OPINION

CLINTON, Judge.

In this probation revocation case the first ground of error is that a signed order revoking probation is not in the record. However, we have found one purportedly signed by the judge of the trial court and certified by the clerk of the court to be a true and correct copy of the order that appears of record in the stated volume and at the given page in the Criminal Minutes of the trial court. In pertinent part the order reads:

"The Court having heard and considered said motion (to revoke probation) and the

evidence submitted, it appears . . . that said defendant has violated the terms of his probation in that he did knowingly and intentionally violated (sic) conditions (a) of his probation order.

It is accordingly, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the probation be revoked and original judgment became operative. * * * "

The order further recounts the prior adjudication of guilt of the offense of theft of property and imposes sentence upon appellant for confinement for a term of not less than two nor more than ten years. Ground of error one is overruled.

The original conviction of appellant for theft of property is reflected by judgment of the trial court entered August 7, 1979 and grant of probation the same day. One condition specified is "a. Commit no offense against the laws of this State or any other State or the United States." Shortly the timestamp bears a date that seems to be October 31, 1979 the affected district attorney filed a motion to revoke probation that alleged appellant committed four particularized violations of "condition (a)" on September 19, 1979, viz :

(1) That he did "knowingly and intentionally possess a motor vehicle, to-wit: a 1979 Explorer Pick-Up, that has had the manufacturer's permanent identification number removed, changed, and obliterated."

(2) That he did "knowingly and intentionally, committ (sic) an offense by changing, altering and mutilating the vehicle identification number on a vehicle, which was in his possession; to-wit: a 1979 Explorer Pick-Up, for the purpose of changing the identity of said vehicle."

(3) That he "knowingly and intentionally committed an offense by transporting liquor through a dry area, to-wit: Rains County, Texas."

(4) That he did "knowingly and intentionally drive on the wrong side of a road, to-wit: Farm to Market Road 515, which is a public road maintained by the State of Texas, thereby endangering himself and others."

Because appellant urges error in overruling his pretrial motion to suppress which challenged the arrest and search that led to discovery of evidence of the first three violations alleged and also attacks evidentiary sufficiency in certain respects, we will trace the germane testimony and along the way deal with his remaining grounds of error.

It is evident that appellant was regarded by the law enforcement apparatus in and around Hopkins County as a consummate thief and an inveterate scofflaw, and with good reason: then a fifty six year old man, he did not pursue gainful employment, claiming a physical disability; his prior criminal record before the August 7, 1979 conviction for theft of property a 1953 Ford Jubilee Tractor included a 1952 felony DWI conviction and a 1945 conviction for bigamy; subsequently he was found guilty of appropriating a 1979 Ford pickup, knowing it had been stolen, on or about August 7, 1979 the very day he was placed on probation. By the time of hearing on motion to revoke probation we may attribute to the judge of the trial court, therefore, some degree of familiarity with appellant and his perceived propensities.

Which, as a slight digression, leads us to ground of error two, that the trial court erred "in summarily" overruling appellant's motion for recusal, asserting factually that on September 10, 1979 the motor vehicle described in the motion to revoke probation ante was viewed by the judge in Emory, Rains County, and "certain facts were pointed out to him and certain information made known to him," thereby rendering the judge other than an impartial trier of fact in the revocation hearing. It must be understood that appellate counsel was not trial attorney for appellant, for that may explain his cavalier treatment of that portion of the record reporting the presentation of the motion for recusal. Appellate counsel faults the trial court for "although a judge knows he is not disqualified, the defendant should be given the opportunity to present evidence on the point, and the refusal to do so, as in this case, constitutes reversable (sic) error." Yet, the record shows that trial counsel for appellant stated to the trial court, inter alia, that he "would like for the Court to rule on" the motion, that his "information" was to the effect alleged in the motion, but "(o)f course, I already discussed this matter with you and you have indicated to me that you have no personal knowledge of these matters." The trial judge remarked that the "information" was untrue, and overruled the motion. To which counsel reacted with "All right. The next motion is. . ." Manifestly, trial counsel did not seek to present evidence in support of the motion, see Coronado v. State, 508 S.W.2d 373, 375 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974), and certainly was not refused the opportunity to do so. Indeed, he was apparently satisfied with the record in the state he left it. Ground of error two thus presents nothing for review, and is overruled.

