TexasCHLforum.com

Renegade,

It depends on the base and how it was created. Some military bases are what is called concurrent jurisdiction. These are under both military and civilian rule, so the peace officers go there. Others are what is called exclusive jurisdiction and only military or federal personnel can enforce the law there. I don't know what Ft. Hood is. Then, to throw more confustion into the mix, there is a federal law called the assimilation act, which lets military bases assimilate state laws so that they do not have to write all of their traffic rules and such.

On the off shore waters, I believe the state has the jurisdiction out to the seven mile limit that is US property, but I have never looked it up to be sure. I got that understanding from the way the gambling boats go out to international waters to avoid violating state gambling laws.

As far as I understand, the question is still open on boats on state waters, but on federal waters (mostly COE lakes) the answer is confirmed as NO.

As for whether or not you can be stopped and checked, the law (Parks and Wildlife Code) says:

§ 31.124. INSPECTION OF VESSELS.
(a) In order to enforce the provisions of this chapter, an enforcement officer may stop and board any vessel subject to this chapter and may inspect the boat to determine compliance with applicable provisions.

(b) An officer boarding a vessel shall first identify himself by presenting proper credentials.

(c) The operator of a vessel required by this chapter to hold a certificate of number aboard the vessel shall show the certificate to the officer on demand, and failure to do so constitutes a violation of this chapter.

(d) No person operating a boat on the water of this state may refuse to obey the directions of an enforcement officer when the officer is acting under the provisions of this chapter.

(e) The safety of the vessel shall always be the paramount consideration of an arresting officer.

(f) If an enforcement officer determines that a vessel and its associated equipment is being used in violation of this chapter or of any regulation or standard issued thereunder so as to create an especially hazardous condition, he may direct the operator to return to mooring, and the vessel may not be used until the condition creating the violation is corrected.

As with many other points where the law allows a search, I am curious how it would stand up to a challenge to the SCOTUS level under the 4th Amendment.

Keith B wrote:

srothstein wrote: Thus a boat is not going to be considered a motor vehicle.

I will not attempt to answer the houseboat question since there are conflicting definitions in the code, and I could make a good argument either way. I would go with it being legal as a habitation, though i can see arguments the other way.

I think a houseboat would be considered a recreational vehicle and fall under the 'premises' guideline only.

I am not sure I agree with you but I think it would work. Under the definition of premises in 46.035, it must be a building. A building is any structure intended for occupation or habitation. Since a houseboat is not natural object, it is a structure. By design, it was intended for use as a habitation, thus making it a building and premises.

Note that this is taking the definition of building from Chapter 30, though.

An argument against a houseboat being a premise is the definition of premises in Section 46.02(a)(2). Here it says it includes recreational vehicles, but defines them as motor vehicles or vehicles designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. A houseboat is not a motor vehicle, though it is a vehicle. It is not designed to be towed though, so it is not a recreational vehicle under this definition. The argument to use to counter this logic is that this definition says premises "includes". This is not an exclusive definition. It may also include other things, like houseboats. This is similar to last year traveling presumption. It was not a definition, but one example of the term.

I think the court would look on a houseboat as your premises, but I am not 100% sure of it. It is definitely a habitation for burglary purposes, though.

TX_Jim wrote:I looked up the GC Code Construction Act 311.11 and it does not specifically state the order in which to define a word or phrase as you state. It does say use the common usage or the technical definition or the legislative definition should be construed accordingly.

Sorry, I cannot give a reference to the order specifically. It was the way i was taught in the academy. I think it was based on case law rulings, but I cannot say for sure. The trick to it is to see if the word or phrase has acquired a technical meaning by law to go by instead of the common meaning. It is easy when the word is specifically defined for that phrase, but a little harder in cases like this.

Anyway, that being said, I followed your logic and found that Title 10, chapter 49, does in fact contain a definition for motor vehicle. My problem with this logic is that 49.01 says “Definitions� “in this chapter� and then says that motor vehicle takes on the meaning from 32.34 . I would have to argue that 49.01 “in this chapter� limits the scope of those definitions to that chapter and does not imply that they should be used in any other context. Am I way off base here?

No, it is an easy thing to get confused on at first glance, but really easy to understand when you think about it.

Assume there is a term we need defined. In one chapter, that term was used. If it was the first time they used that term, they probably defined it and used the expression "in this chapter". Later on, if they used the phrase again, they probably referred to the first definition instead of redefining it. If they needed it to mean something different that time, then they redefine it in full.

But this shows that the term now has a technical meaning by law. While it is only used for that chapter, the code construction act tells us to use the technical meaning if there is one. So, when the term is used in another part of the code and not defined, we now know the technical meaning of the term under the law.

Of course, the problem is when the term is defined in different ways in different parts of the code. This is why i was told to use that order. It gives the closest legal meaning from a section that should be similar in general usage.

Some of you have hinted around the problem by asking which definition of motor vehicle to use. The answer is covered in the Government Code by a section called the code construction act. This law says that when interpreting a statute, the words have the common meaning unless they have been given a special meaning under the law. This has been taught to me as define the word in the following manner:

1. The section of law makes the meaning obvious to any reasonable person.
2. The section of law has a definition for the term.
3. There is a definition of the term that applies for the subchapter.
4. There is a definition of the term that applies for the chapter.
5. There is a definition of the term that applies for the subtitle.
6. There is a definition of the term that applies for the title.
7. There is a definition of the term that applies for the code.
8. There is a definition of the term in other codes.
9. There is a specific technical meaning for the word that most people would know.
10. The general meaning of the word.

Since there is no definition of the phrase motor vehicle in this chapter, we need to look at other areas of the law. As we go up the chain, we can find a definition of motor vehicle in the same title (Title 10) that applies for another section. It refers us to a definition in section 32.34, which is another title. Other uses of the phrase are not defined, such as in Chapter 30, though it is important to note that Chapter 30 does define "vehicle".

Since a motor vehicle is more specific than a vehicle, and we take the specific over the general as another general rule, we can use the definition referred to for almost the whole Penal Code. This is supplemented by the fact that Chapter 49 refers to Chapter 32 for the definition.

Chapter 32 says a motor vehicle is:

a device in, on, or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a highway, except a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.

Thus a boat is not going to be considered a motor vehicle.

I will not attempt to answer the houseboat question since there are conflicting definitions in the code, and I could make a good argument either way. I would go with it being legal as a habitation, though i can see arguments the other way.