If I read this correctly, the court held that 10% concentration labeled for 'Police Use Only' in a large can meets the 'chemical dispensing device' definition while 2% or 3% does not.
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/sta ... 78354.html
A review of the evidence shows that after appellant�s arrest, police found in his possession a large can of OC spray containing 10% oleoresincapsicum solution.� The device was labeled �Law Enforcement Use Only.�� HPD Crime Lab chemist James Miller testified that personal use OC spray is one-half the size of the can found in appellant�s possession and is labeled either 2% or 3% in concentration.� He further testified that the larger cans must be purchased at either a police supply store or over the internet.� Officer Tony Lee testified that one would experience uncontrollable coughing and mild panic if sprayed with 10% OC spray.� Additionally, in order to buy the 10% OC spray, one must present police identification.� Accordingly, we find there is legally sufficient evidence that appellant was in possession of OC spray in violation of section 46.05(a)(8).
�����������Appellant further contends the evidence is factually insufficient because the officers who testified at trial did not know possession of 10% OC spray violated the penal code.� We find appellant�s arguments irrelevant.� Moreover, the fact that appellant was allowed to purchase the can at a police supply store without showing identification does not mitigate culpability for possession of the 10% OC spray.� The OC spray can was sufficiently labeled to put appellant on notice that it was for police use only.� Accordingly, we find the verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence and overrule appellant�s third point of error.