TexasCHLforum.com

I don't always live by the philosophy if you have nothing to hide, then why should you care. I just think that you should pick and choose your battles. It's one thing if the FBI comes knocking on your door saying they were in the neighborhood and want to look through your house, but in my opinion its different than submitting to a breathalyzer at a checkpoint. While it may be an inconvenience, in the long run what does it truly hurt? I get that some would argue, if they get away with this then they will up the ante until we eventually had no rights, but I don't think this is that extreme. If they try to pass legislation that allows a breathalyzer/blood draw to be administered to anyone that looks at an officer, then yes by all means I would jump up and down defending my rights. But (again, only my opinion) I don't think a DWI check point constitutes as police out of control infringing on my rights.

To first address the OP's question, I would say never lie to an officer. If they ask questions, specifically that one, they may already know the answer or have suspicions. You telling him no you hadn't been drinking only gives him more reason to believe you are hiding something (if he had smelled alcohol/seen swerving/etc. prior to asking you the question). If you are worried about DWI, then don't drink and drive. Period. This brings me to the next subject (rant warning).

I don't understand why people are so defensive about talking to an officer. Their jobs are hard enough without people giving them the run around. Regarding consenting to a breathalyzer, if you haven't been drinking you have nothing to worry about. Take the test and get on with your life. If you have been drinking, you are the one that made that choice knowing it is possible you get pulled over-be it for driving erratically or other non moving violations. While having a beer then driving home an hour later after a meal won't likely put you over the limit, you still make the choice to have that drink and have to face the consequences if you mess up.

I did a little digging and found this regarding random checkpoints: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_D ... ce_v._Sitz. Again, if you haven't been drinking you have nothing to worry about at these checkpoints. Let the officers see your DL/insurance and get on with your day/night. If you have been drinking then be prepared to face the consequences. No one forced you to drink, and they certainly didn't force you to drive afterward. While it may be an inconvenience to those of us that haven't been drinking to have to stop at a checkpoint, I don't mind if it means the streets are going to be safer. I have had too many friends involved in wrecks with drunk drivers to have any sympathy. Personally I feel Texas gives people too many chances regarding drinking and driving. Don't do it and you don't have to worry about getting in trouble for it.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the constitution and my individual rights, but I certainly don't think 5-10 minutes at a checkpoint is worth throwing a fit over to ensure those people drinking and driving get what's coming to em.

Gig'em.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that your friend is right in that Texas has a two part definition for DWI: =>.08 BAC OR where normal use of facilities is impared (I'm summarizing, not quoting the statute). The second part most often arises where drugs are the intoxicant but it can and has been used where the BAC is < .08. Imagine a situation where it is 3:00 am, a person had been partying and has sobered up substantially from where they were, is now slighly below .08, but is very tired and driving home. If they are weaving all over the road and nearly falling alseep at the wheel, as evidanced by video from a patrol car dash cam, I wouldn't be surprised to see a DUI charge and have it stick.

SA-TX

DUI is for under 21 drivers. Any hint of alcohol or intoxication is enough to charge someone under 21 with DUI, no breathalyzer needed. If someone is below .08 they can still be issued a DWI if they have impaired judgment.