§ 49.045. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED[0] WITH CHILD
PASSENGER.
(a) A person commits an offense if:
(1) the person is intoxicated[0] while operating a motor
vehicle in a public place; and
§ 49.04. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED. (a) A person commits
an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor
vehicle in a public place.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c) and Section 49.09,
an offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor, with a
minimum term of confinement of 72 hours.
(c) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this
section that at the time of the offense the person operating the
motor vehicle had an open container of alcohol in the person’s
immediate possession, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor, with a
minimum term of confinement of six days.
Penal Code – Chapter 49
(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
In yet another instance of the "guilty until proven innocent mentality," an Indianapolis radio station has decided to do their part and read off a list of people arrested for drunken driving (DUI in Indiana).
I wonder if anyone at the station even though, just for a second about what they were doing? How about TAINTING a potential jury pool of people who would be instructed to presume the person on trial innocent until proven guilty?
Although I wouldnt be for it, I would think that reading a list of those CONVICTED of DWI / DUI that week would be more appropriate. At least it wouldnt taint future jurors, or compound the problem of further humiliating innocent people that were arrested. Below is the article.
| In a recent case in New Mexico, a citizen was arrested, tired, and acquitted of DWI. Despite his being found not guilty by a jury of his peers, and after a clerk "checked the wrong box" saying guilty, his picture and name was published in the newspaper.
Oh yes, a retraction was printed, but I’m quite sure it was too little too late for him. The interesting thing is, I found this article online, on an NBC news site, which not only published his name, but also published his PICTURE as well! Apparently they don’t care about his privacy either…. Here is the story, but in order to not perpetuate the wrong that was done to this man, I have removed his name and his picture. Man mistakenly published on DWI offender list |
|
A man who was never found guilty for DWI had his picture published in the local paper saying he was guilty of drunk driving. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, was arrested last August and blew at or above the legal limit, according to court records. XXXXXXXXXXX fought the case and was found "not guilty," in February. A Metropolitan Court clerk made a mistake and marked guilty next to the DWI charge days after XXXXX was acquitted. XXXXXXXXX works for the Federal Government on Kirtland Air Force Base and has been trying to get higher security clearance. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX said, "I’m gonna have to do a lot of explaining I shouldn’t have never had to do." For two months XXXXX was officially a convict, until the mistake was found and fixed. During the time XXXXXXXXXXXXX was mistakenly labeled "guilty" his name was put into the mix of guilty faces to be published by Albuquerque police. Metropolitan Court spokeswoman Janet Blair said, "We really regret Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXX had to go through this…and we don’t understand why such outdated information was used when correct information has been available for three months." The Albuquerque Police Department plans to issue a retraction in the next few months. |
Frisco DWI Lawyer & Attorney Blog