HB153

[thatguy]

Can someone help me with what the definition is currently and what the proposed definition will be?

I currently understand that the current definition of intoxication can be very broad and would like to see it "more defined".

Lastly, drinking and driving doesn't mix and neither does drinking and carrying a gun...

[RoyGBiv]

As I understand it, "intoxicated", as it refers to CHL, is currently undefined in the statutes. In other words, left to the discretion of the persons making the decision/arrest. Some will interpret intoxicated to mean the same thing as it does for DWI, but some LE might choose to define it as tightly as "if I smell it on your breath, you're busted", when it could really just be Listerine (please don't harp on "Listerine", you get my drift).

The new bill would define intoxicated as a specific, demonstrable set of behaviors and or 0.08 BAC

[jmra]

Don't drink, use scope = no problem.

[thatguy]

The reason for my question is I have been asked by my Representive for my opinion(s) on some of the bills and I am finding it harder than I thought to obtain information...

[BeanCounter]

Current law - "Intoxicated" means substantial impairment of mental or physical capacity resulting from introduction of any
substance into the body.

Proposed law - "Intoxicated" has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01

Section 49.01 states "Intoxicated" means:
(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

The effect would seem to firm up the meaning of "intoxicated" by using the the same legal definition used for DWI/DUI??

HB 153 is scheduled for public hearing on 2/26/13 before the Criminal Jurisprudence committee

[thatguy]

Public hearing at the State Capitol I presume? Can anyone attend and speak at these public hearings?

[BeanCounter]

Yes, looks like the Capital Extension part - E2.016

Criminal Jurisprudence
10:30 AM or upon final adjourn/recess
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Place: E2.016

Attending the meeting should not be a problem. I found the following about speaking at a committee hearing

How do I testify at a House committee hearing?
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Resources/FAQ.aspx#28" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Electronic registration has been implemented as a requirement for providing testimony at House committee hearings. See the House Witness Registration website for more information.

Electronic Witness Registration
https://www.mytxlegis.legis.state.tx.us ... about.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cbunt1]

The reason for my question is I have been asked by my Representive for my opinion(s) on some of the bills and I am finding it harder than I thought to obtain information...

Well, for what it's worth, were *I* asked for my opinion on such matters, I would be a very unpopular guy -- I tend to take a slightly different view on intoxication and the definitions thereof. Warning: This is likely to be one of my long drawn out (possibly boring) soapbox posts. I hope it invokes thought, and I understand there will be very little agreement with me :)

I have a serious problem with ALL of our intoxication laws. Not because I'm "PRO DRUNKENNESS," per se, but because the actual effects of what we call "intoxication" are behavioral, and NOT conditional--that is to say it's not THAT you're drunk, its that you've affected me with your drunkenness.

Drunk drivers don't cause automobile accidents--not in the pure form...reckless behavior and failure to control their cars cause accidents. The net result is that innocent people are injured and killed...but intoxication isn't the direct cause--the criminal act of reckless endangerment is the cause. Where the DUI clauses cause me heartburn is that it's a crime with a stiffer punishment to plow into a stopped car at a red light while you're drunk than it is to plow into the same car at a red light because you're dozing off at the wheel, or eating a big-mac, or dropped a cigarette on your seat, or fiddling with the radio. In a fatality accident, one is "intoxication manslaughter" and one is merely an accident. Yes, there are laws that may be applied for both, but add the aroma of booze, and it's a different class of charge.

I would propose that we forget about the intoxication portion, and focus on the negative behavior, recklessness, willful disregard of others, etc. involved in EITHER aspect, and put some teeth into our reckless driving/failure to maintain control/and other applicable direct effects of these behaviors. By doing so, we don't need laws about cell phone use, drinking and driving, or carrying/handling weapons under the influence (be it of alcohol or simple distraction/lack of self-control).

In short, I'm all about punishing (HARD) the behaviors resulting from intoxication, rather than the intoxication itself.

The other option, of which I don't really approve, but is indeed *just* and *enforceable on an even scale* is ZERO TOLERANCE. We already use this standard for drivers holding commercial drivers licenses and commercial pilots--a standard in which any DETECTABLE TRACE gets the operator shut down. Tennessee's carry laws reflect this, if you're carrying a gun, it is codified that you may not drink ANY alcohol. Short, simple, to the point. Not my favorite standard, but there's no grey area, nothing to debate. Oh--and along with their zero tolerance law--you can carry your gun in a bar--one we would define as a "51% location."

Don't get me wrong -- I'm 100% against driving while intoxicated, and 100% against carrying in public while intoxicated -- but I'm also 100% against grey areas and the necessity for a judgement call "in the field."

