No Alcohol Limit?

[Crossfire]

PC 46.035(d) is the code section that states it's illegal to carry while intoxicated. But I see nothing there regarding there being "no legal limit" of intoxication.

Then there's Texas PC 40.01(2), which defines intoxication as...

Code: Select all

(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.

But the "B" section DOES mention a legal limit of 0.08.

So, where is it written that there is "no legal limit" when carrying under a CHL?

I'm specifically looking for the code section that validates the CHL test question, not trying to open up a (nother) general discussion of intoxicated carry.

Try not to think too much about these things. It's called "teaching to the test".

Like I say in every class, I didn't write the test. I may not fully agree with every question or every answer. But, as an instructor licensed by the DPS, I am bound to teach it.

[longtooth]

Never better said.

[sjfcontrol]

From this code section, any lawyer would argue that carrying while intoxicated has no lower limit if the faculties are impaired, and has a BAC upper limit of .08 before breaking the law, without regard to your faculties. So, the common argument of if you are okay to drive you are okay to carry matches my understanding of the law. I think that almost every cop in the state, other than an instructor repeating a department interpretation, would say the same thing.

Thanks, Steve -- As usual, you have a good grip on the meaning of the statutes, and the nuances of the political situation.

[sugar land dave]

From The character of a London diurnall, a journal written in 1644: "The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads."

I think we do this here sometimes, over-think the simple. If we choose to carry, we must not act so as to endanger our right to carry, hard-won as it has been.

[Oldgringo]

From The character of a London diurnall, a journal written in 1644: "The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads."

I think we do this here sometimes, over-think the simple. If we choose to carry, we must not act so as to endanger our right to carry, hard-won as it has been.

Well said!

[steveincowtown]

A= Officer's judgment call and his ability to articulate this to a judge

B= pass/fail test

Either could get a conviction.

IMHO, INAL, etc.

"A" is not a judgement call. The Standardized Field Sobriety Tests are tests with pass/fail scores, too.

Sorry about that.

It is a Standardized Test which involves the judgments of an individual officer. The NFL also has standardized rules that are pretty darn clear, which are enforced by folks that are professional and that are trained pretty darn well, and some how bad calls do get made. I am not discounting any well trained LEO, but I very confident in saying that any decision that involves a human being is not exact and 100% the same from officer to officer.