pulled over

[srothstein]

O'douls is not beer in the state of Texas. The legal definition of beer (or any alcoholic beverage) is that it must have more than .5% alcohol by volume. O'douls has less than that amount.

Based on those two facts, it is not illegal to have an open container of O'douls while you drive and this is why he let you go. It is also why you can by O'douls when you cannot buy beer.

[Commander Cody]

Where can I find that law written?

[WildBill]

Where can I find that law written?

http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/leginfo/cod ... tle1-2.pdf Definitions Section 1.04.1

[Commander Cody]

Thank you WildBill.

[tarkus]

And buying it before noon on Sunday.

Religious freedom.

[Liberty]

Now he asked if I had been drinking. I was drinking an O’Doul’s. He said that I could get in a lot of trouble for driving with an open container. I didn’t know at the time, but O’Doul’s contains 0.5% alcohol by volume, which he pointed out to me. Anyway, no ticket. Good stop all in all. I do have questions though, like why did he let me drive off drinking my O’Doul’s and why can I buy it before noon on Sunday?

Good stop I'm glad you didn't get a ticket. Its been my experience that Texas City has a bunch of pretty nice Cops. I do believe that The Oficer was a little off base in his opinion that O'Doul's could be classified as a an alcoholic beverage. It would take 10 cans to equal 1 can of many light beers. I don't think impairment is an issue. II do understand why most oficers wouldn't be to crazy about folks driving around drinking it though.

Remember when it was legal to stop and buy a beer on the way home from work and drink it while driving? Is it lives saved or a freedoms lost?

[jbirds1210]

O'douls is not beer in the state of Texas. The legal definition of beer (or any alcoholic beverage) is that it must have more than .5% alcohol by volume. O'douls has less than that amount.

Based on those two facts, it is not illegal to have an open container of O'douls while you drive and this is why he let you go. It is also why you can by O'douls when you cannot buy beer.

Awesome information......thank you.

Jason

[bryang]

Good point, although I have already made up my mind to never do this again. I still wonder about him letting me drive away while I was still drinking the "beer". And buying it before noon on Sunday.

I am glad everything went well with the stop. Sounds like a very good and reasonable LEO!

Good Luck and good decision!
-geo

[Originalist]

The other reason for no ticket was becuase the traffic stop started out as an invalid stop in the first place. Anything after that (even if it would have been an actual beer) would be a mute point.

IANAL but I am a cop and a NHTSA certified police doppler radar operator and know that the tracking history needed for a valid traffic stop for speeding was not met becuase he failed to verify his estimate with the audible and visual outputs of a properly calibrated RADAR gun. Case law shows the lack of a valid tracking history (officers initial observation, speed estimation, audio and visual output that corrolates with the officers initial estimate and violater identification) invalidates the traffic stop therefor negating any violations found after the fact (that would not have been found out if the traffic stop had never occured).

That is why one of the requirements for the class is documented speed estimations from both a stationary and moving platform that can not be more than 5 miles off the actual speed.

In addition, if the officer estimates a speed of say 40 in a 25, but using the RADAR gun it shows the vehicle speed as 51. This brings up the question that either the officer was way off or the RADAR gun was way off and therefor since they do not corrolate any stop would be invalid.

Primary evidence in a Speed offense is the officers estimate, supporting evidence is the RADAR gun and if they contradict each other brings up the question of reasonable doubt.


Sorry for the rant but knowledge is power and it realy bothers me when LEO abuse certain powers they have. I believe a traffic stop should also be with merit and when we start performing meritless stops (for whatever reason) then the bad guy (with a good lawyer) really goes free.

[Nighthawk]

Ok ~ AFCop ~ I have a question for you then ~ can a LEO pull someone over becuase they "think" your window tinting is darker than it should be? As it turns out it was (who knew) ~ a friend of mine and I were going dove hunting yesterday and were pulled over because the officer suspected that the tint on my friends tint was to dark ~ he got the truck from his father in Oregon last fall and has never even thought to question the darkness of the tint. But he got a ticket. I'd love to know your thoughts...

[srothstein]

An LEO needs probable cause for an offense to pull you over in Texas. Probable cause is not a dead certainty. It has been defined as that set of facts and circumstances known by the officer at the time that would warrant a reasonable man to believe that a crime had taken place.

So, yes, the officer could see the window tint and think it looked too dark and be justified in pulling someone over.

The reason the officer needs so much on the radar ticket is the fact that radar is a search. The officer needs probable cause to perform a search (electronic devices are almost always a search since they are not enhancements to normal vision). Then he uses the radar reading as evidence of your exact speed. The tracking and audio are used to help bolster the officer's testimony that he had used the radar properly (most radar tickets that have problems are really bad users).

