TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:

EEllis wrote: Well yes and no. You can beat the charge pretty easily unless you are a total mess. But you can't beat the ride.

I'm not so sure... I sat in on JP court a few years ago and we had a number of these come through. I remember one of them distinctly.. Without going into details it was one officer vs one defendant (no one else around, no evidence, vastly different accounts) - I remember thinking "someone is lying a lot" - JP slapped a "guilty" on it, 100% based on officer testimony... I could understand that in a civil case, but not in a criminal one. Hopefully that standard wasn't the rule. Good news is that it was Class-C.

Maybe results in front of a real judge would have been different, but it was pretty eye opening for me. Then again, I've seen some JPs do some things that really made me question stuff, especially in small jurisdictions.

cb1000rider wrote:Look at it this way, to get arrested, two things have to happen:
1) You have to be intoxicated, per LEO's professional (trained) opinion.
2) You have to be a danger to yourself or others per the LEO's professional (trained) opinion.

There is no evidence to disprove the opinion in most cases. It's hard to prove a negative "I wasn't drinking/whatever" - and no physical evidence is required for the charge.

No issue with it when it's used to deal with someone that is intoxicated and a danger to himself or others. I've seen it used a different way several times.

It's a much less serious charge, yes, but it's a charge that can be very hard to beat.. It can be used to solve the problem at hand and if used that way, it's very hard to beat, that's all I'm saying.

cb1000rider wrote:

Keith B wrote:
I keep hearing that there are 'specific steps for DWI' but not for CHL or public intox. It really is no different. A police officer may or may not administer a breathalyzer for a PI or CHL,but the field sobriety test is going to be performed for sure. And, if they want to strengthen their case, then they administer a breathalyzer to prove the BAC level.

Please point me to the rules that say they have to administer any type of test for DWI vs. PI or CHL.

Keith, field sobriety tests are not always performed for public intoxication. In fact, I don't think I've *ever* seen one be performed as part of that charge. I'm not saying that officers aren't allowed to do so - I'm just saying that I've never observed that happen and I've seen quite a few PI arrests. I'm also saying that if you request that one be done, a breathalyzer given, or blood drawn (which you might want to request if you're not actually impaired) you're not automatically granted one. As such it's a very flexible charge.

During a DWI stop field sobriety (usually a combination of 6 tests) is a matter of departmental policy and procedure. It's not a required test under state law, but such testing is required under departmental policy (assuming I understand correctly). That policy has been developed, I assume, to help strengthen the validity of DWI cases. I wouldn't want to be a LEO standing in a courtroom explaining how they charged someone with DWI, but never administered field sobriety tests and didn't follow departmental procedure.

Why the same policy doesn't apply to PI, I don't know... Maybe one of the resident LEOs could provide more insight than me.

jones0430 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Additionally, presuming you are not driving, I don't believe there is any civil penalty for refusing the breath/field sobriety test...like have your DL suspended for 6 mo...etc. ...

Do you remember there is an implied consent law in Texas? Yes, you get a 180 day suspension for the 1st offense, 2 years for the 2nd, and the 3rd offense. I imagine that the judge will take a dim view of your refusal, and then look at your CHL, which has also been taken at the same time as your DL, and tell you, good luck in getting another one.