2 PI in 1 yr.

[E.Marquez]

PI is not merely being drunk in public. The law says they're also a danger to themself or others. Most people I know don't have any PI arrests, much less convictions, so two would raise a lot of questions if I was doing a background check on someone. Even for a desk job.

"Sec. 49.02. PUBLIC INTOXICATION. (a) A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another."

It is highly subjective on the part of the LEO.

to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another

Normally that likely works out for the citizen as the LEO, works with the drunk and his buddies when possible to just see someone home or to a safe environment.
But as open ended vague laws are apt to be.
A LEO has, often in my personal experience (second hand or personally observed) will choose to make that judgment call the other way... If you exit a bar and trip over a ledge in the side walk you can be judged to be "danger the person or another" Tagged PI, and be forced to deal with that charge.
If you slip on a wet or ice patch in front of your house, during a family BBQ to which the police have been called for a noise violation, you can be judged "danger the person or another" Tagged PI, and be forced to deal with that charge.
If you have had too much and your buddies (non drinking) are doing the right thing, and giving you a ride home, you can be stopped while walking to the car under your own control and function with two buddies alongside for good measure and safety, and be judged to be "danger the person or another" Tagged PI, and be forced to deal with that charge.
Those are three confirmed instances where a LEO made a BAD judgment call in Texas as given the latitude to do so by way the law is written.
I know other LEO’s have made the better judgment call hundreds of times (again just the case I know about) and let someone likely chargeable under PI to go on their way in the safe control of a DD or other non drinking buddy come to the rescue. Knowing several LEO’s personally, I think that is the rule, not the exception.

[speedsix]

...having been there and done that, I know that there are OFTEN bad judgements made and the law is often used to settle another problem...wrongly...I policed in a place that had a very light "get 'em off the street" charge called simple drunk...bond was $30...fine was, too...if they were impaired and a nuisance...off they went...
...Texas, however, does not at the state level have such a light charge...if one is charged with PI, they are charged with the law as written and it can't be picked apart...PC49.02 says what it says...and it states that it wasn't "...merely being drunk in public...", it includes the part about being a danger to one's self or another...which is what bayouhazard posted...
...I replied that there was no difference in the two phrases...they were one and the same making up the law AS IT IS WRITTEN...another member decided that the law disagreed with me, and off we went...the truth is that in order to be charged, you have to be charged with 49.02, and you don't get to pick which element applies...if you are 1) in a public place 2)intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another...you have a charge...if either element is missing...there is no charge...the law is clear and doesn't belie what bayouhazard or I said...my whole point of argument is that if you tell me I'm wrong and that the law tells me something different...show me in the law...not opinion..law expresses LAW...not what we wish it said...and throwing in another charge concerning driving while intoxicated had nothing to do with the discussion or what either of us posted...

...the written law SETTLES the argument...even though we agree it's, like a lot of Texas law, not written as we would like...

[speedsix]

...now I have an opinion...totally separate from the law...I took/sent home dozens of folks at all hours of the night who had been on foot or in a bar or restaurant to keep from charging them with even the "simple drunk" charge...I don't feel that just being a little loud or giddy is a sign of a rotten character...nor should it cost someone money...I would like to see such a "simple drunk" charge here for those that cross that level...and I would also like to have a stiffer charge for those who're fighting or won't settle/quiet down and leave...we charged them with "drunk and disorderly" if I remember rightly after 40 years...may have been disturbing the peace on top of simple drunk...but we didn't have to use that, with its heavier fines and implications nearly as often...to me, it was more common-sense and serving the public when they needed a little help getting home...instead of "gotcha!!!"
...seems to me that a lot of the personal decisions and ability to help a citizen who's just a bit out of line have been removed...maybe due to hungry lawyers...or ungrateful patrons...

[srothstein]

Speedsix,

I think the PI charge is actually about the same as the simple drunk charge you mentioned. The elements are a little tougher, but it is a class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine only. In most cases, the actual sentence is the time served in the drunk tank sobering up. Yes, there is the potential for it to be abused slightly, such as abnormally high fines (up to $500) or being arrested when you were not actually a danger, but most laws can be abused.

And if there is a larger problem, we do have the additional charge of disorderly conduct. For example, fighting in a public place is a charge under disorderly conduct. It is also only a class C, but it can be used by a judge to punish someone who is both drunk and causing trouble fighting.

It really does depend on the police officers involved and the attitudes of the officers and suspects.

[speedsix]

...thanks for the info on the punishment...is there a chart or table listing the range of possible fines and jail sentences each offense in Texas law can draw, or is that the judges have?

[E.Marquez]

Disregard, : went back and re read the entire thread, understand now "Who" was being addressed, and "What" the argument was . I misunderstood, thinking the discussion had turned to the LEO's discretion / decision / of elements of the charge, not that both elements were required for the charge of PI.

