As of Sept. 1, 2001, it is illegal to possess an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle. House Bill 5, passed by the 77th Texas Legislature, makes it a Class C misdemeanor to possess an open container of alcohol in the passenger area of a motor vehicle which is on a public highway or the right-of-way adjacent to a public highway.

What is an “open container”?
Under the new law, an “open container” is a bottle, can, or other receptacle that contains any amount of alcoholic beverage and that has been opened, that has a broken seal, or the contents of which are partially removed.

What is considered the “passenger area of a motor vehicle”?
The “passenger area” is the area of a motor vehicle designed for the seating of the operator and passengers. It does not include a locked glove compartment or a similar storage container that is locked, the trunk of a vehicle, or the area behind the last upright seat of the vehicle if the vehicle does not have a trunk.

What is a “public highway”?
This includes any public road, street, highway, interstate, or other publicly-maintained way if any part is open for public use for the purpose of motor vehicle travel.

Does the motor vehicle have to be moving for a violation to occur?
No. Under the law, a person commits an open container offense by possessing an open container in the passenger area of a motor vehicle regardless of whether the vehicle is being operated or is stopped or parked. There is an exception for people who are passengers in a bus, taxi, or limousine; or who are in the living quarters of a motorized house coach or motorized house trailer, including a self-contained camper, motor home, or recreational vehicle.

Did the Texas Legislature also change the DWI laws?
Yes. House Bill 5 strengthens the punishment for repeat DWI offenses. A second DWI conviction within five years of the first now requires a mandatory one-year suspension of the offender’s driver’s license. Upon reinstatement, the offender must have an ignition interlock device installed on his or her vehicle for an additional year. This device uses a breath analysis mechanism that renders the vehicle inoperable if ethyl alcohol is detected in the driver’s breath.

Why were the open container and DWI laws changed?
Before the 77th Legislature, the State of Texas was not in compliance with federal open container and DWI repeat offender laws. As a result, it risked losing federal highway construction funds apportioned to the state. The changes in the law bring Texas into compliance with federal open container laws and federal laws for repeat DWI offenders.

Also, the Department of Public Safety has observed that in the majority of alcohol-related crashes, an open container is present. The law is intended to help curb the problem of driving while intoxicated.

Sources: Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Legislature Online, Texas Bar Journal.

For the past year now, MADD has trumpeted its latest solution to the drunk driving problem.  After 13 years of essentially unchanged DUI-related fatality statistics (they have actually increased), MADD is now promising in its recent solicitations for money (average $52 million a year) that their latest weapon will “eliminate drunk driving once and for all”.  And in recent press releases, MADD's national president is promising that it will “literally wipe out drunk driving in the United States”.

Pretty grandiose claims.  So what is this new miracle weapon?  The ignition interlock device, or "IID". 

Problem #1: They don't work.  See my guest editorial in Business Week, MADD Announces an End to Drunk Driving: A Reply. They are, however, very profitable (see my earlier post Ignition Interlock Devices: Dangerous but Profitable).  If you review MADD's Annual Report, you will find a list of their top contributors – those "Platinum Corporate Donors" who have paid MADD at least $100,000.  There are six:  Dial America Marketing, Nationwide Mutual Insurance, Nissan North America, Daimler Chrysler Corporation, Car Max Foundation and General Motors Corporation (makers of Saab).  Yes, three car manufacturers…and a telemarketer heavily used by MADD.

Problem #2: What about drivers who haven't been arrested before?  How do you “literally wipe out drunk driving" by installing IIDs only in cars operated by drivers who have already been convicted?  Most drivers arrested for DUI are first offenders.

MADD understands this, and is pushing further — to have all vehicles mandatorily equipped with IIDs.  (Now you understand why the car manufacturers are investing heavily in MADD.)

New Tech Push Against Drunk Driving

MADD seeks spread of ignition interlocks that

prevent driving with high blood alcohol levels

CBS News. You have a few drinks, climb behind the wheel of your car, turn the key and — nothing. The engine doesn’t turn over, the car doesn’t move.

If Mothers Against Drunk Driving has its way, a device that checks a driver’s alcohol levels will be mandatory in cars owned by anyone ever convicted of drunk driving, and, eventually, every automobile…(Emphasis added.)

There are nearly 1.5 million drunken driving arrests last year, but only 100,000 ignition interlocks are currently in use, so even tagging first offenders isn’t really enough, says MADD…

“There are going to be different types of technology, such as trans-dermal detection that will have sensors to detect the blood alcohol level of an individual before he starts the car, so it doesn’t allow the car to start,” said (MADD President Glynn) Birch.

