alchohol and chl

[bizarrenormality]

I hope all you people leaving your gun at home also leave your car at home. Drunks with cars kill 730 times more people than drunks with guns.

[Oldgringo]

What Keith B says above is what LT, et al, have already said; i.e., don't drink and drive AND don't drink and carry.

What's so hard to understand?

[chabouk]

"Implied consent" only applies to blood or breath, not any form of field sobriety test. That's an important distinction.

[bizarrenormality]

Does it also only apply if you're driving?

[chamberc]

You are not required to submit to a field sobriety test of any kind. The only way they can take blood is with your consent (which you should NEVER grant) or with a warrant.

If you are pulled over, NEVER submit to a field sobriety test... continue to ask the officer "Am I under Arrest?" until they arrest you or let you go. Do not give them any evidence (don't forget car cameras)... make them arrest you or let you go, but never NEVER take a field sobriety test.

Without a field test or blood test, DWI is a his word against yours crime... don't give them anything to present in a court room. Obviously, comply with lawful orders, but you are not required to submit to a test. They either have enough evidence to arrest you or they don't, don't incriminate yourself!

This is not always the case. For several years, agencies in Texas have used periods of "no refusal" for suspected DWI violations. This was done by having magistrates on standby and creating an expedited process for collecting samples.

SB261, which went into effect Sept. 1st, apparently made a couple of changes. It expanded the list of magistrates that can sign such a warrant to include any magistrate licensed as an attorney in Texas, making access to a warrant much quicker and easier.

As a result of this, Dallas and maybe other jurisdictions, instituted this as a full time policy.

It also negates the need for a warrant PERIOD in certain instances. If the suspect has been previously convicted of two or more DWI convictions and has a child in the vehicle OR causes an accident with even a minor injury, then no warrant is required.

To get back on topic, I'm one of the tee-totalers when carrying.

Again, a warrant is required in the vast majority of cases. Two DWI convictions wouldn't apply to any of us, and the accident situation has always allowed for blood draws. I am speaking about common circumstaces.

[chamberc]

You are not required to submit to a field sobriety test of any kind. The only way they can take blood is with your consent (which you should NEVER grant) or with a warrant.

If you are pulled over, NEVER submit to a field sobriety test... continue to ask the officer "Am I under Arrest?" until they arrest you or let you go. Do not give them any evidence (don't forget car cameras)... make them arrest you or let you go, but never NEVER take a field sobriety test.

I could have sworn that refusal of submitting to a sobriety test gets an automatic six month suspension of one's drivers license. Did I dream this?

Not a dream. Texas is an Implied Consent state. Refusing to take the test is where the Texas Implied Consent Law comes into play. This law basically states that any driver who operates a motor vehicle on Texas roadways has impliedly agreed that he or she will provide a breath or blood sample, if properly requested by a police officer if ever arrested for a DWI. By having a driver’s license in Texas, you have already agreed to the Implied Consent Law. This same law also applies to boaters or those who operate a watercraft in Texas. This means that your driver’s license can be suspended not for failing a blood or breath test, but for refusing such testing.

Texas courts have also determined that a driver does NOT have the right to speak with an attorney before deciding whether he or she will submit to a chemical test. However, if you are involved in an accident with life threatening injuries or a fatality, you can be forced to take a chemical test if arrested for a DWI. They have also been beating this by having 'no-refusal' saturations and if you refuse to submit to a BAC, then they can get a warrant and take a mandatory blood draw.

The results of either of these is an administrative license revocation (ALR). This is initiated by a person either failing a chemical test by going over Texas’ legal limit of .08% blood alcohol concentration level, or by refusing to take the test.

Just a reminder, the license revocation is not a conviction, this is a very important differentiation. And for first time offenders, hardship licenses are granted for work driving in almost all circumstances.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

I'm not sure if the facts given to me were accurate,
but a guy at work that had an DWI was forced by the
court to have a breath testing interlock installed on his
Ford.

He had to blow into it and be sober in order for the vehicle
to start.

Price of installation: $2,500. Plus if he wanted to change
vehicles - more money needed to be spent.

Wow!

