TexasCHLforum.com

Ok--so I admit that my foot gets heavy at times---but I had a really good reason this time! I just had new tires put on the car & it was riding so smooth, I REALLY didn't think I was going that fast! But when I saw the Van Alstyne police car on the side of the rode--I knew.

When I handed him my license, insurance & CHL--he asked if my weapon was in the car-I said yes, in my purse(on the passenger seat) All he said was something to the effect of leaving it there. (yes, I know-on body-but the pants I had on didn't cooperate!)

Yes, I got the ticket--and was VERY careful when I came back through there about 3 hours later!

The only thing I thought of later was that when he approached the car initially, he came to the passenger side which then required me to reach across the seat(where my purse with the gun was). Should I have told him before I handed it to him? It was 10 AM---it was obvious I was handing the papers with my right hand--left hand staid on the wheel--

Wow, that was an expensive day; tires and a ticket!

As for telling him, since it was daylight and you had the window down, he can see what was in your hands and that you are not digging in your purse, console or the glove box for something. You did fine IMO.

Y'all do know this is a "zero tolerance/no refusal" weekend, right?

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2012/a ... labor-day/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So much for that pesky forth amendment thing. At least they get licensed phlebotomists or nurses for the blood draws.

Have fun, but be safe, as my mother used to say.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Y'all do know this is a "zero tolerance/no refusal" weekend, right?

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2012/a ... labor-day/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So much for that pesky forth amendment thing. At least they get licensed phlebotomists or nurses for the blood draws.

Have fun, but be safe, as my mother used to say.

- Jim

It's quite simple. Don't drink and drive. No worries. At least that's what I practice.

Sure.

And drive the speed limit. And make sure your registration and inspection are up-to-date. And make sure your brake lights, turn signals, and license plate lights work. And your seat belt is buckled. And all of your passengers. And you don't look like a doper or illegal immigrant.

Did I leave out anything?

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Sure.

And drive the speed limit. And make sure your registration and inspection are up-to-date. And make sure your brake lights, turn signals, and license plate lights work. And your seat belt is buckled. And all of your passengers. And you don't look like a doper or illegal immigrant.

Did I leave out anything?

- Jim

What does an illegal immigrant look like???

PSTL*PAKR wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Sure.

And drive the speed limit. And make sure your registration and inspection are up-to-date. And make sure your brake lights, turn signals, and license plate lights work. And your seat belt is buckled. And all of your passengers. And you don't look like a doper or illegal immigrant.

Did I leave out anything?

- Jim

What does an illegal immigrant look like???

Like a sober doper.

seamusTX wrote:Sure.

And drive the speed limit. And make sure your registration and inspection are up-to-date. And make sure your brake lights, turn signals, and license plate lights work. And your seat belt is buckled. And all of your passengers. And you don't look like a doper or illegal immigrant.

Did I leave out anything?

- Jim

Romney for President bumper sticker?

PSTL*PAKR wrote:What does an illegal immigrant look like???

Not going there. Nope.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Sure.

And drive the speed limit. And make sure your registration and inspection are up-to-date. And make sure your brake lights, turn signals, and license plate lights work. And your seat belt is buckled. And all of your passengers. And you don't look like a doper or illegal immigrant.

Did I leave out anything?

- Jim

It's wrong...but the courts have ruled they can do it, so they will. It is by definition an invasive procedure and subjects you to risks (however minor). It bypasses unreasonable search/seizure as well as the 5th Ammendment right against self incrimination. There is already a penalty stipulated in the penal code for refusing the breath test...automatic suspension of driver's license, so thats thrown out the window also. Of course, if all else fails, you can be charged with public intoxication instead of DWI...an offense which requires NO PROOF of intoxication (neither breathalyzer or blood), simply the officer's opinion...even you had nothing to drink, you can be arrested for it, and you will take the ride, spend an hour or two in jail before being released and charges dismissed. I've seen it happen.

seamusTX wrote:Y'all do know this is a "zero tolerance/no refusal" weekend, right?

Every time I read about no refusal, I wonder how they get around the Transportation Code ban on this. Section 724.013 says:

Sec. 724.013. PROHIBITION ON TAKING SPECIMEN IF PERSON REFUSES; EXCEPTION. Except as provided by Section 724.012(b), a specimen may not be taken if a person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen designated by a peace officer.

I also wonder if anyone who has consented has raised a duress defense to get the test thrown out.

srothstein wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Y'all do know this is a "zero tolerance/no refusal" weekend, right?

Every time I read about no refusal, I wonder how they get around the Transportation Code ban on this. Section 724.013 says:

Sec. 724.013. PROHIBITION ON TAKING SPECIMEN IF PERSON REFUSES; EXCEPTION. Except as provided by Section 724.012(b), a specimen may not be taken if a person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen designated by a peace officer.

I also wonder if anyone who has consented has raised a duress defense to get the test thrown out.

Yep, they sure have. It is apparently a standard tactic for the defense on no refusal. The last time I was called for jury duty it was on a mandatory blood draw DWI and in the Voir Dire the defense attorney was pushing the Transportation Code allowance of refusal. I was not chosen for the jury (previous law enforcement got me thrown out I am sure), but the attorney was hitting me hard with questions trying to feel me out about the fact that there was a conflict in the law and what they were forcing. I checked the court records later and saw that he was found guilty by the jury.

Keith B wrote:

srothstein wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Y'all do know this is a "zero tolerance/no refusal" weekend, right?

Every time I read about no refusal, I wonder how they get around the Transportation Code ban on this. Section 724.013 says:

Sec. 724.013. PROHIBITION ON TAKING SPECIMEN IF PERSON REFUSES; EXCEPTION. Except as provided by Section 724.012(b), a specimen may not be taken if a person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen designated by a peace officer.

I also wonder if anyone who has consented has raised a duress defense to get the test thrown out.

Yep, they sure have. It is apparently a standard tactic for the defense on no refusal. The last time I was called for jury duty it was on a mandatory blood draw DWI and in the Voir Dire the defense attorney was pushing the Transportation Code allowance of refusal. I was not chosen for the jury (previous law enforcement got me thrown out I am sure), but the attorney was hitting me hard with questions trying to feel me out about the fact that there was a conflict in the law and what they were forcing. I checked the court records later and saw that he was found guilty by the jury.

From your knowledge of the case, what would have been your vote?

WildBill wrote:From your knowledge of the case, what would have been your vote?

Hard to say. I didn't have enough info on other factors prior to the blood draw. Those might have swayed me to say he was guilty even without it. However, the fact that the discrepancy is there would have been a factor for me if all that the case was based on was his forced BAC from the draw.

Keith B wrote:

WildBill wrote:From your knowledge of the case, what would have been your vote?

Hard to say. I didn't have enough info on other factors prior to the blood draw. Those might have swayed me to say he was guilty even without it. However, the fact that the discrepancy is there would have been a factor for me if all that the case was based on was his forced BAC from the draw.

My question is, would you have disregarded the evidence of the forced BAC?