Posted: 5/10/2013 4:04:31 AM EDT
|
My BIL and SIL will be trying to get there CHL next month. They are social drinkers especially my BIL who starts mixing drinks at 5:00pm till about bedtime. I've expressed my concern about just having a few and going on the road is a bad thing but he is a grown ass man and after the 3rd time I've done my best to help him. The next part of the question is DWI's I don't know when is the most recent one are but I do know they each have at least one, and maybe more than one, or the lawyer did some lawyering around and didn't get it on there record. Once again they are grown ass people who know the consequences of their bad descions but make bad descions anyway.
So now to the meat of my questions: 1) how will a DWI or multi DWI's affect a person applying for a CHL? 2) as I understand there is a zero tolerance for alcohol in your system, is that correct? So if you get stopped and arnt friends with the cop (this a small town so that happens,ALOT) your charges are compounded by the DWI offense and illegal carrying offense Either way maybe this will help them grow up and make better descions, even though they are like 7 Years older |
|
I found this on the DPS website:
CHL rules If you look under Eligibility you will find info on convictions. These stand out: (8) has not, in the five years preceding the date of application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or equivalent offense or of an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or equivalent offense; DWI is a class B misdemeanor but can also be an A under certain circumstances. c) An individual who has been convicted two times within the 10-year period preceding the date on which the person applies for a license of an offense of the grade of Class B misdemeanor or greater that involves the use of alcohol or a c ontrolled substance as a s tatutory element of the offense is a chemically dependent person for purposes of this section and is not qualified to receive a license under this subchapter. This subsection does not preclude the disqualification of an individual for being a chemically dependent person if other evidence exists to show that the person is a chemically dependent person. So it would appear if they have had a DWI conviction within 5 years of applying for a CHL or have had two within ten years they can be denied a license. It will all depend on whether they were convicted or not. One observation though, if your BIL starts drinking every day at 5 p.m. and drinks until bedtime, and drinks and drives, and may have been arrested for the same behavior I think he's a little beyond being a social drinker. |
| Do us all a favor--if they have poor enough judgement regarding alcohol and cars, then they do NOT need to carry and drink. We don't need the bad publicity, should they even manage to qualify for a CHL. And since the class is costly, and the application fee non-refundable, tell them how much $$ they will be out if they get denied. |
| They are grown ass adults and I walked them thru all that. If they choose to continue to peruse the license then let any consequence either a denial or the extra charges come as they are warranted. I understand we want to keep the ba apples out of the CHL pool but if they qualify then who am I to deny them. They know what there doing is wrong, and will live with the repercussions of there bad descions |
|
Quoted:
They are grown ass adults and I walked them thru all that. If they choose to continue to peruse the license then let any consequence either a denial or the extra charges come as they are warranted. I understand we want to keep the ba apples out of the CHL pool but if they qualify then who am I to deny them. They know what there doing is wrong, and will live with the repercussions of there bad descions Or maybe not. Drinking and driving show poor judgement. Drinking and pulling their weapon on somebody could end in death. Not necessarily the other persons. At least you will be able to say you counseled them against it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If he received deferred for the DWI cases they will count as convictions. It is NOT true that there is a zero tolerance for carrying. It is an offense to be intoxicated. And intoxicated is at the discretion of the officer you encounter. No, it it as defined in the Texas Penal Code 49.01. (2) "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. Cops don't get just to make it up as they go along. |
|
Wanna bet? I failed the attitude test one evening. I was completely sober( had nothing to drink at all) and went to jail for the night courtesy of the Austin Police Department for Public Intoxication. This was in 1994. So yes, intoxication is at the discretion of the LEO you encounter.
