Alcohol & your CHL

[EEllis]

Additionally, presuming you are not driving, I don't believe there is any civil penalty for refusing the breath/field sobriety test...like have your DL suspended for 6 mo...etc. ...

Do you remember there is an implied consent law in Texas? Yes, you get a 180 day suspension for the 1st offense, 2 years for the 2nd, and the 3rd offense. I imagine that the judge will take a dim view of your refusal, and then look at your CHL, which has also been taken at the same time as your DL, and tell you, good luck in getting another one.

He said NOT driving. If you are not driving they can't do anything about a refusal.

[jmra]

Additionally, presuming you are not driving, I don't believe there is any civil penalty for refusing the breath/field sobriety test...like have your DL suspended for 6 mo...etc. ...

Do you remember there is an implied consent law in Texas? Yes, you get a 180 day suspension for the 1st offense, 2 years for the 2nd, and the 3rd offense. I imagine that the judge will take a dim view of your refusal, and then look at your CHL, which has also been taken at the same time as your DL, and tell you, good luck in getting another one.

He said NOT driving. If you are not driving they can't do anything about a refusal.

i wish I had a nickel for every time I've skipped over one little word when reading which changed the whole context of the message being conveyed.

[cb1000rider]

I keep hearing that there are 'specific steps for DWI' but not for CHL or public intox. It really is no different. A police officer may or may not administer a breathalyzer for a PI or CHL,but the field sobriety test is going to be performed for sure. And, if they want to strengthen their case, then they administer a breathalyzer to prove the BAC level.

Please point me to the rules that say they have to administer any type of test for DWI vs. PI or CHL.

Keith, field sobriety tests are not always performed for public intoxication. In fact, I don't think I've *ever* seen one be performed as part of that charge. I'm not saying that officers aren't allowed to do so - I'm just saying that I've never observed that happen and I've seen quite a few PI arrests. I'm also saying that if you request that one be done, a breathalyzer given, or blood drawn (which you might want to request if you're not actually impaired) you're not automatically granted one. As such it's a very flexible charge.

During a DWI stop field sobriety (usually a combination of 6 tests) is a matter of departmental policy and procedure. It's not a required test under state law, but such testing is required under departmental policy (assuming I understand correctly). That policy has been developed, I assume, to help strengthen the validity of DWI cases. I wouldn't want to be a LEO standing in a courtroom explaining how they charged someone with DWI, but never administered field sobriety tests and didn't follow departmental procedure.

Why the same policy doesn't apply to PI, I don't know... Maybe one of the resident LEOs could provide more insight than me.

[Keith B]

I keep hearing that there are 'specific steps for DWI' but not for CHL or public intox. It really is no different. A police officer may or may not administer a breathalyzer for a PI or CHL,but the field sobriety test is going to be performed for sure. And, if they want to strengthen their case, then they administer a breathalyzer to prove the BAC level.

Please point me to the rules that say they have to administer any type of test for DWI vs. PI or CHL.

Keith, field sobriety tests are not always performed for public intoxication. In fact, I don't think I've *ever* seen one be performed as part of that charge. I'm not saying that officers aren't allowed to do so - I'm just saying that I've never observed that happen and I've seen quite a few PI arrests. I'm also saying that if you request that one be done, a breathalyzer given, or blood drawn (which you might want to request if you're not actually impaired) you're not automatically granted one. As such, I'm suggesting that there is perhaps a lot more latitude allowed in such a charge.


During a DWI stop field sobriety (usually a combination of 6 tests) is a matter of departmental policy and procedure. It's not a required test under state law, but such testing is required under departmental policy (assuming I understand correctly). That policy has been developed, I assume, to help strengthen the validity of DWI cases.

Why the same policy doesn't apply to PI, I don't know... Maybe one of the resident LEOs could provide more insight than me.

I guess things are different for PI in Texas than they were in Missouri. We very rarely would have anyone arrested for PI, but usually some other offense. However, if we were arresting someone for an intoxication offense of any kind they were administered a breathalyzer to confirm their BAC, even if it was suspected they had other substances in their body that was causing their intoxication.

[WildBill]

I keep hearing that there are 'specific steps for DWI' but not for CHL or public intox. It really is no different. A police officer may or may not administer a breathalyzer for a PI or CHL,but the field sobriety test is going to be performed for sure. And, if they want to strengthen their case, then they administer a breathalyzer to prove the BAC level.

