Aggressive police officer

[tranquility]

I realize that but it is a decent indicator of the condition of a person in general.

I disagree. One has to do with if it should be per se illegal to drive a machine on the roadway that can cause instant death to yourself and others and the other has to do with a single person walking around in public. If an officer arrested a person under a drunk in public statute and the person was only .08 on chemical testing, the officer is going to have to come up with a TON of facts that would indicate the statute has been violated. .08 is not "drunk". One of the more difficult public education problems is to show drivers .08 is far less than one would consider themselves drunk. (At least to the level where they would fulfill the statute--which seems rather high. In my state it would be unable to care for oneself or others, here it seems a danger to oneself or others. The annoy portion does not have a lot of case law but seems to be focused on the Otis of the town.)

 

[justalayman]

I disagree. One has to do with if it should be per se illegal to drive a machine on the roadway that can cause instant death to yourself and others and the other has to do with a single person walking around in public. If an officer arrested a person under a drunk in public statute and the person was only .08 on chemical testing, the officer is going to have to come up with a TON of facts that would indicate the statute has been violated. .08 is not "drunk". One of the more difficult public education problems is to show drivers .08 is far less than one would consider themselves drunk. (At least to the level where they would fulfill the statute--which seems rather high. In my state it would be unable to care for oneself or others, here it seems a danger to oneself or others. The annoy portion does not have a lot of case law but seems to be focused on the Otis of the town.)

well you can disagree all you want but the numbers were put into place for a reason:

at .02 a person generally exhibits signs of impairment

at .08 a person generally exhibits signs of intoxication.


they didn't just grab the numbers out of a hat.


My point was not to debate at what BAC a person is drunk. My point was to show that based on the OP's statements, he could have exhibited signs of being impaired or intoxicated which would allow for the actions the cop took. OP continues to argue that regardless what he had had to drink, he was not exhibiting signs of intoxication, or even impairment.

 

[quincy]

I disagree. One has to do with if it should be per se illegal to drive a machine on the roadway that can cause instant death to yourself and others and the other has to do with a single person walking around in public. If an officer arrested a person under a drunk in public statute and the person was only .08 on chemical testing, the officer is going to have to come up with a TON of facts that would indicate the statute has been violated. .08 is not "drunk". One of the more difficult public education problems is to show drivers .08 is far less than one would consider themselves drunk. (At least to the level where they would fulfill the statute--which seems rather high. In my state it would be unable to care for oneself or others, here it seems a danger to oneself or others. The annoy portion does not have a lot of case law but seems to be focused on the Otis of the town.)

I am thinking that the "annoy" portion is far too vague and broad to be enforceable.

 

[tranquility]

I am thinking that the "annoy" portion is far too vague and broad to be enforceable.

In the case I read, they pretty much said it was the same as disturbing the peace except with the person intoxicated.

 

[tranquility]

well you can disagree all you want but the numbers were put into place for a reason:

at .02 a person generally exhibits signs of impairment

at .08 a person generally exhibits signs of intoxication.


they didn't just grab the numbers out of a hat.


My point was not to debate at what BAC a person is drunk. My point was to show that based on the OP's statements, he could have exhibited signs of being impaired or intoxicated which would allow for the actions the cop took. OP continues to argue that regardless what he had had to drink, he was not exhibiting signs of intoxication, or even impairment.

The reason was to prevent people from driving a vehicle when they were feeling the effects of alcohol. That is not the same as drunk in public and continuing to conflate the number in any way is wrong. The key to the offense is behavior, not the level of alcohol.

 

[justalayman]

The reason was to prevent people from driving a vehicle when they were feeling the effects of alcohol. That is not the same as drunk in public and continuing to conflate the number in any way is wrong. The key to the offense is behavior, not the level of alcohol.

did you miss the part about my inclusion of the BAC limits for a driver was to show the OP that he likely did exhibit signs of having enough booze in him that the cop/guard had a valid right to deny him entry even with the OP protesting that he did not exhibit such signs. You can continue to try to attach it to stating I am arguing that some number is a legal determination of him being intoxicated but I have made no such claim. It was simply to show to the OP that he most likely he appeared to be buzzed or intoxicated.

of course if a person does not exhibit such signs at those levels a I guess most of the FST's given are meaningless.

 

[quincy]

In the case I read, they pretty much said it was the same as disturbing the peace except with the person intoxicated.

Could you provide the case, please, tranquility? Thanks.

 

[tranquility]

Could you provide the case, please, tranquility? Thanks.

