[Note that TABC is undergoing sunset review by the Texas Legislature this interim and next session]

Bar Sweep Sparks Controversy

Comedian Weighs In On Public Intoxication Arrests

NBC5 - D/FW
March 21, 2006


The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission sent a message to bar patrons last week.

TABC agents and Irving police swept through 36 Irving bars and arrested about 30 people on charges of public intoxication. Agency representatives say the move came as a proactive measure to curtail drunken driving.

North Texans interviewed by NBC 5, however, worried that the sweep went too far.

At one location, for example, agents and police arrested patrons of a hotel bar. Some of the suspects said they were registered at the hotel and had no intention of driving. Arresting authorities said the patrons were a danger to themselves and others.

"Going to a bar is not an opportunity to go get drunk," TABC Capt. David Alexander said. "It's to have a good time but not to get drunk."

Dallas comedian Steve Harvey agreed with the Texas residents who said the arrests infringed on individual rights.

"If a guy's got a designated driver, go ahead and let him get toasted," Harvey told NBC 5.

Texas law states that inebriated individuals could be subjected to arrest anywhere for public intoxication. Harvey and other North Texans called the measure extreme.

"That seems to be an extreme case," one man said. "You are self-contained, in the hotel, you're not going in the streets, it seems a little ridiculous."

TABC officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights. Harvey and others interviewed by NBC 5 said they believe drunken driving to be unacceptable, although Harvey wanted to confirm that the United States remains a free country.

"Freedom of drinking should always be allowed, and it is only American to let a guy get drunk where he wants to get drunk," Harvey said.

What they didn't say was how many people were intoxicated but didn't rise to the level of 'danger to themselves or others'. Lame and skewed reporting.

How are others handling the prosecution of these? I've seen too many which did not appear to have even the potential of danger present. I've been in arguments with these officers about whether the "mere possibilty" of danger is sufficient; I don't think so.

[This message was edited by Etta Warman on 03-22-06 at .]

I once had a jury out for four hours on a Public Intoxication trial. I've tried several PI's to a jury, and "danger to himself or others" is apparently a pretty nebulous concept for six people to hang their hat on.

If agents are waiting outside the bar and nab a drunk walking out with keys in hand, OK. Speculating that he might fall off his barstool and his designated driver isn't big enough to catch him seems pretty farfetched.

Someone w/ TABC called in to a local Austin radio show yesterday to defend the arrests; as far as I could tell, the argument in their defense was:

(a) we know drunks when we see 'em;

(b) 1/3rd of everyone they arrest in these stings have car keys in their pockets, so the stings are preventing drunk driving; and

(c) PI is against the law, and they don't write the laws, they just enforce them.

[This message was edited by Shannon Edmonds on 03-23-06 at .]

I agree, Etta. I think if the Defendant isn't commode hugging drunk and knocking down the velvet rope outside the club, then the officer needs to use more discretion. There is nothing that prohibits an officer from releasing a drunk to his friends who then take him home.

Disclosure: A highschool friend of mine was arrested in Addison this past Sunday. From his version of the facts, he earned his arrest. He's an alcoholic who got tanked and broke a window at the bar. Yep, PI. But if he'd been with friends who were willing to take him home before he fell through this window, maybe that should be a good resolution.

I'm willing to believe that if they only arrested 30 or so people, they let a whole heap of Dallas/Irving drunks go home. (supervised) I mean, in all of Irving they only found 30 people out that night who qualified for PI. Based solely on the numbers, it sounds to me like they used discretion.

Public intoxication stings catch 2,200 in Texas bars

TABC officials say drive is aimed at reducing DWIs

By ANNE MARIE KILDAY
Houston Chronicle
March 23, 2006

This article is: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3742462.html


More than 2,200 people have been arrested in Texas bars in the six months since the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission announced a crackdown on public intoxication, primarily targeting bars.

The arrests included people who were drunk in bars, who sold alcohol to a drunk person, or a drunk employee on the premises of a bar or restaurant with a license to sell alcohol, said Carolyn Beck, a spokeswoman for the TABC.

The commission has been responsible for enforcing the state's alcoholic beverage code for the past 70 years. In August, 2005, the agency announced it was beginning a crackdown on public intoxication, using both undercover and open operations.

