TexasCHLforum.com

The only point I want to address is "the legal limit". The Texas Penal Code identifies intoxication as having a BAC of 0.08 or above OR not having normal use of your mental and physical capacities as a result of the introduction of alcohol or other drug to your system.
The limit of 0.08 is per se (meaning in and of itself)..... easy terms - Even if you are a professional drunk and do not appear intoxicated, if your BAC is 0.08 or higher you are "Intoxicated"

If you want exact page and verse I can get it.

Webster consented to a blood draw that authorities will use to determine whether his blood-alcohol level was beyond the legal limit of .08. Results of those tests are expected within the next two weeks, police said.

How come it takes so long for the police to get the report on the blood test back?

-geo

bryang wrote:

Webster consented to a blood draw that authorities will use to determine whether his blood-alcohol level was beyond the legal limit of .08. Results of those tests are expected within the next two weeks, police said.

How come it takes so long for the police to get the report on the blood test back?

-geo

I suspect the time it takes to get the test results back depends a lot on who you are...and who you ain't.

IANAL, but I think this whole case will come down to two obvious things:

1. Was he legally intoxicated?

2. Was the gun legally "on or about his person"?

This second question is the one that should concern us. The relevant CHL statute, PC 46.035 does not involve "possession" of a gun, but rather "carrying" of a firearm "on or about one's person" ... if there's one thing I know about the law, the interpretation of each and every word is paramount. Has this definition ever been defined by legal precedence? I've always taken the meaning to be "on your person" - meaning you are "carrying" in the general sense of the term (in a holster, in a pocket, in your hand etc) - OR inside a vehicle under your direct control AND within easy reach - meaning in a vehicle you are driving and within your easy reach while you are sitting in the driver's seat.

So, by my definition above, if the gun was in the glove compartment or center console, he's cooked. But if it was in a gym bag in the back seat, or in the trunk, or in some locked container, perhaps he could skate on the gun charge, regardless of results of alcohol test.

WHERE the gun was specifically located seems to be the crux of the gun charge.

AFCop wrote:The only point I want to address is "the legal limit". The Texas Penal Code identifies intoxication as having a BAC of 0.08 or above OR not having normal use of your mental and physical capacities as a result of the introduction of alcohol or other drug to your system.

There's the amusing part; hold your breath long enough, or intentionally screw with your blood sugar until you get to the point of mental incapacitation that most people would get from a pint of Everclear, and you're still okay to drive. Have an atypical reaction to your prescribed medication for the very first time, and you're illegal.

KD5NRH wrote:There's the amusing part; hold your breath long enough, or intentionally screw with your blood sugar until you get to the point of mental incapacitation that most people would get from a pint of Everclear, and you're still okay to drive. Have an atypical reaction to your prescribed medication for the very first time, and you're illegal.

That's not quite how the Penal Code reads. I quoted the relevant section of PC§49 in my previous post:

PC§49.01(2) Reads: "'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."

You can't purposely hyperventilate, starve yourself into hypoglycemia, just come off running a marathon, or have a stroke and be legally intoxicated. It has to be due to the introduction of a substance into the body. You're absolutely correct, though, that it can be due to a consequence of prescription medication...and enough of them carry the "do not drive or operate heavy machinery" warning. What is and isn't a drug is defined in the Health and Safety Code, Title 6, Subtitle C.

And we need again to be clear that the same definition applies not just to driving, but to carrying a firearm. If someone takes a prescription drug, or a mix of a prescription drug that reacts with any other inhaled/ingested/injected substance that results in him or her "not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties," then the legality of carrying a firearm could well be challenged by a LEO, whether carrying under auspices of a CHL or the Motorist Protection Act.

Oldgringo wrote:

bryang wrote:

Webster consented to a blood draw that authorities will use to determine whether his blood-alcohol level was beyond the legal limit of .08. Results of those tests are expected within the next two weeks, police said.

How come it takes so long for the police to get the report on the blood test back?

-geo

I suspect the time it takes to get the test results back depends a lot on who you are...and who you ain't.

or how much you want to pay.

Liberty wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

bryang wrote:
How come it takes so long for the police to get the report on the blood test back?

-geo

I suspect the time it takes to get the test results back depends a lot on who you are...and who you ain't.

or how much you want to pay.

I doubt either of these insinuations. Bet you a nickel this is a typical, if not faster than typical, turnaround for a LE contracted test...especially if their contract is with a less expensive lab in some other part of the state.

The turn-around may also depend on the seriousness of the case.

If a fatality accident had occurred, I'd bet they'd have requested expedited processing.

IMHO, the turn-around times you see on the various CSI shows are unbelievably fast, compared to real life.

KD5NRH wrote:There's the amusing part; hold your breath long enough, or intentionally screw with your blood sugar until you get to the point of mental incapacitation that most people would get from a pint of Everclear, and you're still okay to drive.

You won't be intoxicated but if you're impaired enough to be unsafe the cops should be able to observe reckless driving behavior and charge you with that.

ELB wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

bryang wrote:
How come it takes so long for the police to get the report on the blood test back?

-geo

I suspect the time it takes to get the test results back depends a lot on who you are...and who you ain't.

or how much you want to pay.

I doubt either of these insinuations. Bet you a nickel this is a typical, if not faster than typical, turnaround for a LE contracted test...especially if their contract is with a less expensive lab in some other part of the state.

I meant no insinuations. I know labs charge more for immediate testings than they do for overnight or the ones that come back in a week or 2. If the state has need for immediacy They would pay more. The court and legal system are typically not in any hurry.

According to his attorney Becky Davis...
"The hand gun charge is only applicable if he was intoxicated, and we won’t know that until the blood tests come back,” Davis said.

This was taken from "The Community News" of East Parker County.

There is no further news available until Webster's blood test comes in. This was a statement from his attorney Becky Davis.

-geo

LarryH wrote:IMHO, the turn-around times you see on the various CSI shows are unbelievably fast, compared to real life.

How true. In "real life" not all cases are solved in an hour. They aren't "high-tech" like on TV either.

Russell wrote:

WildBill wrote:

LarryH wrote:IMHO, the turn-around times you see on the various CSI shows are unbelievably fast, compared to real life.

How true. In "real life" not all cases are solved in an hour. They aren't "high-tech" like on TV either.

Nor can you take a grainy security camera video and:
"Enhance.... enhance.....zoom....enhance.... print! There's our guy!"

You're kidding!