Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/6/2003 12:17:47 AM EST
Cops go to bars to arrest drunks Gestapo-like tactics prompt outrage, complaints among owners, citizenry -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: January 6, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com In the ongoing effort to keep public places clear of intoxicated citizens and drunk drivers, some police agencies are using a controversial tactic – going directly into bars and restaurants in order to make arrests. Such is the situation in northern Virginia, where Fairfax County Police are targeting patrons suspected of having one too many. "[Officers] were talking to one of the guests, then physically pulled him off the barstool," Richie Prisco, general manager at Champps bar told the Reston Times. "They were really aggressive and nasty." According to the report, police are hauling customers outside of establishments to conduct sobriety tests, then arresting them for public drunkenness should they fail. Tavern owner Jimmy Cirrito says it was intimidating and unnecessary to have some ten officers show up in SWAT-like attire. He notes police seemed to be tagging people at random, despite their telling bar owners they had undercover agents inside, calling in to provide specific descriptions of certain individuals. "They tapped one lady on the shoulder – who was on her first drink and had just eaten dinner – to take her out on the sidewalk and give her a sobriety test," Cirrito told the paper. "They told her she fit the description of a woman they had complaints about, and that they heard she was dancing topless." Cirrito said the woman passed the test and was allowed back in, but soon after, police pulled another woman outside who had arrived shortly before officers did. "They made her count backward, say the alphabet, tell them where she lived, how she got there, how she was getting home," he said. "She had just gotten there five minutes ago in a cab." Authorities say such methods are not new, despite protests from bar owners that they've never heard of police coming inside their establishments to enforce drinking laws. "I've been an officer for over 17 years, and we've been doing it on and off over my entire career," police spokeswoman Sophia Grinnan told the Times. "As much as officers hate to spoil a good time, they hate even more to go out at 2 a.m. and work a death of anybody that is alcohol-related." Virginia statutes say any business with a liquor license is considered a public place; therefore, police are allowed free access. If they find someone over the legal alcohol limit of .08, or suspect a customer of being intoxicated while still being served or present in an establishment, police can issue a ticket for public intoxication. In response to complaints the raids were overly aggressive, Grinnan said, "I've had bar owners come up to me [and] ask what is going on, but I've also had some approach me aggressively, telling me I couldn't be there and I was violating their constitutional rights. We love to give explanations of what we're doing because it has an impact, but officers don't have to give up their game plan. That is just a courtesy." In the wake of the published report, citizens appear to be siding with the bar owners and patrons, gauging from posts in an online messageboard. "The way police are handling the drink situation is the biggest B.S. I have ever heard of," wrote Ray Williams. "I lost a son (at age 16) a few years ago, and I most certainly support stopping anyone from drinking and driving. However, this police raid that seems to take place at some local bars is just totally crazy. ... Are we now living in a communist environment where we are not allowed to do anything without being harassed by the military/police?" Russ Heisinger of Northport, N.Y., asked: "What is next, the alcohol police entering your home on Super Bowl Sunday, and inviting you outside to take a breath test? A solution would be for all the bar and restaurant owners to become 'private clubs,' and charge a very nominal fee for membership. However, the true solution is for the 'Barney Fifes' there to uphold the part of the Constitution about unlawful search, and to remember that we are after all, a free society, unless the cops think this is Baghdad!" Others, like Don Armstrong, urged people to reject field sobriety tests, and request a blood-alcohol test at a local hospital. "I have a form of arthritis that often affects my speech patterns and walking abilities," he wrote. "Under their standards of an acceptable set of motor functions, I would fail even if I never had an alcoholic drink."
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 12:56:24 AM EST
that sucks!, But I wish It happened to me...I would immediatly file suit, and win. is this in VA?