The next pretrial presentation was the motion to suppress evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure following an unauthorized arrest, and in his ground of error three appellant claims the trial court erred in overruling his motion. There is in the record such a motion, and it does assail his arrest for an alleged traffic violation in that appellant "had not committed any offense within the presence or view of the arresting officer," and it does assert that the warrantless search that followed shortly was not authorized in the premises. The objects of the written motion are the identification numbers alluded to in the first two grounds of the motion to revoke, ante. However, appellant does not direct our attention to any indication in the record that the trial court ever ruled on that motion.

What happened is that during a colloquy concerning the motion to suppress appellant verbally expanded to include "anything obtained . . . by the State," sought a ruling in it, but the trial judge explained that a ruling could not be made until facts were developed, so the court would "carry (it) along as we have the hearing" on the motion to revoke. There was no objection to that procedure. We thus come to pertinent facts that were developed by the State through its five witnesses, appellant not presenting any.

On or about April 17, 1979 Delbert Traylor, a selfemployed mechanic at his garage near Emory, bought and later cannibalized a wrecked blue 1976 Ford three-quarter ton pickup bearing vehicle identification number F25MLB28556. Thereafter, on a date not revealed by the record, Traylor sold what was left of the vehicle to appellant. That included "bits and pieces," photographs of which he identified as exhibits (but which are so dimly reproduced in our record as to be worthless), as well as the door to which the identification number plate was riveted; he also delivered a certificate of title to the skeleton that remained. Shown a photograph of the 1979 Ford Explorer pickup appellant would later be found driving, Traylor spotted the license number and back bumper from the erstwhile 1976 Ford bolted onto the rear of the Explorer. His testimony, of course, bases the theory of the State that appellant somehow came into possession of the stolen 1979 Explorer and with some of the "bits and pieces" acquired from Traylor attempted to make it appear to be the 1976 Ford for which he had a certificate of title.

Jimmie Jacobs was employed as an investigator in the motor vehicle theft division of the Department of Public Safety, operating out of Garland. On September 10, 1979 he had "occasion to be" in Emory, Rains County; shortly before noon he also had "occasion to come into contact" with appellant; which is to say Jacobs, himself dressed in mufti and in a motor vehicle, saw appellant, whom Jacobs knew on sight, alone in a Ford pickup at a stop sign. Appellant was seen to drive "on out 515," the Farm to Market Road designated in paragraph four of the motion to revoke. Jacobs testified that he observed "erratic driving" by appellant, speeding and driving in the center of the road and then back over to the edge as he made his way away from Emory, and followed him until appellant turned off and stopped at a yellow house, before reaching an oil road, approximately three miles out of Emory. Observing this, according to Jacobs, he made radio contact with DPS Highway Patrolman Dempsey Bullock, stationed in Emory, and reported, "Something to the effect that there is Old Merritt Dunavin going down Highway 515 driving all over the road, driving erratically . . . (s)ide to side and keep a lookout for him." Although not that clear in the record, we gather that when appellant stopped at the yellow house the Jacobs vehicle went on past, for in relating what he saw thereafter Jacobs said he was about three hundred yards ahead of appellant, turned his head around and watched as appellant made a right turn off FM 515 onto the oil road, followed by Bullock. As he maneuvered the Ford pickup to make the turn, according to Jacobs, appellant crossed over the center line.

Trooper Bullock was "catching up" to appellant just as he made the maneuver to turn, and he saw appellant "up in the center of the road across the center stripe" momentarily as he made his turn onto the oil road. According to Bullock, "The only vehicles around was me and him," and he disclaimed knowledge that appellant was speeding. Bullock followed appellant on down the oil top road and stopped him with his overhead lights.

Bullock explained to appellant that he had stopped him for being on the wrong side of FM 515 and had to take him into Emory to see the judge. Appellant told Bullock that he wanted his vehicle to stay where it was and it was not to be touched; Bullock said, "(W)ell, that is all right with me." As appellant obtained cigarettes from the glove box, Bullock saw a case of beer in the cab of the pickup but, Bullock agreed, that had no bearing on his arresting appellant for he had already told him the reason for the stop and that they were going back to see the judge on that account. It was locked, appellant keeping the keys. Back in Emory a judge could not be readily located the time being about noon by now and Bullock filled out a cash bond under which appellant had ten days in which to come back in and see the judge. While this was being done, Bullock says he asked Mike Carter, Sheriff of Rains County, to go out to the location and "watch the vehicle."

After he was first called by Jacobs, Trooper Bullock remained in radio contact with him, and talked with him "at different intervals." As he was stopping appellant on the oil road, Bullock was busy talking on his radio. Thus Jacobs, still on FM 515, learned that appellant had been arrested and was being taken to Emory, so he went to appellant's pickup because, Jacobs testified, "I knew wouldn't be anyone with it," and thought someone should be.

