Montford said most offenses in the Texas penal code include some stipulations about a suspect's mental state, such as whether they acted recklessly or intentionally. They also put the burden of proving the offense's veracity on prosecutors.The offense accounts for a significant number of arrests for a Class C misdemeanor. "Austin police made about 5,600 public intoxication arrests last year, according to data obtained by the American-Statesman through an Texas Public Information Act request. In the past five years, the department has typically made between 5,500 and 6,000 arrests annually, except in 2009 when that number rose to 6,730 arrests, according to the data."
But the public intoxication charge has none of this, Montford said, especially when compared with the state's laws against driving while intoxicated. "When you compare the two, the amount of evidence that goes into a DWI" is massive, she said, such as a field sobriety test and breath or blood alcohol tests. "There's none that goes into P.I."
Attorney David Gonzalez said he has represented college students who drove to the entertainment district downtown, had some drinks, decided it was best not to drive and then were arrested for public intoxication while walking home.
Gonzalez said the public intoxication charge is "the only law on the books that allows hypotheticals."
"Hypothetically, they could trip and fall down, so they're a danger to themselves or others," he said. In all other crimes, from theft to murder, a criminal act has to have been committed to justify a charge, he said.
While public intoxication is only a class C misdemeanor, meaning it is punishable by a fine not to exceed $500, it is also an arrestable offense and one that could cause problems at job interviews and other situations, attorneys said.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Public intoxication, hypothetical harms, and 'contempt of badge'
The Austin Statesman today published a story ("Public intoxication laws too fuzzy, critics say," March 27) questioning Austin PD's alleged use of public intoxication charges as "contempt of badge" and detailing the loosey goosey standards under which the law is enforced. "I can't believe the haphazardness with which they're arresting people for public intoxication," former DA candidate Mindy Montford told the paper. "You'd be hard-pressed in the penal code to find another crime as subjective as this one."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
11 comments:
Public Intoxication charges have long been a local favorite with city police. They avoid the much more lengthy DWI protocol, paperwork, etc., and keep the fines in city coffers. It further behoves the charged to simply plead no contest and pay the Misdemeanor fine rather than face attorney fees, and local municipal judges, who always seem to collect their court costs and fees somehow.
(To qualify this response, the writed has never been charged with either.)
Cops always like to have a charge that allows them to address order maintenance issues. Historically its been vagrancy, disturbing the peace, petty possession and public intox charges. most cases it's not about violating the law but it's about maintaining the peace or, as already remarked, disrespecting the 'badge'.:~)
The PI charge has been used not just against people who were legally sober, but against people who have no zero alcohol or other intoxicants.
Because there is no standard of proof, all it takes is an officer testilying that someone's behavior indicated they were intoxicated to the degree that they were a danger to themselves or others.
I was pulled over cause I was searching for a lighter cause I was swerving somewhat. Anyway to make a long story short he found a pipe in my purse and asked to look in my mouth so I let him and he went back to searching the car and couldn't find anything so he's pissed off cause he couldn't find anything and comes back to the back of the car and starts choking me hard with both arms...his forearm leaning on my breasts where I couldn't breathe and I finally got it out if he'd stop choking me I'd let him see my mouth. So he looked in my mouth again. Then a woman cop searched and found nothing. Later I told him he had no right to be choking like that and he said he could do that in case I was eating the evidence. This was almost 10 minutes later. Should I file a complaint on him? He also said he was gonna keep pulling me over if he saw me again. Any feedback?
The cops like to use the phrase "may be a danger to himself or others", keying on the word "may". So if you're playing softball and you have a bat in your hands, you "may" be a danger to others. If you drink a beer or two, you are now PI. If you go bowling, you "may" be a danger to yourself, such as by dropping the ball on your foot. Have a few beers and, well, you get the picture.
It couldn't be the cops are drunk with power, could it? No, that never happens.
If the Sheriff cannot control his men, maybe they need to elect a different one--- At least until some appointed communitarian committee is put in to override the elected office (as with Tax Appraisal District; and you should see what they're doing by the coast with the Houston-Galveston Area Council overriding 13 counties).
And I can never get the 'captcha' on the first try or so.
your nicer than i am!
"Anonymous said...
I was pulled over cause I was searching for a lighter cause I was swerving somewhat. Anyway to make a long story short he found a pipe in my purse and asked to look in my mouth so I let him and he went back to searching the car and couldn't find anything so he's pissed off cause he couldn't find anything and comes back to the back of the car and starts choking me hard with both arms...his forearm leaning on my breasts where I couldn't breathe and I finally got it out if he'd stop choking me I'd let him see my mouth. So he looked in my mouth again. Then a woman cop searched and found nothing. Later I told him he had no right to be choking like that and he said he could do that in case I was eating the evidence. This was almost 10 minutes later. Should I file a complaint on him? He also said he was gonna keep pulling me over if he saw me again. Any feedback?"
As far as i'm concerned at this point he's comitted at a minimum AGRAVATED ASSAUT with a deadly weapon and the female cop is an accessory. I'd have no problem after he was stupid enough to assaulting me in opening the trunk and pulling a gun and blowing both of them away. Him for assault and threatening MY LIFE and her as an accessry after the fact for standing there and letting hiim do it!
I wouldn't go as far as rodsmith...
I'd just make sure there are two complaints. One, for assault, two for threatening to target you forever.
Fantasy: target the officer's wife or daughter. Go in her car, grab her purse, look in her mouth. Choke her.
--Lava--
Ron White: "I was drunk in a bar! They! threw me into public!"
Unknown: Officer: "We are arresting your friend for DWI. Would you please step out of the car?"
Rider "Nope, if I get out I'll be in public."
Officer "I need to know if you can operate this vehicle. Are you inebriated?"
Rider "Inebriated? I'm so danged drunk I thought HE was sober!"
As a many-year jailer, PI is more often used for contemtp of cop than for PI. I'd say of the PI arrests presented to me probably no more than 20% were legit.
i seriously doubt...from everything i have read both here and otherwise...PI will ever have the tests as a DWI.
a PI charge is an effective tool in a negative way to the general public @ large because of the broad interpretation of any and all cops and it seems the courts as well.
case in point: a young man who upon learning his uncle had died and became emotional(crying) was in fact charged with a PI....
he went to court and pleaded 'not guilty' but of course was charged anyway.....he also could not afford a lawyer and since the charge is a fine charge...could not request a public defender either....
nope...folks i do not see a change whatsoever or ending to this....but wish i did.
Post a Comment