TexasCHLforum.com

i8godzilla wrote:I know this place well and am a regular customer (no, not for daiquiris).

Well that leaves beer, propane or renting a U-haul

jmra wrote:As I read this thread I can't help but laugh thinking about all the drive-through daiquiri shops I would see everyday in New Orleans. Louisiana also has an open container law. I wonder if the Styrofoam cup with the plastic lid is considered a closed container but becomes an open container when the straw is pushed through the lid.

I think in Texas, as long as the straw wrapper and lid are taped in place, it is considered a closed container.. or at least, that is what i have been told by two departments in the FT Hood area when i asked. BUT.. is it a tamper proof tape? i've never looked, so do not know. We have one of those drive though places in Copperas Cove, i stop in to get select beer once and awhile or propane .. but have never looked at the other offerings.

AFCop wrote:Wow! I never thought one comment on my interpretation would have such a breath of life into this discussion.....

And why not? your a law enforcement officer that has described the implementation of a law in a way most are not in agreement with..

AFCop wrote: Wow, the reason an AG opinion was requested was based on one guys views he expressed on an internet forum......

No see Im a guy on the internet, your a reported LEO, who is charging my fellow service members with a crime I do not believe they have committed in my view of the law.. More so, I get, my view holds no weight.. It's well established an officer's opinion on the law is all it takes for the arrest, factual, correct, and the rest is often left to the DA or a Judge.. of course by then the arrest and ride has been forced upon the citizen.. That bell can not be un-rung. While no convection may take place the arrest will forever more bee public record.

AFCop wrote:
Did I at least put up a good argument? What about the "testimony"..... This is something I have put a little thought and care into..... Can I at least get that much?

Professional, considerate,polite for sure

Never the less I disagree with your reasoning, logic you present as justification, and by your statements, you have used, that in my opinion false reasoning and justification to charge, and apparently get a convection on a fellow service member, who in my opinion did not do anything wrong (for that charge, the DUI thing,.. Im fine with appropriate punishment upon convection.)

I find no malice in your position, attitude and argument Yet I think your wrong, and will continue until an AG opinion has been rendered, or im told there will not be one. I would do the same thing if a LEO here stated his opinion was, all persons in a car that contains a gun, inside a school zone will be arrested as they have access to the gun, and do not have a CHL, no matter the person with the gun in his possession does..
Or all guns found at the scene of a car accident, will be confiscated, for ballistics testing and SER # checks in case it was stolen or used in a crime. or...anything thing else I believe is an abortion of the actual law as written.

LEO's have a tough job, and I can imagine it is very difficult to do well, professionally. I do though have a huge problem when a LEO brings in his personal opinion and enforces a law that does not exists, or in a way it was not intended. A citizen is told, ignorance of the law is no excuse, yet the same standard is not applied to LEO's, DA's, Judges. Some internal censure or reprimand may take place, but what should happen is they should be arrested, and presented before a judge, with them to paying for a lawyer from personal funds. If they are acquitted, or found not guilty, then so be it. Just like a citizen who is arrested, detained, tried, and then a case is dismissed by a judge or the DA refuses to bring it at all, due to an officers misapplication or ignorance of the law.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse... and both the enforcer and the enforce e should be held to the same standard.

AFCop wrote: No, that is not my interpretation...... I never said that or implied that, at least I don't think I did....

Open container" means a bottle, can, or other receptacle that contains any amount of alcoholic beverage and that is open, that has been opened, that has a broken seal, or the contents of which are partially removed

The problem is, you’re the only one I can find that v the statute the way you do.. No other LEO, nor the prosecutors I’ve asked (2 US ARMY- Lic in TX, 1 Bell County) nor the Defense attorneys (1 US Army- Lic in TX, And the Bell County DA’s office has tentatively respond they also disagree with your interpretation, though that’s just an email and I’m still waiting on a official written response. And I have not gotten a response yet on if my request for a TX AG Decision will go forward from my Rep.
All have been amazed when I ask the question, all come back with some variant of “That’s just not right.. “

By the AFCOP interpretation (lol that’s what we are calling it now) the truck that opens it doors to download a pallet of beer is an open container, and the driver could be charged.. The rail car operator. Same thing..the truck driver that is delivering the alcohol to many stores a day, when he rolls up those doors and loads the dolly with a dozen cases.. he has left behind him a other receptacle that contains any amount of alcoholic beverage and that is open

None of that is a flame on AFCOP himself. None of that is meant to be disparaging against him.. and I accept his statement, that he has never used his interpretation of the statute as a standalone offence, but only as an enhancement to other charges.