The order in which Jacobs took certain actions after arriving at the scene is not clear, but he did acknowledge that when he "drove up" to it he "ran a 28 on it," and also that when he "pulled up and parked" he could see that the hood of the pickup "had been tampered with and changed out," explaining that the FORD nameplate on the front of the hood had been removed and the resultant holes puttied up, and that the hood was that of a 1979 model whereas the grill was a 1976 vintage with a Ford nameplate on it. Jacobs looked through one of the rolled up windows and saw inside what he first merely called "liquor." After that he just "waited," never really indicating for whom.

The Sheriff arrived, accompanied by Deputy Jimmy Roberts and Wood, the ABC agent. Wood walked up to the pickup, looked to the floorboard of the cab and saw a case of beer and two bottles of wine. Finding the doors to the cab still locked, Wood returned to the Rains County Courthouse to obtain the keys from appellant. Although they knew each other, Wood nevertheless introduced himself to appellant, asked for the keys, telling him he wanted them because of "that alcohol that is in his pickup out there." Then the following:

"Q: Did he have any protest about it?

A: Just a little bit, yes, sir. At first he told me I couldn't have the keys. Then, I said, well, I need to get that out of there.

Q: What did he say then?

A: And there were some people standing around. He said, y'all all witness this, don't you. And, I don't know what they said but anyway he handed me the keys and come on."

Back at the scene on the oil road Wood unlocked and opened the door and from the cab of the pickup removed containers of liquids which, he would later testify, are alcoholic beverages. As this was being done Jacobs examined the VIN plate affixed to the left door; it reflected the Ford pickup was a 1976 model, but Jacobs observed that the expansion rivets holding the plate to the door area were not in their normal condition that they should be after being attached by the manufacturer. He made other observations that were consistent with the pickup being a 1976 model. The same afternoon Jacobs "filed a seizure" on the pickup and, as we understand his testimony, thereafter removed the VIN plate.

The testimony from Traylor, the mechanic, Investigator Jacobs, Trooper Bullock and Agent Wood and the photographs taken and other tangible exhibits were all received and admitted as evidence during the course of the hearing either without any objection or over some objection other than being fruits of an unauthorized arrest or of impermissible warrantless searches and seizures. At the conclusion of presentation of the evidence, the State requested the trial court to take judicial notice of certain statutory provisions, both sides rested and then presented argument to the court. At no time during the winding down of the hearing did the appellant renew his initial motion to suppress for a ruling nor object to the failure of the trial court to make one. Accordingly, such assertions in and under this ground of error must be rejected simply because, contrary to the claim, the trial court did not overrule the motion to suppress. Nor may we rule out any forbidden fruits for appellant did not object in the record to their being admitted and obtain an adverse ruling from the trial court. Thus, in this respect nothing is presented for review. Writt v. State, 541 S.W.2d 424, 426-427 (Tex.Cr.App. 1976), and see Roberts v. State, 545 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex.Cr.App. 1977).

Taking a somewhat different tack, appellant points out that in defending against revocation of probation he attempted to show that his arrest by Trooper Bullock was a "sham" and done only to remove him from the pickup and take him three miles away from it back to Emory, in order for Jacobs, lacking probable cause to confront appellant, to make his warrantless approach to appellant's isolated pickup. His complaint is that the trial court not only consistently sustained objections by the State but finally "cut him off" from making his "pretext" defense. Recognizing that the series of intrusions did commence with the stop and arrest by Bullock, we shall deal with this aspect of his argument as we treat his remaining four grounds of error.

Thus, the allegations in the first and second paragraphs of the motion to revoke are the product of the investigation and seizure by Jacobs; the third paragraph is the consequence of seizure of alcoholic beverages by Wood; the fourth may be derived from the observations of Jacobs and Bullock, but the arrest and charged violation came from the latter's alone, the single instance of aberrant conduct being engaged in his presence and within his view. Section 153, Article 6701d, V.A.C.S., and Article 14.01, V.A.C.C.P., Drago v. State, 553 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.Cr.App. 1977) and Soileau v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 544, 244 S.W.2d 224 (1951). We are reminded that to uphold any one of the alleged violations obviates necessity of considering any others, and it is suggested that the fourth paragraph is easily and readily sustainable.

