Am I understanding this

[Wiliamr]

The reality is, your wishes aside, the legal system rules. It does not care what you think it should be, it is what the prosecutors hold, and the grand jury agrees with the DA on. Get your selves out and vote. Run for offices. Attorneys who hold with us, run for DA offices. To really throw the system into a twirl, go to the democrat precincts and sign up, vote in the democrat primaries, get elected at democrat reps. If you can afford it, go to the National Democrat convention and most of all VOTE against Hillary.

 

[ares338]

For my purposes...I will comply with law enforcement to see my CHL. I will NOT like this but I will comply. The bottom line is that I believe the majority of LEOs are great and wish you no ill. That said there are always those individuals in every segment of society that are asshats. If you believe that you have been wronged, the time to protest is when the interaction is over with. Then you visit the LEOs HQ and file a formal complaint. It may not satisfy your need to be right but it will be financially beneficial. Just my opinion for what it's worth.

 

[robocop10mm]

I'll chime in, albeit a little late. .08% BAC is a "presumption" of intoxication. It only takes into consideration alcohol. A person at .04% "could" be intoxicated because of the addition of other substances (prescribed, OTC or illegal) into the system. 2 beers and a Xanax bar (2mg) will hammer most folks.

Many people are charged and convicted w/o any breath/blood test at all. All based on the officer's observations. Video/audio may make it easier to convince the jury of one's intoxication. Even video does not normally show nystagmus. The officer's observations are entered into evidence through his testimony.

.08 is not normally taken into consideration when charging offenses like Public Intoxication. It is based almost entirely on the observations of the officer.

 

[txinvestigator]

I'll chime in, albeit a little late. .08% BAC is a "presumption" of intoxication. It only takes into consideration alcohol. A person at .04% "could" be intoxicated because of the addition of other substances (prescribed, OTC or illegal) into the system. 2 beers and a Xanax bar (2mg) will hammer most folks.

Many people are charged and convicted w/o any breath/blood test at all. All based on the officer's observations. Video/audio may make it easier to convince the jury of one's intoxication. Even video does not normally show nystagmus. The officer's observations are entered into evidence through his testimony.

.08 is not normally taken into consideration when charging offenses like Public Intoxication. It is based almost entirely on the observations of the officer.

Nicely put.

 

[Hoji]

.08 is not normally taken into consideration when charging offenses like Public Intoxication. It is based almost entirely on the observations of the officer.

Yep. Fail the attitude test and you can find yourself in jail for the night based on the "observations" of the officer, whether or not you have had anything to alter you or not. Ask me how I know this, lol

 

[BRD@66]

I'll chime in, albeit a little late. .08% BAC is a "presumption" of intoxication. It only takes into consideration alcohol. A person at .04% "could" be intoxicated because of the addition of other substances (prescribed, OTC or illegal) into the system. 2 beers and a Xanax bar (2mg) will hammer most folks.

Many people are charged and convicted w/o any breath/blood test at all. All based on the officer's observations. Video/audio may make it easier to convince the jury of one's intoxication. Even video does not normally show nystagmus. The officer's observations are entered into evidence through his testimony.

.08 is not normally taken into consideration when charging offenses like Public Intoxication. It is based almost entirely on the observations of the officer.

0.08, in TX is per se intoxicated, not just presumption. At first we had a no Implied Consent Law but a presumption with no % number. The usual prosecution level was 0.15% BAC which was AMA recommendation at the time - SB 74 of 61st Legis, 1969, gave us an Implied Consent Law still, with no number. Then Jun 1973, 63rd Legis, Implied Consent law was upgraded to read 0.10 - it was still a presumption of intox, not per se.
1983, 0.10 presumption became per se. Sep 1999, 0.10 per se lowered to 0.08. Current wording does not include the % sign - just the number (for example) 0.08.

 

[Mreed911]

Current wording does not include the % sign - just the number (for example) 0.08.

Correct. BAC is always a perfect, so .08% would be .0008, which isn't the intent. Remember that BAC is just serum ethanol divided 1000 (move the decimal three places to the left).

So, BAC of .10 (g/dl) would be a serum ethanol of 100mg/dl and mean that 1/10th of 1% of the person's circulating volume was ethanol.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2090019-overview

There's a good table here of "normal" effects, meaning on a person who normally functions on a BAC of 0 (or less than .01):

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2090019-overview#a2

 

[BRD@66]

So, BAC of .10 (g/dl) would be a serum ethanol of 100mg/dl and mean that 1/10th of 1% of the person's circulating volume was ethanol.

ahh, you blood guys. I was a breath test geek.

 

[Mreed911]

ahh, you blood guys. I was a breath test geek.

2.1L of breath = 1ml blood.

 

[winchster]

This is why you NEVER submit to field sobriety tests and DO NOT have a conversation with an officer investigating your sobriety. EVERYTHING is evidence, including your nervousness causing you to use the wrong word, which gets interpreted as impairment.

