Intoxication

[Keith B]

If this passes, I hope DPS will change their lesson plan to teach the law.

They teach the law correctly today. TPC 49.01 IS the law this will NOT change it, just clarfy section 46 that this is the proper definition overall. There will still be 'no minimum limit' of alcohol in the body. At .08% or above it only means you are legally intoxicated no questions asked, period. Below that level BAC it will still fall back to impairment and the officers discretion.

[Ameer]

They should put 'no minimum limit' on the driving test too, unless they're spinning the CHL law.

[Keith B]

They should put 'no minimum limit' on the driving test too, unless they're spinning the CHL law.

There is no minimum limit on driving either. Same definition and meaning. 49.01 currently applies to both.

[Ameer]

It's the same, so unless they're trying to mislead people for some reason, they should use the same language about alcohol and DWI on the written test for a drivers license.

[sjfcontrol]

When a clause in the law states "In this section" is it referring to the entire section? (I.e. "46.*" -- which I believe is called a 'chapter') or limited to the specific section (46.06 in this case.). Seems to me that 46.01 would have been the proper place to put any definition that applied to all of 'chapter' 46 in the first place.

[Keith B]

When a clause in the law states "In this section" is it referring to the entire section? (I.e. "46.*" -- which I believe is called a 'chapter') or limited to the specific section (46.06 in this case.). Seems to me that 46.01 would have been the proper place to put any definition that applied to all of 'chapter' 46 in the first place.

My turn to use the sign

I think this is just like many other statutes that have been modified over the years and something has gotten added or removed on place and not another. That is why I am glad to see Van introduce this bill to clean up the chapter and get it more well defined.

[bigbang]

It would be a good move to apply the intoxication standards to everyone equally instead of just CHL.

[KRM45]

And unless I am mistaken this now makes the definition of intoxication consistent with that for DWI/DUI.

Just a point of clarification... DUI still has a different definition.

From the alcoholic beverage code...

Sec. 106.041. DRIVING OR OPERATING WATERCRAFT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL BY MINOR. (a) A minor commits an offense if the minor operates a motor vehicle in a public place, or a watercraft, while having any detectable amount of alcohol in the minor's system.

[texanjoker]

That last part always bothered me. "or any other substance". As far fetched as it is, I have often wondered if an officer pulls someone over who is driving erratically and that driver states that they have had 5 Red Bulls and that they are driving erratically because of the caffeine... is it conceivable that driver could be arrested and charged with DWI? Based on "any other substance" I do not see why not.

I am not brilliant legal scholar, but I do not like the change as proposed. Simply because we go from requiring "Substantial impairment" to "not having normal use" of your faculties to meet the definition. I don't know about you... but I would rather the state be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I was "Substantially impaired" rather than I did not have "normal use" of my faculties. Seems like splitting hairs, but I was on a jury for a DWI that resulted in a conviction. He refused a specimen test, but the dash cam clearly showed that he did not have normal use... but he was only a little impaired in my opinion and if that case had required "substantial impairment", there is no way we would have found him guilty. Just one example.

People sniff all sorts of stuff now days.

[Keith B]

And unless I am mistaken this now makes the definition of intoxication consistent with that for DWI/DUI.

Just a point of clarification... DUI still has a different definition.

From the alcoholic beverage code...

Sec. 106.041. DRIVING OR OPERATING WATERCRAFT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL BY MINOR. (a) A minor commits an offense if the minor operates a motor vehicle in a public place, or a watercraft, while having any detectable amount of alcohol in the minor's system.

Correct. Most states have moved to some type of intoxicaiton standard for minors which is 'any detectable' alcohol, which is usually a .02 BAC or greater. In Texas, it is DUI for minor (under 21) and DWI for 21 and over.

[Keith B]

That last part always bothered me. "or any other substance". As far fetched as it is, I have often wondered if an officer pulls someone over who is driving erratically and that driver states that they have had 5 Red Bulls and that they are driving erratically because of the caffeine... is it conceivable that driver could be arrested and charged with DWI? Based on "any other substance" I do not see why not.

I am not brilliant legal scholar, but I do not like the change as proposed. Simply because we go from requiring "Substantial impairment" to "not having normal use" of your faculties to meet the definition. I don't know about you... but I would rather the state be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I was "Substantially impaired" rather than I did not have "normal use" of my faculties. Seems like splitting hairs, but I was on a jury for a DWI that resulted in a conviction. He refused a specimen test, but the dash cam clearly showed that he did not have normal use... but he was only a little impaired in my opinion and if that case had required "substantial impairment", there is no way we would have found him guilty. Just one example.

People sniff all sorts of stuff now days.

'Substantial impairement' does not apply today unless it is under section 46.06 where you are transfering a firearm. Intoxication for a CHL holder otherwise still has to meet deifnitions of 49.01 today. The only thing this bill will do is clarify that 49.01 is the standard they must refer to for a CHL.

[Richard_B]

From the text of the bill

(18)AA"Intoxicated" has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01.

It looks like this adds 0.08% BAC as proof of intoxication, even if the person is not visibly impaired. It doesn't create any new offenses or penalties if someone doesn't consent to a BAC test, so I don't object to the change.

You do remember that the 0.08% law came about as a result of the Feds requiring that the states enact such legislation as a condition of their continued receipt of Federal highway funds (taxes paid by the citizens of the respective states being partially returned to them).

[baldeagle]

I was the foreman on a jury for a DWI case. The case hinged on the fact that the driver, who claimed not to have drank any alcohol at all, was taking her two friends, who were so drunk that one of them passed out in the car, back to their cars to drive home in that condition. No one who had the normal use of their faculties would ever do that unless they were hoping their friends would be killed driving home.