Intoxication

This sub-forum will open for posting on Sept. 1, 2012.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


Topic author
croc870
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:28 pm

Intoxication

#1

Post by croc870 »

Doesn't look like it's been noticed yet ( probably because it's subject tagged under weapons rather than CHL), but Van Taylor prefiled his intoxication clarification bill yesterday. HB 153

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB153
User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 9505
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Intoxication

#2

Post by RoyGBiv »

From the text of the bill
(18)AA"Intoxicated" has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01.
And PC49.01
Worth noting that this section of PC is related to:

TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS
CHAPTER 49. INTOXICATION AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OFFENSES
(2) "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.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Intoxication

#3

Post by WildBill »

Interesting. I wonder if it will get voted into law. :thumbs2:
NRA Endowment Member
User avatar

Oldgringo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 11203
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Pineywoods of east Texas

Re: Intoxication

#4

Post by Oldgringo »

WildBill wrote:Interesting. I wonder if it will get voted into law. :thumbs2:
Public intoxication has been pretty much frowned on as long as I can remember. Is this good or bad news?
User avatar

AJSully421
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: SW Fort Worth

Re: Intoxication

#5

Post by AJSully421 »

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.
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan, 1964

30.06 signs only make criminals and terrorists safer.

NRA, LTC, School Safety, Armed Security, & Body Guard Instructor

MeMelYup
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: Intoxication

#6

Post by MeMelYup »

AJSully421 wrote: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.
Depends on the interpretation/definition of "substantial" and "not having normal use".
User avatar

Moby
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:41 pm
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Intoxication

#7

Post by Moby »

AJSully421 wrote: 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.

But by your own admission he was intoxicated enough that you knew it from a video of his behavior.
Wouldn't this mean he would have most assuridly blown a breath test? I believe the law id being rewritten to
allow for evidence to be entered that can clearly show intooxication from some sustance without giving the driver a way to avoid prosecution be avoiding a test.
Be without fear in the face of your enemies.
Stand brave and upright that the Lord may love thee.
Speak the truth always even if it means your death.
Protect the helpless and do no wrong!

Image
User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Intoxication

#8

Post by WildBill »

AJSully421 wrote: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.
Yes, Red Bull, cough syrup, NoDoz, OTC allergy pills, and well as drugs presribed by a doctor.
NRA Endowment Member
User avatar

Skiprr
Moderator
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6458
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:50 pm
Location: Outskirts of Houston

Re: Intoxication

#9

Post by Skiprr »

It doesn't look to me as if this proposed bill changes anything other than making certain PC §46 references the definition of "intoxicated" as presented in PC §49...which is where I believe everyone--judges, attorneys, and non-attorneys alike--already look for clarification. The definition in PC §46.06 is superfluous and incomplete. PC §49.01 defines what "alcohol concentration" means, and presents the clear definition of "intoxicated"...including the very important (and often misunderstood) conjunction "or" that joins PC §49.01(2)(A) and §49.01(2)(B).

I'd support this bill. I'm all for steps that normalize the statutes, making them less ambiguous by consolidating definitions into single sources.

A follow-on to note what's been said many times in the past: there simply is no reasonable way to remove the seemingly subjective statement: "...not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of...any...substance into the body." There simply is no way to test for everything that someone could conceivably put into his body, or predict what new things might be devised in the future to ingest or inject. And what would otherwise be innocuous amounts of several different substances can, if taken together, cause impairment equal to or greater than one of those substances taken in quantity.

What the definition in PC §49.01does do is make it clear that intoxication requires the introduction of a substance into the body. Naturally occurring conditions that might look symptomatic of intoxication don't count: think of someone going into diabetic shock or suffering a seizure. For example, I had a friend who passed away several years ago from ALS. His earliest symptom was slurred speech. Took weeks to diagnose, and for the first several months, the slurred speech was the only issue: his mind, other motor operations, reflexes, etc. were just fine. He continued to go to work every day and go to the gym after work. But if he'd been pulled over for a traffic stop, he'd have had some 'splainin' to do. He kept a letter from his doctor in the car, just in case.
Join the NRA or upgrade your membership today. Support the Texas Firearms Coalition and subscribe to the Podcast.
I’ve contacted my State Rep, Gary Elkins, about co-sponsoring HB560. Have you contacted your Rep?
NRA Benefactor Life Member
User avatar

Maxwell
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 945
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:05 pm

Re: Intoxication

#10

Post by Maxwell »

And unless I am mistaken this now makes the definition of intoxication consistant with that for DWI/DUI.
I never let schooling interfere with my education. Mark Twain
User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Intoxication

#11

Post by WildBill »

Maxwell wrote:And unless I am mistaken this now makes the definition of intoxication consistant with that for DWI/DUI.
I think this is the purpose of the bill.
NRA Endowment Member
User avatar

Maxwell
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 945
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:05 pm

Re: Intoxication

#12

Post by Maxwell »

I agree Wild Bill.
I never let schooling interfere with my education. Mark Twain
User avatar

hillfighter
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Hill Country

Re: Intoxication

#13

Post by hillfighter »

RoyGBiv wrote: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.
"support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 18491
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Intoxication

#14

Post by Keith B »

WildBill wrote:
Maxwell wrote:And unless I am mistaken this now makes the definition of intoxication consistant with that for DWI/DUI.
I think this is the purpose of the bill.
The issue is that the section 46.06 UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WEAPONS was the only place in TPC 46 that had a definition for Intoxication. The term 'Intoxicated/intoxication' should have always been referenced to TPC49.01 for any other section of TPC 46, but with that definition in there it could have easily been misconstrued that this was a 'higher standard' for carrying weapons and applied to all of TOC 46. By making the change it eliminates any possible misinterpretation and references the proper section for the definition.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4

Ameer
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1397
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Re: Intoxication

#15

Post by Ameer »

If this passes, I hope DPS will change their lesson plan to teach the law.
I believe the basic political division in this country is not between liberals and conservatives but between those who believe that they should have a say in the personal lives of strangers and those who do not.
Post Reply

Return to “2013 Texas Legislative Session”