Another system has a Breathalyzer tube that the driver must blow into before starting the car, The (New York) Times reports. A third detects that a car is weaving down the road, and possible driven by an impaired driver.

“Biometric detection or identification will work like a thumbprint to identify and also give us an idea of who the driver is,” Birch said.

Those systems might eventually test all drivers, whether or not they have ever been convicted of drunken driving…

And as I've mentioned in past posts, automakers Nissan (a MADD "Platinum Donor") and Saab (owned by "Platinum Donor" General Motors) are the two pioneers, having already produced working IID technology for their future cars…once MADD has succeeded in getting the needed legislation mandating an IID in your car.

To more clearly understand the nightmare of driving with an IID-controlled vehicle, see this Japanese TV news broadcast on YouTube (and imagine all that can go wrong).  Now also consider the $1500 or so added to the car's sticker price, along with the periodic required calibration, maintenance and repairs.

Read more . . .

Recently, the Gregg County (Longview) sheriff made the proclimation that if you drink and drive this independence day weekend - you will go to jail.

In December 2006, Gregg County commissioners approved a grant to participate in the statewide "Drink, Drive, Go To Jail" campaign with the funding being provided by the Texas Department of Transportation.

This grant provides resources necessary to conduct DWI enforcement throughout the holiday periods to increase the arrests of folks that drink and drive.

Captain Ken Hartley with the Gregg County Sheriff's Department says; "We'd just like to remind people to drive responsibly. Don't drink and drive. Enforcement will be out there and it's not worth that chance and certainly not taking a chance of hurting yourself or others."

Well, here lies the rub….it is not against the law to drink and then drive as long as two things are true: 1) you are at least 21 years of age, and 2) you are not intoxicated. I believe that the Sheriff is setting up a great argument for the fact that people are going to be arrested that don't meet the above criteria. The police and prosecutors always want to lower the standard, but it just isn't the law. Another example of their attempt to shift the standard is the "Buzzed driving is Drunk Driving" billboards. Neither Buzzed driving, nor Drunk Driving is the standard…..Intoxication is. I certainly hope a defense attorney in Gregg County is paying attention to this and is willing to use this to show the juries there that THIS Sheriff's deputies have the potential for making wrongful arrests.

While we all know the Austin Police practice a "Drink, Drive, Go to Jail" policy, the administration has been smart enough not to voice it publicly.

Continue . . .

Jamie Spencer provides some insight into what the "float test" is for boating while intoxicated, as mentioned in the Cedric Benson DWI arrest on Lake Travis, Austin, TX:

So they're calling it a "float test" now. Never heard that one, but lemme take an educated guess at what they're talking about.

Prior to taking someone to shore, a law enforcement officer asks the subject – in this case Chicago Bears running back Cedric Benson – to do some tests to prove his sobriety while he is still standing on his boat. While it's on the water. Moving around. Waves underneath the boat.

Once the subject is unable to prove to the officer's satisfaction that he isn't intoxicated, he is asked to come ashore and then the standardized field sobriety tests are administered.

Putting aside for the moment that the FSTs (ed. field sobriety tests) are junk science at best to start off with, the officer then testifies in court – because it's consistent with his training – that a 15 minute waiting period after coming off the boat is sufficient for the subject to regain his land legs, and to do the tests in a manner that puts him on equal footing with someone that hasn't been out on a lake all day.

This 15 minute time period, as far as I've ever been able to tell, is completely made up. There are absolutely no scientific studies to show this. I've always suspected that whoever came up with it basically ripped off the idea from the 15 minute observation period required by Texas DPS in a breath test case.

Read more from Jamie Spencer's Failing the 'Float Test' post . . .

Recently, the Gregg County (Longview) sheriff made the proclimation that if you drink and drive this independence day weekend - you will go to jail.

In December 2006, Gregg County commissioners approved a grant to participate in the statewide "Drink, Drive, Go To Jail" campaign with the funding being provided by the Texas Department of Transportation.

This grant provides resources necessary to conduct DWI enforcement throughout the holiday periods to increase the arrests of folks that drink and drive.

Captain Ken Hartley with the Gregg County Sheriff's Department says; "We'd just like to remind people to drive responsibly. Don't drink and drive. Enforcement will be out there and it's not worth that chance and certainly not taking a chance of hurting yourself or others."