The agency has used undercover agents before, Beck said. In a recent operation, agents infiltrated 36 bars in a Dallas suburb and arrested 30 people for public intoxication.

"The laws in Texas against public intoxication also apply to bars," Beck said. "Texas has the highest DWI rate in the nation, and we are trying to reduce those rates."

The TABC also is trying to "encourage licensees" to serve patrons responsibly, Beck said.

Part of the problem with enforcing the state's code regulating alcohol sales is "people still think that a bar is place to go get drunk," Beck said. "People can go into bars and have fun with their friends and not become intoxicated to the point whether they may become a danger to themselves or others."

People arrested for public intoxication "are not people who had a couple of beers with dinner. They are people who are so drunk that they caught the attention of a TABC agent," Beck said.

TABC agents have the discretion to cite the person for public intoxication and release them to "a responsible party." Or, a person who is so drunk "that they may be a danger to themselves or others" can be arrested and taken to jail, Beck said.

While customers are being questioned, another TABC agent is taking steps to arrest and take to jail the employees responsible for selling alcohol to an intoxicated person, Beck said.

In the Houston area, the TABC is conducting an enforcement program called Operation "Last Call," said Sgt. Mike Barnett, that is "designed to reduce the number of DWIs."

"The program, in a nutshell, is designed to keep the streets safer by reducing the numbers of DWI offenders," he said.

"[Note that TABC is undergoing sunset review by the Texas Legislature this interim and next session]"

Seeing the above stated root of the issue, do the stings help TABC or hurt TABC in the sunset review? I suspect the plan might have been hatched with some intoxicants nearby.

Texas cracking down on drunks in bars
By JIM VERTUNO
Associated Press Writer
March 24, 2006

AUSTIN � Get fall-down drunk in a bar and it may cost more than a bruised backside: Try $500 or a few hours in jail.

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is sending undercover officers into bars to look for the exceedingly drunk, issuing citations or making arrests for public intoxication even if patrons haven't left the building.

"Drinking is fine," said agency spokeswoman Carolyn Beck. "But when people drink too much, they become dangerous to themselves and other people."

The program was started as a way to reduce drunken driving. It targets not only those who are drunk, but the bars and bartenders who continue to serve them and those who serve underage drinkers. So far, it has resulted in about 2,200 arrests or citations around the state.

According to the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Web site, Texas had 1,264 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2004, the most in the nation.

"We're trying to reduce that and save lives," Beck said.

B.J. Hassell, manager of victims services with MADD Texas State, which serves a 29-county area in Central Texas, said her organization supports the crackdown.

"Can you imagine if TABC had not stopped those people from leaving the bar, how many more drunk drivers we might have had on the road?" Hassell said.

The most recent sting was March 10, when agents infiltrated more than 30 bars in the Dallas suburb of Irving, arresting or citing dozens of people.

Greg Turnbow, who sipped a beer in a downtown bar during happy hour Thursday, was on a business trip from Nashville, Tenn. He said the Texas policy surprised him.

"This almost seems like entrapment," he said. "If somebody's in a bar causing trouble, they should be arrested. I can see why it's being done for the safety of other people, (but) that's just too much."

In Texas, the blood alcohol limit for drunken driving is .08. But the law also defines public intoxication as "not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties" because of alcohol or other drugs.

Public intoxication is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500. An offender can be cited or arrested. Many jails require that someone arrested to be detained for at least four to 12 hours.

Bar patrons may be approached if an officer spots them behaving erratically, such as difficulty walking or standing. The officer will perform a field sobriety test similar to one for drunken drivers. A suspect may also be asked to take a breath test, although it is not required, Beck said.

Most people who take the breath test have a blood alcohol level of .17 or higher, she said.

"These people who are being arrested are really drunk," she said. "We're not going up to random people. "

And just having a designated driver isn't an excuse to be knee-wobbling drunk.

"There are plenty of dangerous things people do without getting behind the wheel of a car," Beck said.

She cited a recent case in El Paso where a man staggered into traffic and was killed, and a student on spring break at South Padre Island who tried to jump into a hotel pool from a second-floor window. He missed and died.

"When people drink they lose their inhibitions," she said. "That's when people start making bad decisions."