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 1:02:22 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 1:28:28 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 2:29:20 AM EST
I guess this doesn't violate civil rights or the law since it is a public place. Still, seems like BS to me. I mean, unless you are getting into a car to drive, or causing a problem for the other patrons in the bar, I see no reason the "state" should give a damn how drunk you get. No ones business but your own. Somehow, I suspect if someone choose not to comply and simply said "go ahead and arrest me" that they would have a field day in court. I mean, what charges are going to be filed? Unless disorderly can be shown, no way a simple drunk (without breathalyzer etc) in a BAR is going to be a conviction. The way to stop this crap is to refuse to cooperate. I would just "quietly" without aggresion tell them to arrest me or leave me be.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 6:32:52 AM EST
I'm kinda surprised that some places still have "public drunkeness" on the books. I wasn't drunk in public, I was in a bar, they dragged me into public..........
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 6:49:37 AM EST
Public Drunkenness inside a bar? Sounds like a good civil case to me. And they do not need the bar owners permission to enter? And no one called them? hmmmmmm. I don't think that shit would fly here in AZ.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 6:50:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/6/2003 6:51:52 AM EST by gunman0]
Some bars already check ID's before entering, so there is an easy solution. Just say it is a private club with free membership. Then the police can't enter. Oy yeah, I bet there haven't been any raids on bars that are common police hangouts, where they are routinely intoxicated!
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 7:30:32 AM EST
In California, CPC 647f Drunk in public, requires the person to be "unable to care for themself." In other words, unless your falling down the stairs, staggerring into traffic, or passed out on your back in the parking lot, the elements of the crime have not been met. What the VA cops are doing is something Alcohol Beverage Control should be working. Instead of street cops pulling bar patrons outside for FSTs. It should be ABC agents citing THE BAR OWNER for serving the customers too many drinks. It is illegal for a bartender to serve an obviously intoxicated person, and the Bar can lose it's liquor license for it.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 7:32:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 7:37:49 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 7:39:22 AM EST
It's the new trend in law enforcement. Arrest people based on what they MIGHT do rather than what they've done.
"I've been an officer for over 17 years, and we've been doing it on and off over my entire career," police spokeswoman Sophia Grinnan told the Times. "As much as officers hate to spoil a good time, they hate even more to go out at 2 a.m. and work a death of anybody that is alcohol-related."
View Quote
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 7:44:51 AM EST
no, it's arrest the easy targets of opportunity. this is pure profiling. if these police people ("people" being politically correct ???) have so damn much time on their hands why aren't they out profiling middle eastern "people" between the ages of 14 and 50? mcole
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 8:01:03 AM EST
Originally Posted By legrue: It's the new trend in law enforcement. Arrest people based on what they MIGHT do rather than what they've done.
View Quote
You are partially correct. But it would more accurately be stated as arresting people for the minor offense they have already committed, in the hopes of preventing a more serious offense. By arresting the gang member for Unlicensed Driver, you prevent the drive by shooting. By arresting the college kid for Rohypnol possession, you prevent the rape. By arresting the drunk for Drunk in public, you prevent the vehicular homicide. It's called proactive policing, also known as crime prevention. What the Tin Foil Hat crowd complains we dont do enough of.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 8:08:01 AM EST
According to the report, police are hauling customers outside of establishments to conduct sobriety tests, then arresting them for public drunkenness should they fail.
View Quote
That's a very old trick. "Come step outside of your house so we can talk," then boom get arrested. There was an article in the local paper complaining about Clemson, SC police doing that to students. The article claimed that if it was an apartment complex, all the cops had to do was talk the person into stepping out onto any public area. Taking one step out of your door, if you were drunk, meant you could be arrested. Dirty trick. I don't drink and other than to eat, don't go to bars so I might not know what I'm talking about, but there seems something very wrong in the concept that you can't get drunk in a bar. What is the place for then?z
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 8:18:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/6/2003 8:32:48 AM EST by prk]
So what exactly can the police legally do if they ask questions and the target just doesn't answer, or politely declines to answer the questions? Or if they tell the person to perform some test, and they just decline to do so? Or if they tell the person to step outside and the person says, "No, thanks." Of course, if the guy says "Shhhhorrrrry, oshifer, I reeeesshpecttttttttfullllly ree-fuuuuuse", then falls off his chair or loses his grip on the bar & stumbles, then that's probably reasonable suspicion right there.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 8:21:30 AM EST
That would destroy the economy in this area. Unless you are a sports fan the only thing to do past 9pm in this area is drink. ( we don't have lights at the range )
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 8:45:44 AM EST
Originally Posted By prk: So what exactly can the police legally do if they ask questions and the target just doesn't answer, or politely declines to answer the questions?
