This is why I would not test the point, merely a theoretical discussion. But the TABC definition of "premises" is not relevant to the 46.02 or 46.035 offenses any more since the statutes being charged contain specific language defining premises. Especially in the case of a very large venue with multiple buildings and outdoor areas that could all be covered under the TABC license(s). Additionally which liquor license controls for the offense in the case that there are both RED and BLUE licensees in the building? The usual default in criminal law is to the least restrictive interpretation.srothstein wrote:While you could make the argument, TABC has defined which portions of the building are covered in their license. It is not where the drinks are being sold, but anywhere they can be sold or taken to drink. The law does not allow you to take alcoholic beverages out of the licensed portion, if any part of the building is marked off as not covered on the license application.
I do not think you would win the case. There is a lot of case law on it where the courts have recognized the building unless marked off by TABC.
The best solution is to get rid of 46.035.
![Mr. Green :mrgreen:](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)