Bars are targeted for stings by meeting several criteria: whether it is frequently cited by drunken driving suspects as the last place they had a drink; whether it is in an area where police routinely make drunk driving stops, or if police have been called there numerous times for problems.

Beck acknowledged many people may be surprised to learn they can be arrested for being drunk in a bar.

"It is legal to go out and drink in a bar," she said. "We are trying to get the message out that we want bars to sell responsibly and consumers to consume responsibly."

So, now whoever is elected as Designated Driver must also be the lookout for the others in the group and to whisk any of them away whenever they start to look a little too inebriated. Sit them in the corner for a 30-60 minute timeout to sober up a little before they get back to pounding the beer.

The article Shannon posted was also in the New York Times, Washington Post, and San Francisco Chronicle, and was mentioned on "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me", the Saturday NPR program (with much hilarity). Seems to me this might backfire on TABC if the tourism industry is affected?

Public floods TABC with e-mails; legislators to review program

Saturday, March 25, 2006
The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN - Public intoxication busts of bar patrons by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission elicited a blast of indignant -- even vicious e-mails and calls from citizens Friday -- to the agency, to journalists, and to elected officials who pledged to look into the arrests.

"I'm getting all those same e-mails, the Nazi, Taliban, Gestapo e-mails," said commission spokeswoman Carolyn Beck. "I don't really understand the hateful outrage. I don't understand, 'Die in a fire.' "

That e-mail traffic came after news reports about a stepped-up liquor-law enforcement program that has included arrests this month of patrons sitting drinking at establishments in Irving. Among those arrested was an Arkansas man who drank several beers at a hotel restaurant before he retired for the night to his room in the same hotel.

Ms. Beck said the arrests are part of a larger effort to rein in people who could be a danger to themselves or others -- especially by driving drunk. In the six months ending in February, the agency issued 2,281 criminal citations, nearly double the amount for the same period the previous year.

Legislators who oversee the commission said they generally agreed with the agency's increased emphasis on public safety, including the attempt to nab potential drunken drivers early. That's why lawmakers gave the commission more than 100 new employees.

The commission was up for a periodic legislative review last year, meaning it would be eliminated if it wasn't explicitly approved by the Legislature. A complex bill to overhaul the agency and alcohol rules eventually failed, and the commission's life was extended for two years, with the understanding that its fate would be reconsidered in 2007.

But, the lawmakers said, accounts of the arrests suggest the enforcement program should be reviewed before next year, both to check for abuses and to measure its effectiveness. Even if the busts are legal, the question is whether they are the best use of the commission's resources, several said.

"Somebody hanging around the hotel, a little stumbling on the way to their room? I don't think that was what we were focusing on," said Rep. Peggy Hamric, R-Houston, who authored the proposed rewrite of the statute authorizing the agency.

Rep. Kino Flores, chairman of the House Licensing and Administrative Procedures, said he plans to call a meeting next month to examine the alcohol commission's work.

"We're looking at it and we're going to be looking at it: Are we going too far, or do we need to go further?" the Mission Democrat said.

Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, was instrumental in getting the increased staffing, as a member of both the powerful Senate Finance Committee and the Criminal Justice Committee, which oversees the alcohol commission.

Although he agreed hearings are merited, he defended the principle of in-bar citations.

"Even though a public drunk is not planning on driving, that could change in an instant," he said. "There is certainly potential danger."

Mr. Whitmire said lawmakers should examine whether the agency, which is funded by fees it collects, is motivated to stricter enforcement by fiscal concerns.

Sen. Chris Harris, a Republican whose district includes Irving, called the arrests in his area "very questionable."

"At first, I was generally totally in agreement with them," he said. "But there are too many stories that demonstrate an abuse of power."

He also questioned the agency's judgment in sending him and other lawmakers lengthy list of media "talking points" Friday, in an e-mail from the commission administrator, Alan Steen.

The senator's displeasure at that perceived breach of protocol was made clear in his reply to Mr. Steen, a one-sentence e-mail that read: "WHO IN THE DAMN HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?"

Texas Restaurant Association officials have declined to comment on the enforcement actions. But the executive director of a national restaurant trade group Friday termed the sweeps "neo-prohibitionism," which he blamed on the Irving-based group Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD issued a statement supporting the alcohol commission's efforts.