A review of the statute and decisions touching it and its predecessors, however, reveals problems; see, e. g., Lane v. State, 305 S.W.2d 595 (Tex.Cr.App. 1957); Martinez v. State, 288 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.Cr.App. 1956); see also Wilson, Criminal Forms (Eighth Edition) by Morrison and Blackwell, § 25.14, 7 Texas Practice 157.

From these authorities we observe that the rule of the road directed by Section 52, Article 6701d, supra, is that "a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway" with prescribed exceptions for driving on the left side of the road. For, as the Court has often pointed out, it is not unlawful per se to drive on the left side, Morgan v. State, 135 Tex.Crim. 402, 120 S.W.2d 1063 (1938). Since the advent of the motor vehicle it has been so. See former Article 801(A), 1925 Penal Code; Ex parte Williams, 128 Tex.Crim. R., 79 S.W.2d 325 (1935). (We mention exceptions only as an indication of legislative intent; their factual applicability is not invoked here.) Consistent with the intent perceived early on by the Court in the cases and by the commentators cited ante, the offending conduct to be alleged and proved is "the driving of the automobile on the left side" of the roadway except under certain conditions not "to drive on the wrong side of a road," as the motion to revoke alleges here and the parlance of the parties and some witness reflects. As a pleading in a criminal case, the motion to revoke would not pass muster, either under the former law, Morgan v. State, supra, or its successor, Lane v. State, 305 S.W.2d 597-598 (Tex.Cr.App. 1957) (On Motion for Rehearing).

In his ground of error seven appellant argues, as he did to the trial court, that "the slight 'swing' outward" by his pickup in making a right turn is "not unusual" and in this instance he certainly was not "endangering himself and others," as alleged, since there were no other vehicles near his, Trooper Bullock being some half mile behind and Investigator Jacobs being some three hundred yards ahead but, as we understand his testimony, still traveling on FM 515 beyond the turn off to the oil road. We agree.

The most shown here is that as he approached the "Y" formed by FM 515 and the oil road, appellant "swung" his pickup to the left so that a portion of the body of the pickup crossed over the center line. In Ex parte Williams, supra, on motion for rehearing, then Presiding Judge Morrow wrote that in interpreting the former statute, "the circumstances under which it would become effective in a given case and the purpose for which it was enacted should properly be taken into account." Doing so in the case at bar, we are constrained to find that the act of appellant as observed by Trooper Bullock does not constitute an offense denounced by Section 52, supra. That the State, through our State's Attorney, deems it advisable to submit that act of driving across the center line also violated Section 60 of the same article with which appellant, of course, was not charged reveals an awareness of the tenuousness of its position. But Bullock's mistake is not shown to be a pretext.

The third paragraph of the motion to revoke charges appellant with intentionally and knowingly "transporting liquor through a dry area, to-wit: Rains County. . ." The trial court found that had been done but added a finding that the quantity of liquor was "more than the legal amount," presumably because the parties had jousted with witnesses and each other over just what are the essential elements of the offense sought to be alleged. Our own analysis of a basically regulatory and patently complex code leads to the conclusion that with respect to merely transporting an alcoholic beverage in a dry area and that is the simple allegation made by the State the amount being transported is of no consequence in determining that offense.

Section 101.31 of the Code provides, as pertinent here:

"Except as otherwise provided in this code, no person in a dry area may. . . transport. . . or possess with intent to sell an alcoholic beverage."

This proscription, we note significantly, does not include mere possession and is barren of any suggestion as to an amount of the alcoholic beverage.

Section 101.32, however, establishes a formula for prima facie evidence of intent to sell, viz:

"(a) Possession of more than one quart of liquor in a dry area is prima facie evidence that it is possessed with intent to sell.

(b) Possession in a dry area of more than 24 twelve-ounce bottles of beer, or an equivalent amount, is prima facie evidence of possession with intent to sell."

As a general proposition, § 11.01(b) and (c) allow that "a person may. . . transport. . . liquor, if the right or privilege of doing so is granted by this code," and, further, that any "right or privilege granted by this section as an exception to prohibitions contained elsewhere. . . may be exercised only in the manner provided." More specifically, § 107.08, to which right or privilege appellant lays claim, provides:

"A person who purchases an alcoholic beverage for his own consumption may transport it from a place where its sale is legal to a place where its possession is legal without holding a license or permit."

From these statutory provisions it is apparent that several legal conclusions obtained from the former codes are still viable with respect to a dry area.

