Police appear @ Johnny's house to serve a warrant. He is soused. They arrest him and take him to jail, process the warrant, he makes bond and is released. Once he hits public property, he is committing the offense of PI (or DWI).

Do you - create a charge and hold him? Arrest him, and somehow deal with the argument that, had law enforcement not removed him from his home there would be no offense? Close your eyes, and hope he neither falls nor injures others?

Just curious....

"All it takes is $200 and a bad attitude to file a lawsuit." That being said, the real question is whether your fact scenario is a "state-created danger." If the case was filed in federal court, your best argument would be that the Fifth Circuit hasn't expressly recognized the theory yet, relying more on the Supreme Court's reasoning in DeShaney that private citizens have no generally enforceable constitutional right to governmental prevention of criminal conduct. Even if the defense is recognized, though, how does an officer reasonably get around the posting of bond? Unless it's a DV case where the defendant can be held for a little extra time, releasing Johnny once he posts a sufficient bond isn't discretionary.

One possible solution is to have an officer cart him back home, where he would not be committing PI (not required, but perhaps a small dose of anti-lawsuit vaccine). Releasing him wouldn't necessarily implicate any viable state law claims, unless you had knowledge of some defect in the sidewalk or other property on which Johnny winds up injuring himself. Of course, if your deputy driving Johnny home has an accident ....

Must be a pretty fast system that can arrest, book, jail and bond a defendant while maintaining a intoxicated BAC. Seems to me the county should be issuing a press release on its efficient service.

Bail is a contract in which the accused contracts to appear timely and comply with certain conditions; if he's still drunk, does he have contractual capacity?

But I'd have to agree with the reaction of the poster who thinks it amazing that you can bond someone out so quickly that he is still drunk. [Either you're very fast, or the accused was very drunk.]

I am not surprised you guys from Tarrant and Williamson Counties are shocked at how quick. In small counties, their is usually a JP that is on call 24/7 to set bail and, if they can't get him there, sometimes the Sheriff does it. I remember a big row in one county I worked in where the JP got insulted because the Sheriff was setting bonds when he didn't get there quick enough. From then on, he tried to get there even quicker.

The actual fact situation - juvie gets in spat with playmates, races home and grabs Dad's bedside gun. Dad chases kid, eventually gets him and gun - takes both home. Police arrive - arrest kid for agg assault w/ deadly weapon and Dad for making the firearm available, a Class C. Kid is detained, Dad taken in, makes bond. Jailors and officers notice that he is intoxicated, however, he was in his house when arrested and the bondsman took him home. Two hours later he is spotted at a C-store buying booze by the officer who worked the juvie case and is now heading home. He alerts others; a deputy in the area spots Dad driving down the middle of the street. Intox tests show .20 BAC. Clerk arrested for sale to an intox. person.

Question being asked on behalf of clerk and Dad (who swears he had not had anything to drink in the intervening 2 hours) - when the County released Dad, were they, by their actions, declaring him to sober? (Unfortunately, I get all four cases - juvie, firearm, DWI and the clerk! )

I have trouble swallowing that argument, especially since the bondsman took him home (that would tend to negate the propriety of hooking dad up on his way out the jailhouse door for PI). The moral here: it just doesn't pay to sit around gettin' beered up while junior uses your gun to "play" with his buddies. Your fumbling subsequent remedial measures don't immunize you from the gun issue or from going out to handle the situation while copiously lubricated. I'm not sure I see a good argument that the SO had a legally proper means to detain dad at the jail once he posted bond (unless his intoxicated condition made him a danger to himself or others at the jail). Given that he rang up a .20, even if you take his release from jail as an initial determination by the cops (not a court) that he was sufficiently sober to go free, all you have is that the initial determination apparently was mistaken. Whether it's a good idea from a PR perspective, it ain't issue preclusion.

And while I may not qualify as a full-fledged civil geek (civil nerd, perhaps), I'll stick with my opinion that your facts don't indicate any substantial civil exposure (certainly in this case, where it appears that no one was hurt).

Well it was good for another wonderful post from Scott B., so thanks Lisa P. I know we are all keeping track of your vacation plans. Have a good one!

This isn't helpful, just a true story: Long, long ago, in a county far, far away, the local P.D. arrested a man for DWI and booked him into jail. A few hours later, the same officer sees the same guy driving down the street. Believing
he hadn't had enough time to sober up, he stopped him. Sure enough, it was the same guy, who had already made bond and been released from jail, and he was intoxicated still/again. He was arrested for DWI again by the same officer on the same day.

The defense attorney went to my boss and (so I was told) threatened to go to the news media if a favorable plea bargain was not arranged promptly. It was. At the urging of my boss, the jail changed its policies to avoid a repeat.