Search found 12 matches
Return to “Should the law be changed?”
- Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:03 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Should the law be changed?
- Replies: 59
- Views: 9420
Re: Should the law be changed?
First it is Blool Alcohol Concentration or Breath Alcohol Concentration. Content means the whole thing. I know PBTs are very unreliable and can be all over the place, that is why we dont use them at Lackland. Of the 100+ people I have seen blow on the intox, I have never seen anyone who drank alcohol blow goose eggs nor have I seen anyone you hadn't drank a drop blow more than goose eggs. I would like to know where you get your info from about diabetics, etc because none of that was mentioned in my NHTSA SFST course or Intox class I have been to either.
- Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:25 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Should the law be changed?
- Replies: 59
- Views: 9420
Re: Should the law be changed?
Not that it matters butsrothstein wrote:Right.
- Sun Nov 30, 2008 12:20 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Should the law be changed?
- Replies: 59
- Views: 9420
Re: Should the law be changed?
Yes you could decline the SFSTs but it would almost certainly earn you a ride to the local Intoxilyzer 5000 where you could refuse but that is where implied consent comes into play and refusel would cost you your license for 2 years minimum (I think, not 100% sure). Granite you could "Possibly" avoid the DWI charge but it would cost you your license. I guess that would be an agency to agency thing, I mean if I ask you to do something and you do it, that is consent... I just choose to ask... Plus I can beef it up like I am using it to make sure they are "fit to drive" and once they perform "well" we can send them on their way. I always err on the BG side on most things.
- Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:16 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Should the law be changed?
- Replies: 59
- Views: 9420
Re: Should the law be changed?
That depends on what you mean by "mandatory". If you mean you as the driver have to comply with SFSTs - Technically implied consent only applies to a test of your blood, breath or urine if you are operating a motor vehicle.
An officer could prove your impaired based on observations (i.e. driving wrong direction, too slow, too fast, stopping in middle of road as opposed to the shoulder, bloodshot, glossy eyes, strong/moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage, etc, etc.) Falling when you step out of the vehicle, there are also a few pre-exit tests I could ask you to perform and before you realize what I am doing you have already done them and failed/passed. Simple things like countin, reciting a portion of the alphabet, etc. All those things could be used with or without SFST or your BAC/BrAC. It would definitly NOT be easy but it is not impossible either.
An officer could prove your impaired based on observations (i.e. driving wrong direction, too slow, too fast, stopping in middle of road as opposed to the shoulder, bloodshot, glossy eyes, strong/moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage, etc, etc.) Falling when you step out of the vehicle, there are also a few pre-exit tests I could ask you to perform and before you realize what I am doing you have already done them and failed/passed. Simple things like countin, reciting a portion of the alphabet, etc. All those things could be used with or without SFST or your BAC/BrAC. It would definitly NOT be easy but it is not impossible either.
- Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:40 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Should the law be changed?
- Replies: 59
- Views: 9420
Re: Should the law be changed?
Technically he was right, you COULD be charged with any amount of alcohol in you BUT you would have to be shown to have lossed your normal mental and physical faculties (by definition). I LEO could not come up to you, smell an alcoholic beverage on you, find out you are carrying (when he asks for your ID) and then arbitrarily charge you. He would need probable cause. THat doesn't mean he wont ask you to perform a few tests, which we have already determined you have no legal obligation to comply.
On a side note, performance of the test could hurt you IF YOU ARE INTOXICATED but it could also prevent a ride to the nearest Intoxilyzer 5000 machine if you took them and passed.
On a side note, performance of the test could hurt you IF YOU ARE INTOXICATED but it could also prevent a ride to the nearest Intoxilyzer 5000 machine if you took them and passed.
- Fri Nov 28, 2008 4:04 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Should the law be changed?
- Replies: 59
- Views: 9420
Re: Should the law be changed?
What they are trying to say is there is no implied consent when it comes to "carrying while intoxicated" There very much is implied consent for DWInitrogen wrote:Wait. There is NO implied consent in Texas? Seriously?
Not that I don't trust you folks (Trust, yet verify) I'd love to see quotes in Texas Law to verify this...
- Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:19 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Should the law be changed?
- Replies: 59
- Views: 9420
Re: Should the law be changed?
Even though it makes my job easier........ I CONCUR
- Wed Nov 26, 2008 2:47 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Should the law be changed?
- Replies: 59
- Views: 9420
Re: Should the law be changed?
While I agree some people are not, how should I say "mechanically inclined" to perform the walk and turn or the one leg stand but there is the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (a test of the eyes) that requires NO balance and proven to be accurate for determining a BAC of .10 or higher over 80% of the time, using that with some phsychomotor skills tests (divided attention, finger dexterity, even the simple alphabet and counting can be used). Additionally, the officers observations would be used (i.e. did you hit a curb, stop in the middle of the road, etc.). I personally got a conviction based on the HGN (because they were over 60, 50+ lbs overweight and had bad knees), the tests mentioned above and my observations. No walk and turn, no one leg stand and no proof of actual BAC/BrAC, as they refused the implied consent. I will tell you, without the BAC/BrAC, you better be SPOT ON with your documentation and your knowledge of the SFSTs, etc. That defense attorney was a parana!
- Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:16 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Should the law be changed?
- Replies: 59
- Views: 9420
Re: Should the law be changed?
People Please Get Rid of the Misconception that there is a legal limit in TX, There is not, the law simply states if you are above 0.08 you are intoxicated. I have arrested many people with a BAC/BrAC below 0.08 and they have been convicted of DWI. Again here is the applicable definition from the Penal Code (Section 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.
(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.
- Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:05 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Should the law be changed?
- Replies: 59
- Views: 9420
Re: Should the law be changed?
As far as the liquor license goes, there is one that is supposed to be posted and someone here once told of this great trick........ They are color coded. One color means they are a 51% establishment and the other color means they are not.............. I just dont remember who offered that piece of info or what the actual colors were. I think it was Mr. Rostein, but I am not sure. SORRY IF I KILLED YOUR NAME!!
Bryan
Bryan
- Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:02 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Should the law be changed?
- Replies: 59
- Views: 9420
Re: Should the law be changed?
I would like to clear one thing up......... 0.08 BAC/BrAC in only the presumptive level, which means if your BAC/BrAC is .08 or more that you are presumed intoxicated.... You can be arrested, tried and convicted of DWI or CFWI (carrying a firearm while intoxicated) even if, I say again EVEN IF, your BAC/BrAC was 0.02. Your performance of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (as provided by the NHTSA) would be used, along with officers observations as evidence to indicate you were intoxicated, NOT the officers determination. Just like, you could technically beat the presumptive level in court if you could prove you had normal use of physical or mental faculties.Dave01 wrote:This topic comes up every now and again. It is important to note that it is not illegal to have a drink while your carrying. It is illegal to be intoxicated while carrying. The 0.08 BAC (or BrAC) does not necessarily apply here...it is most up to the officer to determine "intoxication". Regardless, I still don't understand why carrying in a bar is off limits. Just because I'm in a bar doesn't mean I'm drinking. Under the current law, I can't sit in a bar and drink ginger ale while armed (my drink of choice when driving). I don't need regulation to force me to be responsible.txfour wrote:Does anyone know what the thought process was when they wrote that you can not carry in an establishment that has 51% of their sales coming from alcohol? I understand a bar. We all know that when having a firearm on your person there is no legal limit as far alcohol consumption is concerned. I know I would never take a gun to a bar regardless if it was legal.
Alcohol and guns don't mix, but let me choose which one I want.
Definition of Intoxication from Penal Code:
(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.
- Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:25 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Should the law be changed?
- Replies: 59
- Views: 9420
Re: Should the law be changed?
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:
(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
This is the law taken directly out of the Penal Code, therefor convenient, liquor stores, etc are perfectly legal..... Most times you will see the "unlicensed possession is a felony" sign
Bryan
(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
This is the law taken directly out of the Penal Code, therefor convenient, liquor stores, etc are perfectly legal..... Most times you will see the "unlicensed possession is a felony" sign
Bryan