public intoxication / disorderly conduct

[webhead2]

What is the name of your state? SC

I was at a bar on a Saturday evening with a few friends and I was drinking. This is the type of place that has like 20 bars / clubs right in one spot and people often walk from one to anohter.

My friends and I leave the bar, and begin walking down the side walk. We were walking and having a conversation and were not being loud.

Just then, a police officer in a K-9 units pulls and asks "who is driving?". Bothe my friends said that they weren't driving and I also said that I did not plan to drive. There are always a row of taxi cabs waiting at this place.

So anyway, I continued to walk and he stopped his car, got out an arrested me for public intoxication.

No Miranda rights were read and no sobriety test was offered at any time. I spent the night in jail and I pleaded not guilty to the judge in the morning. He gave me the lowest fine possible and I was released later that day.

I really feel that my rights were violated, although some of the public intox laws on the books are ridiculous. Apparently, a police officer can arrest you for being intoxicated INSIDE a bar, if he wishes. He can just come up and arrest you....

Doy ou think I have a leg to stand on? I really can't afford an expensive lawyer and I make too much money for a public defender.

I ultimately would like to have the charge dropped and I have 2 witnesses that have agreed to testify on my behalf. I work in a professional field and all of my jobs have required background checks. I am worried about my financial future because of this.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by webhead2

No Miranda rights were read and no sobriety test was offered at any time.

Neither is required. Though some form of proof of inebriation might be required for a public intoxication arrest.

I spent the night in jail and I pleaded not guilty to the judge in the morning. He gave me the lowest fine possible and I was released later that day.

You paid a fine? Or you made bail? If you paid a fine, that would seem to be a guilty plea.

I really feel that my rights were violated, although some of the public intox laws on the books are ridiculous. Apparently, a police officer can arrest you for being intoxicated INSIDE a bar, if he wishes. He can just come up and arrest you....

If you are intoxicated in a public place, of course he can arrest you. All because a person is in a bar doesn't mean that they have a right to be zonked! If a person wants to get blotto, they can do so in the privacy of their own home ... or someone else's home.

It really depends on the statute under which you are arrested. If you feel your rights were somehow violated, the first thing you need to do is to go to court and be found not guilty. After that, you can consider a civil suit against the officer or the agency. Keep in mind that not being found guilty does not mean that you will be able to successfully sue the officer or the agency. A case can be dropped or lose for reasons other than the defendant's innocence. Failing to prove guilt is NOT the same as saying there was no good cause for the arrest.

Doy ou think I have a leg to stand on? I really can't afford an expensive lawyer and I make too much money for a public defender.

The state has to prove the elements of the offense - whatever it is. Any criminal defense attorney will probably do.

I ultimately would like to have the charge dropped and I have 2 witnesses that have agreed to testify on my behalf. I work in a professional field and all of my jobs have required background checks. I am worried about my financial future because of this.

Well, your two friends (who were arguably as inebriated as you were - or nearly so) are not going to be compelling witnesses in court.

But, again, the state has to show you were in violation of the statute (which you have not listed) so they will have to establish the elements of the offense at trial.

- Carl

[webhead2]

Hey Carl, thanks for the response.

The statute is 71875EG

I had to pay the fines to be discharged, what they told me. I entered a plea of not guilty and have a court date.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by webhead2

Hey Carl, thanks for the response.

The statute is 71875EG

I had to pay the fines to be discharged, what they told me. I entered a plea of not guilty and have a court date.

That configuration does not conform to the SC statutes ... if it is a local code section, you might be able to go to your city or county web site and look it up.

- Carl

[lwpat]

You need to request a jury trial. You have no chance in front of the municipal judge. If it is important enough, retain an attorney. Usually he can work it out to get the charge dismissed. Probably 50/50 chance. Sounds like you were at Five Points.

[webhead2]

Well, I had a consultation with an attorney. For $300 she claims that she can have the charges dropped.

She claims they are BS charges.

For they website user who claims "that if I want to become intoxicated I can do it at my own place." Well, of course I can. You must be a retired PIG or something. First off, there was no proof that any of us were "intoxicated" as defined by the law.

I see this a a flagrant abuse of power and I intend to speak up against it in a court of law, win or lose.

I should not have to worry about being arrested while walking down the street. So much for civil liberties.

The Bill of Rights is quickly becoming a useless document in our society and I suggest that we defend it before it becomes completely obselete.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by webhead2

Well, I had a consultation with an attorney. For $300 she claims that she can have the charges dropped.

Be leery of any attorney that makes such a guarantee. In my state they are not in the practice of dropping charges.

