The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
Mike1951 wrote: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.chamberc wrote: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!
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.
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.Keith B wrote: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.Aggiedad wrote: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?chamberc wrote: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.
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.
I dont feel bad for him at all.surprise_i'm_armed wrote: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
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).chabouk wrote: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.
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.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.
Very Very Excellent Steve. Thanks for your post.That's a pretty good question on at least three points; i.e.,Crossfire wrote: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.
why chance it? Is having that one drink that important?vinnier6 wrote: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...
