Acidman pointed out this article about an Austin police officer found passed out drunk behind the wheel of his truck.  I was going to comment on it, but his comments are broken.

While I understand his anger about the situation, especially given his experience in this area, I think he’s missing something important about the DWI laws, at least as they apply in Texas.  In order to support a charge of driving while intoxicated, someone has to be able to testify that they actually saw the person charged operating a motor vehicle.  I know that we can all, through common sense, understand that he was very likely driving drunk, but as long as no one was found that can testify to it, then they won’t be able to prove the charge in court. 

I learned this during one of the ride-alongs I went on with Keller PD.  There was a traffic accident that was caused by a driver who was obviously drunk.  When the officers got there he was standing next to his vehicle in the parking lot.  However, while not drunk, the other drivers had also been drinking and weren’t willing to get involved.  Since no one would testify to seeing him actually driving the vehicle, all they could do was write him up for public intoxication and wait for someone to come pick him up.  I know it sounds silly (since he was obviously driving), but that’s the way the law works sometimes.  Every element of the offense must be proved in court, and if no one will testify to that element, and it can’t be directly proved, then the offense can’t be charged.  The phrase “obviously” isn’t allowed in our system of laws.