I don't support driving while intoxicated, nor do I support the use of firearm while intoxicated. I also don't support providing anything that can be misconstrued as evidence when being questioned about a potential criminal act.

Immediate 90 day suspension, trip to jail, and blood draw if you refuse.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Hoji]

Immediate 90 day suspension, trip to jail, and blood draw if you refuse.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Blood draw requires a warrant. It is not automatic.

 

[Mreed911]

Immediate 90 day suspension, trip to jail, and blood draw if you refuse.

Not in Texas.

You're thinking of Breathalyzer, and you're even wrong there. The suspension goes into effect 41 days after you're given notice and it's 180 days if you refuse, 90 days if you blow over .08 BAC, with 15 days to appeal to an administrative law judge.

Also, if the officer chooses to take a breath sample (and can, by statute - some reasons require blood), you have the right to have a blood test done within two hours as well.

To get to that point, though, the officer needs probable cause to arrest you for DWI and compel a sample. Not reasonable suspicion, probable cause.

There is NO penalty for failing to participate in SFST's in Texas and NO benefit to you to doing so. The only purpose of SFST's is for the officer to gather evidence of "impairment" to meet the second prong of our DWI statute.

If the officer cannot build probable cause for impairment, he cannot arrest you for DWI (or if he does, it's invalid). Do not help officers build their case.

Better yet? Don't drive impaired.

PS - To Hoji's point? https://www.versustexas.com/criminal/search-warrant-required-for-nonconsensual-blood-draws/

 

[BRD@66]

Not in Texas.

You're thinking of Breathalyzer, and you're even wrong there. The suspension goes into effect 41 days after you're given notice and it's 180 days if you refuse, 90 days if you blow over .08 BAC, with 15 days to appeal to an administrative law judge.

Also, if the officer chooses to take a breath sample (and can, by statute - some reasons require blood), you have the right to have a blood test done within two hours as well.

To get to that point, though, the officer needs probable cause to arrest you for DWI and compel a sample. Not reasonable suspicion, probable cause.

There is NO penalty for failing to participate in SFST's in Texas and NO benefit to you to doing so. The only purpose of SFST's is for the officer to gather evidence of "impairment" to meet the second prong of our DWI statute.

If the officer cannot build probable cause for impairment, he cannot arrest you for DWI (or if he does, it's invalid). Do not help officers build their case.

Better yet? Don't drive impaired.

PS - To Hoji's point? https://www.versustexas.com/criminal/search-warrant-required-for-nonconsensual-blood-draws/

^this.

 

[winchster]

Blood draw requires a warrant. It is not automatic.

I realize it requires a warrant, but if you've gone to jail for refusal to blow, a warrant is virtually guaranteed.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Mreed911]

I realize it requires a warrant, but if you've gone to jail for refusal to blow, a warrant is virtually guaranteed.

You can't go to jail for refusal to blow.

You must be under arrest already to be compelled (e.g. non-voluntary) to give a sample of breath and you generally need a warrant for blood (arrested or not).

If you refuse, you go to jail for DWI.

 

[winchster]

You can't go to jail for refusal to blow.

You must be under arrest already to be compelled (e.g. non-voluntary) to give a sample of breath and you generally need a warrant for blood (arrested or not).

If you refuse, you go to jail for DWI.

Then why does every single thing I find say, "Once you refuse the breathalyzer, you will be placed under arrest "?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Mreed911]

Then why does every single thing I find say, "Once you refuse the breathalyzer, you will be placed under arrest"?

Because every single thing you find is written poorly. The law is the law is the law.

How can they apprehend you and take you to the breathalyzer without arresting you? An arrest requires probable cause. Once you're at the breathalyzer, you've already been arrested (unless you volunteered).

 

[Mreed911]

Good article on this here: http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2008/06/to-blow-or-not-to-blow-a-little-texas-dwi-law/

 

[Bluemoto66]

And you can bet you bottom dollar $$$ that they will stop you and ask you a lot of questions even after seeing your LTC..

 

[Bluemoto66]

One of the concerns I have regarding OCing is the potential number of times, in one day, LEO's might decide to make you prove you're qualified to OC.

As an example: You start out the morning eating breakfast, you're OCing and either someone does the MWAG call or LEO's come in to the restaurant, ask/demand/request your CHL/LTC. As the day progresses, and you go else where you experience having to prove you're qualified to OC repeatedly. Are they also going to check you out for outstanding warrants while they're at it?

Is my hypothetical over the top?

Maybe, I really hope so, but what 's to prevent it?

The same thing happened in the late 60's when motorcycle riders had to wear helmets. The helmet had to be on an official list and every time you rode you had to plan on being stopped and checked. Helmet was excuse for stop, but license, inspection, warranty check and anything else the Police could think of to keep you standing on the side of the road for a hour or more.
Same is going to happen to OC'ers. So just carry concealed when you can.