TexasCHLforum.com

Why are y'all complaining? It has stopped bad people from bringing guns into nightclubs, hasn't it?

Here's a thought, If the area is licensed for on premises consumption then officers can not arrest someone for Public intoxication. Logically it would follow officers would need to be aware of this so the reasonable solution to determining if the event location is off limits would be to ask an officer if someone is consuming alcohol in that very location would they face charges. If the answer is no they would not then the location is logically licensed and off limits, otherwise the inverse would be true.

In reality I don't recommend trying the above or you might get the chance to point your attorney to this thread and suggest he read the post Charles made about how he would argue it...

G.A. Heath wrote:Here's a thought, If the area is licensed for on premises consumption then officers can not arrest someone for Public intoxication. Logically it would follow officers would need to be aware of this so the reasonable solution to determining if the event location is off limits would be to ask an officer if someone is consuming alcohol in that very location would they face charges. If the answer is no they would not then the location is logically licensed and off limits, otherwise the inverse would be true.

In reality I don't recommend trying the above or you might get the chance to point your attorney to this thread and suggest he read the post Charles made about how he would argue it...

Thanks. I hadn't thought about that angle before. I've made contact with at Lt. on the Lewisville PD and may ask him that question. I'm sure that the officers who patrol Western Days would not allow someone to be publicly obnoxious but they may use something besides PI to put on the silver bracelets. I'll ponder sending a letter to the City Manager suggesting that the city is giving up the right to prosecute PI by posting the 51% sign. Perhaps it would at least trigger a legal review.

As usual, this could all be prevented if we had enough decent people in the Legislature who would simplify the carry laws.
I'm not holding my breath.

RossA wrote:As usual, this could all be prevented if we had enough decent people in the Legislature who would simplify the carry laws.
I'm not holding my breath.

You mean something like don't carry if you are drunk (same threshold as for driving), but the mere presence of alcohol that others are consuming does not suddenly make you a danger to carry. Unlike smoking, there is no second hand drunk concept that I know of.

I'll repeat what I said up thread. HB 560 would have solved this and many other issues.

G.A. Heath wrote:If the area is licensed for on premises consumption then officers can not arrest someone for Public intoxication.

This is not an accurate statement. TABC agents and police officers arrest people in bars all the time for PI. If they do, the agents will also usually arrest the bartender/waitress for serving an intoxicated person.

The requirements for public intoxication are that the person be:
A. in a public place, and
B. intoxicated to the point of being a danger to himself or others.

A business that has a license from TABC to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption is usually a public place. The definition of public place is any place that is open to a significant portion of the public, either by physical entry or by view (looking in). It has nothing to do with the ownership of the property.

And yes, there have been many cases where courts have ruled that a person's living room is a public place. One case involved a man who liked to stand in front of his window while nude. He was charged with disorderly conduct for exposing himself while in a public place.

srothstein wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:If the area is licensed for on premises consumption then officers can not arrest someone for Public intoxication.

This is not an accurate statement. TABC agents and police officers arrest people in bars all the time for PI. If they do, the agents will also usually arrest the bartender/waitress for serving an intoxicated person.

The requirements for public intoxication are that the person be:
A. in a public place, and
B. intoxicated to the point of being a danger to himself or others.

A business that has a license from TABC to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption is usually a public place. The definition of public place is any place that is open to a significant portion of the public, either by physical entry or by view (looking in). It has nothing to do with the ownership of the property.

And yes, there have been many cases where courts have ruled that a person's living room is a public place. One case involved a man who liked to stand in front of his window while nude. He was charged with disorderly conduct for exposing himself while in a public place.

Thanks for the correction. I based my pevious post off a conversation with a local LEO who believed otherwise and had assumed his information to be accurate due to the city recently going wet. I will also relay this to him as well. Thanks!