I don't know if it was the case I read earlier, but:

Commonwealth v. Egolf, 38 Pa. D. & C. 3d 67 - Pa: Court of Common Pleas 1985

The real issue was the old statute read, "every person who becomes intoxicated by voluntarily drinking intoxicating liquors is guilty of the crime of drunkenness, and shall be punished as follows. . .", where as here the suspect was described:

For Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Mr. Egolf is quite simply the town drunk. While other citizens may have alcohol problems and others are arrested for public drunkenness, this defendant's addiction to alcohol and the conduct he displays as a result thereof, can only be described as world class. His record of convictions for public drunkenness would take a special appendix to document.[2] Sadly, Mr. Egolf has become 69*69 a quasi-permanent resident of the Cumberland County Prison. Predictably, while he is incarcerated and deprived of alcohol, he is a model prisoner. Unfortunately, despite all other efforts, when he is released from prison his renewed violations of section 5505 of the Crimes Code are as predictable as night following day. Ironically, it does not take a physician to tell us that he long ago would have died without the extended periods of imprisonment which allow his vital organs to recuperate from the ravages of alcohol.

In the case dicta, the court wrote:

"The offense of `public drunkenness,' which appears in Article F., `Offenses Against Public Order and Decency,' is closely akin to the offense of Disorderly Conduct which also appears in that article. It is directed, as is the disorderly conduct section, to protecting the general public against antisocial acts which violate public order and decency. The public drunkenness section is based on Model Penal Code 74*74 §250.5.[7] The comment to that section notes that `n most cases, the drunk will have been guilty of some other category of disorderly conduct, but it seems necessary to provide a basis for police action for those who, for example, are in a drunken stupor but not otherwise making a nuisance of themselves. . . .'[8]

"In his discussion of §5505, K. Jarvis comments, `This statute may be useful in dealing with the skid row person or the constant alcoholic. . . .'[9] We find that the statute was enacted to deal with the problem of chronic alcoholics who voluntarily appear on our streets, in our parks, in our neighborhoods, on a routine basis, shouting and cursing at real or imagined foes, causing disruption and annoyance." (Emphasis added.)

The case that quote was taken from was:
Com. v. Meyer, 431 A. 2d 287 - Pa: Superior Court 1981

However, even if we find that even if the area outside the Post may be considered a "public place," we hold that it was error to find appellant guilty of public drunkenness under the facts of this case. The offense of "public drunkenness," which appears in Article F., "Offenses Against Public Order and Decency," is closely akin to the offense of Disorderly Conduct which also appears in that article. It is directed, as is the disorderly conduct section, to protecting the general public against antisocial acts which violate public order and decency. The public drunkenness section is based on Model Penal Code § 250.5.[6] The comment to that section notes that "n most cases, the drunk will have been guilty of some other category of disorderly conduct, but it seems necessary to provide a basis for police action for those who, for example, are in a drunken stupor but not otherwise making a nuisance of themselves. . . ."[7] (Emphasis added.)

In his discussion of § 5505, K. Jarvis comments, "This statute may be useful in dealing with the skid row person or the constant alcoholic. . . ."[8] We find that the statute was enacted to deal with the problem of chronic alcoholics who voluntarily appear on our streets, in our parks, in our neighborhoods, on a routine basis, shouting and cursing at real or imagined foes, causing disruption and annoyance. It should not be used as the basis for arrest in a situation in which an intoxicated individual, who has not been shown to be a chronic alcoholic, is escorted by two policemen from a private place into an arguably public one. In order to be found guilty of public drunkenness, the accused must be in the "public place" voluntarily.

 

[tranquility]

did you miss the part about my inclusion of the BAC limits for a driver was to show the OP that he likely did exhibit signs of having enough booze in him that the cop/guard had a valid right to deny him entry even with the OP protesting that he did not exhibit such signs. You can continue to try to attach it to stating I am arguing that some number is a legal determination of him being intoxicated but I have made no such claim. It was simply to show to the OP that he most likely he appeared to be buzzed or intoxicated.

of course if a person does not exhibit such signs at those levels a I guess most of the FST's given are meaningless.

I guess you forgot the thematic point of the post when you brought up the irrelevancy in the first place:

Depending when you drank the drinks you could have been drunk. The more you drank closer to the end of that 6 hour period, the greater chance you actually were legally drunk.

With the conclusion of:

so, you can fill in the details but bottom line, you were likely impaired and very well could have been legally drunk.

To which I replied:

The per se limit of .08 has to do with specific driving statutes and has nothing to do with if a person is legally drunk.

And then, so on and so forth. While you keep coming back in disagreement, if you disagree with my statement, you are legally incorrect.

 

[quincy]

Thank you, tranquility.

The case you cited is not exactly what I was looking for, but it helps to explain why the phrase is included.