The charge was eventually dismissed, but it caused a lot of aggrevation for me for months. |
|
Quoted:
Wanna bet? I failed the attitude test one evening. I was completely sober( had nothing to drink at all) and went to jail for the night courtesy of the Austin Police Department for Public Intoxication. This was in 1994. So yes, intoxication is at the discretion of the LEO you encounter. I'll take that bet. I'll take my, * law enforcement training on identifying intoxicated subjects, * the dozens of SFSTs I've administered, * countless reports on arrests I've written involving intoxication, * numerous court testimony appearances I've made, and * the legal knowledge I have gained from reading and studying the Texas Penal Code and applicable case law, assisted by being taught by some of the finer legal minds in my county, and bet you that I am certain you're talking out of your ass. I'm sorry, but thinking that one bad arrest almost 20 years ago makes what you posted the truth, doesn't make it true. It just means you got arrested when you shouldn't have been. I'll take you at your word on that--it sucks that happened that to you. By statute, in reference to a criminal offense involving alcohol or drugs, "intoxicated" is as it is defined in Chapter 49 of the Texas Penal Code. Why would anyone bother to write out the definition and commit it to law if it wasn't going to be used? |
|
Quoted:
If he received deferred for the DWI cases they will count as convictions. It is NOT true that there is a zero tolerance for carrying. It is an offense to be intoxicated. +1 However, if your BIL got a good lawyer he might have been able to plead down to obstructing a roadway or something similar. It's all about lawyers and judges, who they know and who knows them. If he is getting hammered everyday from 5:00 until bedtime then he is most definitely considered a chemically dependent person. That won't factor into the application process unless he has alcohol related offenses on his record. It may throw up red flags and require him to see someone, professionally, to evaluate him. If he's arrested for DWI or public intoxication while carrying, assuming he is in fact intoxicated, he will lose his license for sure. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wanna bet? I failed the attitude test one evening. I was completely sober( had nothing to drink at all) and went to jail for the night courtesy of the Austin Police Department for Public Intoxication. This was in 1994. So yes, intoxication is at the discretion of the LEO you encounter. I'll take that bet. I'll take my, * law enforcement training on identifying intoxicated subjects, * the dozens of SFSTs I've administered, * countless reports on arrests I've written involving intoxication, * numerous court testimony appearances I've made, and * the legal knowledge I have gained from reading and studying the Texas Penal Code and applicable case law, assisted by being taught by some of the finer legal minds in my county, and bet you that I am certain you're talking out of your ass. I'm sorry, but thinking that one bad arrest almost 20 years ago makes what you posted the truth, doesn't make it true. It just means you got arrested when you shouldn't have been. I'll take you at your word on that--it sucks that happened that to you. By statute, in reference to a criminal offense involving alcohol or drugs, "intoxicated" is as it is defined in Chapter 49 of the Texas Penal Code. Why would anyone bother to write out the definition and commit it to law if it wasn't going to be used? Since there is no blood, breath, or other requirements to arrest for PI, it is frequently used to get obnoxious people off the street for an evening. You would be shocked( or maybe not) at how many PI cases are dismissed due to insufficient evidence. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wanna bet? I failed the attitude test one evening. I was completely sober( had nothing to drink at all) and went to jail for the night courtesy of the Austin Police Department for Public Intoxication. This was in 1994. So yes, intoxication is at the discretion of the LEO you encounter. I'll take that bet. I'll take my, * law enforcement training on identifying intoxicated subjects, * the dozens of SFSTs I've administered, * countless reports on arrests I've written involving intoxication, * numerous court testimony appearances I've made, and * the legal knowledge I have gained from reading and studying the Texas Penal Code and applicable case law, assisted by being taught by some of the finer legal minds in my county, and bet you that I am certain you're talking out of your ass. I'm sorry, but thinking that one bad arrest almost 20 years ago makes what you posted the truth, doesn't make it true. It just means you got arrested when you shouldn't have been. I'll take you at your word on that--it sucks that happened that to you. By statute, in reference to a criminal offense involving alcohol or drugs, "intoxicated" is as it is defined in Chapter 49 of the Texas Penal Code. Why would anyone bother to write out the definition and commit it to law if it wasn't going to be used? Since there is no blood, breath, or other requirements to arrest for PI, it is frequently used to get obnoxious people off the street for an evening. You would be shocked( or maybe not) at how many PI cases are dismissed due to insufficient evidence. To