my attention which I felt warranted discussion here on the ‘Caust.

Officials Make Public Intoxication Arrests Inside Bars

IRVING, Texas – The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comission has taken its fight against druken driving to a new level. TABC agents, along with Irving police, targeted 36 bars and clubs Friday, arresting some allegedly intoxicated patrons before they departed the businesses.

This did not immediately get my dander up as I, like Scott, am bothered by people that are sloppy drunk in bars. I am sure most of this comes from the fact that when I am drinking in a bar it is more about spending time with friends than the actual drinking, but that is really a discussion for another time. As long as they were dragging the sloppy drunks and clearly debilitated people out of the bars, I was okay with it. Then I got to this paragraph:

The report also said that some agents shared tables with suspected drunken patrons. Some patrons were subjected to field sobriety tests inside bars.

So clearly they were not just getting the broken drunks but just regular patrons who might have imbibed a bit too much, or, like me, not able to pass a field sobriety test stone cold sober. This has also moved from that nebulous region that is somewhere between police overstepping their bounds and the desire to protect the public. This is the sort of thing that police states do and, though we may be headed that way, the last time I checked the good old U. S. of A. was not quite there yet.

Mr. TunaCan launched a fairly vitriolic screed against this practice via email claiming that the police were arresting people who were likely to commit a crime before any crime had actually been committed. Does this sound anything like a slightly more focused version of the racial profiling that police departments do not engage in, no sir, not at all. (Please note that the last nine words of the previous sentence are so dripping with sarcasm that you may not actually be able to make out the letters. Sorry about that. Of course if the police really wanted to practice their racial profiling on drunks they should just arrest all the Irish. Of course I think that’s just good public policy, but then sometimes I am not a good person on the inside.) The follow up article shared even more disturbing details about the pogrom staged for the public safety:

Bar Sweep Sparks Controversy

At one location, for example, agents and police arrested patrons of a hotel bar. Some of the suspects said they were registered at the hotel and had no intention of driving. Arresting authorities said the patrons were a danger to themselves and others.

"Going to a bar is not an opportunity to go get drunk," TABC Capt. David Alexander said. "It's to have a good time but not to get drunk."

Woah. Now hold up there Captain Sparky. Of course going to a bar is an opportunity to get drunk. I know more than a few people who view it as our national duty to get drunk when we go to a bar. Seriously you brown-shirt wearing git! Bartendees predilection for getting drunk is what keeps you in a job and by extension pays your mortgage, kid’s tuition, and wife’s cabana boy bills, if you know what I mean, so sit down and shut your trap.

As it turns out Deputy Dog was within the guidelines set up by Texas law:

Texas law states that inebriated individuals could be subjected to arrest anywhere for public intoxication.

Now I do not have the mad research skills to track down the chapter and verse so I am going to take the journalist’s word on this one. (Of course this is a journalist who decided to write an article and uses a comedian as the counterpoint to the TABC’s actions, so his/her journalistic instincts might be a bit suspect.) This leads me into the story of Ben, one of Mr. TunaCan’s college roommates.

Ben was, lets just say that Ben had issues, tons and tons of issues. I didn’t know him real well, but Mr. TunaCan seemed to like him well enough and I suppose he liked Mr. TunaCan as he gave him the moniker The Aardvark Captain of the Guard. Anyways, one day Ben disappears. For a couple of days. Initially no one was worried as Ben was a bit of a strange cat and unusual behavior was the norm, but after a while (I cannot remember the exact amount of time this took it may have only been hours or it may have been almost a whole day) people really started to get worried. We contacted the campus police in the attempt to file a missing persons report and learned that we had not exceeded the time limit for an adult. Eventually Ben turned up again after having been arrested between the U of H campus and downtown and eventually released. The charge? Public Intoxication. As I said at the beginning, Ben had issues, and he was taking medication for these issues, however Ben would not have known a cocktail if it grabbed him, smacked him around, and screamed, “SAY MY NAME!” at him. And he was in the pokey for PI.

When used judiciously the generic charge of public intoxication serves a good purpose. It allows officers to pick people up who are behaving in an erratic and/or dangerous manner and put them somewhere to cool their heels. From my limited knowledge, in Houston the charge of PI carries a fine that the judges’ bust down to time served after you spend a night in jail. In Ben’s case I feel the officers probably made the right decision, even though he was not drunk. He did not have any identification on him, was out of it (he had not taken his meds), and was a lonely white boy in, what back then, was a very dangerous neighborhood.

Clearly this recent action by the City of Irving and TABC steps FAR beyond the realm of judicious application. This maneuver has the stench of a couple of different things:

1. Somebody needed to justify their existence.
2. The City of Irving needed a little cash influx from the state and what better way to get this than incarcerating some drunks for the night.

The first one is pretty self-explanatory, however the second point may need some illumination. As I understand the criminal justice system here in Texas (which comes from a prison guard) when a person is taken to a city or county jail, the state gives the imprisoning entity money (let’s say $700) per day or partial day that the person is imprisoned. This little money train re-ups at midnight, therefore if you are arrested by HPD 4pm on Sunday, Houston then gets allocated $700 from the state. If you are still incarcerated at 12:01am on Monday, Houston gets allocated another $700 from the state. This is why when I was in the pokey for unpaid traffic tickets (I am so lame) I saw the judge sometime in the afternoon, however I was not processed out until about 3am. In addition to this the Irving police may have been on a little fishing expedition in an effort to get more money by catching people with outstanding warrants. They only arrested 30 people, but I would be interested to know how many people they questioned/tested/ran through the computers.

The justification for this entire exercise:

Agents and officers said the operation represented an effort to reduce drunken driving.

Sgt. Chris Hamilton, of the TABC, said some inebriated bar patrons "end up killing themselves or someone else" after departing the businesses.

Ah yes, the spectre of public safety rears its ugly, fascist head. I know I have heard public safety as a justification for the abrogation of American rights before. Where was that? Oh yeah, there was this little episode in American history. Not recent enough for you? Well, you’re all bright kids. I bet if you think about it long enough you can come up with something you have heard on the news recently. Something about the FISA Court and wire-tapping.

This post ended up wandering a bit farther afield than I intended, however I felt it important that you guys know this kind of crap is going on. As for me? They can have my beer glass when they pry it from my cold, dead hand. Or pick it up off the floor. If that’s the case please make sure I am on my face or side. Thanks for your consideration.