SIA

[marksiwel]

I'm not sure if the facts given to me were accurate,
but a guy at work that had an DWI was forced by the
court to have a breath testing interlock installed on his
Ford.

He had to blow into it and be sober in order for the vehicle
to start.

Price of installation: $2,500. Plus if he wanted to change
vehicles - more money needed to be spent.

Wow!

SIA

I dont feel bad for him at all.

[srothstein]

Now for the trickeration: he can charge you with Public Intoxication alone, wait to see if you take the easy route and pay the ticket instead of fighting it, then come back and charge you for UCW based on your plea of guilty to being intoxicated.

Just for a minor technical correction, but this trick helps you much more than it helps the officer. If you can get the plea through for the PI charge before you get tried for the UCW charge (actually, PC 46.035, unlawfully carrying a handgun by a license holder but no one would recognize the initials UCHLH), you win the UCW. Since PI is a lesser included offense in UCW in this case, the double jeopardy rules would kick in (basically one set of actions cannot be tried twice in separate trials in state courts).

Remember: the only time you're required to submit to any kind of testing (BAC, field sobriety, "follow the pen") is when you're driving. If you have had so much as a sip, and the encounter is anything other than being stopped while driving, remember the rules: "Am I being detained?", "Am I free to go?", and, most importantly, "I do not consent to any search." A smart officer could build his case without speaking to you at all, but most will need your cooperation.

I strongly recommend that you do not keep asking any questions. The answer is obviously that you are being detained and are not free to go. Repeated asking will be used in court to show you are intoxicated (either unable to understand the response or argumentative). One time state that you will not answer any questions without a lawyer. Then you only answer the bare minimum (name, address, date of birth are required by law). Any more answers will again show you are either too drunk to understand or argumentative. And since it is highly likely you will be recorded, your tone of voice will show up and be twisted if possible, as will any slurring in your speech.

If you do ever have to take this tack on a stop, remember that you ARE going to go to jail. You and your lawyer may be able to help later, but you are going to be spending the next several hours to few days in jail. When you cooperate and answer the questions, you stand a chance of talking your way out of the arrest if you are close to being sober enough. If you are really drunk, talking will probably get you arrested and hurt your case.

[carlson1]

Very Very Excellent Steve. Thanks for your post.

[Crossfire]

OK, you legal guys, I have a slightly off topic, but still related question.

Do I have the right to refuse a blood test by an officer on the side of the road? I know how hard it is to get blood from me under ideal conditions. There is no way I am going to submit to a blood test in the dark, on the side of the road, by a person who does not do this every single day.

I have wondered this ever since the big hoopla about city of Pantego (near Arlington) instituting a policy requiring a blood draw when there is suspicion of DWI.

[Oldgringo]

OK, you legal guys, I have a slightly off topic, but still related question.

Do I have the right to refuse a blood test by an officer on the side of the road? I know how hard it is to get blood from me under ideal conditions. There is no way I am going to submit to a blood test in the dark, on the side of the road, by a person who does not do this every single day.

I have wondered this ever since the big hoopla about city of Pantego (near Arlington) instituting a policy requiring a blood draw when there is suspicion of DWI.

That's a pretty good question on at least three points; i.e.,

• one's civil rights
  qualifications of blood drawer
  health concerns of the tested

[vinnier6]

i just wanted to know, that its ok if i go out to dinner, and have one beer or one glass of wine that its ok to still carry....i am not talking about sitting at the bar at a chillies all night and getting hammered...

[Crossfire]

Vinnier6 - Texas law says there is no legal limit for a CHL holder drinking and carrying. Meaning there is no blood alcohol level that determines intoxication for a CHL holder. That means it is up to the officer to determine if you are intoxicated or impaired in any way by introduction of drugs, alcohol, or any other substance into the body.

If you can have a drink with dinner and not be impaired by that, then you are legal to carry.

[jmra]

i just wanted to know, that its ok if i go out to dinner, and have one beer or one glass of wine that its ok to still carry....i am not talking about sitting at the bar at a chillies all night and getting hammered...

why chance it? Is having that one drink that important?
If you are involved in a shooting after that one drink you better believe it is going to become an issue.