CWI, Carrying While Intoxicated?

[jbarn]

What your rear here. CWI (or related real charge) is discretionary. It's completely up to the professional opinion of the arresting LEO. I say professional, as LEOs are trained to recognize intoxication. So it's a LEOs call.

Unlike DWI there is no standard test procedure or BAC level required... Be careful.

There is no BAC level required for DWI. As a cop, I got a conviction on a guy who blew zero.

[Oldgringo]

blah, blah and blah,
(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
The above is the definition of intoxicated. Perhaps your lawyer can convince the judge that you're cool and the arresting LEO's are/were full of beans. Bring your checkbook....

[jbarn]

blah, blah and blah,
(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
The above is the definition of intoxicated. Perhaps your lawyer can convince the judge that you're cool and the arresting LEO's are/were full of beans. Bring your checkbook....

To whom are you directing your comments?

[Oldgringo]

blah, blah and blah,
(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
The above is the definition of intoxicated. Perhaps your lawyer can convince the judge that you're cool and the arresting LEO's are/were full of beans. Bring your checkbook....

To whom are you directing your comments?

My comment is directed to no one, jb. My comment is merely an observation based on years of observing human behavior hither and thither, far and wide. I read fairly well; however, I do not profess to be an authority on nothing.

[talltex]

Unlike DWI there is no standard test procedure or BAC level required... Be careful.

There is no BAC level required for DWI. As a cop, I got a conviction on a guy who blew zero.

I think the difference is in the use of DWI vs. DUI...back in the 70's/80's, DWI was used for alcohol cases and DUI for impairment due to other substances. The two charges appear to be combined under section 49.01's definition of intoxication now, but I think most of us 40 or older still think of them as being seperate offenses. How about enlightening us on how you obtained that conviction if it WAS alcohol related?

[Chris]

If you slammed some ambien and went out driving, you could very well be nailed. I would imagine that every case of unlawful carry by chl holder would be accompanied by a DWI, PI, or similar charge.

[jbarn]

Unlike DWI there is no standard test procedure or BAC level required... Be careful.

There is no BAC level required for DWI. As a cop, I got a conviction on a guy who blew zero.

I think the difference is in the use of DWI vs. DUI...back in the 70's/80's, DWI was used for alcohol cases and DUI for impairment due to other substances. The two charges appear to be combined under section 49.01's definition of intoxication now, but I think most of us 40 or older still think of them as being seperate offenses. How about enlightening us on how you obtained that conviction if it WAS alcohol related?

It has always been one charge. My father was a Texas Highway Patrolman from the 50's, I was hired in '83.

My guy was on heroin. No BAC for that, or pot, oxy, hydrocodone, cocaine, meth, etc..........

I also had a couple of people convicted at less than the presumed BAC level.

[talltex]

It has always been one charge. My father was a Texas Highway Patrolman from the 50's, I was hired in '83.

My guy was on heroin. No BAC for that, or pot, oxy, hydrocodone, cocaine, meth, etc..........

I also had a couple of people convicted at less than the presumed BAC level.

I was working in Hays County (Sheriff's Dept.) back in the mid 70's, and I recalled we had numerous DUI cases as opposed to DWI...looking at the current statutes, I see that DUI is still a different offense, but it's only for minors. That probably was the reason I remember we had alot of them with all the "fresh out of high school students" at SWTSU...I was only 17yo when I started college.

[Keith B]

What your rear here. CWI (or related real charge) is discretionary. It's completely up to the professional opinion of the arresting LEO. I say professional, as LEOs are trained to recognize intoxication. So it's a LEOs call.

Unlike DWI there is no standard test procedure or BAC level required... Be careful.

Sure there is. DWI and carrying while intoxicated are both governed by TPC 49.01. It's an either or situation. Officers discretion can be used for DWI as well and .08 BAC or greater can be used as defacto proof of intoxication for carrying while intoxicated. No difference.

[Dragonfighter]

What your rear here. CWI (or related real charge) is discretionary. It's completely up to the professional opinion of the arresting LEO. I say professional, as LEOs are trained to recognize intoxication. So it's a LEOs call.