If this gets reviewed by the AG, I have to wonder if the background of why AG Decision was requested will come out, and if the TX Justice system will look at cases that perhaps should not have had the subject charged with a crime, not committed (assuming the AG opines the box is not a container.)

I noticed you did not address your wrong and misleading statements that were pointed out.. .. .. Will you now?

alexrex20 wrote:

This post was made by bronco78 who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

There we go. Much better.

Guess i got my answer to that.

To the OP I apologize for the thread distraction.

Back to the topic.

AFCOP, My AF SJA POC has departed Bagram.. so Im out of luck there. But our SJA has contacted Bell County DA (who 1st CAV deals with most) and asked for an opinion.

I'll post what i find.

alexrex20 wrote:On topic? You responded to my on-topic post with your comments about window tint, license plate frames, etc. Yes I am aware that plate frames are only illegal if they obscure the text. I'm also aware that most window tinting is legal. I apologize if I was not specific in my post to differentiate between legal tint and illegal tint.

If window tinting and license plates have "nothing to do with this thread," then why did YOU introduce it? Oh wait, I can think of a few reasons. :rolleyes:

So, bronco78, how dark is your window tint and where can I get my tail lights smoked? I want to murder out my ride as well, even though I know it's unsafe and illegal. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Again, you either cannot read or cannot comprehend what has been written.. NO PLACE did I write I HAVE done anything you keep referring to.., none, zip. Those were all clearly examples of what a LEO COULD use to pull over a driver..

A LEO, can find SOMETHING, ANYTHING if they are interested, not just the few items I mentioned that could be used as PC / RS... to which you have somehow aligned to me personally as things I’m doing and trying to get away with..

alexrex20 wrote:

bronco78 wrote:

alexrex20 wrote:Even simpler: Don't do anything that will get you pulled over. ;)

So you have never had a license plate light out? tail light. Been guilty of driving late at night in a part of town known for ______ fill in the blank,, and stopped just because?

Most adults I know have been.. and every officer I know, have known over 47 years has told me flat out... if they want to pull someone over to contact them, then they can find a reason within just a few minutes of following them. Having absolute ability to articulate PC or RS for the contact. I've played that game a bunch of times, while doing ride along or just traveling with a LEO friend in the car. And lost the bet each time. .. Too long at a stop sign, to short, touched a lane marker, turn too fast, too slow, too wide, "swerving". License plate light out, plate frame masking some part of the plate text, smoked light covers, something hanging from the rear view mirror obstructing view, sitting on the rear shelf by the window obstructing view. Tinting of any color or grade (got to make the contact to confirm it's legal.... Driving too fast, too slow,,,, and the list goes on. a LEO can find PC or RS within minutes most any time they want.... The vast majority seem to do that for good use

Yes, I have been pulled over 3 times in 1 mile (to Chilifest) for no front plate, then pulled over that night for no rear license plate lights. I was given written and verbal warnings.

If you're so worried that breaking other laws will get you pulled over, then maybe you should put your alcohol in the trunk. Or stop drinking and driving. :rolleyes: It really is THAT simple.

I don't have frames around my license plate because I know it is illegal. I don't have tinted tail lights because I know it's illegal and stupid and unsafe. I don't have anything hanging from my rear-view mirror because it is unsafe. I don't have anything sitting on the rear shelf that's obstructing view because, well, it's obstructing my view and thus unsafe. I don't have any darker tint than what comes from the factory because I know dark tint is illegal.

Maybe you should just start obeying the law, instead of finding ways to not get caught doing Illegal Act #2 when you get pulled over for Illegal Act #1.