View Quote
Arrest based on the objective symptoms of intoxication alone. Odor of an alcoholic beverage on the breath. Bloodshot, watery eyes. Slurred Speech. Run the PVS tape on record for the drive to jail. To catch your drunken ramblings for the jury. Then force blood at the jail. Courts have determined your bodies natural processing of the alcohol in you blood stream is the destruction of evidence, Therefore police can legally draw blood, by force if necessary, to collect that evidence. Then video tape the booking process. to catch your staggered gait, mussed hair, disheveled clothing ect on tape. Any kid over 12 can spot a drunk person when they see one. So can a juyry of 12.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 9:03:35 AM EST
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By legrue: It's the new trend in law enforcement. Arrest people based on what they MIGHT do rather than what they've done.
View Quote
You are partially correct. But it would more accurately be stated as arresting people for the minor offense they have already committed, in the hopes of preventing a more serious offense. By arresting the gang member for Unlicensed Driver, you prevent the drive by shooting. By arresting the college kid for Rohypnol possession, you prevent the rape. By arresting the drunk for Drunk in public, you prevent the vehicular homicide. It's called proactive policing, also known as crime prevention. What the Tin Foil Hat crowd complains we dont do enough of.
View Quote
You are also partially correct. If you were totally correct, I would agree with you. But if the article is to be believed, the cops are randomly picking people to test. This is where they cross the line from 'crime prevention' to 'harassment' IMO. Also notice the statement that they have 'undercover' cops directing the uniforms, but that the observed actions do not support this? Gosh, could they be lying to CYA? I will be the first to defend LEOs against unwarranted attacks from the tinfoil crowd and the first to call them on transgressions such as this.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 9:25:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/6/2003 9:27:53 AM EST by 9divdoc]
Tavern owner Jimmy Cirrito says it was intimidating and unnecessary to have some ten [blue]officers show up in SWAT-like attire[/blue]. He notes [blue]police seemed to be tagging people at random,[/blue] [u]despite their telling bar owners they had undercover agents inside, calling in to provide specific descriptions of certain individuals[/u]. "They tapped one lady on the shoulder – who was on her first drink and had just eaten dinner – to take her out on the sidewalk and give her a sobriety test," Cirrito told the paper. [blue]"They told her she fit the description of a woman they had complaints about, and that they heard she was dancing topless." [/blue] Cirrito said [blue]the woman passed the test and was allowed back in, but soon after, police pulled another woman outside who had arrived shortly before officers did.[/blue]
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 9:50:05 AM EST
AR15Fan, your asnwering the question very one sided, as if everyone questioned was drunk or even drinking. If they arrest you without an official complaint, view no illeagal activity, have no witnesses to an alleged activity and you do not cause a public disturbence just call your lawyer and remember the badge numbers, your payday has arrived. Without all of the above all they can do is demand to see ID. SorryOciffer
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 10:09:07 AM EST
Originally Posted By SorryOciffer: AR15Fan, your asnwering the question very one sided
View Quote
If you go back and read my first reply in this thread, you will see I dont even think this is an issue for street cops at all. It's an ABC issue. My other post are replies to specific questions, or to posters who are using this one flawed example as a reason to attack the entire concept of proactive police work. I am not defending these officers. But I am, and will, defend proactive policing. It's the patrol model my agency uses and I'm a strong believer in it. You can lower your incidences of major crimes by arresting for minor crimes. As misdemeanor arrest go up, Violent felonies go down.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 10:12:59 AM EST
Originally Posted By 9divdoc: Tavern owner Jimmy Cirrito says it was intimidating and unnecessary to have some ten [blue]officers show up in SWAT-like attire[/blue].
View Quote
What is "SWAT-like attire"? Is it anything like Gang-like attire or Militia-like attire? Profiling is baaad MmmmKaaay......