Please point me to the rules that say they have to administer any type of test for DWI vs. PI or CHL.

Keith, field sobriety tests are not always performed for public intoxication. In fact, I don't think I've *ever* seen one be performed as part of that charge. I'm not saying that officers aren't allowed to do so - I'm just saying that I've never observed that happen and I've seen quite a few PI arrests. I'm also saying that if you request that one be done, a breathalyzer given, or blood drawn (which you might want to request if you're not actually impaired) you're not automatically granted one. As such, I'm suggesting that there is perhaps a lot more latitude allowed in such a charge.

During a DWI stop field sobriety (usually a combination of 6 tests) is a matter of departmental policy and procedure. It's not a required test under state law, but such testing is required under departmental policy (assuming I understand correctly). That policy has been developed, I assume, to help strengthen the validity of DWI cases.

Why the same policy doesn't apply to PI, I don't know... Maybe one of the resident LEOs could provide more insight than me.

I guess things are different for PI in Texas than they were in Missouri. We very rarely would have anyone arrested for PI, but usually some other offense. However, if we were arresting someone for an intoxication offense of any kind they were administered a breathalyzer to confirm their BAC, even if it was suspected they had other substances in their body that was causing their intoxication.

From my limited experience in Texas, most of the PI arrests that I am aware of were for minors. I lived in an area of many small cities on Clear Lake. The local PDs cracked down on "parties" especially in the summer months. I don't know if they were given sobriety tests or not. The people that I saw arrested were very obviously intoxicated.

[EEllis]

I keep hearing that there are 'specific steps for DWI' but not for CHL or public intox. It really is no different. A police officer may or may not administer a breathalyzer for a PI or CHL,but the field sobriety test is going to be performed for sure. And, if they want to strengthen their case, then they administer a breathalyzer to prove the BAC level.

Please point me to the rules that say they have to administer any type of test for DWI vs. PI or CHL.

Keith, field sobriety tests are not always performed for public intoxication. In fact, I don't think I've *ever* seen one be performed as part of that charge. I'm not saying that officers aren't allowed to do so - I'm just saying that I've never observed that happen and I've seen quite a few PI arrests. I'm also saying that if you request that one be done, a breathalyzer given, or blood drawn (which you might want to request if you're not actually impaired) you're not automatically granted one. As such it's a very flexible charge.

During a DWI stop field sobriety (usually a combination of 6 tests) is a matter of departmental policy and procedure. It's not a required test under state law, but such testing is required under departmental policy (assuming I understand correctly). That policy has been developed, I assume, to help strengthen the validity of DWI cases. I wouldn't want to be a LEO standing in a courtroom explaining how they charged someone with DWI, but never administered field sobriety tests and didn't follow departmental procedure.

Why the same policy doesn't apply to PI, I don't know... Maybe one of the resident LEOs could provide more insight than me.

Because PI is a class C mostly meant to get someone off the street so they don't harm themselves or others. By the time you get an attorney and fight it you would already be out with time served. Since the purpose is to keep you safe until you sober up why would the cop care if you beat the charge at a later date.

[cb1000rider]

Look at it this way, to get arrested, two things have to happen:
1) You have to be intoxicated, per LEO's professional (trained) opinion.
2) You have to be a danger to yourself or others per the LEO's professional (trained) opinion.

There is no evidence to disprove the opinion in most cases. It's hard to prove a negative "I wasn't drinking/whatever" - and no physical evidence is required for the charge.

No issue with it when it's used to deal with someone that is intoxicated and a danger to himself or others. I've seen it used a different way several times.

It's a much less serious charge, yes, but it's a charge that can be very hard to beat.. It can be used to solve the problem at hand and if used that way, it's very hard to beat, that's all I'm saying.

[Keith B]

I got to digging back into the statutes and remember now that in Missouri we really has no PI law. What we had was basically a 'drunk and disorderly' which was charged as disorderly conduct. There is a law prohibiting it in schools, courthouses or churches, but never had that circumstance. I think the ones we did have we administered the breathalyzer as evidence that it was influenced by alcohol and that would help our case to stick.

[EEllis]

Look at it this way, to get arrested, two things have to happen:
1) You have to be intoxicated, per LEO's professional (trained) opinion.
2) You have to be a danger to yourself or others per the LEO's professional (trained) opinion.

