TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:My real point was that the statutory defintion of intoxication was the same for DWI, PC 46.035, and arguably PI. The defintion applies to the whole PC "chapter" 49. In other words, if you couldn't legally establish that the person was intoxicated then the "danger" element would be irrelevant.

I also take exception with the statement (not yours) that intoxication is defined at the discretion of a Peace Officer. The decision to arrest a person for some intoxication offense may be at the Peace Officer's discretion, as it is for many offenses. However, the definition of intoxication is in the law and must be established as a fact at trial if it is an element of the offense.

and well said!

MoJo wrote:At the instructor's class last week the magic words were "in control of." Locked in your trunk is still "in control of." Like driving, if you are gonna be packing don't be consuming adult beverages. If you are showing signs of impairment at 0.01 then you are impared. It's a judgement call by the LEO. 0.08 is an absolute where you are legally impaired regardless of your actions.

Actually the 0.08 is not an absolute on you being "legally" impaired.... You are violating the law simply becuase your BAC is 0.08 or above. Your BAC over 0.08 is prima facie evidence (presumed) you are intoxicated. Kinda like the basic and absolute speed law...

Basic is reasonable and prudent - if you prove your speed was reasonable and prudent you did not violate anything
Absolute means there was a posted limit and you violated it. Sam concept w/ BAC and determining if you are intoxicated.

Up to 0.08 if you prove you had normal use of your mental and physical abilities you are free and clear however over 0.08 and your goose is pretty much cooked.