As the group here tends to be honest and not troll others posts, I can only assume you simply did not take time to read what has been posted and or are very inexperienced in life..perhaps both/ (and age is not assurance of ones education or experience)
The point of discussion in the last few posts has not been drinking and driving, that’s clear if you read and comprehend what has been written, and understand.

What is also unchallenged is the ability of even a mediocre LEO’s ability to find PC or RS and pull over a driver to make contact… One does not have to be “doing Illegal Act” as you so imply. That is also very clear to anyone who READS what has been posted.. the Assumption you made about all sorts of illegal activity that you injected in to this discussion is just nonsense.

You are also incorrect in your statement “I don't have frames around my license plate because I know it is illegal” There is nothing illegal about a license plate frame, unless it obscures the text or stickers, etc.. Were you not aware of that? If so, or not.. How interesting that you involved yourself in a discussion you neither read and comprehend and or make statements of fact that are obviously incorrect to anyone who spends even seconds searching out factual information..

502.409. WRONG, FICTITIOUS, ALTERED, OR OBSCURED
LICENSE PLATE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person
attaches to or displays on a motor vehicle a number plate or
registration insignia that:
(1) is assigned to a different motor vehicle;
(2) is assigned to the vehicle under any other motor
vehicle law other than by the department;
(3) is assigned for a registration period other than
the registration period in effect;
(4) is fictitious;
(5) has letters, numbers, or other identification
marks that because of blurring or reflective matter are not plainly
visible at all times during daylight;
(6) has an attached illuminated device or sticker,
decal, emblem, or other insignia that is not authorized by law and
that interferes with the readability of the letters or numbers on
the plate or the name of the state in which the vehicle is
registered; or
(7) has a coating, covering, or protective material
that:
(A) distorts angular visibility or
detectability; or
(B) alters or obscures the letters or numbers on
the plate, the color of the plate, or another original design
feature of the plate.

Further your statement on tinting in Texas is also wrong and misleading. I'll let you look that one up as it has nothing to do with this thread.
Please I welcome your opinion ON THE TOPIC, and as part of the discussion.. but please read what has been written, perhaps do a few second of research before posting nonsense that only dilutes what good information others are adding.

alexrex20 wrote:Even simpler: Don't do anything that will get you pulled over. ;)

So you have never had a license plate light out? tail light. Been guilty of driving late at night in a part of town known for ______ fill in the blank,, and stopped just because?

Most adults I know have been.. and every officer I know, have known over 47 years has told me flat out... if they want to pull someone over to contact them, then they can find a reason within just a few minutes of following them. Having absolute ability to articulate PC or RS for the contact. I've played that game a bunch of times, while doing ride along or just traveling with a LEO friend in the car. And lost the bet each time. .. Too long at a stop sign, to short, touched a lane marker, turn too fast, too slow, too wide, "swerving". License plate light out, plate frame masking some part of the plate text, smoked light covers, something hanging from the rear view mirror obstructing view, sitting on the rear shelf by the window obstructing view. Tinting of any color or grade (got to make the contact to confirm it's legal.... Driving too fast, too slow,,,, and the list goes on. a LEO can find PC or RS within minutes most any time they want.... The vast majority seem to do that for good use

AFCop wrote:

bronco78 wrote:

alexrex20 wrote:If you're not drinking and driving, and truly only transporting the alcohol, then put it in the trunk.

It's pretty simple.

Nothing like this is ever that simple, unless one wants to ignore reality , and find a simple solution that fits a short sighted opinion.

Life has many more twists and turns then to be fixed in a simple catch all clause or statement.

Many times I do not want to open my truck to place the days HEB purchase in. Or a follow on stop at some other store.. I have things in my trunk I would rather not show parking lot crawlers. That means two or more bags of stuff are going in my back seat,,, The way AFCOP has interpreted the law (Unlike I've ever seen it done so before) I can be charged when he finds my wine bottle "Container" only has 2 bottles, and not the four it might possible hold. Or the "container" provided to hold UP TO 6 bottles of beer, but I chose only 3, or 4, or 5 that day.. And Not that I drink beer from a can (ya Im a beer snob, get over it i have ) But with cardboard soda containers, I find they bust open on me about 2 / 10 times... if that was beer, a can would likely be lost in such an event, like I loose a soda can now an again in the parking lot. I would be charged by AFCOP for having an open "container".