Mr. Harris said he questions the underlying public intoxication statute, especially provisions that give officers discretion to declare a person drunk without any breathalyzer or objective tests.

Commission officials noted that being drunk in public is against the law and that any place licensed to serve booze is, by law, a public place -- including restaurants in dry areas that sell so-called private memberships to let patrons drink.

"We can't ignore somebody who's obviously breaking the law," Ms. Beck said.

Arresting people in bars for being drunk: Isn't that like busting the Boy Scouts for building campfires?

Austin American-Statesman
Sunday, March 26, 2006

You've got to hand it to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, a state agency that has an amazing grasp of the obvious.

Over six months, TABC agents issued 2,281 criminal citations to people in Texas bars, many of them cited because they were drunk.

Isn't busting people for being drunk at a bar like shooting a bass in a bathtub? I mean, where else are you going to find drunks? At a University of Texas football game?

But hats off to the TABC for being clever enough to realize that if you're looking for drunks, a bar where alcohol is served is a great place to start.

I think it's time we rewrote the old Texas tourism motto to say: "Texas: It's Like a Whole 'Nother Country -- Saudi Arabia."

You're not supposed to drink in Saudi Arabia, and, after hearing what the TABC is doing with its undercover agents in Texas bars, it's become pretty obvious you're not supposed to drink in Texas, either.

So if you're a tourist from another state trying to settle on a destination, and you drink, you might want to think about spending your vacation money somewhere else. Try someplace nice where they won't mess with you, like maybe New Mexico.

One purpose of the sting is to keep people from presenting a danger to themselves. At least one bar targeted was a hotel bar in Irving. Maybe this was done to cut down on the number of hotel guests falling out of bed.

Going to a bar to arrest drunks: That would be like going out to the golf course and busting people for putting.

Or, better still, it would be like going to a Girl Scout meeting and busting the girls for making s'mores.

'Course, now we're getting into legitimate arrests.

"Maybe they should get somebody to go into the Golden Corral and arrest all the lardasses," said my friend Scott Wilson, who has been known to tip a few on special occasions, like Saturday.

I can hear it now from the food cop who has raids the Golden Corral: "Sir, step away from the gravy and put your fork down where I can see it."

I never have understood why Texas needs an alcoholic beverage commission in the first place. Just about every town -- except for Bartlett -- has its own police force, every county has a sheriff's department, and we have a state agency of cops known as the Department of Public Safety. Don't you suppose there are enough officers to enforce booze laws without having a special department?

And, if all these TABC people have to do is hang out in bars and go after drunks, I think that proves my point. I think the whole bunch should be given useful jobs mowing the Capitol lawn or something. Certainly we can find some worthwhile work for these folks to do.

You know what message this sting sends out to drinkers? The message is this: Instead of drinking with your friends in a bar and listening to country music and carrying on an interesting conversation, you should be drinking at home alone.

Isn't that the sort of thing that leads to a SWAT team out front with a bullhorn?


Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/03/26kelso.html

Looks like TABC is now getting spam from Ginsberg fans.

The state's drinking police

Drunken driving is a serious problem, but officials are using over-the-top tactics

AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN EDITORIAL BOARD
Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Surely the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission could have targeted bartenders for overserving inebriated customers without looking like a Lone Star version of George Orwell's "1984."

But the TABC chose the worst possible way to combat drunken driving � going undercover to arrest patrons in bars across the state. Now Texas has an international reputation for being underhanded, unfair and just plain random.

That's not an entirely accurate picture, though. Operation Last Call, as the TABC brass labeled it, actually has a constructive point to make: that bars and bartenders have a legal obligation not to serve alcohol to folks who obviously have had too much to drink.

If bar employees understand that they are legally liable in those situations and can be arrested by an undercover TABC agent, that ought to make them careful about serving more booze to drunks. Texas has a problem with drivers getting behind the wheel when they are drunk, and any effort to curb that is appreciated.

Drunken driving is a serious problem, one that costs too many lives, too much heartache and too much money each year. So TABC is right to try and prevent more drunks from driving in order to save lives and property.

But the way the commission has gone about doing that laudable work has earned it scathing headlines from Calgary to London. Operation Last Call makes the agency look lazy and the state look silly. And it could hurt tourism and the economy if the TABC continues to foul its own nest in this ongoing operation.

