TexasCHLforum.com

A wine bottle with the cork removed is an open container even if none of the wine is missing. So, if the box is a container in the meaning of this law, then it must be an open container if it's open, even if no cans are missing.

puma guy wrote:

AFCop wrote: Many laws are written in such a way that case law is often required to clear up confusion, much like the traveling exemption with regards to PC 46.

What traveling exemption are you referring to. Is it the old "bonfide traveler" language"?
In the vein of lightening up this thread I guess I will buy individual beers in odd numbers and keep them unopened in a paper bag.
I am interested in what you referred to in PC 46.

I believe he means 46.15(b)(2), which says "Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who: is traveling" with no definition of "traveling."

MasterOfNone wrote:

puma guy wrote:

AFCop wrote: Many laws are written in such a way that case law is often required to clear up confusion, much like the traveling exemption with regards to PC 46.

What traveling exemption are you referring to. Is it the old "bonfide traveler" language"?
In the vein of lightening up this thread I guess I will buy individual beers in odd numbers and keep them unopened in a paper bag.
I am interested in what you referred to in PC 46.

I believe he means 46.15(b)(2), which says "Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who: is traveling" with no definition of "traveling."

Yes, exactly.... Thank you!

AFCop wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote:

puma guy wrote:

AFCop wrote: Many laws are written in such a way that case law is often required to clear up confusion, much like the traveling exemption with regards to PC 46.

What traveling exemption are you referring to. Is it the old "bonfide traveler" language"?
In the vein of lightening up this thread I guess I will buy individual beers in odd numbers and keep them unopened in a paper bag.
I am interested in what you referred to in PC 46.

I believe he means 46.15(b)(2), which says "Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who: is traveling" with no definition of "traveling."

Yes, exactly.... Thank you!

Thanks. I seem to recall some disussion on that point in regards to clubs and illegal knives somewhere in the past. I'm old and can't remember stuff sometimes

AFCop wrote:I personally have a conviction on an open container enhancement with a DWI with an open 30 pack with cans missing and no open cans in the car.

Why would you WANT to go out of your way to slap an "enhancement" charge on top of the DWI to begin with? You already have the guy charged with a DWI that is going to cost him $15,000+ over the next few years, require him to go to education and counseling programs, go through a lengthy probation period (which will not prevent him from having a PERMANENT arrest and conviction record). On top of that, you make a real stretch in your interpretation of the statute to justify the enhancement charge...an interpretation that no one else has ever heard of, or believes is correct. I just don't understand the reasoning here.

The Bottom Line is the Judge let the man off on all charges! So the LEO Screwed up somewhere in this case.

Off topic, but does anyone in the San Angelo area remember a bar/club across from the Stockyards maybe south and east, that had the parking lot, maybe half acre, paved with bottle caps and pull tabs to a depth of several inches. Not my stomping grounds anymore, but in earlier days, I bought a lot of sheep there.

Did you really mean San Angelo?
Because there is a place in San Antonio that fits that description near the stockyards also.

La Tuna
http://www.latunagrill.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, let me unbury this thread. I went looking around on the internet for a definition of "open container" in the State of Texas, to see if it includes a 6-pack with one or two missing. Lo and behold, I come across the good old TexasCHLForum...I should have known.

Anyway, as some may know, I work down in Lake Charles right now and go home when I can for a few days here and there. Now is one of those times. I drink beer, but not like I used to when I was a younger man. I have a 6-pack in the fridge at the moment, and being a night-shift person, would like to have a beer in my own home out of that 6-pack. However, after reading this entire thread, I am now "paranoid" that one of AFCOP's LEO counterparts might decide to stop me, for whatever reason, when I head back to Lake Charles with the remaining 5 or 4 beers out of that 6-pack, find them in a cooler inside my Access-cab Tacoma pickup truck, and because he interprets that statute similarly, but even more strictly than AFCOP, cite me for "open container" even though I do NOT drive under the influence. I have NEVER been arrested for anything, and have only ever even had one speeding ticket, outside Sherman in 1993. Yeah, I know its a pretty far-fetched scenario, but isn't that what we do on this forum? Try to figure things out BEFORE they happen, so we can be prepared for them?

I'm curious as to whether there was ever an AG opinion issued for this topic, BTW. Also, if I threw away the cardboard that the beers came in, and just had the UNOPENED 4 or 5 cans in the cooler, is THAT an "open container"? Besides, I'm not just thinking about me, here, but about countless folks who take beers with them in an ice chest/cooler on an outing such as a fishing trip. What if they only took 23 out of 24 cans? Or 11 out of 12? This could impact THOUSANDS of people in our state...think about it.

Heartland Patriot wrote:Well, let me unbury this thread. I went looking around on the internet for a definition of "open container" in the State of Texas, to see if it includes a 6-pack with one or two missing. Lo and behold, I come across the good old TexasCHLForum...I should have known.

Anyway, as some may know, I work down in Lake Charles right now and go home when I can for a few days here and there. Now is one of those times. I drink beer, but not like I used to when I was a younger man. I have a 6-pack in the fridge at the moment, and being a night-shift person, would like to have a beer in my own home out of that 6-pack. However, after reading this entire thread, I am now "paranoid" that one of AFCOP's LEO counterparts might decide to stop me, for whatever reason, when I head back to Lake Charles with the remaining 5 or 4 beers out of that 6-pack, find them in a cooler inside my Access-cab Tacoma pickup truck, and because he interprets that statute similarly, but even more strictly than AFCOP, cite me for "open container" even though I do NOT drive under the influence. I have NEVER been arrested for anything, and have only ever even had one speeding ticket, outside Sherman in 1993. Yeah, I know its a pretty far-fetched scenario, but isn't that what we do on this forum? Try to figure things out BEFORE they happen, so we can be prepared for them?