She claims they are BS charges.

Of course she did. She got your business, didn't she?

For they website user who claims "that if I want to become intoxicated I can do it at my own place." Well, of course I can. You must be a retired PIG or something. First off, there was no proof that any of us were "intoxicated" as defined by the law.

*I* said it, and I am not a "retired" anything - certainly not a retired pork product. I am a law enforcement administrator in a state other than yours. Please point out where what I wrote was incorrect in any fashion.

Also, please point out where I said or inferred that you WERE intoxicated as defined by SC state law? Note that to beat the charge you have to know what the charge is so that you can argue some manner of reasonable doubt for one or more of the elements of the offense. Since the statute you cited to me was not apparently a state statute, I can only surmise it is a local one and thus might have elements that are not as stringent as the state definition for public intoxication.

I see this a a flagrant abuse of power and I intend to speak up against it in a court of law, win or lose.

Knock yourself out.

But, if the charges are not filed or are "dropped" then you will not have that platform. Keep in mind that reasonable suspicion to detain, and probable cause to arrest are not as great a level of proof as that needed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. to go to court).

I should not have to worry about being arrested while walking down the street. So much for civil liberties.

Without reading the report, you don't know why the officer says he stopped you. It may have been a stretch, or, it may have been perfectly reasonable. Who knows?

- Carl

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

Originally Posted by webhead2

The Bill of Rights is quickly becoming a useless document in our society and I suggest that we defend it before it becomes completely obselete.

Where is the right to stumble around loaded in the BOR? Must be one of those mystery amendments.

[webhead2]

Originally Posted by LeeHarveyBlotto

Where is the right to stumble around loaded in the BOR? Must be one of those mystery amendments.

That's right, when you ASSume you make an ASS out of YOU and ME.

Did I stutter? I said I was walking, not stumbling.

PIGS often abuse their power, contrary to popular belief.

I thought this was a legal advice forum.

All most people seem to do is jump to conclusions at the notion that I must have something to hide. Ignorance is no excuse.

Much of the advice offered to me and others is laden with ignorance and presumptions of guilt.

Good job, folks.

This forum is worthless, I won't be back.

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

Well, you'll certainly be missed.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by webhead2

Did I stutter? I said I was walking, not stumbling.

Perhaps you were in some other way appearing to be inebriated. One does not HAVE to be stumbling to be in violation of a law relating to alcohol consumption or behavior.

PIGS often abuse their power, contrary to popular belief.

And drunks often don't understand their condition, contrary to popular belief.

None of us know if you were or were not drunk. Slinging insults around simply makes it easier to understand how you likely talked your way into handcuffs on the night in question. Attitude is often the deciding factor in such things ... I suspect you failed that test.

I thought this was a legal advice forum.

It is. The fact that you do not want to heed or listen to any of it is not our problem. You have been given an analysis of your situation - as best that CAN be provided with the limited and biased source o the information.

All most people seem to do is jump to conclusions at the notion that I must have something to hide. Ignorance is no excuse.

In my post you jumped on one line where I commented you could get drunk in your own home and proceeded to hurl insults. Perhaps you should look at your own attitude, friend.

Much of the advice offered to me and others is laden with ignorance and presumptions of guilt.

If you'd care to re-read my initial reply (and even the second one) or lwpat's, you'd find no such presumption. Guilty conscience?

This forum is worthless, I won't be back.

::shrug::

Oh well.

- Carl

[webhead2]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Without reading the report, you don't know why the officer says he stopped you. It may have been a stretch, or, it may have been perfectly reasonable. Who knows?

- Carl

I don't have to read the report, I was there.

[webhead2]

Originally Posted by LeeHarveyBlotto

Where is the right to stumble around loaded in the BOR? Must be one of those mystery amendments.

Yeah right, I was loaded and stumbling. Where is the objectivity here?

I was neither "loaded" nor "stumbling".

thanks for your brilliant insight!

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by webhead2

I don't have to read the report, I was there.

And, apparently, you were inebriated.

What I meant was that the officers' version of events may differ from yours. They may have articulated a reasonable belief to think you were intoxicated within the definition of the violation in your state. Without seeing what their justification is, we (and you) do not know why they thought you were drunk.

- Carl

[webhead2]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

And, apparently, you were inebriated.

- Carl

Yep! I must have been! If some PIG said I was drunk, then he is OBVIOUSLY right.

I gave him NO inkling I was even drinking BEFORE he approached me.

I did not stumble, I did not slur....

I was minding my own business when the pig arrived to ruin my Saturday evening.

Oink!