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 11:06:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/6/2003 11:07:09 AM EST by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 11:14:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By legrue: It's the new trend in law enforcement. Arrest people based on what they MIGHT do rather than what they've done.
View Quote
Is that a problem? Most people on this board don't have a problem with it when it comes to arresting swarthy-looking citizens with foreign connections for what they MIGHT do (like Jose Padilla). People never stop to think about these things as long as it's happening to the "other guy". Well guess what, you're just the "other guy" to everyone else
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 11:20:21 AM EST
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By legrue: It's the new trend in law enforcement. Arrest people based on what they MIGHT do rather than what they've done.
View Quote
Is that a problem? Most people on this board don't have a problem with it when it comes to arresting swarthy-looking citizens with foreign connections for what they MIGHT do (like Jose Padilla). People never stop to think about these things as long as it's happening to the "other guy". Well guess what, you're just the "other guy" to everyone else
View Quote
You won't find a single post where I've supported that policy. Quit trying to hijack the thread.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 12:52:26 PM EST
I hope this doesnt spread further south.... What a bunch of Nazi pricks! I expect there will bemany more 'clubs' caused by this. -HS
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 1:10:00 PM EST
Originally Posted By TomJefferson: I don't get it????? If you are in a bar and intoxicated, is that public????
View Quote
Tom, You bring up a good point that alot of people are confused by. For purposes of criminal law, Private Vs. "In Public" has nothing to do with property ownership. "In Public" means in a place accessable to the public, or in public view. Reguaurdless of property ownership. A Bar, licensed for sales of alcohol for on site consumption, is clearly accessable to the public. Your own front yard is "In public" unless you fence it or do something else to raise the expectation of privacy. When talking about laws, dont think in terms of property ownership. Think in terms of does the average joe have a lawfull right to be there. Becuase if he does, it means the police also have a lawfull right to be there. HTH
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 4:18:43 PM EST
Well Drunk in Public seems to have to points: 1) Public 2) Drunk I don't think a bar is "public" in the sense that all the people that are in a bar consented to be in a place which is selling alcohol beverages. No one in that environment should be upset that the other people there are drinking. The next is DRUNK. Notice the word DRUNK. What does drunk mean? To men there are a few words that you must also know, to explain DRUNK. 1) Sober-the complete absence of intoxicants. That also includes drugs that intoxicate, legal or otherwise. 2) Impaired, there is a small amount of alcohol onboard. Probably only detecectable to people who know how you act when sober. 3) Intoxicated, There are enough intoxicatns onboard so that your motor skills, judgement, and the ability to focus on more than one thing at a time are effected. IE you shouldn't be driving or working heavy machinery. 4) Drunk, you are intoxicated to such an extent that you have difficulty walking, talking, thinking, or keeping yourself from becoming incontinent. In other words you are incapacitated by alcohol. At this level a person casually viewing you would KNOW that you are incapacitated. I'm sorry but if you can't pass a sobriety test it doesn't mean you are DRUNK. DRUNK is easy to spot, by anyone but the oblivious. I wonder if they weren't actually trying to go after the bar. Most States have laws that say a person that is INTOXICATED can't be served alcohol. If you have several customers that are intoxicated taken out of the same bar in a short period of time, that might violate the liquor license that the bar NEEDS to be a bar. I still can't believe "Drunk in Public" is a crime.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 7:39:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/6/2003 10:24:11 PM EST by prk]
Big if. Maybe I could have been more precise in painting the scenario, but AR15fan you seem to have responded with the assumption that there WAS objective evidence that he was not just drinking, but was drunk.
Originally Posted By prk: So what exactly can the police legally do if they ask questions and the target just doesn't answer, or politely declines to answer the questions?
View Quote
Originally Posted By AR15fan: Arrest based on the objective symptoms of intoxication alone.
View Quote
IF they exist.
Odor of an alcoholic beverage on the breath.
View Quote
Nondispositive. ANYONE in a bar can be expected to have alcohol breath, whether they’re “drunk” or not.
Bloodshot, watery eyes.
View Quote
IF they in fact SEEM to be bloodshot, that’s still nondispositive. Working late, lack of sleep, or illness can cause the same thing. And it’s subjective, rather than objective.