arrest for Public Intoxication, there has to exist probable cause to believe the offense has been committed. If you read the statute, the elements are: 1. Intoxicated, 2. Danger to self or others, 3. In a public place. In order to make a successful prosecution, the arresting officer must be able to articulate that the subject and their actions met the statutory elements of the offense. In the case of #1, Intoxication, taking a blood or breath sample is only one method of proving the element of the offense, and there is no statute mandating that the arresting officer use that as an investigative tool. That applies to all alcohol related offenses. Department policy might dictate otherwise, as a matter of course, but not Texas law. In reality, taking a blood or breath sample, assuming that the test is done properly and chain of evidence is maintained, is the easiest way to prove that a subject is intoxicated, BUT it is not the only way or even the best way, in some circumstances. I have had many successful prosecurtions for PI and other intoxication related offenses without having to take a blood or breath sample, simply by being able to clearly and accurately articulate the indications of intoxication that the subject displayed. In reality, the more difficult part of the whole charge is proving that an intoxicated subject is a danger to themselves or others, especially the happy-feel-good drunks. So, how many PI cases have you worked as the arresting officer, and how many have you had dismissed for lack of evidence? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wanna bet? I failed the attitude test one evening. I was completely sober( had nothing to drink at all) and went to jail for the night courtesy of the Austin Police Department for Public Intoxication. This was in 1994. So yes, intoxication is at the discretion of the LEO you encounter. I'll take that bet. I'll take my, * law enforcement training on identifying intoxicated subjects, * the dozens of SFSTs I've administered, * countless reports on arrests I've written involving intoxication, * numerous court testimony appearances I've made, and * the legal knowledge I have gained from reading and studying the Texas Penal Code and applicable case law, assisted by being taught by some of the finer legal minds in my county, and bet you that I am certain you're talking out of your ass. I'm sorry, but thinking that one bad arrest almost 20 years ago makes what you posted the truth, doesn't make it true. It just means you got arrested when you shouldn't have been. I'll take you at your word on that--it sucks that happened that to you. By statute, in reference to a criminal offense involving alcohol or drugs, "intoxicated" is as it is defined in Chapter 49 of the Texas Penal Code. Why would anyone bother to write out the definition and commit it to law if it wasn't going to be used? Since there is no blood, breath, or other requirements to arrest for PI, it is frequently used to get obnoxious people off the street for an evening. You would be shocked( or maybe not) at how many PI cases are dismissed due to insufficient evidence. You're either talking out of your ass or just poorly explaining your point. I'm inclined to believe the former. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If he received deferred for the DWI cases they will count as convictions. It is NOT true that there is a zero tolerance for carrying. It is an offense to be intoxicated. And intoxicated is at the discretion of the officer you encounter. No, it really isn't. No more than for any other intoxication offense. There is plenty of case law, and a definition in the code of intoxication |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If he received deferred for the DWI cases they will count as convictions. It is NOT true that there is a zero tolerance for carrying. It is an offense to be intoxicated. And intoxicated is at the discretion of the officer you encounter. No, it really isn't. No more than for any other intoxication offense. There is plenty of case law, and a definition in the code of intoxication All I have to go by is personal experience, and the really high dismissal rates for that charge in muni court here in Austin. That and the TABC stellar record of arresting hotel guests at the hotel bars around the state. All the arresting officer has to say is " I suspect they are intoxicated and pose a danger to themselves" and you pretty much take a ride for the night. I am not saying this happens where "you " enforce the law, but it is a fairly common practice here. Again, I freely own failing the attitude test in my case. I know a couple of other people ( oddly enough that looked like me in dress and hairstyle) that took the ride for PI after mouthing off and failing the attitude test as well. Both cases dismissed, insufficient evidence. The law office my wife worked at saw quite a few PI cases, almost all were dismissed due to insufficient evidence. If you or your department do not use these tactics to get obnoxious people out of circulation for the night, then kudos to y'all. To say it does not happen on a regular basis in other jurisdictions is not making an informed statement. |
|
I would do everything humanly possible to impress upon your BIL that his drinking needs to be brought under control before he gets a CHL. I don't want an idiot like that on the streets with me armed.