Unlike DWI there is no standard test procedure or BAC level required... Be careful.

Sure there is. DWI and carrying while intoxicated are both governed by TPC 49.01. It's an either or situation. Officers discretion can be used for DWI as well and .08 BAC or greater can be used as defacto proof of intoxication for carrying while intoxicated. No difference.

I think I see what your saying, and if so I agree. You can blow below a .08 BAC and still be a psycho-motor mess. While people like my dad could have a fair amount and be seemingly not impaired at all, but a BAC =/> .08 would be enough to presume intoxication regardless of how one performs on a field sobriety test.

[Keith B]

I think I see what your saying, and if so I agree. You can blow below a .08 BAC and still be a psycho-motor mess. While people like my dad could have a fair amount and be seemingly not impaired at all, but a BAC =/> .08 would be enough to presume intoxication regardless of how one performs on a field sobriety test.

Correct. A .08 or higher BAC is proof positive of intoxication for driving, carrying and other intoxication offenses unless specifically defined differently in the code for that offense. However, you can still be charged with DWI, carrying while intoxicated, etc with a less than .08 BAC by officer discretion if you are impaired by other means (drugs, chemical imbalance, etc.)

[cb1000rider]

There is no BAC level required for DWI. As a cop, I got a conviction on a guy who blew zero.

Right, but at least he got to blow. As a LEO, if you arrest for PI - no obligation to test for anything. They're intoxicated if you say they are.

I give a nod to the case where people are intoxicated by things other than alcohol and blow zero... At least there is some level of sobriety testing going on.

[Keith B]

There is no BAC level required for DWI. As a cop, I got a conviction on a guy who blew zero.

Right, but at least he got to blow. As a LEO, if you arrest for PI - no obligation to test for anything. They're intoxicated if you say they are.

I give a nod to the case where people are intoxicated by things other than alcohol and blow zero... At least there is some level of sobriety testing going on.

As a LEO you don't have to take a BAC for DWI either. It is just good policy to do so if they have been drinking to prove the level in their system. For other intoxicant's, the breathalyzer will not be of any use, and could potentially be used as a defense to argue they had no alcohol in their system so 'they weren't intoxicated'. For that only a court ordered blood draw and/or seizure of any medications/drugs/narcotics along with video and your testimony is the evidence.

[cb1000rider]

So what happens to the case if you arrest for DWI, no tape of field sobriety, no breathalyzer, and no blood test?
PI, these get prosecuted successfully all the time.

Keith, I'm simply suggesting that a "CWI" can be very subjective and it's not subject to the same level of testing that a DWI would. LEO says "drunk" defendant says "not". No witnesses. Officer has training and no reason to lie about it. How will that shake out?

As such, you're less protected against being charged if you're sober.

[Keith B]

So what happens to the case if you arrest for DWI, no tape of field sobriety, no breathalyzer, and no blood test?
PI, these get prosecuted successfully all the time.

Keith, I'm simply suggesting that a "CWI" can be very subjective and it's not subject to the same level of testing that a DWI would. LEO says "drunk" defendant says "not". No witnesses. Officer has training and no reason to lie about it. How will that shake out?

As such, you're less protected against being charged if you're sober.

Evidence is evidence. PI, DWI, CWI (will call it that). I think the main difference is the penalty and the person's choice to fight it. PI is a class C, where DWI or CWI are class B and you stand to lose your DL or CHL vs. just a monetary fine. Most people won't fight a PI unless they have more to lose than just a fine.

So, if a LEO writes a PI ticket, but doesn't get video, breathalyzer or blood draw, then it would be only your word against his sans any witnesses for either side. Same for DWI or CWI, if an officer chooses to arrest you for it, but doesn't get additional evidence like a breathalyzer or blood draw, then the whatever evidence there is would have to prove you were intoxicated in court if you fought it. As a LEO, you work to build a solid case when you make arrest so it will stick and prove your arrest was justified. Defense attorney's work to break that evidence down so as to disprove your case.