TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:Curious - how'd you know he was a seasoned alcoholic? My understanding is that a recent drink can make you blow off-the charts, but I don't know how it works in reality...

While a recent drink can make the test wrong, it is pretty hard to really get away with. One of the standards officers use is making sure that the suspect has nothing in his mouth for 15 minutes before taking the test.

thetexan wrote:the PC 49.01(2)statute states...

(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.
---
B is easy, cut and dried, quantitative, razor sharp. You have either .08 or you don't. A is more of an issue but also easy, cut and dried, quantitative, razor sharp. You either have the NORMAL use of mental or physical faculties or you don't. And that is all the prosecutor has to prove. Normal is normal. ANYTHING less than normal as presented to a judge or jury meets the definition.

Tex, I agree on your personal rule of no alcohol when carrying, but I am not quite as agreeable on your portrayal of part A as cut and dried or quantitative. As evidence against it, I will ask you to define what is normal. For further evidence, I will ask if it means normal for me or normal for you or who it means normal for. I know people who can solve quadratic equations in their head as a normal thing, but I can't do it stone cold sober. I know what I can do normally, and some people can do better than me drunk and some cannot do it sober.

On the plus side, there are tests police can use to help prove a lack of normal mental capabilities. They are the standardized field sobriety tests - the one leg stand, the walk and turn, and the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. But even they are not 100% (92% accuracy if I recall correctly). Each has a set of standard clues that help the officer make up his mind. The problem with these tests is that I do not know of any officer who gives them for a public intoxication or carrying while intoxicated. They teach them for DWI cases and generally let officers use their own judgment on PI cases.

Sparky3131 wrote:He was under the impression that it was the same as drinking while driving(.08 BAC). I showed him the penal code where it said 'impaired' not intoxicated

Could you tell me which section you showed him? My copy of the Penal Code says carrying while intoxicated is illegal. It is in section 46.035(d). And intoxicated has the meaning given by section 49.01, which makes it the same as DWI.