There is no evidence to disprove the opinion in most cases. It's hard to prove a negative "I wasn't drinking/whatever" - and no physical evidence is required for the charge.

No issue with it when it's used to deal with someone that is intoxicated and a danger to himself or others. I've seen it used a different way several times.

It's a much less serious charge, yes, but it's a charge that can be very hard to beat.. It can be used to solve the problem at hand and if used that way, it's very hard to beat, that's all I'm saying.

Well yes and no. You can beat the charge pretty easily unless you are a total mess. But you can't beat the ride.

[cb1000rider]

Well yes and no. You can beat the charge pretty easily unless you are a total mess. But you can't beat the ride.

I'm not so sure... I sat in on JP court a few years ago and we had a number of these come through. I remember one of them distinctly.. Without going into details it was one officer vs one defendant (no one else around, no evidence, vastly different accounts) - I remember thinking "someone is lying a lot" - JP slapped a "guilty" on it, 100% based on officer testimony... I could understand that in a civil case, but not in a criminal one. Hopefully that standard wasn't the rule. Good news is that it was Class-C.

Maybe results in front of a real judge would have been different, but it was pretty eye opening for me. Then again, I've seen some JPs do some things that really made me question stuff, especially in small jurisdictions.

[EEllis]

Well yes and no. You can beat the charge pretty easily unless you are a total mess. But you can't beat the ride.

I'm not so sure... I sat in on JP court a few years ago and we had a number of these come through. I remember one of them distinctly.. Without going into details it was one officer vs one defendant (no one else around, no evidence, vastly different accounts) - I remember thinking "someone is lying a lot" - JP slapped a "guilty" on it, 100% based on officer testimony... I could understand that in a civil case, but not in a criminal one. Hopefully that standard wasn't the rule. Good news is that it was Class-C.

Maybe results in front of a real judge would have been different, but it was pretty eye opening for me. Then again, I've seen some JPs do some things that really made me question stuff, especially in small jurisdictions.

No it's a criminal case. JP's can hear criminal cases that are punishable by fine only. JP's don't even have to be attorneys so it's not like you can judge much by their rulings. I would bet money there were no lawyers there either. I've noticed that when someone lawyers up their case gets transferred to the county court when it's going to be a real trial.

Talking about JP court. One day I went in to a courthouse to do some vehicle reg thing and on the way out was waylaid by a deputy constable asking if I had a DL. Well sure I did so I said yes and asked why. He said follow me your going to be a juror and I was stuck at the courthouse for hours in the JP court.

[nightmare]

I agree with you that it will have to be proven in court, but you are going to have to prove you were not intoxicated as well after you are arrested.
That's right. Legally it's no different for DL or CHL. Whether or not you consumed any alcohol in the past month, the cop may arrest you for being intoxicated while driving or carrying.

Considering the number of innocent people killed by drunk drivers and the number of innocent people killed by drunk CHL, I'm much more concerned about people leaving the keys at home than leaving the gun at home.

One critical difference is the process used. If you're driving and you're stopped and suspected of being intoxicated, LEOs have a very specific set of steps that they need to take to establish that you are indeed impaired. If they don't take those steps, perform them incorrectly, the case is substantially weakened. No single test is a determining factor as they all of the steps have some (perhaps substantial) margin of error.

I assume that intoxication while carrying is like public intoxication, where no specific steps or tests are required and it's largely left up to the profession digression of the officer.

Why do you assume that when the definition of intoxication is the same for both offenses?

[cb1000rider]

Why do you assume that when the definition of intoxication is the same for both offenses?

Observation. I've seen people arrested for PI that were not intoxicated (at least to my "untrained" eye). More than once. In the way, yes... Argued with an officer, yes... Obviously impaired, no...

Although I suppose it's possible to arrest a motorist (driving) who isn't actually impaired, it's going to require failing a series of tests or at least have an officer indicate that the tests were failed... And my guess is that it could be perhaps a little embarrassing if you arrest someone who blows 0 or has no evidence of intoxication on a blood screen, if field sobriety (typically recorded) looks OK.


I don't argue that the bar is different. I argue that the practical use of the charges are very different and one is much harder to defend against, at least potentially... Best case isn't to be in the situation at all.

[J.R.@A&M]

Buying alcoholic beverages in bars, restaurants, and (choke) airports is just too danged expensive. One restaurant beer is about one third of a box of ammo.