Public Intoxication Charge in Ohio - Can I beat it?

[Peligroso27]

You're wrong. There isn't any question in my mind or the other respondents to this thread that this individual was highly intoxicated and causing a disturbance.

 

[justalayman]

I didn't say he didn't cause a disturbance. See my post awhile back where I cited a law and said OP was guilty of that law?

Apparently not. What I am disagreeing with is your claim he was

highly intoxicated

. He was not slurring his words. He spoke coherently. Can;t tell if he was waivering about. In case you want to argue that one; ever video anything? The camera shows all your movements and since he was talking with the officers and attending to that, short of having a steady cam, the picture is going to move about.

You claim he was a danger to himself and was highly intoxicated. Neither was shown in anything presented. He did not threaten to hurt himself nor did he act in a careless manner that could cause any injury. He followed the officers orders and was apparently given a ride home. As to highly intoxicated; again, I see you have super powers and could perform a breath test not only via the internet but from a video that actually was nearly unviewable.

 

[Peligroso27]

I didn't say he didn't cause a disturbance. See my post awhile back where I cited a law and said OP was guilty of that law?

Apparently not. What I am disagreeing with is your claim he was . He was not slurring his words. He spoke coherently. Can;t tell if he was waivering about. In case you want to argue that one; ever video anything? The camera shows all your movements and since he was talking with the officers and attending to that, short of having a steady cam, the picture is going to move about.

You claim he was a danger to himself and was highly intoxicated. Neither was shown in anything presented. He did not threaten to hurt himself nor did he act in a careless manner that could cause any injury. He followed the officers orders and was apparently given a ride home. As to highly intoxicated; again, I see you have super powers and could perform a breath test not only via the internet but from a video that actually was nearly unviewable.

Yes, I do have super powers. You are still wrong and this dead horse is done being beaten.

 

[justalayman]

claim whatever you want. Just remember the only characters with super powers are simply the imagination of some writer.

and you can get off the horse if you want but I can do as I wish.

 

[itsmewhoelse]

He was highly intoxicated in a public area. This presents a danger to himself.

Exactly and add the fact he was not wanted there, there fore could had started a major brawl which happens at parties

 

[itsmewhoelse]

Now you are going to claim you can breathalyze via the internet?

If he was intoxicated, it was not proven nor was any level of intoxication established. He did not display any aggressive actions. (obnoxious; yes. aggressive; no). He displayed nor related nothing that would show he was a danger to anybody.

Being intoxicated itself does not cause one to be dangerous to themselves or anybody else by itself. There is no other information available to allow anybody here to make that call.

OKAY for once and for all he is guilty.
Here is the proof.

THE OP STATED:
Turns out, I was the only dude there who wasn't gay. I guess that's why they asked me to leave.

Well, on the way out 3 or 4 of these guys started acting aggressive with me, yelling at me to leave while I was unlocking my bicycle from the tree in front of this dude's house. I went to the sidewalk, and the same guy who was screaming at me to hurry up, started in again.

I told him I had that under the constitution of the United States, I had the complete right to be on the sidewalk at that time or any time as long as I was not harrassing anyone or disturbing the peace. AND HE STATED HE WAS NOT LEAVING THE SIDE WALK

------> OKAY, right now the OP is endangering himself and probably others by not leaving, also OP was intoxicated.

NOW HERE IS THE LAW:
a person commits the offense of public intoxication who appears in a public place under the influence of a controlled substance or any other intoxicating substance to the degree that:

• The offender may be endangered;
• There is endangerment to other persons or property; or
• The offender unreasonably annoys people in the vicinity.


ALL OF THE ABOVE APPLIED TO HIM
A: He annoyed the people by not leaving when asked
B: The offender was endangering himself and others by not leaving(Not saying Offender would had stared a fight but the party goers could had stared a major brawl on this dude with them being drunk and angry he wasnt leaving. Offender already stated they became aggresive towards him)
C: Offender was drunk "Intoxicated"

GUILTY AS CHARGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CdwJava]

I suspect he was not seen as being a danger to himself or others (IF that is the standard in Ohio). Had he been so impaired, the officers would have adopted HUGE liability had they NOT taken him into custody. Ergo, I agree with the earlier contention that he was cited for disturbing the peace while intoxicated:

2917.11 Disorderly conduct.
(B) No person, while voluntarily intoxicated, shall do either of the following:

(1) In a public place or in the presence of two or more persons, engage in conduct likely to be offensive or to cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to persons of ordinary sensibilities, which conduct the offender, if the offender were not intoxicated, should know is likely to have that effect on others;

(2) Engage in conduct or create a condition that presents a risk of physical harm to the offender or another, or to the property of another.

(D) If a person appears to an ordinary observer to be intoxicated, it is probable cause to believe that person is voluntarily intoxicated for purposes of division (B) of this section.​

The term "intoxicated" simply means that one is under the influence of alcohol, not that they are a sloppy drunk. To infer such influence, the officer need only articulate the objective symptoms (bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, unsteadiness, etc.). It really does not take a whole lot.

At the very least I'd say he is guilty of this disorderly conduct charge.

And, HOW does someone manage to land himself an invite to an all-gay party and NOT know that everyone is gay?!? And at ANY party where you are a total stranger, how do you get the cajones (while allegedly sober) to jump into a hot tub NAKED in front of a whole bunch of strangers??? I wouldn't do that in the company of close friends and family, let alone a party full of strangers!

The ONLY explanation for this behavior is that your judgment was impaired by alcohol.

