Texas House Bill HB170

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Filed: 11/12/08

Caption

Relating to the creation of a presumption in certain criminal proceedings as to evidence of a defendant's alcohol concentration determined by an analysis of the defendant's breath, blood, or urine.

Impact

The implications of HB170 on Texas state law are significant. By instituting this presumption, the bill shifts some of the burden of proof in intoxication cases. Prosecutors could more easily establish intoxication, which may result in more convictions for individuals charged with driving under the influence or operating a watercraft while intoxicated. However, this legislative change also underscores the importance of timely and accurate specimen analysis, as the outcome of cases may depend heavily on the procedures followed during arrest and evidence collection.

Summary

House Bill 170 proposes a legislative framework for handling evidence related to a defendant's alcohol concentration in criminal cases involving driving or operating a watercraft while intoxicated. Under this bill, there is a legal presumption that an individual had an alcohol concentration equal to or exceeding 0.08 if a specimen analysis of their breath, blood, or urine, conducted within 90 minutes of their arrest, indicates such a level. This presumption aims to streamline the prosecution process by establishing a clear evidentiary standard in cases of intoxicated operation of vehicles and vessels.

Conclusion

As HB170 moves through the legislative process, discussions may revolve around balancing the urgent need for road and waterway safety against ensuring defendants receive fair treatment under the law. The outcomes of these discussions will likely shape the future landscape of evidence handling in intoxication cases within Texas.

Contention

While supporters argue that the measure will enhance public safety by making it more difficult for intoxicated individuals to evade prosecution, there are also notable concerns regarding fairness and due process. Critics may view the bill as infringing upon the rights of defendants by leveraging presumptions that could undermine their ability to mount a defense. The presumption could lead to scenarios where individuals are convicted primarily based on an assumption rather than comprehensive evidence, potentially resulting in injustices.