Bob, I would think you could probably look up most laws on the Internet. For instance, the "open container" law is section 49.031 of the Texas Penal Code, which reads as follows:
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( § 49.031. POSSESSION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE IN MOTOR
VEHICLE. (a) In this section:
(1) "Open[0] container[0]" means a bottle, can, or other
receptacle that contains any amount of alcoholic beverage and that
is open, that has been opened, that has a broken seal, or the
contents of which are partially removed.
(2) "Passenger area of a motor vehicle" means the area
of a motor vehicle designed for the seating of the operator and
passengers of the vehicle. The term does not include:
(A) a glove compartment or similar storage
container that is locked;
(B) the trunk of a vehicle; or
(C) the area behind the last upright seat of the
vehicle, if the vehicle does not have a trunk.
(3) "Public highway" means the entire width between
and immediately adjacent to the boundary lines of 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. The term includes the right-of-way of a public highway.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly
possesses an open[0] container[0] in a passenger area of a motor vehicle
that is located on a public highway, regardless of whether the
vehicle is being operated or is stopped or parked. Possession by a
person of one or more open[0] containers[0] in a single criminal episode
is a single offense.
(c) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (b)
that at the time of the offense the defendant was a passenger in:
(1) the passenger area of a motor vehicle designed,
maintained, or used primarily for the transportation of persons for
compensation, including a bus, taxicab, or limousine; or
(2) the living quarters of a motorized house coach or
motorized house trailer, including a self-contained camper, a motor
home, or a recreational vehicle.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(e) A peace officer charging a person with an offense under
this section, instead of taking the person before a magistrate,
shall issue to the person a written citation and notice to appear
that contains the time and place the person must appear before a
magistrate, the name and address of the person charged, and the
offense charged. If the person makes a written promise to appear
before the magistrate by signing in duplicate the citation and
notice to appear issued by the officer, the officer shall release
the person.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 969, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
)</font>
Now of course, it's undoubtedly a little different in other states. I know that in some states, you go to jail or have to post bond, while in Texas the officer has to issue a citation and release you unless you are intoxicated or refuse to sign the citation.
I mentioned enforcement policies before. One example: Texas law says if you refuse to sign a citation (agreement to appear) the officer is to take you before a magistrate or to jail to post bond, but in Dallas we had a policy requiring officers to simply write "Refused" where the person's signature would have been, issue the citation and let'em go.
And then you have to consider court interpretations. One example: For over a hundred years, until January 1974, the Texas statute prohibiting the carrying of certain weapons, including pistols "on or about his person, saddlebags, or portfolio" included an exception if the person was "traveling". How far do you have to go or how long do you have to be gone to be "traveling"? /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Some early cases decided if you went out of your home county, you were traveling, while some later cases decided you had to be gone from home overnight to be traveling. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
So you can understand that you can't take as fact even what an attorney tells you, since some other attorney and/or judge may decide differently. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I guess if the lawyers and/or law enforcement personnel were always right, we wouldn't need trials, would we? /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
I can tell you that you'll find a lot of interesting, and sometimes hilarious, reading if you visit a law library and read some of the cases that have been decided by the highest courts in your state. Prior to January 1974, in Texas, it was a felony for a man to seduce a woman under the age of 25 by promise of marriage, and then to renege on that promise, but if after prosecution began, he agreed to marry her, that stopped the prosecution, but prosecution could resume if the marriage was ended within 2 years through no fault of hers. Now I suspected there had never been anyone convicted under that statute, but I was wrong. I found quite a number of sometimes hilarious cases in a law library; some in which the guy lost and some in which he won. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