At this point, you are left with hiring an attorney and defending yourself at trial. And, maybe, you can hope that the state opts not to go forward with it when it DOES go forward.


- Carl

 

[justalayman]

itsmewhoelse:

OKAY for once and for all he is guilty.
Here is the proof.

so, where were the residents for the hour it took the police to show up?

what transpired during that time? Ah, you don;t know because nothing was posted concerning that time.

you may want to post the actual law, not somebodies interpretation of it.

maybe something like this:

2917.11 Disorderly conduct.

Quote:
(B) No person, while voluntarily intoxicated, shall do either of the following:

(1) In a public place or in the presence of two or more persons, engage in conduct likely to be offensive or to cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to persons of ordinary sensibilities, which conduct the offender, if the offender were not intoxicated, should know is likely to have that effect on others;

(2) Engage in conduct or create a condition that presents a risk of physical harm to the offender or another, or to the property of another.

Quote:
(D) If a person appears to an ordinary observer to be intoxicated, it is probable cause to believe that person is voluntarily intoxicated for purposes of division (B) of this section.

arguing with a person is not engaging in conduct or creating a condition that presents a risk of physical harm to the offender or another or to the property of another.

Read the posts. There was no threats of violence. OP stated the residents were aggressive but that does not infer physical action.

Additionally, the residents appear to be the aggressor once the OP left the property. I would guess they were drinking as well. Were they ticketed? Apparently not.

Did the police see anything described within the statute that would allow them to write the citation? From what has been posted, no so they cannot testify to what transpired. Since the residents did not seem to be involved with the citation, the officers did not properly ticket the OP.

ALL OF THE ABOVE APPLIED TO HIM

A: He annoyed the people by not leaving when asked

he did leave their property and was upon public property. The residents followed the OP and continued the confrontation. Sure seems like the residents should have recieved the citation.

B: The offender was endangering himself and others by not leaving(Not saying Offender would had stared a fight but the party goers could had stared a major brawl on this dude with them being drunk and angry he wasnt leaving. Offender already stated they became aggresive towards him)

that is like saying you are endangering yourself by driving a car. Unless there is some evidence there was an actual endangerment, you are not endangered. Aggressive does not mean physical.

GUILTY AS CHARGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

strangely enough, that is not the discussion at hand. We were discussing your ability to determine the OP was "highly intoxicated" merely by viewing some video. I already stated OP appeared to be guilty of the crime charged. You also claim he was a danger to himself because of his highly intoxicated state. Since you have no evidence to show a highly intoxicated state, that claim has absolutely no support.

If you want to enter a debate, you might want to not try to change what the debate is about.

I believe you lost track of yourself some time back. Maybe you need to take a break and compose your thoughts before embarrassing yourelf any further.

 

[CdwJava]

Note that the section refers to being "in a public place" - he does not have a right to be intoxicated and causing a disturbance or annoying people even from the sidewalk. Yelling, causing a disturbance, or generally being annoying does constitute a violation under the section. However, as the adjectives are all subjective, the defense can certainly TRY to argue against each of the elements.

If the elements are not met at trial, then the OP will prevail - or the DA may choose not go go forward.

- Carl

 

[justalayman]

I'm with you on this one Carl. Actually I have simply enjoyed toying with the tag team duo of peligros and itsmewhoelse.

They came along and wanted to argue about this OPs guilt. I had stated some time ago I believe he was guilty of the crime charged. Somewhere along the line, they just keep missing that fact.

These guys were claiming "highly intoxicated" and "endangering himself" based upon the video and postings. I simply didn;t see it as such.

 

[CdwJava]

I haven't watched the video, I just read others' text of it. Having had to deal with guys like this before, I can honestly say that he probably did not endear himself to the officer at all.

Plus, I am still VERY curious HOW he got into an all gay party of strangers and still chose to get naked?? There is something missing here ...

- Carl

 

[justalayman]

=CdwJava;2053424]I haven't watched the video, I just read others' text of it. Having had to deal with guys like this before, I can honestly say that he probably did not endear himself to the officer at all.

my description of the guy, I believe, is accurate. He did act as if he had been drinking merely because of what he asked the officers and such but he did speak clearly and coherently.

Plus, I am still VERY curious HOW he got into an all gay party of strangers and still chose to get naked?? There is something missing here ...

- Carl

if you want somehting else to add to this, here is the URL for the video.

http://derailedhairsalons.com/video/sparkypi.WMV

derailed hair salons? That speaks volumes to me.

 

[itsmewhoelse]

Im assuming resident were out side on the porch or why else would the OP sit ont he sidewalk and wait for police?????????

Doesn't matter if the residents we aggressive. he was suppose to leave to aviod a confirmation between him and the residents.

If the OP was at one of my parties and he didn't leave our area when asked I can almost be ceratin that the OP would have had a black eye.

NO, OP was not aggressive, but the law states he doesn't have to be aggressive, he was putting himself in harms way by not leaving the area when asked by aggressive party goers who probably wanted to give him a few black eyes. Looks like the residents were upset by him being there.

ALso the OP was annoying to the parry residents and even to the police. Annoying and being drunk is cause enough to be charged with Public Intox

 

[justalayman]

If the OP was at one of my parties and he didn't leave our area when asked I can almost be ceratin that the OP would have had a black eye.

I see. You admit you would have attacked the OP unprovoked. That explains a lot.

 

[paguy88]

Plus, I am still VERY curious HOW he got into an all gay party of strangers and still chose to get naked?? There is something missing here ...

it was a gay party and he still got naked?

i missed that part

oh well to each their own.