Public Intox- Do I have ANY chance in court?

[loneranger]

^Wow, thanks, that's awesome. Yep, an attorney is absolutely out of the question. Talked to police records a few minutes ago as far as the police report, and I has asked the court clerk about getting the police officer's records. But this is awesome. Eh, how do I go about determining if they have a quota system though? Department guidelines again? Under quotas? I always thought that kind of stuff was under the table.

[Capt. Lincoln F. Stern]

Originally Posted by loneranger

^ Thanks. I will keep my chin up. You court seemed really nice though. The courts I have been on have never been defendant friendly. Some courts for example won't automatically dismiss a case even when the officer(s) don't show up to court. One time I got a ticket and the judge allowed his coworker (who was AROUND but didn't see what happened) to testify. He based his testimony on what his buddy told him had happened.

Anybody know what it's called when I want to move to dismiss because I can't cross-examine the witness? That's another hope I have I guess, that the officer won't show up. I guess I'll just say that. I SHOULD have a right to cross examine the witness right? I hope that doesn't depend on jurisdiction.

I think its called "right to face your accuser" .

[Advocate]

One thing to remember is to read the statute.

Texas Penal Code Section 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.

Note the part I put in italics. So you can be falling down drunk if you have friends to keep you safe. If you are wandering in the street iin the middle of traffic wasted off your mind, it would probably be easy for the Assistant City Attorney to convict you. Go tell the prosecutor that and hopefully she will realize that you know what you are talking about and she should dismiss it. (I say she because it seems like all of them in Austin are women). Maybe you offer to take an alcohol class for a dismissal. Deferred is not the same as a dismissal, but for Class C deferreds, I think they are still eligible for an immediate expunction from your arrest record.

If you go to trial, and the cop shows up, just voir dire the hell out of the jury on the italicized portion of the statute above. Remind them that they took an oath to find that element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. I've never a lawyer who made this argument get anything but a dismissal but as with everything, YMMV.

Hope that helps you out. Btw, I am not an attorney.

Cops = state-sanctioned buzz kill

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by sky_wire

Ok, if an attorney is OUT of the question, you might want to consider this.

See if your state has an open records statute.

Make an open records request for the police department’s guidelines on how to determine whether someone should be arrested or cited for public intoxication.

Make an open records request for the arresting officer’s personnel file. They’ll fight this. Argue that it’s necessary to determine whether the arresting officer has the education, experience, and training to assess whether someone is publicly intoxicated.

Make an open records request for any information on whether the police department has any type of quota system for making arrests or issuing citations on minor misdemeanors such as public intoxication.

If the state fights these requests, ask the court to continue your case while you fight for this information, which is necessary for an effective defense.

They may just decide it’s not worth the trouble and blow off a court date, wherein you would move for a dismissal.

Good luck.

Sounds like an awful lot of time involved for a layperson without a background in this....I'd rather spend my time "working" and using those funds to pay a lawyer...

Another thing to consider, if you go the route of pleading "not guilty" don't expect anything to happen quickly. If nothing else your case will be set for trial at a later date (maybe a month or more later). Even then the judge may continue the case. If you are a working man, just think of all these days missed from work...and you don't get any say in setting the calendar...

And, in fairness to the police, and as taxpayers, remember there is a good reason the officer that cited you isn't in court at your arraignment and you can't just do everything in one morning: the police department would shut down if everyone that arrested someone had to show up in court.

Originally Posted by Advocate

One thing to remember is to read the statute.

Texas Penal Code Section 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.

Again, this varies by jurisdiction, but generally, by the letter of the law PI is one of the easiest things to prove. The burden is pretty low. On the letter of the law you could cite more people than could fit in the drunk tank on most weekend nights...

[loneranger]

^Thanks, but I am in Oklahoma, and no "danger" in the statute, at least the municipal one.

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Sounds like an awful lot of time involved for a layperson without a background in this....I'd rather spend my time "working" and using those funds to pay a lawyer...

Another thing to consider, if you go the route of pleading "not guilty" don't expect anything to happen quickly.

No extra hours for me to work, so I do this on time off. Not losing any work. I dunno it's a medium sized suburb...didn't seem like a busy place at all...the trial might take place right after I plea, although I realize it's technically an arraignment where I enter a plea.

It's strange I can't seem to find any laws at the state level dealing with PI.
www.lsb.state.ok.us/ nor www.lsb.state.ok.us/osstatuestitle.html

Because in the municipal statute it says it's PI if you're PI. Never defines intoxication.

edit: yeah this is strange I can't find the state statute dealing with PI in Oklahoma? Any ideas?

[loneranger]

edit : I found it under the Intoxicating Liquors section; had been looking in the crimes section.
edit: ? there's no definition of PI in the state statute. http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/OK...itles/os37.rtf
You're guilty of public intoxication if you're "intoxicated" in "public"??

