TexasCHLforum.com

chabouk wrote:

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.

I dont know about easier to prove, more so establishes a bar none limit.... To eliminate some subjective arguments.... granite with the right conditions you could beat the presumtive level but would still technically be in violation of the law because of the imposed limit. I agree completely with what you said and that was the point I was trying to make with the carrying of the weapon as well.

karl wrote:

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).

As for the exit, it was like previously stated a look for PC to move onto SFST's (Standardized Field Sobriety Tests). I do 80 to catch up to people going 50 in a 30 so that doesnt reall mean to much, challenge the ticket.

Bryan

Does that mean I would have to prove the loss of motor skills via physical sobriety test to be convicted at that level? After thinking about the standing part all of today I came to the same conclusion, a mock-sobriety test.

Lets work on wording a little bit, you dont have to prove anything. Thats how our justice system is designed to work. It is incumbant on the arresting officer to prove you didnt have normal psychomotor skills through observations, both on the vehicle in motion (i.e. swerving, speeding, more than x miles below speed limit, etc, etc) and initial contact w/ driver (i.e. bloodshot, watery eyes, odor of acoholic beverage coming from vehicle, etc) and initial contact with the driver outside of the vehicle (i.e. swaying, leaning for support, falling down, odor of acoholic bev on person - strong, moderate, light, etc, etc.)
All that before you even come close to asking for consent for SFSTs. It is like building blocks - everything builds ontop of the other and the more blocks the easier you prove your point. SFSTs are a whole nother ball of wax, lets just say after all three are complete I can accurately guess your BAC (give or take a few points).

Onto the speeding ticket, does the citation list how your speed was determined (RADAR, LiDAR or pacing), If he was moving the same direction as you (no dept in Texas has same direction RADAR from what I know - please correct if I am wrong) but he most likely paced you and unless he followed you for a distance and can prove his vehicle (at the time of violation) was in proper working order. Catching up to someone means you had to go faster than them to close the gap, it no way can represent how fast they were going.

Hopefully all this information helps you, not that I am advocating drinking and driving or carrying and drinking, I am a firm believer impairment begins with the first drink and have seen first hand the damage someone who only had "a few drinks" can do.... off the soap box

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).

As for the exit, it was like previously stated a look for PC to move onto SFST's (Standardized Field Sobriety Tests). I do 80 to catch up to people going 50 in a 30 so that doesnt reall mean to much, challenge the ticket.

Bryan