Well, here lies the rub….it is not against the law to drink and then drive as long as two things are true: 1) you are at least 21 years of age, and 2) you are not intoxicated. I believe that the Sheriff is setting up a great argument for the fact that people are going to be arrested that don't meet the above criteria. The police and prosecutors always want to lower the standard, but it just isn't the law. Another example of their attempt to shift the standard is the "Buzzed driving is Drunk Driving" billboards. Neither Buzzed driving, nor Drunk Driving is the standard…..Intoxication is. I certainly hope a defense attorney in Gregg County is paying attention to this and is willing to use this to show the juries there that THIS Sheriff's deputies have the potential for making wrongful arrests.

While we all know the Austin Police practice a "Drink, Drive, Go to Jail" policy, the administration has been smart enough not to voice it publicly.

Continue . . .

For the past year now, MADD has trumpeted its latest solution to the drunk driving problem.  After 13 years of essentially unchanged DUI-related fatality statistics (they have actually increased), MADD is now promising in its recent solicitations for money (average $52 million a year) that their latest weapon will “eliminate drunk driving once and for all”.  And in recent press releases, MADD's national president is promising that it will “literally wipe out drunk driving in the United States”.

Pretty grandiose claims.  So what is this new miracle weapon?  The ignition interlock device, or "IID". 

Problem #1: They don't work.  See my guest editorial in Business Week, MADD Announces an End to Drunk Driving: A Reply. They are, however, very profitable (see my earlier post Ignition Interlock Devices: Dangerous but Profitable).  If you review MADD's Annual Report, you will find a list of their top contributors – those "Platinum Corporate Donors" who have paid MADD at least $100,000.  There are six:  Dial America Marketing, Nationwide Mutual Insurance, Nissan North America, Daimler Chrysler Corporation, Car Max Foundation and General Motors Corporation (makers of Saab).  Yes, three car manufacturers…and a telemarketer heavily used by MADD.

Problem #2: What about drivers who haven't been arrested before?  How do you “literally wipe out drunk driving" by installing IIDs only in cars operated by drivers who have already been convicted?  Most drivers arrested for DUI are first offenders.

MADD understands this, and is pushing further — to have all vehicles mandatorily equipped with IIDs.  (Now you understand why the car manufacturers are investing heavily in MADD.)

New Tech Push Against Drunk Driving

MADD seeks spread of ignition interlocks that

prevent driving with high blood alcohol levels

CBS News. You have a few drinks, climb behind the wheel of your car, turn the key and — nothing. The engine doesn’t turn over, the car doesn’t move.

If Mothers Against Drunk Driving has its way, a device that checks a driver’s alcohol levels will be mandatory in cars owned by anyone ever convicted of drunk driving, and, eventually, every automobile…(Emphasis added.)

There are nearly 1.5 million drunken driving arrests last year, but only 100,000 ignition interlocks are currently in use, so even tagging first offenders isn’t really enough, says MADD…

“There are going to be different types of technology, such as trans-dermal detection that will have sensors to detect the blood alcohol level of an individual before he starts the car, so it doesn’t allow the car to start,” said (MADD President Glynn) Birch.

Another system has a Breathalyzer tube that the driver must blow into before starting the car, The (New York) Times reports. A third detects that a car is weaving down the road, and possible driven by an impaired driver.

“Biometric detection or identification will work like a thumbprint to identify and also give us an idea of who the driver is,” Birch said.

Those systems might eventually test all drivers, whether or not they have ever been convicted of drunken driving…

And as I've mentioned in past posts, automakers Nissan (a MADD "Platinum Donor") and Saab (owned by "Platinum Donor" General Motors) are the two pioneers, having already produced working IID technology for their future cars…once MADD has succeeded in getting the needed legislation mandating an IID in your car.

To more clearly understand the nightmare of driving with an IID-controlled vehicle, see this Japanese TV news broadcast on YouTube (and imagine all that can go wrong).  Now also consider the $1500 or so added to the car's sticker price, along with the periodic required calibration, maintenance and repairs.

Continue . . .

In a

Slate Magazine

article, the above question is addressed, as it has been on this blog before. The article focuses on the continuing trouble text messages are causing Detroit’s mayor, as well as the big picture of the title of this post.

Slate gives a maybe type answer. If you’re smart, you’ll take my answer of “no.”

Read more . . .

 

Here is an excerpt from a post by Lawrence Taylor that exposes the fallacies of relying on ignition interlock devices to combat driving while intoxicated:

For the past year now, MADD has trumpeted its latest solution to the drunk driving problem.  After 13 years of essentially unchanged DUI-related fatality statistics (they have actually increased), MADD is now promising in its recent solicitations for money (average $52 million a year) that their latest weapon will “eliminate drunk driving once and for all”.  And in recent press releases, MADD’s national president is promising that it will “literally wipe out drunk driving in the United States”.

Pretty grandiose claims.  So what is this new miracle weapon?  The ignition interlock device, or “IID”. 