[trynagetlaid]

I would just go to court and plead not guilty. Tell the Judge you had only had one or two beers and your stomach was upset so you stopped drinking, but you were out with friends so you hung with them awhile before heading home. If they don't have a test or a video it's your word against the officer's.

Tell them you have no idea why you were even apprehended, that you were not being loud or unruly but maybe the officer was having a bad day and singled you out. The Judge will probably dismiss the case without even setting a trial date. The court system has a lot more important things to do than hassle people on $140 Class C Misdemeanor cases.

[Sarcastro]

From the Oklahoma Statutes, Title 37:

§37‑8. Consuming or inhaling intoxicants in public places ‑ Penalties.
Any person who shall, in any public place, or in or upon any passenger coach, streetcar, or in or upon any other vehicle commonly used for the transportation of passengers, or in or about any depot, platform, waiting station or room, drink or otherwise consume any intoxicating liquor unless authorized by the Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, intoxicating substance, or intoxicating compound of any kind, or inhale glue, paint or other intoxicating substance, or if any person shall be drunk or intoxicated in any public or private road, or in any passenger coach, streetcar, or any public place or building, or at any public gathering, from drinking or consuming such intoxicating liquor, intoxicating substance or intoxicating compound or from inhalation of glue, paint or other intoxicating substance, or if any person shall be drunk or intoxicated from any cause and shall disturb the peace of any person, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than Ten Dollars ($10.00), nor more than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), or by imprisonment for not less than five (5) days nor more than thirty (30) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Aside from the DWI statue, Title 47, §47-11-902, (which sets a per se intoxication at .08 BAC) there doesn't seem to be a statutory definition of intoxication. The definition used in jury instructions (as, for example, a voluntary intoxication defense) draws from case law:

"A state in which a person is so far under the influence of an intoxicating liquor/drug/substance to such an extent that his/her (passions are visibly excited)/ (judgment is impaired)." Reference: Findlay v. City of Tulsa, 1977 OK CR 113, 14, 561 P.2d 980, 984.

[loneranger]

Thanks Tryin. That's what Ima gonna do. I'll get all the public records too.

Originally Posted by Sarcastro

...Aside from the DWI statue, Title 47, §47-11-902, (which sets a per se intoxication at .08 BAC) there doesn't seem to be a statutory definition of intoxication. The definition used in jury instructions (as, for example, a voluntary intoxication defense) draws from case law:

"A state in which a person is so far under the influence of an intoxicating liquor/drug/substance to such an extent that his/her (passions are visibly excited)/ (judgment is impaired)." Reference: Findlay v. City of Tulsa, 1977 OK CR 113, 14, 561 P.2d 980, 984.

Thank you for that case law. All very vague in my opinion. Plus

" the prohibited act may be characterized by a general term without definition if that term has a settled and commonly understood meaning which does not leave a person of ordinary intelligence in doubt. This is true although there may be in the definition of the term an element of [561 P.2d 984] degree as to which reasonable men might differ." 515 P.2d at 1157."

IMHO opinion the "commonly understood meaning" of "intoxicated" would get different definitions from people.

How the heck do I dechiper 515 P.2d at 1157?

[Sarcastro]

How the heck do I dechiper 515 P.2d at 1157?

The Pacific Reporter is a case law reporter. Visit the law library of your local courthouse, ask the librarian for directions to volume 515 of the Pacific Reporter, Second Series, and turn to page 1157.

Or you may look up the case online at oscn.net, although you may need to fumble around a bit. Here's Synnot v. State, which provides the discussion on the definition of intoxication for which you're searching:

http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...p?citeid=61826

[atlcomedy]

Here's the dirty little secret about the legal profession and why (if at all possible) a lawyer is worth the bucks.

A lay defendent that antagonizes the system by asking for all of these public records, etc. is doing just that: antagonizing the system and not winning any points.

Even though we have an "advesarial" system, the participants are a den of incest. The defense atty. used to work in the prosecutors office...the judge appeared before the court before sitting on the bench, etc, etc...BCD they have a system of efficiently dealing with case flow on minor matters. Without an advocate you cannot access that.

[loneranger]

Thanks sarcasto

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Here's the dirty little secret about the legal profession and why (if at all possible) a lawyer is worth the bucks.

A lay defendent that antagonizes the system by asking for all of these public records, etc. is doing just that: antagonizing the system ...

Yeah that's a good point. No help with the open records. No one seemed to know what the hell I was talking about. I was able to get the police report though. Which is good to have anyway, I mean that's what the officer will be going by in court. Anyway, after a few phone calls, I was finally told by the city legal dept that I would have to subpoena the stuff I wanted. When I asked what official titles of the documents having to do with police procedure were (how the heck do I know what to subpoena?) , they were not too excited to help me. I guess if any citizen wants to know what their police department's policies are, well that's just too bad. She said just to word it as best I can--so they can later say that they don't know what I am talking about. No such document exists? I was too vague?