TexasCHLforum.com

juggernaut wrote:Karl got a ticket for speeding. It sounds like people here are the ones making alcohol an issue.

Alcohol clouds peoples' judgment and makes them say and do irrational things. And then there's the effect it has on people who actually drink it.

AFCop wrote:Check the penal code definition of "intoxication". There is no such thing as a "legal limit". There is a section that makes having a BAC of 0.08 or higher a crime in and of itself (per se rule) and presumtive evidence of intoxication. the definition also mentions a loss of normal psychomotor skills due to alcohol or drugs so even at a 0.025 you could be charged and convicted of DUI and the weapons violation. I have 3 convictions (as a LEO) on individuals who blew well below 0.08 (0.034, 0.019 and 0.68).

That's true, but if he could make the case for intoxication, it would apply to both DWI and PI/UCW. Neither requires anything more than sufficient testimony by the arresting officer that the subject was intoxicated. On the other hand, the 0.08 BAC standard is prima facie evidence of DWI, just like exceeding the posting limit is prima facie of unsafe speed. And, we all know that both standards are subjective; some drivers/carriers are unsafe at 0.025 or 45, while others are safe at 0.12 or 85 (depending on conditions, of course).

The statutory limit just makes it easier to prove; that's practically the definition of prima facie evidence.

There is one practical difference, though: if someone is arrested for PI despite being below 0.08, the officer's testimony carries great weight no matter what the conditions were at the time. The same officer would have a mighty tough time getting a conviction for "unsafe speed" on a driver who was driving below the posted limit, but who didn't have or cause an accident.