[gigag04]

Not sure where everyone landed, but for the record, here's the elements to meet for PI (per Texas PC and CCP)

1. A public place
2. In Texas
3. Intoxicated (.08 or Impairment to alcohol, drug? Or combo of 2+)
4. Danger to self or others

Intoxication is not automatically danger to self or others...you have to articulate the element of danger caused by intoxication.

Ex: passed out in a ditch, doesn't know where he/she is

Walking to a car with car keys trying to leave

Picking fights in a bar

High on PCP screaming in the middle of crowded downtown about wanting money....


The blue collar comedy tour "drunk in public" doesn't get you there.

[E.Marquez]

4. Danger to self or others

Intoxication is not automatically danger to self or others...you have to articulate the element of danger caused by intoxication.

Ex: passed out in a ditch, doesn't know where he/she is
Walking to a car with car keys trying to leave
Picking fights in a bar
High on PCP screaming in the middle of crowded downtown about wanting money....
The blue collar comedy tour "drunk in public" doesn't get you there.

My off tangent point was in reference to your last point.. It's subjective, and up to the LEO..(until it gets to a judge) and with good reason, that works out for the citizen more often than not.

But as I have personally witnessed, because “Danger to self or others” is not a definitive set of circumstances to be applied evenly by all LEO, it goes both ways. Tipsy, but WITH non Drunk friends,, Still charged PI.
Exited a bar, tripped, charged PI, blew .05. No other charges, no other evidence presented by LEO, resisting, argumentative, nothing, but the LEO articulating the element of danger caused by intoxication as, the person who had been drinking in the bar, could have tripped in to traffic, and therefore was a danger to himself and others.. Judge tossed it out, but still, he was arrested, took the ride, charged, hired(and paid for) a lawyer went before a Judge with the common sense the LEO should have had and THEN dismissed the charge.

I also have seen countless times LEO’s have gone the other way on PI in Texas… and allowed someone they could have charged with PI go, or on a few occasions, personally took them to a hotel. I believe this decision is more common than the other inappropriate use of PI…. And I applaud those LEO’s for making a common sense judgment call that is the essence of community policing.

[gigag04]

I think it's in CCP - anyone charged with PI is to be arrested. Or, instead of arresting them, you can release them to a responsible party. Most people I find, I have a one phone call policy: you get one call to get a responsible party to pick you up.

[speedsix]

...yup, Chapter 14....question on that...since you hold them temporarily, (say on scene) then release them to a responsible party, do you write a report of what happened and who you released them to to relieve you and your dept.of civil liability?

[gigag04]

...yup, Chapter 14....question on that...since you hold them temporarily, (say on scene) then release them to a responsible party, do you write a report of what happened and who you released them to to relieve you and your dept.of civil liability?

Nope.

[speedsix]

...we didn't do any paperwork on a catch and release either, but the City Attorney was lobbying the Chief for it...said it could bite us later, if they got a hungry lawyer...we didn't want any more paperwork, of course...

[TheDude]

Two or more public intoxications in the past 10 years is grounds
for a CHL rejection or a revocation.

I'm Not A Lawyer but I'm 90 sure on this one

You need to wait another two years to get your plastic
unless a lawyer can get one of the Public intox overturned

No. DWI is classified as at least a Class B misdemeanor, and you are ineligible for a license for five years after a conviction for a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or disorderly conduct. This includes cases that were dismissed after you completed probation or deferred adjudication. If you have been convicted of two or more alcohol or drug-related offenses within the last 10 years, you may not be eligible. ( You can find this on the DPS web site Chl Elegiability Question # 25)

Notice it says "You may not be eligible." It didn't keep me from getting my plastic. He will be fine. PI's are super easy to get in many cities. Its basically at the cops discretion. If he thinks you are too drunk to be in public or if you piss him off you are taking the ride. You don't have to start a fight or anything like that. Its as easy as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He does need to list them but they are Class C and won't affect him getting his CHL. Even if he has two in less than 10 years. I know this first hand and I will leave it at that. Lol.

[tbrown]

Not sure where everyone landed, but for the record, here's the elements to meet for PI (per Texas PC and CCP)

1. A public place
2. In Texas
3. Intoxicated (.08 or Impairment to alcohol, drug? Or combo of 2+)
4. Danger to self or others

Intoxication is not automatically danger to self or others...you have to articulate the element of danger caused by intoxication.

Ex: passed out in a ditch, doesn't know where he/she is

Walking to a car with car keys trying to leave

Picking fights in a bar

High on PCP screaming in the middle of crowded downtown about wanting money....


The blue collar comedy tour "drunk in public" doesn't get you there.

Thank you for an answer from someone who actually (a) enforces the law and (b) enforces Texas law.

[speedsix]

...so, like other laws, if all of the elements aren't all present...you haven't committed Public Intoxication, and won't be charged with it...separately, they don't equal the whole...that makes perfect sense...that's what we said earlier, and the law as written backs it up...