There is a vast gulf between a drunk behind the wheel and a patron at a hotel bar who downed one too many drinks before he retires to his room. No one wishes to have drunks on the highway, but few want undercover agents trying to discern who is drinking too much at the local watering hole whether he or she is driving or not.

And that's where the TABC program went off the road. Agents are going into bars undercover and busting people they think are drunk � people who might have done nothing more than stumble exiting a bar stool. To the average Texan, there is something about that approach that stinks.

According to published reports, some of the arrests made in the TABC operation cast more aspersions on the program. One involved a guest at a hotel in Irving who was drinking a beer at the hotel bar. He was arrested, taken to jail and fined. He was not a likely threat to drive, and the bust cost him his job.

TABC officials say more than 2,200 people have been arrested in Operation Last Call in the past six months. How many of them were dangers to themselves or others, we might never know. But there has to be a better way to protect the public than furtive forays into saloons to target people who are not a nuisance, rowdy or about to drive.

TABC agents should be concentrating on the bartenders, but statistics show far more patrons arrested than barkeeps. And if the focus truly is on curbing DWIs, then target those about to drive, not ordinary folks in hotel or neighborhood bars.

Everyone wants to keep drunks off the roads, but the commission needs to use discretion � and a modicum of good sense. TABC should attack the problem, not the random customer.


Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/03/28tabc_edit.html

Abilene Reporter News


By Blanca Cantu / cantub@reporternews.com
April 13, 2006

A program that local law enforcement officials say is taking more drunken drivers off of Abilene streets was temporarily suspended Tuesday, a press release issued from the state said.

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission suspended the Sales to Intoxicated Persons (SIP) program. The program has been widely criticized lately because TABC officials had been ticketing or arresting people who appear drunk - in bars, where alcohol is sold. The goal is to reduce incidents of drunken driving.

The commission has been doing stings in bars since 2001 but began doing more after getting additional funding from the Texas Legislature for about 100 more employees, according to the Associated Press.

State Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, and State Rep. Ismael ''Kino'' Flores, D-Palmview, called a joint committee hearing of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and the House Licensing & Administrative Procedures Committee to review the sting program administered by the TABC, the press release said. The committees will meet Monday.

The press release, which was sent late Wednesday afternoon, did not say exactly why the program has been suspended.

But Flores said he's glad TABC recognizes the need for more time to investigate the public's complaints and to finish an internal investigation of the recent arrests.

The SIP program was designed to prevent people from driving drunk after leaving establishments that sell alcohol.

Since the operation started in September last year, 107 people were arrested in Taylor County and other surrounding counties for public intoxication, averaging to about 15 to 16 arrests per month. Most of the 107 arrests were made in Abilene, said Lt. Randy Motz of the Abilene TABC office.

In a recent report in the Houston Chronicle, Abilene ranked fourth - above significantly bigger Texas cities - in the number of public intoxication arrests between Sept. 1, 2005 and March 27.

Motz said one explanation for the higher rank over more populous cities is it takes less time for TABC officers to make an arrest and book the suspect into jail in Abilene than it would in a larger, more spread-out metropolis.

Motz said because the TABC program has received such negative attention in the press recently, the public has a misconception of how the program works and what it aims to do.

''We're not yanking people off of barstools, but if you can't sit on your barstool, you can't stay there,'' Motz said.

Motz said officials come into places in plainclothes and work undercover occasionally, but the program is not meant to take the fun out of a person's nightlife. Only the ''worst of the worst'' are being arrested, he said.

Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar's assistant manager Richard Duhamel said TABC officers are not coming in and raiding the place.

''TABC comes in as a courtesy, not to clean house,'' Duhamel said. ''They just want to make sure we're doing our jobs.''

Duhamel said TABC's recent crackdown hasn't affected business at the sports bar.

Motz said law enforcement officials aren't ready to start giving each other high-fives yet because it's too soon to tell if their efforts are working, but they hope the number of DWI arrests and fatalities stay on the decline.


By the numbers

Number DWI arrests in Abilene

88 December 2004-February 2005

64 December 2005-February 2006

Difference: 27 percent drop

Number of DWI crashes in Abilene

21 December 2004-February 2005

13 December 2005-February 2006

Difference: 38 percent drop


Sources: Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, Abilene Police Department

Copyright 2006, Abilene Reporter News. All Rights Reserved.

