U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-18-2011, 09:08 AM
 
Location: san antonio texas
1,805 posts, read 2,186,727 times
Reputation: 623

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuneOf48 View Post
Being intoxicated on the sidewalk does not constitute criminal activity.
actually, yes it does. public intoxication.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-18-2011, 09:10 AM
 
Location: san antonio texas
1,805 posts, read 2,186,727 times
Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeet09 View Post
Even during the day?
dont feed the troll. he just called everyone who rides the bus and walks to their destinations losers.

no need to continue further. add him to your ignore list and move on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 09:13 AM
 
Location: san antonio texas
1,805 posts, read 2,186,727 times
Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuneOf48 View Post
Read the law again. You have to be intoxicated enough to appear to pose a danger to yourself or others. That's it.
incorrect. if your BAC is .08 or more, you're drunk whether you feel like you are or aren't.

that's PI and that will get you arrested and detained
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 09:19 AM
 
Location: san antonio texas
1,805 posts, read 2,186,727 times
Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by majormadmax View Post
But in Texas filming the police during a stop could result in a person being charged with "Interference with Public Duties" (Texas Penal Code §38.15) if it in any way inhibits the officer from performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law. Failure to abide by the instructions of a peace officer can also result in that charge. It is a Class B misdemeanor.
ive always wondered if this law has been challenged yet. just HOW is filming, whether discretely or not, interfering with public duties?

is it that because it means the officer will actually have to follow procedure and not jack people up in an illegal manner? or, is there rational thinking behind this that im missing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 09:55 AM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
8,400 posts, read 20,123,723 times
Reputation: 4435
Quote:
Originally Posted by DexterCat View Post
ive always wondered if this law has been challenged yet. just HOW is filming, whether discretely or not, interfering with public duties?

is it that because it means the officer will actually have to follow procedure and not jack people up in an illegal manner? or, is there rational thinking behind this that im missing?
I believe much like public intoxication, the police have a degree of discretion when determining whether someone is suspected of breaking the law. Be rude, uncooperative and outright abusive towards the police, and you may find yourself arrested and charged with it. Be cooperative, polite and respectful and most likely you'll be allowed to go your way with minimal interruption.

I have had a few encounters with the police, mostly traffic stops, and I have found the latter is the best course of action. If you want to be treated with respect, you have to show some yourself. The job of the police is not an easy one, and the vast majority of the general public has no ideas of what officers encounter on a daily basis. Many also seem to believe that since peace officers are "public servants," that means they are their personal servants as well. That's not the way it is, the police serve the public in general and not any one individual.

Also, the majority of people who bash the cops usually had a run-in with the police that was their fault, but they lack the willingness to admit their responsibility for the encounter. Sure, there are a few cops out there who are jerks, and I've met a few personally; but having had firsthand experience riding along with the SAPD I was very impressed with their professionalism and patience dealing with individuals who didn't deserve either.

I would recommend the SAPD Citizen Police Academy to anyone who is interested in a firsthand look at the operations of the department. It was quite an enlightening experience, and would give people a different perspective once they've actually learned what it is like for those who wear the badge.

Cheers! M2
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 10:03 AM
 
Location: NW San Antonio
1,074 posts, read 1,584,152 times
Reputation: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by DexterCat View Post
dont feed the troll. he just called everyone who rides the bus and walks to their destinations losers.

no need to continue further. add him to your ignore list and move on.
Unshunned-Are you going to cry on your keyboard now b/c I continue to shun you in all of the threads? When you are walking around drunk in public at 1:30AM you are asking to be questioned by the police. Troll? Hardly! Reshunned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 10:07 AM
 
Location: san antonio texas
1,805 posts, read 2,186,727 times
Reputation: 623
that didnt really answer my question. it sounded like you're insinuating that someone video taping or recording audio has something to hide...

how exactly is video taping / audio recording interfering with a police officers job? to me, the only reason to have a law like that is so cops can break the law at will and not be held accountable for their actions.

i cant think of one legitimate use for having this law on the books.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 10:35 AM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
8,400 posts, read 20,123,723 times
Reputation: 4435
Quote:
Originally Posted by DexterCat View Post
that didnt really answer my question. it sounded like you're insinuating that someone video taping or recording audio has something to hide...

how exactly is video taping / audio recording interfering with a police officers job? to me, the only reason to have a law like that is so cops can break the law at will and not be held accountable for their actions.

i cant think of one legitimate use for having this law on the books.
That law is to prevent idiots who disagree with the police or other public officials from trying to prevent them from doing their jobs.