First, possession of an alcoholic beverage, without more and regardless of the amount, is not an offense. Alston v. State, 154 Tex.Crim. R., 226 S.W.2d 443, 445 (1950); Walton v. State, 144 Tex.Crim. R., 163 S.W.2d 203, 204 (1942); Jones v. State, 579 S.W.2d 240, 241 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979).

Second, possession of an alcoholic beverage with intent to sell is an offense, Jones v. State, supra, regardless of the amount, Alston v. State, supra.

Third, the gravamen of the offense of possession with intent to sell is not the fact of possession but the "reason" for possession, Jones v. State, supra, to which the "presumption" flowing from the amount of alcoholic beverage possessed may aid in establishing, Alston v. State, supra; without its benefit, the State must discharge the burden of proving a lesser amount was possessed with intent to sell (or, as the old code had it, for purpose of sale), Walker v. State, 144 Tex.Crim. R., 163 S.W.2d 207 (1942); just as an accused is permitted to show that more than a prima facie amount is possessed for a reason other than sale, Ellison v. State, 154 Tex.Crim. R., 227 S.W.2d 545, 549 (1950); Piper v. State, 116 Tex.Crim. R., 34 S.W.2d 283 (1931).

Fourth, transporting an alcoholic beverage is made unlawful without regard to any special intent or purpose, Abston v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. R., 250 S.W.2d 214 (1952), such as for the purpose of sale, Wright v. State, 168 Tex.Crim. R., 330 S.W.2d 620 (1960); Gaines v. State, 157 Tex.Crim. R., 247 S.W.2d 251, and 157 Tex.Crim. R., 247 S.W.2d 253 (1953). It follows, then, that the amount of alcoholic beverage being transported is irrelevant. See Royal v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. 492, 244 S.W.2d 239 (1951); Harris v. State, 149 Tex.Crim. R., 198 S.W.2d 459, 460 (1946); Gandy v. State, 99 Tex.Crim. R., 268 S.W. 951, 955 (1925) (Hawkins, J. concurring).

Finally, the protection of § 107.08 in transporting an alcoholic beverage for one's own consumption from the place of purchase where its sale is legal to a place where its possession is legal is not lost by reason of the amount being transported in those circumstances, Brooks v. State, 154 Tex.Crim. 512, 228 S.W.2d 863, 864 (1950) (six pints of whiskey) and Walton v. State, supra, (two gallons of wine along with two half pints of whiskey), but the accused must invoke and prove that exception to application of the prohibitory statute. Brooks v. State, supra.

Appellant recognizes the rule of Brooks v. State, but contends it has been superceded by provisions of V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 2.02, so that since the State here did not negate the protection afforded by § 107.08 the trial court erred in revoking his probation on this ground. For its part the State argues that § 2.02 applies only to labeled exceptions in the Penal Code and is not to be extended to the Alcoholic Beverage Code. The competing arguments require that we address a part of the broad question specifically left unanswered until another day in Jones v. State, 579 S.W.2d at 241, n. 1, to-wit: whether Titles 1, 2, and 3 are applicable to the Code through operation of V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 1.03(b), which impresses the provisions of those three titles upon offenses defined by other laws, "unless the statute defining the offense provides otherwise."

In the Code, enacted in 1977 to become effective September 1, 1977 more than three years following the effective date of the Penal Code § 101.05 provides that a charging instrument alleging a violation of the Code "need not negate an exception to an act prohibited by this code, but the exception may be urged by the defendant as a defense to the offense charged." It is by reason of this provision, coupled with operation of the "unless" clause of § 1.03(b), supra, that § 2.02, supra, does not govern the manner of alleging and proving an offense proscribed by the Code. The Brooks rule has not lost its vitality. Thus, not having invoked and proved the exception of § 107.08, appellant may not now claim its protection.

The testimony of ABC Agent Wood demonstrates that appellant violated the proscriptions of § 101.31 of the Code by transporting in a dry area alcoholic beverages, namely beer and wine, September 10, 1979. His account may not be excluded as the product of an unauthorized arrest followed by an impermissible warrantless search of appellant's pickup because appellant did not voice any objection under the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Sec. 9 of our Bill of Rights to it and its fruits being admitted. Therefore, the allegations in the third paragraph of the motion to revoke are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and ground of error six is, accordingly, overruled.

Having found a violation of a condition of probation as alleged in the third paragraph of the motion to revoke the trial judge was authorized to order probation for appellant be revoked on that basis alone, if so advised. Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979). Therefore, we need not consider the other grounds of error implicating the first and second paragraphs of the motion to revoke.

There being no abuse of discretion, the judgment is affirmed.

DALLY, J., concurs in result.