As a matter of consistency, our intoxication clauses around CHL should mirror our clauses around DWI--I support the definitions as a matter of code. Our DWI clauses should reflect either punishing actual behaviors (if you're not acting recklessly and endangering anyone, leave it be, and if you are, string you up) OR they reflect ZERO TOLERANCE within a certain definition (12 hours bottle to throttle?), as our commercial driving laws already do. My diatribe above is really more of a big-picture thought.

I'll go ahead and don the flame suit, but I want to hear others' thoughts along those lines...I'm still working on the implications of this line of thinking.

[thatguy]

The reason for my question is I have been asked by my Representive for my opinion(s) on some of the bills and I am finding it harder than I thought to obtain information...

Well, for what it's worth, were *I* asked for my opinion on such matters, I would be a very unpopular guy -- I tend to take a slightly different view on intoxication and the definitions thereof. Warning: This is likely to be one of my long drawn out (possibly boring) soapbox posts. I hope it invokes thought, and I understand there will be very little agreement with me :)

I have a serious problem with ALL of our intoxication laws. Not because I'm "PRO DRUNKENNESS," per se, but because the actual effects of what we call "intoxication" are behavioral, and NOT conditional--that is to say it's not THAT you're drunk, its that you've affected me with your drunkenness.

Drunk drivers don't cause automobile accidents--not in the pure form...reckless behavior and failure to control their cars cause accidents. The net result is that innocent people are injured and killed...but intoxication isn't the direct cause--the criminal act of reckless endangerment is the cause. Where the DUI clauses cause me heartburn is that it's a crime with a stiffer punishment to plow into a stopped car at a red light while you're drunk than it is to plow into the same car at a red light because you're dozing off at the wheel, or eating a big-mac, or dropped a cigarette on your seat, or fiddling with the radio. In a fatality accident, one is "intoxication manslaughter" and one is merely an accident. Yes, there are laws that may be applied for both, but add the aroma of booze, and it's a different class of charge.

I would propose that we forget about the intoxication portion, and focus on the negative behavior, recklessness, willful disregard of others, etc. involved in EITHER aspect, and put some teeth into our reckless driving/failure to maintain control/and other applicable direct effects of these behaviors. By doing so, we don't need laws about cell phone use, drinking and driving, or carrying/handling weapons under the influence (be it of alcohol or simple distraction/lack of self-control).

In short, I'm all about punishing (HARD) the behaviors resulting from intoxication, rather than the intoxication itself.

The other option, of which I don't really approve, but is indeed *just* and *enforceable on an even scale* is ZERO TOLERANCE. We already use this standard for drivers holding commercial drivers licenses and commercial pilots--a standard in which any DETECTABLE TRACE gets the operator shut down. Tennessee's carry laws reflect this, if you're carrying a gun, it is codified that you may not drink ANY alcohol. Short, simple, to the point. Not my favorite standard, but there's no grey area, nothing to debate. Oh--and along with their zero tolerance law--you can carry your gun in a bar--one we would define as a "51% location."

Don't get me wrong -- I'm 100% against driving while intoxicated, and 100% against carrying in public while intoxicated -- but I'm also 100% against grey areas and the necessity for a judgement call "in the field."

As a matter of consistency, our intoxication clauses around CHL should mirror our clauses around DWI--I support the definitions as a matter of code. Our DWI clauses should reflect either punishing actual behaviors (if you're not acting recklessly and endangering anyone, leave it be, and if you are, string you up) OR they reflect ZERO TOLERANCE within a certain definition (12 hours bottle to throttle?), as our commercial driving laws already do. My diatribe above is really more of a big-picture thought.

I'll go ahead and don the flame suit, but I want to hear others' thoughts along those lines...I'm still working on the implications of this line of thinking.

Well put...I too am not advocating drinking and carrying a gun but I don't care for unclear standards and the way the law is written "intoxication" can mean whatever THAT police officer decides.

[Zencyl]

I agree with Cbunt1 and thatguy, I do not like the open standard, it should be set what defines "intoxication"

[TexasCajun]

Please! Let's clean up the definition of intoxication as it relates to CHL. Allowing an open-ended provision in the CHL statutes doesn't do anybody any good.

However, I disagree with the idea of limiting or eliminating intoxication as a punishment multiplier. Getting behind the wheel after drinking is a compound bad decision: the decision to drink to excess PLUS the decision to get behind the wheel in an impaired state. Substitute carrying a gun for getting behind the wheel. In both cases, the primary action isn't what would cause the potential harm. It's the lack of judgment & control that intoxication brings to the act that causes harm.