The radar is not really needed though. I went years writing speeding tickets on a regular basis when SAPD did not issue its officers radar guns (until about 1995, radar was just for the traffic officers, the rest of us were not allowed to use it). what I did was watch traffic and see if I saw someone I thought was speeding. Then I would get behind them and pace them. If my speed matched theirs, I could then testify how fast I was going. If we stayed equal, they were going the same speed. If they pulled away, they were going faster. I always figures that if I could drive behind you for 1/4 mile and you did not slow down, you were not paying enough attention to be driving that fast, so I did not feel too bad about writing a ticket.

My favorite answer was when they would yell that I had not clocked them since their radar detector had not gone off. I would always ask how good it was and what bands it covers. They would almost always say it covered all three (X, K, and Ka). I would then say that was the problem, I was using the new "P" band and their detector could not catch it. If they questioned me about it I would explain that the P stood for pacing (which was written on the ticket anyway) and they needed to look at their P band detector - the rear view mirror. It usually got them to laugh and accept they were not paying enough attention.

[Originalist]

Got me on the tint, I missed that as being a reason for the stop


However, just like RADAR (and the speedometer for moving RADAR) -- If you have not had the calibration tested on your speedometer recently and you can not document that fact then it is an invalid stop as case law has ruled. Knowing that your speedometer has not met the standards set forth in case law, could you knowling pull someone over, unsure of what you were going to find, find let say 100 lbs of drugs and take a chance on the whole thing getting thrown out becuase you took action without following the guideline's set forth in case law. You dont need speed for your probable cause I can drive down the road for 15 minutes and find at least two things wrong with every vehicle that I identify (and this is on base were things are more tightly controlled than at the local and state level) giving me plenty of good, no questions probable cause.


Additionally I would like to say that even though I dont post much I really enjoy this site, am open to others opinions and point of views. I am die hard LE and am interested in getting as much knowledge as I can from all the seasoned, experienced individuals on this forum. Thanks




Bryan
RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus (yes I am TDY to a Island Paradise on the Med. Sea)

[Originalist]

Wow my mind must be on the fun stuff to do here (in Cyprus) that I missed your post nighthawk. Ok here is what I think.......In order for you to conduct a traffic stop you need some form of probable cause. It is reasonably possible for someone to look at your tint and tell it is ilegal, that is open for interpretation and subject to the opinion of the court. I would not frown on that logic as long as it was noticeably darker than the 35% allowed by law. Personally, I would not base a traffic stop on that alone due the fact it would muddy the waters if something bigger came of the stop and the tint was actually legit. I always error on the bad guys side when it comes to certain things (DWI enforement, traffic enforcement and a few other circumstances) because if I gave them every opportunity to pass the tests and they still fail........ well that is why I get DWI convictions even when the subject blows less then the often misstated "Legal Limit" of 0.08

[gregthehand]

Wow my mind must be on the fun stuff to do here (in Cyprus) that I missed your post nighthawk. Ok here is what I think.......In order for you to conduct a traffic stop you need some form of probable cause. It is reasonably possible for someone to look at your tint and tell it is ilegal, that is open for interpretation and subject to the opinion of the court. I would not frown on that logic as long as it was noticeably darker than the 35% allowed by law. Personally, I would not base a traffic stop on that alone due the fact it would muddy the waters if something bigger came of the stop and the tint was actually legit. I always error on the bad guys side when it comes to certain things (DWI enforement, traffic enforcement and a few other circumstances) because if I gave them every opportunity to pass the tests and they still fail........ well that is why I get DWI convictions even when the subject blows less then the often misstated "Legal Limit" of 0.08

By the way the legal tint law in Texas is 25%....

§ 547.613. RESTRICTIONS ON WINDOWS. (a) Except as
provided by Subsection (b), a person commits an offense that is a
misdemeanor:
(1) if the person operates a motor vehicle that has an
object or material that is placed on or attached to the windshield
or side or rear window and that obstructs or reduces the operator's
clear view; or
(2) if a person, including an installer or
manufacturer, places on or attaches to the windshield or side or
rear window of a motor vehicle a transparent material that alters
the color or reduces the light transmission.
(b) This section does not apply to:
(1) a windshield that has a sunscreening device that:
(A) in combination with the windshield has a
light transmission of 25 percent or more;
(B) in combination with the windshield has a
luminous reflectance of 25 percent or less;
(C) is not red, blue, or amber; and
(D) does not extend downward beyond the AS-1 line
or more than five inches from the top of the windshield, whichever
is closer to the top of the windshield;
(2) a wing vent or a window other than a windshield if
the vent or window has a sunscreening device that in combination
with the vent or window has:
(A) a light transmission of 25 percent or more;
and
(B) a luminous reflectance of 25 percent or less;
(3) a rear window, if the motor vehicle is equipped
with an outside mirror on each side of the vehicle that reflects to
the vehicle operator a view of the highway for a distance of at
least 200 feet from the rear;

[Originalist]

Must be a recent change (2.5 years or so) because when I got my windows tinted the darkest they would go was 35%. More importantly we now know why I dont base a traffic stop on tint. Thanks for the education, I learned something new today.