Slurred Speech.
View Quote
Remember, the posted scenario you’re commenting on is one where the citizen declined to speak at any length.
Run the PVS tape on record for the drive to jail.
View Quote
Whoa there. Before you take arrest someone, do you make sure you have grounds? The citizen hasn’t participated in any kind of test, hasn’t spoken or said more than a couple of words, which were not slurred. You claim their eyes are red, and you think you smell alcohol on their breath. Are you arresting based on evidence? You surely wouldn’t arrest them simply for their polite, sincere, but nonconsenual demeanor, would you?
To catch your drunken ramblings for the jury.
View Quote
Are you forgetting that we're talking about a case where there is a simple "No thanks", and no ramblings for you to record? Besides, your tape may get excluded if it was taken incident to an unlawful arrest.
Then force blood at the jail.
View Quote
You are assuming that you have the citizen pursuant to a legal arrest. So far, all you MAY have is the odor of alcohol in a bar, and MAYBE red eyes for any number of reasons. So why are we at the jail, especially if you didn’t necessarily observe such.
Courts have determined your bodies natural processing of the alcohol in you blood stream is the destruction of evidence, Therefore police can legally draw blood, by force if necessary, to collect that evidence.
View Quote
I guess if they get a well-founded warrant they can, but since we are not talking about DUI here, there is no implied consent, is there?
Then video tape the booking process. to catch your staggered gait, mussed hair, disheveled clothing ect on tape.
View Quote
You’re assuming the person is drunk, which was not mentioned in the scenario I described.
Any kid over 12 can spot a drunk person when they see one. So can a juyry of 12.
View Quote
Assuming the person IS drunk, and assuming the tape is not excluded due to your original seemingly presumptious arrest. You're basing just about everything you’ve said on the assumption that the citizen IS drunk AND responds to you at some length -- in other words, believes they're required to cooperate. You haven’t shown that they HAVE such a duty. This is not a vehicular stop, so are they even required to produce ID? Or even identify themself? If somebody falls off their barstool, reeks strongly of booze, stumbles around, has their shirt half out, and rambles incoherently, that’s one thing. Certainly if you got a legal arrest, you can get other evidence. You assumed you had all this. But what I was talking about was someone quietly having a drink but politely declining to participate in some arbitrary screening. Arbitrary as in the absence of some prior complaint or observation about that individual indicating that they've had more than they can handle.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 10:53:30 PM EST
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: ... 1) Sober-the complete absence of intoxicants. That also includes drugs that intoxicate, legal or otherwise. 2) Impaired, there is a small amount of alcohol onboard. Probably only detecectable to people who know how you act when sober. ....
View Quote
I believe you can have a small amount of alcohol without suffering noticeable impairment.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 4:31:50 AM EST
Impairment, like if I had to say scientific like .01-.06 or psssible more. Few signs would be there. Maybe "close talking", etc. ie social drinking.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 4:58:57 AM EST
These types of threads always fascinate me. People from all over the country give legal advice. The laws differ from state to state and even city to city. Now my law experience is kind of dated, but back in the old days, in Texas, a bar was a "public place". We were told, on a regular basis, to get out of the patrol cars and walk into bars. Now obviously, people were drinking and in various states in intoxication. If there was no trouble and no one was falling off their bar stools, we just passed through, spoke with the barkeep, and if he said all was okay, we left. There was at that time a law against "Public intoxication" and a person could be arrested for drunkenness. I remember one guy that would regularly ride his bicycle downtown get all drunked up, and fall over on the sidewalk, still straddle his bike. We would get a call from a concerned citizen, pick him up and let him sleep it off in jail. This story sounds like they over-did it a little, but they weren't using "Gestapo" tactics. The Gestapo arrested you and then shot you in the head or burned you in an oven. Not the same as a trip to jail and a small fine. Be careful of giving legal advice to folks in other states. You might not know what you are talking about.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 5:00:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/7/2003 5:03:44 AM EST by The_Beer_Slayer]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 5:00:39 AM EST
Originally Posted By prk: So what exactly can the police legally do if they ask questions and the target just doesn't answer, or politely declines to answer the questions? Or if they tell the person to perform some test, and they just decline to do so? Or if they tell the person to step outside and the person says, "No, thanks." Of course, if the guy says "Shhhhorrrrry, oshifer, I reeeesshpecttttttttfullllly ree-fuuuuuse", then falls off his chair or loses his grip on the bar & stumbles, then that's probably reasonable suspicion right there.