I'm curious as to whether there was ever an AG opinion issued for this topic, BTW. Also, if I threw away the cardboard that the beers came in, and just had the UNOPENED 4 or 5 cans in the cooler, is THAT an "open container"? Besides, I'm not just thinking about me, here, but about countless folks who take beers with them in an ice chest/cooler on an outing such as a fishing trip. What if they only took 23 out of 24 cans? Or 11 out of 12? This could impact THOUSANDS of people in our state...think about it.

Here's the law

§ 49.031. Possession of Alcoholic Beverage in Motor Vehicle.

(a) In this section:

(1) "Open container" means a bottle, can, or other receptacle that contains any amount of alcoholic beverage and that is open, that has been opened, that has a broken seal, or the contents of which are partially removed.

(2) "Passenger area of a motor vehicle" means the area of a motor vehicle designed for the seating of the operator and passengers of the vehicle. The term does not include:

(A) a glove compartment or similar storage container that is locked;

(B) the trunk of a vehicle; or

(C) the area behind the last upright seat of the vehicle, if the vehicle does not have a trunk.

Easy enough to put it behind the seat if you are in a truck or in the trunk in a car. And using the term 'container' to include the six-pack cardboard is a stretch IMO. Besides, they sell single cans in convenience stores. If cops were really out looking to bust people for that, they would just sit outside a store and watch for people with 40oz'ers coming out the door and getting in their car.

Keith B wrote:Easy enough to put it behind the seat if you are in a truck or in the trunk in a car. And using the term 'container' to include the six-pack cardboard is a stretch IMO. Besides, they sell single cans in convenience stores. If cops were really out looking to bust people for that, they would just sit outside a store and watch for people with 40oz'ers coming out the door and getting in their car.

Back on page 3, a member claiming to be a LEO said, "I personally have a conviction on an open container enhancement with a DWI with an open 30 pack with cans missing and no open cans in the car."

Now that you quote the law, I wonder if he was really a LEO.

tbrown wrote:

Keith B wrote:Easy enough to put it behind the seat if you are in a truck or in the trunk in a car. And using the term 'container' to include the six-pack cardboard is a stretch IMO. Besides, they sell single cans in convenience stores. If cops were really out looking to bust people for that, they would just sit outside a store and watch for people with 40oz'ers coming out the door and getting in their car.

Back on page 3, a member claiming to be a LEO said, "I personally have a conviction on an open container enhancement with a DWI with an open 30 pack with cans missing and no open cans in the car."

Now that you quote the law, I wonder if he was really a LEO.

I can confirm AFCop is a LEO. He is also on an AF base. You can also get convictions by individuals pleading guilty and not fighting it. Doesn't mean the law wasn't stretched.

It wasn't a stand alone charge. I wouldn't have considered it had he not been DWI. I personally think DWI should be a more serious crime then it is. Especially given the frequency and lethality. As for the comment several pages back, I have no sympathy for someone who could be so careless with someone else's life and any charge I get, that you violate, is not me doing anything BUT reporting what YOU did! There are lots of things you can do to either meet or not elements of an offense. Texas has some pretty weird exceptions or non-applicability. Example, child passenger safety seats... If all seats are occupied, put baby on floorboards and you're good to go.

Wow just wow. I am sorry but after reading 9 pages I can't help but feel the interpretation of the law is wrong. The plastic ring, box, and cardboard for cases is nothing more than a way to package the containers of alcohol. I can't believe any Judge worth his salt would even consider boxes or the plastic ring to be containers when the purpose of those items is clearly to group containers of alcohol together for purchase.

Simply put to purposely misconstrue the design and intent of the plastic ring for six packs, the cardboard boxes, and any other means that packages containers of alcohol together for bulk sales is just flat out wrong. I can't believe this non-sense has gone on for 9 pages.

Originalist wrote:It wasn't a stand alone charge. I wouldn't have considered it had he not been DWI. I personally think DWI should be a more serious crime then it is. Especially given the frequency and lethality. As for the comment several pages back, I have no sympathy for someone who could be so careless with someone else's life and any charge I get, that you violate, is not me doing anything BUT reporting what YOU did! There are lots of things you can do to either meet or not elements of an offense. Texas has some pretty weird exceptions or non-applicability. Example, child passenger safety seats... If all seats are occupied, put baby on floorboards and you're good to go.

I think the second sentence above is enlightening....you are allowing your personal feelings to influence your interpretation of the law, and charging people with an offense that no one else agrees with, just because you are in a position to do so, then justifying it by saying that although it's vague, it hasn't been determined by case law yet.

talltex wrote:I think the second sentence above is enlightening....you are allowing your personal feelings to influence your interpretation of the law, and charging people with an offense that no one else agrees with, just because you are in a position to do so, then justifying it by saying that although it's vague, it hasn't been determined by case law yet.

Shades of Chuck Rosenthal. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 918787.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;