Editor, Times-Union: The public intoxication statutes of Indiana have been amended so that it is not a crime to be intoxicated in a public place unless you are doing one or more of four things: (1) being a danger to yourself, (2) being a danger to another, (3) breaching the peace or in imminent danger of doing so, or (4) harassing, annoying or alarming another person. Further, a police officer cannot be sued for the failure to arrest a person because the person is doing one of the above things. The changes take effect July 1, 2012. The statutes continue to contain their original respective wording, but with the new additional requirements. There is a difference between the original wording of the statues concerning intoxicated. The public intoxication in a public place statute made it a crime if the person was “in a state of intoxication” in a public place. A “state of intoxication” was considered by some as meaning that the intoxication permeated and was throughout the person’s body, in other words the person was in a sloppy, falling down drunk condition. The old reported cases dealt with situations where a drunk was sleeping on the sidewalk, or vomiting, or disturbing the peace, not being able to control himself. The other statute just referred to a person being “intoxicated.” In a recent case, a woman who was a passenger in her car, when it was stopped for a minor infraction, was arrested and convicted of public intoxication because she tested more than .08. She was hosting a party, one of the guests asked her to take him to a place, she declined because she had been drinking but offered to let him drive her car and she would ride with him. On appeal she claimed that the statute had always applied only if a person was being disorderly, etc. It did not appear that an argument was made over the meaning of “state of public intoxication.” The court ruled that the car was on the street, it was a public place, she was intoxicated and that is all the law required. It is up to the legislature to establish the requirements. It did. These changes in the statutes do adopt the argument that her attorneys had raised. See Senate Enrolled Act No. 97 Jim Walmer Warsaw, via e-mail