View Quote
In VA, they arrest you. Refusal to answer questions or submit to a breathalizer or field sobriety test is an admission of guilt and [b]will[/b] result in your arrest and prosecution. I've seen plenty of drunk take-downs while doing internships with the state police and a local police department. We would only enter a bar if the owner or bartender called in a complaint. Drunk in public (actually IN public) and drunk driving were very different situations though. It's interesting though, I was not on many shifts in which DUIs were arrested (even the late night/weekend shifts), despite living in an area with a "drinking culture" where folks get together on Friday and Saturday night and get ripped. Harrisonburg has had some problems with mass drinking parties while I was at JMU. Thousands of students used to get together to get drunk and block traffic; they started to crack down on it by arresting people and breaking up the large public groups. There was a lot of bitching about heavy-handed tactics (a little bit of tear gas on people who had been repeatedly told to leave), but the huge, riotous back to school parties that used to be tradition have since pretty much ended. Charlottesville had similiar problems with a drinking tradition called "Easters" at UVA. That was averted through aggressive policing of public places. This is the first I've heard of the police randomly dragging patrons out of bars to do sobriety tests. Hell, this is the first I've heard of police giving a shit if people actually got drunk in a bar in the owner/bartender didn't complain. Something else of interest: Until I was 16 I lived in Fairfax City (the county seat of Fairfax) and we always had a county police department, even 20 years ago. They have been the largest police agency in VA for well over a decade with almost 4,000 full-time officers. Back in the early 90s they started having problems with "shift parties" in which an outgoing shift would all meet at the bar after they clocked out to get roasted. Over about a five year period they caused more drunk-driving accidents than anybody else. This was all quietly swept under the rug and after a lot of firings and shaking up inside the department that shit ended.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 9:26:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/7/2003 9:27:35 PM EST by prk]
Originally Posted By Redmanfms:
Originally Posted By prk: So what exactly can the police legally do if they ask questions and the target just doesn't answer, or politely declines to answer the questions? Or if they tell the person to perform some test, and they just decline to do so? Or if they tell the person to step outside and the person says, "No, thanks." Of course, if the guy says "Shhhhorrrrry, oshifer, I reeeesshpecttttttttfullllly ree-fuuuuuse", then falls off his chair or loses his grip on the bar & stumbles, then that's probably reasonable suspicion right there.
View Quote
In VA, they arrest you. Refusal to answer questions or submit to a breathalizer or field sobriety test is an admission of guilt and [b]will[/b] result in your arrest and prosecution.
View Quote
We need some clarification here... Are you talking about motorists or bar patrons? I was talking about a bar patron. Second, when you say "is an admission of guilt", do you mean according to the arresting officers you rode with, or according to statute/case law? If the latter, can you provide a citation? If you're talking about motorists, I expect few states lack an "implied consent" statute for motorists, where sanctions for refusing a test are written into the law.
We would only enter a bar if the owner or bartender called in a complaint. Drunk in public (actually IN public) and drunk driving were very different situations though...
View Quote
Yes, putting someone to a test due to a complaint about them is one thing. Going to a bar to randomly make them take a test is something else. Do you think they would still arrest a patron who didn't go along with their program, even if they had no complaint about that patron and he/she exhibited no obvious signs of serious impairment?
This is the first I've heard of the police randomly dragging patrons out of bars to do sobriety tests. Hell, this is the first I've heard of police giving a shit if people actually got drunk in a bar in the owner/bartender didn't complain.
View Quote
I've heard tell of one county here, where deputies have been know to go into a bar on the pretext of a complaint and target women, taking them outside for sobriety testing. They commonly dress like they're waiting for a S.W.A.T. call-out. Very popular with the citizens.....not.
Top Top