TexasCHLforum.com

Hmm. Agree to disagree. To me it just sounds like you would be unnecessarily stacking charges.

AFCop wrote:

snatchel wrote:I follow your logic in what you are saying, in regard to the way the law is written.... But....

I guess where I am getting hung up is the fact that your interpretation while logical, is not reasonable. It makes perfect sense, but there are too many reasonable variables that could explain where those other two cans are.

I would like to think that open container laws are to battle open containers, littering laws are to battle beer cans being tossed, and DUI laws to battle drivers under the influence.

I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, far be it from me to say that as someone who is not an LEO in any form (yet). I just don't agree with it, and though you may be able to easily cite someone for the reaons above, I would think that any bottom feeder lawyer could get that particular charge dismissed.

You were saying earlier that you try to interpret the laws literally. I agree that most of the time that is a good thing, but I would like to think that you also use reason and common sense to dictate your interpretations. Just because you COULD interpret a law in a way to nail someone doesn't mean you SHOULD. =

Make no mistake, I'm not trying to start a urinating contest, just tring to explain my stance on a possible flaw in your interpretation.... Which by the way, you agreed to earlier if only by implication, by agreeing that it was possible to have an open box of beer/etc and still not be in violation of "open container."

Yes, and that is why the only time I have charged this with respect to open case, etc was with a DWI investigation. I have cited people for OC without a DWI charge but that always has included an open bottle/can with some liquid inside. I wouldn't say it was a flaw in my interpretation but moreso a loop hole in the law or a reasonable application of what the laws intent is..... To curtail DWI related offenses, right?

No doubt, I want to curtail DWI related offenses too! But by utilizing a "loophole" to give an OC to someone who may not have actually been guilty of open container would be a major flaw on your part. They could never prove it of course, they are after all intoxicated and probably lying through their teeth to save their butt...but you can't actually PROVE that they were guilty of it. Their intoxication combined with a 12 pack minus 2 beers implies that they may have had an OC....but you can't prove it.

If you tack the OC onto a DUI for the scenario I stated, and you went to court to testify, this is what it would sound like:

Attorney:"You cited Mr. Jones for an OC because of a 12 pack on the floor of his car that was missing 2 beers, correct?"
You:"Yes"
Attorney:"Can yo prove that he was actually consuming alcohol from an open container while he was operating the vehicle?"
You:".... err... no. I assume that he was. He was intoxicated and driving. He had 2 cans of beer missing from a 12 pack. It
makes sense that he consumed them and had an open container in his vehicle prior to me making contact."
Attorney:"So you cited Mr. Jones for an OC based off a logical assumtion, but have no proof that he was consuming alcohol
from an open container prior to you making contact."


Again.. yes, it makes sense... but you have no proof.. Boxes of beer don't contain alcohol. They are perforous containers that simply hold cans or bottles of beer. I would call that a flaw in your interpretation.. no offense, bud.

I follow your logic in what you are saying, in regard to the way the law is written.... But....

I guess where I am getting hung up is the fact that your interpretation while logical, is not reasonable. It makes perfect sense, but there are too many reasonable variables that could explain where those other two cans are.

I would like to think that open container laws are to battle open containers, littering laws are to battle beer cans being tossed, and DUI laws to battle drivers under the influence.

I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, far be it from me to say that as someone who is not an LEO in any form (yet). I just don't agree with it, and though you may be able to easily cite someone for the reaons above, I would think that any bottom feeder lawyer could get that particular charge dismissed.

You were saying earlier that you try to interpret the laws literally. I agree that most of the time that is a good thing, but I would like to think that you also use reason and common sense to dictate your interpretations. Just because you COULD interpret a law in a way to nail someone doesn't mean you SHOULD. =

Make no mistake, I'm not trying to start a urinating contest, just tring to explain my stance on a possible flaw in your interpretation.... Which by the way, you agreed to earlier if only by implication, by agreeing that it was possible to have an open box of beer/etc and still not be in violation of "open container."

AFCop, I have only one question for ya:

Even if you are using the "recepticle" portion to replace an actual empty bottle/can/cup/flask, or whatever... how do you prove that they had an open container of alcohol that was being consumed? I thought the intent of the open container law was to enforce policy of non drinking while driving. As others have stated.... an open recepticle could mean any number of things.

Lets say I'm driving on base, intoxicated. I am wrong, no doubt, and would expect to get hammered for it. I also have a 12 pack of Coors Light sitting in the passenger seat floor with 2 beer cans missing. You are telling me that because I am intoxicated, and there are only 10 beers in the 12 pack, you will charge me with open container? Even if you did, I'm curious as to how that would hold up in court, unless you had the 2 empty beer cans you could not actually prove I had open containers in the car. Right? You have an intoxicated driver, a 12 pack of beer minus 2 beers...but still no burden of proof showing that I at one point had an open container.

Maybe I read your statements wrong, but I'm pretty sure I got your whiff fairly straight. If that is what you are saying...