Even in public, if the act of video taping or recording audio in any way interferes with a public servant from doing their job, it is against the law. That not only applies to the police but also the fire department, EMTs and other emergency services.

If someone is pulled over and does not comply with the direction of a law enforcement officer because they are busy video taping, it can easily be construed as interfering with that officer from doing his/her duties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 10:44 AM
 
Location: san antonio texas
1,805 posts, read 2,186,727 times
Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by majormadmax View Post
That law is to prevent idiots who disagree with the police or other public officials from trying to prevent them from doing their jobs.

Even in public, if the act of video taping or recording audio in any way interferes with a public servant from doing their job, it is against the law. That not only applies to the police but also the fire department, EMTs and other emergency services.

If someone is pulled over and does not comply with the direction of a law enforcement officer because they are busy video taping, it can easily be construed as interfering with that officer from doing his/her duties.
how is being on camera or tape preventing you from doing your job? unless the person recording is shoving the device in your face or using it as a weapon, i just dont see how this can prevent you from doing your job.

not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand any logic behind this draconian law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2011, 11:41 AM
 
580 posts, read 1,276,937 times
Reputation: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by majormadmax View Post
I believe much like public intoxication, the police have a degree of discretion when determining whether someone is suspected of breaking the law. Be rude, uncooperative and outright abusive towards the police, and you may find yourself arrested and charged with it. Be cooperative, polite and respectful and most likely you'll be allowed to go your way with minimal interruption.

I have had a few encounters with the police, mostly traffic stops, and I have found the latter is the best course of action. If you want to be treated with respect, you have to show some yourself. The job of the police is not an easy one, and the vast majority of the general public has no ideas of what officers encounter on a daily basis. Many also seem to believe that since peace officers are "public servants," that means they are their personal servants as well. That's not the way it is, the police serve the public in general and not any one individual.

Also, the majority of people who bash the cops usually had a run-in with the police that was their fault, but they lack the willingness to admit their responsibility for the encounter. Sure, there are a few cops out there who are jerks, and I've met a few personally; but having had firsthand experience riding along with the SAPD I was very impressed with their professionalism and patience dealing with individuals who didn't deserve either.

I would recommend the SAPD Citizen Police Academy to anyone who is interested in a firsthand look at the operations of the department. It was quite an enlightening experience, and would give people a different perspective once they've actually learned what it is like for those who wear the badge.

Cheers! M2
I'm glad you quoted that article from Mother Jones, which I'm sure is your go-to source for legal interpretation. (It's one of the most left-wing rags out there.) The entire article was about the utter abuse of the public intoxication law to target minorities, gays, etc. It also includes plenty of info on the illegal and unethical manner in which police apply the law:

"For some officers, PI has provided a ready-made reason for detaining minorities. A Houston defense attorney, who asks to be unnamed since he specializes in misdemeanors such as PI, puts it this way: "If you're brown and you're around—you're going down." Nick Novello, a 27-year veteran of the Dallas Police Department, blew the whistle on three colleagues (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/032207dnmetcopinvestigate.396b4c8.html - broken link) who he claims filled their arrest quotas by picking up people, mostly minorities, for PI. "They were illegally arrested," Novello says. "It's an absolute perversion." (Two were removed (http://ttp//www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/032808dnmetdallas.61f7324.html - broken link) from the force.)"

Did you get that? "Illegally arrested."

So yes, the law is about a perception of endangerment, unlike driving, which automatically involves endangerment if a person has been drinking. That perception of endangerment, however, is completely up to the discretion of the police. As the article so clearly states, a cop can arrest you--even if you haven't had a drink and are not intoxicated at all--for public intoxication. And, because it's your word against theirs, they prevail in court, especially if they allege that you were drunk. (It's a misdemeanor and with a minimal punishment, so most folks choose not to challenge the matter in court.) Is that right? No. Is it actually an illegal use of the law? Yes, as the article clearly points out. The very article you quoted describes just how outraged the OP could've, or even should've, been. And it's an outrage that has led to the dismissal of "bad cops" who were identified not by sleazy lawyers but their fellow police officers.

Thanks for proving my point.

By the way, here's a piece by a lawyer that explains the perception of actual or potential danger necessity in Texas's law. It's far too easy to abuse, but it's there--in the law. Public Intoxication = Police Brutality? - Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:14 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top