I was mostly curious if that particular phrase had been challenged as overly broad because of the "or" in the statute instead of an "and." And I have not been able to locate anything to indicate that it has.

At any rate, almost everyone annoys someone in their vicinity at some point in time (again I am flashing back to tailgate parties I have attended ), so I question the way the statute is worded.

 

[justalayman]

I guess you forgot the thematic point of the post when you brought up the irrelevancy in the first place:
With the conclusion of:


To which I replied:


And then, so on and so forth. While you keep coming back in disagreement, if you disagree with my statement, you are legally incorrect.

Legally incorrect? whine all you wish but the purpose of my statement, which apparently you are too focused on the law books to see is;

The numbers provided are a pretty good place to consider where a person would be observably impaired or intoxicated. I was speaking to the op's claim he was not impaired or drunk. Nothing more regardless what you want to try to make of my statements.

 

[tranquility]

Legally incorrect? whine all you wish but the purpose of my statement, which apparently you are too focused on the law books to see is;

The numbers provided are a pretty good place to consider where a person would be observably impaired or intoxicated. I was speaking to the op's claim he was not impaired or drunk. Nothing more regardless what you want to try to make of my statements.

Sorry to focus on the law when we're talking about the law. Your continued attempt to square the circle only shows you were not. Fair enough.

 

[tranquility]

Thank you, tranquility.

The case you cited is not exactly what I was looking for, but it helps to explain why the phrase is included.

I was mostly curious if that particular phrase had been challenged as overly broad because of the "or" in the statute instead of an "and." And I have not been able to locate anything to indicate that it has.

At any rate, almost everyone annoys someone in their vicinity at some point in time (again I am flashing back to tailgate parties I have attended ), so I question the way the statute is worded.

It surprised me as well. Not only just the "annoy", which seemed vague and why I searched for case law describing it in the first place, but also for the "danger" portion. While I suppose being unable to care for yourself or others (My state's wording.) could be stretched into being a danger to yourself or others, my state does not require the "annoy" wording. A passed out drunk in public is unable to care for himself. We save danger to yourself or others for 5150-type holds.

 

[justalayman]

Sorry to focus on the law when we're talking about the law. Your continued attempt to square the circle only shows you were not. Fair enough.

I was making a point. Apparently it has eluded you. Time to open your mind.

 

[tranquility]

I was making a point. Apparently it has eluded you. Time to open your mind.

You imagined facts to come to some conclusion that was irrelevant. Your point was to say the person was "drunk" because you can imagine some facts that might indicate he was over .08 BAC. That is not a good point as that is not the definition. It only has meaning within the context of specific statutes that give a per se limit. The key is behavior. Most of the time the police don't even attempt to get a BAC because it is not really relevant--the behavior is what matters. Behavior related to drinking. Not behavior related to a specific BAC. All an officer needs to do is smell the order of alcohol and the person does behavior consistent with intoxication that otherwise rises to the elements of the statute and he is going to be found guilty in most instances. The real issue in the OPs story is not going to be intoxication. Even though he said he was not intoxicated, the fact that was important (and the officer knew) was, "a police officer turned me away at the door for 'not being about to walk on my own' ...except I was currently walking on my own." It is the behavior because of intoxication, not the BAC.

Your point does not elude me, I get it. However, it is not illegal to be in public with a .08 BAC. Nor is it illegal to be in public with a .16 BAC. Or, more. To go through some facts and to adjust them to make things worse in order to get to some holy grail of what the state's per se limit is on driving a vehicle was silly. I only mentioned the legal error in a single sentence. I don't know why my legally correct statement bothers you so much, but let me tell you why your irrelevant calculation bothers me.

One, I disagree with the per se limit in general. I believe it was placed in the law in order to make convicting drivers easier. I would prefer the police prove up intoxication by the driving behaviors and disagree with a statistical theory of when people in the middle sigmas of a bell curve are affected by alcohol. Using such a number to prove a person is "drunk" outside of the context of driving a motor vehicle is well outside of what the number was designed to do or reflect.

Two, and more importantly, public drunkenness is something most people have seen. While a cop can get away with arresting a person that is not showing the effects of alcohol/drugs that much under such statutes--they don't really do so. They save it for people who are well in the bag and are acting unreasonably because of it. From having people think of the .08 in the context of public drunkenness, they ALSO tend to make the same error and conflate the two. Except, they do it the other way. "I'm OK to drive. It's not like I'm drunk." while thinking of that guy they knew who was drunk in public. .08 is not usually that guy.

Finally, do you think a person with a .02 BAC is intoxicated? Can they be? What if they are under age? What if that state has an underage driver violate per se limits for DUI with a .02?