As to the derailment topic of PI arrests. I can attest to the fact that PI's are filed all the time that do not meet the requirements of the charge. The person was still arrested, booked, and spent the night in jail before his case was found No Probable Cause. The officer may have been unable to articulate the elements of the offence - "saw drunk, arrested same", or the defendant pissed off the officer in some way and got hooked up for a ride. You may have never done it, or seen it done, but it does happen. You do not have to have any detectible amount of alcohol to be arrested for PI. You can be arrested if you display, in an officers opinion, any of the elements of PI. Say you're tired, have red eyes after being at work 16 hours, and accidentally bump an officer working off duty at the local 7-11. He thinks you're drunk, you argue because you know you're not. Bam, lockup overnight. I've been taking these kinds of charges for over a decade for one of the largest counties in Texas. We get probably 3-4 No PC PI's every month. Might be due to volume, might be to lazy cops that put "saw drunk, arrested same" on their PC affidavit. But, it does happen. |
|
Quoted:
I would do everything humanly possible to impress upon your BIL that his drinking needs to be brought under control before he gets a CHL. I don't want an idiot like that on the streets with me armed. As to the derailment topic of PI arrests. I can attest to the fact that PI's are filed all the time that do not meet the requirements of the charge. The person was still arrested, booked, and spent the night in jail before his case was found No Probable Cause. The officer may have been unable to articulate the elements of the offence - "saw drunk, arrested same", or the defendant pissed off the officer in some way and got hooked up for a ride. You may have never done it, or seen it done, but it does happen. You do not have to have any detectible amount of alcohol to be arrested for PI. You can be arrested if you display, in an officers opinion, any of the elements of PI. Say you're tired, have red eyes after being at work 16 hours, and accidentally bump an officer working off duty at the local 7-11. He thinks you're drunk, you argue because you know you're not. Bam, lockup overnight. I've been taking these kinds of charges for over a decade for one of the largest counties in Texas. We get probably 3-4 No PC PI's every month. Might be due to volume, might be to lazy cops that put "saw drunk, arrested same" on their PC affidavit. But, it does happen. perhaps they should require you spend the night at a hotel and get your drunk before you can get a chl, see if you are a happy drunk or an angry drunk.. when I got drunk I was always happy... a lot of people that I thankfully USED to work with were idiots and when they got drunk they were angry drunks... had one guy want to fight me because I told him where he was supposed to go, was just a FACT not anything personal or anything and he wanted to fight me saying I wasn't his boss...etc.. he came in to work late so I told him where he was supposed to go.. then later I find out the reason he came in late was he had a court date for getting drunk and fighting... DERP... he got SLAMMED by the court as he DESERVED and he was mad so he was taking his anger out on me and everyone else that day.... If you generally have anger issues, and a drinking problem maybe you need 'professional help' and NOT a CHL... if you WERE a happy drunk but no longer drink or at the very least don't drink too much to be legal then by all means if you 'think' you are able to pass the CHL background check then go for it... I KNOW a lot of angry/violent people who shouldn't carry a gun..aka BULLIES.... they don't need a gun I have like 12 bottles of liqour at my house but I haven't had a drink in YEARS..perhaps a decade..can't recall. I can drink and will if I want to but I know too many drunks/losers/idiots.. that they scare me sober...I DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE THEM!!! |