TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

EEllis wrote:Your interpretation is simply not that of our courts. If they believed a person was most likely underage and that they observed what looked like alcohol then that equates to RS if the officer can articulate why they think that.

I would argue that for it to look like alcohol, it actually has to look like alcohol...Merely not looking like something that's not alcohol shouldn't be good enough, IMHO.

HUH? Look the package, IMO, is such that if it were sitting on a table and I was 15' away and looked over I could easily think it was beer. That's all it takes.

EEllis wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote:

EEllis wrote:...see what they believed was a minor carrying what appeared to be a 12 pack of beer.

This is the problem I am having. What made them "believe it was beer? They obviously did not positively identify it, so what made them believe it was beer instead of water or soda? I suspect it was a preformed bias toward believing it.
This just sounds a lot like the citizen having to prove innocence.

they don't have to positively identify it as beer it just has to be reasonable to them that it is. We, the courts, don't require law enforcement to be positive before allowing them it investigate or initiate a stop. There been no hint, except from people who in absolutely no position to know, that there was anything wrong with the RS for this stop.

Just for those who don't know this particular brand of water is canned not bottled and does not use the primarily single color packaging that soda uses. While soda and beer are not the only items that come in 12 pack cans these would certainly not cause me to instinctively think water.

EEllis wrote:...see what they believed was a minor carrying what appeared to be a 12 pack of beer.

rbwhatever1 wrote:7 pairs of eyes failed to identify anything illegal