Dallas nightclub sues state agency

Austin bar claims TABC overstepped its authority with undercover stings

By Suzannah Gonzales
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, April 13, 2006

Dallas Night Club is suing the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, accusing the state agency of unfairly targeting the bar and using an inconsistent standard to decide when patrons are legally drunk.

"The TABC has embarked on a deliberate and knowing course of conduct to drive Dallas out of business," says the lawsuit, which attorney Jesse R. Castillo said was mailed to U.S. District Court in Austin on Monday. "Dallas has lost the bulk of its clientele and millions of dollars in revenue."

Similar operations in other parts of the state have brought a backlash against the commission from tourism officials, lawmakers and others.

The agency said Wednesday that it has suspended its crackdown on public intoxication after a public outcry. Spokeswoman Carolyn Beck told The Associated Press that the commission put the program on hold "to give us time to sift through all the information we've received and pull together all the information and determine the best way to proceed."

The lawsuit filed Monday seeks unspecified damages and claims the commission's enforcement efforts are unconstitutional.

Since Dallas appeared at the top of an Austin police list of bars where people arrested on suspicion of drunken driving said they consumed their last drink, the nightclub on Burnet Road has been in the cross hairs of the commission. Along with Austin police, the agency's agents have conducted numerous undercover operations at Dallas, arresting patrons for public intoxication and accusing bartenders of selling alcohol to intoxicated people and the club's manager of inducing customers to drink excessively, both violations of beverage commission rules.

This week's lawsuit follows an administrative hearing in January in which commission officials argued that Dallas' liquor license should be canceled. An administrative judge is expected to make a recommendation to the commission this month.

Commission officials have said that the club has not done enough to address concerns about its drink promotions, particularly the weekly 69-cent drink special.

Dallas argues in its lawsuit that the agency "is arbitrary and inconsistent in the standard it uses to define 'intoxication.' "

Police can charge someone for drunk driving if the person has a blood alcohol level of .08, while a public intoxication arrest requires finding that a person is "a clear danger to themselves or others," the lawsuit says.

Commission agents overstepped their authority by using the DWI standard to arrest Dallas patrons in its stings, the lawsuit says.

"We'd rather not be here, but we didn't have a choice," said Betty Jensen, president of Cowpoke Inc., which runs Dallas.


Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/04/13dallas.html

-------------------------------------------

Here's a related question that has also arisen: Since "intoxication" is not defined in the ABC, what standard should be used when prosecuting cases of serving alcohol to intoxicated people (ABC 101.63)? The dfn. of intoxication in PC 49.01 applies "in this chapter," and is not cross-referenced in the ABC.

Okay, I know this is the criminal forum. I also know that most of you probably don't give a rat's hind end about the civil aspects of this. But if you're looking for any kind of definitive resolution from this civil suit, I have three words for you that signal why it probably won't happen here: Eleventh Amendment and Standing. Wait, that's four words. Anyway, you can't sue the state for damages under section 1983. And, unless bar owners or employees were arrested, their standing to press the suit is extremely tenuous. But even if they can establish some kind of associational standing, ultimately, their claim is that TABC is misapplying state law (substituting the DWI standard for that in the PI statute). Generally, that theory fails to state a constitutional claim.

Whatever the merits of TABC's position may be, this lawsuit is functionally no different than the spate of lawsuits by 8-liner owners in the late 1990s and early aughts seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of chapter 47. The proper remedy (as the appellate courts uniformly found) is for someone arrested in this SIPS sting to defend their criminal case on the basis of the investigatory defects alleged. If a criminal court found that investigatory scheme to be constitutionally infirm, then peristence by TABC in following that course might create a more colorable constitutional claim against individual agents. By contrast, this suit seeks to have a federal court intervene in matters pending before state courts, which seems to fly in the face of the Younger and Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrines. Moreover, as it stands right now, in the absence of a finding that the enforcement program violates established constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would be aware, the individual agents are quite likely to enjoy qualified immunity from any federal claims.

Apparently, none of the targets of the sting had the foresight to eat their own underwear in order to beat the rap.