An interesting issue, and one that will be brought up with the appropriate military authorities, as well as my representative for an AG ruling as I believe, AFCOP has interpreted a law, in a manner to which it was not anticipated, and even when done in good faith is a grievous mistake and one that should be corrected.

I guess my first question is why would you purchase a container of 4 wine coolers with only two in it? Additionally, like I said, if that was the case, I am not an unreasonable person (regardless of what you think about my opinion on this subject) and don't go around looking for broken boxes, etc. I have on two seperate occasions successfully charged a DWI with the OC enhancement with an open case of beer. If I am interpreting it so incorrectly, how would one handle the situation as I described above? With the DWI, person drinking and driving but instead of using his car as a trash can he uses the side of the road, should he not me entitled to the enhancement?

I know unlike some LEO's, I would accept the reasoning of I left my house, going to friends house, havent been drinking but I plan on it when I get there.... Without question! Just I well as the box broke open and now they are rolling around on the floor.... Again, sobriety and OTHER factors would play a part in an actual charge. I even bought the Tx County and District Attorneys Assoc. DWI Investigation and prosecution for 2011. This is not something I take lightly and if I am wrong, I would gladly take the education. I like to think I am fair as I possibly can be.

I never said wine coolers, if that's what you read.. Please Try again.. This is a good discussion, I would like to hope what i have written is what is being read....

So to restate the obvious. Wine, comes in bottles (and boxes for some but thats a different post). Many shops that sell wine provide a carrier, or "Container " in AFCOPS opinion. The buyer can use that carrier to move the wine bottles from store to home...some places have a discount of x % if you fill the container.. Others not. The point is, there is no requirement to fill the container.. You may walk out with a 4 place carrier and only 1, 2, 3 bottles of wine.. or a two place carrier with only 1 bottle of wine.

Not to mention the scenario I set of for those who buy beer in flimsy cardboard carriers (what you call containers)

The endstate is, I believe the law was not intended to provide a LEO the ability to charge "open container" type violations when a transportation over package has been opened.
I will very soon attempt to get both AF military legal opinion and TX AG's opinion on the matter.. as my opinion means little. I already have the a senior Army PMO and SJA military legal opinion, ... and lets just say, it differs from AFCOP. It will be interesting to see what the AF SJA opinion and TX AG if I can get it, will be.

AFCOP. I sense no malice on your part.. none, zip. and .I do sense a degree of common sense and fairness Never the less I disagree with your take on the law. I am in a position to get it clarified for the Military at least, and possible the state as well.. Thats not in any way meant to imply wrong doing on your part. And it may come to pass, I'm wrong, and the law supports your position, more then mine. I'm ok with that as well... I'll still be of a mind that it's wrong and overzealous in the policing of citizens.. but that too is another thread.

alexrex20 wrote:If you're not drinking and driving, and truly only transporting the alcohol, then put it in the trunk.

It's pretty simple.

Nothing like this is ever that simple, unless one wants to ignore reality , and find a simple solution that fits a short sighted opinion.

Life has many more twists and turns then to be fixed in a simple catch all clause or statement.

Many times I do not want to open my truck to place the days HEB purchase in. Or a follow on stop at some other store.. I have things in my trunk I would rather not show parking lot crawlers. That means two or more bags of stuff are going in my back seat,,, The way AFCOP has interpreted the law (Unlike I've ever seen it done so before) I can be charged when he finds my wine bottle "Container" only has 2 bottles, and not the four it might possible hold. Or the "container" provided to hold UP TO 6 bottles of beer, but I chose only 3, or 4, or 5 that day.. And Not that I drink beer from a can (ya Im a beer snob, get over it i have ) But with cardboard soda containers, I find they bust open on me about 2 / 10 times... if that was beer, a can would likely be lost in such an event, like I loose a soda can now an again in the parking lot. I would be charged by AFCOP for having an open "container".

An interesting issue, and one that will be brought up with the appropriate military authorities, as well as my representative for an AG ruling as I believe, AFCOP has interpreted a law, in a manner to which it was not anticipated, and even when done in good faith is a grievous mistake and one that should be corrected.