Problem #1: They don’t work.  See my guest editorial in Business Week, MADD Announces an End to Drunk Driving: A Reply. They are, however, very profitable (see my earlier post Ignition Interlock Devices: Dangerous but Profitable).  If you review MADD’s Annual Report, you will find a list of their top contributors – those ”Platinum Corporate Donors” who have paid MADD at least $100,000.  There are six:  Dial America Marketing, Nationwide Mutual Insurance, Nissan North America, Daimler Chrysler Corporation, Car Max Foundation and General Motors Corporation (makers of Saab).  Yes, three car manufacturers…and a telemarketer heavily used by MADD.

Problem #2: What about drivers who haven’t been arrested before?  How do you “literally wipe out drunk driving” by installing IIDs only in cars operated by drivers who have already been convicted?  Most drivers arrested for DUI are first offenders.

MADD understands this, and is pushing further — to have all vehicles mandatorily equipped with IIDs.  (Now you understand why the car manufacturers are investing heavily in MADD.)

To more clearly understand the nightmare of driving with an IID-controlled vehicle, see this Japanese TV news broadcast on YouTube (and imagine all that can go wrong).  Now also consider the $1500 or so added to the car’s sticker price, along with the periodic required calibration, maintenance and repairs.

To read more from Lawrence Taylor, click here . . .

 

The Lure of Social Media Social networking is all the rage amongst cutting edge marketing gurus. Rather than force your message down the throats of random unreceptive consumers, social networking provides a platform whereby your best customers proselytize your message for you. Not only is having customers doing the heavy lifting … Read more . . .

 

Here is an excerpt from the Chicago Tribune story on his arrest and claims of police abuse:

Cedric Benson fully intends to fight misdemeanor charges of boating while intoxicated and resisting arrest stemming from a Saturday night incident near Austin, Texas, during which police used pepper spray to detain him.

Lower Colorado River Authority police arrested the Bears running back, who played at the University of Texas in Austin, on Lake Travis during a random safety inspection. An LCRA spokesman said Benson, who failed a sobriety "float test" (an abbreviated version of a field sobriety test) on his 37-foot yacht, argued over taking a follow-up test on land and refused to put on a life jacket. LCRA officers said they attempted to arrest Benson at that time but that he refused to cooperate and was pepper-sprayed. He was booked at 11:24 p.m. Saturday at the Travis County Jail and was out early Sunday morning on $14,500 bond.

Benson denied the charges.

"There was no resistance on my part," Benson told the Tribune on Sunday night.

"Was I drunk? No."

Benson said there was alcohol on his boat but that he was not intoxicated and the boat was stationary when police arrived. He said he fully cooperated with officers and that this was the sixth time he had been questioned by lake police in the year that he has owned the boat.

"They gave me a field sobriety test, told me to say my ABCs and told me to count from 1 to 4 up and down," Benson said of Saturday's incident. "I'm thinking, I passed all the tests, did everything right. Then the officer told me we needed to go to land to take more tests. I politely asked him why we needed to go to land to take more tests when I took every test. Then he sprayed me with mace, on his boat.

"I'm not handcuffed. I'm not under arrest. I'm not threatening him. I'm not pushing him. I'm not touching him. And he sprays me right in my eye."

Benson said by that time, he was far removed from the family and friends left on his boat, a group that included his mother.

"Nobody saw what he did to me," Benson said. "I started screaming for my mother to come. That's when they put me under arrest. And the officer threw a life jacket over my head.

"Once we got to land, the Travis County police grabbed me and kicked my feet from under me. So I landed on my back while I was handcuffed. They held me down and held the water hose over my face. I couldn't breathe, I'm choking, I'm begging the cops, 'Please stop. Please stop.' Then they picked me up and dragged me backward toward their car. And I'm still being polite, asking them, 'Sir, could you please allow me to walk like a man to your cop car?' They just kept dragging me on."

The charges are punishable up to six months in jail and $2,000 each. No court date has been set. The BWI charge carries the same weight as a DWI in Texas.

Benson's lawyer, Brian Carney, said he believes the police were unjust in dealing with Benson.

"Right now it's one-sided, and I would like to know exactly what they're basing their allegations on," Carney said. "It's very, very early. And we still haven't had a chance to evaluate what exactly they think that they have.

"Those allegations are untrue. I think it's a shame that they proceeded the way they did. I can tell you right now that we're going to resolve this. We're going to work through it. And we're going to maintain our position that this was inappropriate and that he's not guilty of any of these things. Cedric was extremely cooperative with these officers. He complied. He performed their tests that they asked him to do."