TexasCHLforum.com

thetexan wrote:the PC 49.01(2)statute states...

(2)“Intoxicated” means:
(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the
introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a
combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into
the body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.
---
B is easy, cut and dried, quantitative, razor sharp. You have either .08 or you don't. A is more of an issue but also easy, cut and dried, quantitative, razor sharp. You either have the NORMAL use of mental or physical faculties or you don't. And that is all the prosecutor has to prove. Normal is normal. ANYTHING less than normal as presented to a judge or jury meets the definition.

I teach all of my students to steer way clear of any alcohol while carrying because it is so easy to violate the rule. One sip of a beer could be used to demonstrate that by its introduction you lost some of the normal use of your faculties. If B was the only element then you could drink as long as you stayed below .08. This is only referring to the exactness of the law notwithstanding the application of good judgement.

My rule is when carrying...no alcohol...at all...period...none...like it was poison.

tex

Wolverine wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:Really.... you need to "prove yourself innocent/disprove the opinion" of a class C misdemeanor, which is legally a "crime" albeit a minor one...? Maybe now in Obama's America....

Guilty until proven innocent didn't start with Obama.

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.

Keith B wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

nightmare wrote: I agree with you that it will have to be proven in court, but you are going to have to prove you were not intoxicated as well after you are arrested.
That's right. Legally it's no different for DL or CHL. Whether or not you consumed any alcohol in the past month, the cop may arrest you for being intoxicated while driving or carrying.

Considering the number of innocent people killed by drunk drivers and the number of innocent people killed by drunk CHL, I'm much more concerned about people leaving the keys at home than leaving the gun at home.

One critical difference is the process used. If you're driving and you're stopped and suspected of being intoxicated, LEOs have a very specific set of steps that they need to take to establish that you are indeed impaired. If they don't take those steps, perform them incorrectly, the case is substantially weakened. No single test is a determining factor as they all of the steps have some (perhaps substantial) margin of error.

I assume that intoxication while carrying is like public intoxication, where no specific steps or tests are required and it's largely left up to the profession digression of the officer. Fighting a charged that was based on the opinion of a professionally trained police officer isn't something that I want to have to do.. Especially since it's going to be hard to prove that there was no opportunity to take an intoxicating substances.. and without specific tests (blood, breath) - no specific evidence that might run contrary to an officer's professional opinion.

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 B wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Keith B wrote:If your friend was imparired by his drinking, then he was illegally carrying. Personnally, I may have one beer with a meal while carrying, but that is the limit for me, and that is a rare instance. And that will depend on my personal condition at the time of the consumption. If a person is tired or not feeling up to par, even one beer can potentially impair them and cause them to be illegally carrying.

No, if he was INTOXICATED while he was carrying then he was breaking the law. I'm IMPAIRED when someone smokes a cigarette next to me, because it stings my eyes and dulls my reaction time, but I'm not going to disarm.

The definition of intoxicated in 46.035 is "EXACTLY" the same as for driving. It's not "up to the cop's discretion" and it's not any more vague than it is for driving. It's up to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were intoxicated as defined by the law. Same burden as for proving you were DWI. If you won't arm when you go out and have a drink then you should not drive either.

You're picking nits. And it IS up to the cops discreation. Per TPC 49.01:

(2) "Intoxicated" means:
(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

If you are impaired and have a dulled reaction time (your words) by any of the listed items in red above, then you could be determined to be intoxicated and arrested by the cop. You might be able to beat it in court if you can prove you did not meet the definition, but a person who is actually impaired by those items listed IS intoxicated.

Keith B wrote:If your friend was imparired by his drinking, then he was illegally carrying. Personnally, I may have one beer with a meal while carrying, but that is the limit for me, and that is a rare instance. And that will depend on my personal condition at the time of the consumption. If a person is tired or not feeling up to par, even one beer can potentially impair them and cause them to be illegally carrying.