View Full Version : Only in California. Caffeine dui 10 months after the fact.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-california-fighting-caffeine-dui-192312988.html
Please secede.
I read this last week and could only shake my head in disgust.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-california-fighting-caffeine-dui-192312988.html
Please secede.
They will never secede...they suck too much money from the federal budget. We need to "vote them out". lol
I'm so guilty :(
It's clear the DUI enforcement officer wanted to jam him up for something and after a clean blood test all they have is caffeine. They are making a mockery of themselves just by charging. Never mind the obvious lack of PC for the blood test in the first place.
If common food items in proper moderation are now intoxicants then I guess we'd all better start driving around with an empty stomach. Is low blood sugar incapacitation? Are LE going to stop drinking coffee too? Wow, that stupid burns.
OneGuy67
12-28-2016, 10:56
It wasn't a DUI enforcement officer, it was a compliance officer. "Joseph Schwab, 36, was pulled over on August 5, 2015 (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/24/california-dui-caffeine-lawsuit-solano-county), by a California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control agent in an unmarked car who claimed the 36-year-old had cut her off and was driving erratically (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/24/california-dui-caffeine-lawsuit-solano-county),
I'm so guilty :(
It's clear the DUI enforcement officer wanted to jam him up for something and after a clean blood test all they have is caffeine. They are making a mockery of themselves just by charging. Never mind the obvious lack of PC for the blood test in the first place.
If common food items in proper moderation are now intoxicants then I guess we'd all better start driving around with an empty stomach. Is low blood sugar incapacitation? Are LE going to stop drinking coffee too? Wow, that stupid burns.
BushMasterBoy
12-28-2016, 11:22
Thank God it wasn't Viagra, that would be a hard one to beat in court.
Thank God it wasn't Viagra, that would be a hard one to beat in court.
[facepalm]
Thank God it wasn't Viagra, that would be a hard one to beat in court.
Might cause a few more charges to arise....
Might cause a few more charges to arise....
Probably with stiff penalties
It wasn't a DUI enforcement officer, it was a compliance officer. "Joseph Schwab, 36, was pulled over on August 5, 2015 (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/24/california-dui-caffeine-lawsuit-solano-county), by a California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control agent in an unmarked car who claimed the 36-year-old had cut her off and was driving erratically (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/24/california-dui-caffeine-lawsuit-solano-county),
https://www.abc.ca.gov/jobs/Agents.html
An agent with the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is a non-uniformed, sworn peace officer who performs the full range of peace officer duties and responsibilities in the accomplishment of his/her assignments.
Agents work independently, but are also called upon to assist and rain allied law enforcement. While affecting arrests, Agents are oftentimes required to use reasonable force to overcome resistance from suspects.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Sworn officer + arrest powers + charges = same thing. The outrageous aspect of this is the scope of her powers/investigative ability and lack of PC probably won't come up. The trial (if it happens) will about caffeine consumption and impairment.
OneGuy67
12-28-2016, 13:41
We have the same thing here within the Department of Revenue. Those that fill those positions may have attended an academy at one time, but doesn't make them knowledgeable in other areas outside of their compliance enforcement duties. If there was an incident that occurred, she should have called a uniformed officer to the scene who most likely would have had training in DUI enforcement, not liquor compliance.
The difference, at this point, is that a trained officer should have made the arrest if there was an arrest to be made, not a compliance officer. Your mistaking a compliance officer for a DUI enforcement officer is careless typing. I disagree with your last assessment as any good defense attorney will be able to dismantle any argument made of her "training and experience" if neither of them included any time as a street officer with the appropriate roadside maneuver training.
We have the same thing here within the Department of Revenue. Those that fill those positions may have attended an academy at one time, but doesn't make them knowledgeable in other areas outside of their compliance enforcement duties. If there was an incident that occurred, she should have called a uniformed officer to the scene who most likely would have had training in DUI enforcement, not liquor compliance.
The difference, at this point, is that a trained officer should have made the arrest if there was an arrest to be made, not a compliance officer. Your mistaking a compliance officer for a DUI enforcement officer is careless typing. I disagree with your last assessment as any good defense attorney will be able to dismantle any argument made of her "training and experience" if neither of them included any time as a street officer with the appropriate roadside maneuver training.
She was and is a trained peace officer in the Republic of California. As ridiculous as that sounds (the link is above). She was given an unmarked car with lights to pull over the "suspect." We really don't know her training beyond that.
The training and experience is immaterial and a waste of defense resources because the evidence the DA will admit in court proves he was not impaired. He blew a 0.00. He passed two independent blood tests that found no intoxicants or drugs in his system, only caffeine.
Attacking the experience and PC is almost a disservice to the defense because the state's own blood tests work against them.
The trial will come down to if caffeine, a common food item, is an intoxicant.
The chief deputy district attorney in the county where Schwab was held, Sharon Henry said her office was “conducting further investigation in this matter," The Guardian reported. “The charge of driving under the influence is not based upon the presence of caffeine in his system."
California just needs to get on with it and break away from the USA, and declare themselves an authoritarian based government. The direction they're going, might as well make it official.
OneGuy67
12-28-2016, 14:58
I'm not sure what you are arguing. She may have been a trained peace officer for California. It doesn't mean she is trained in all aspects of law enforcement. She may have been given a vehicle; Colorado gives vehicles to its DOR compliance officers too. Big deal. Again, the fact she may not have been trained or have experience in DUI enforcement is a big deal and would come out for the defense. The defense would tear her up for making an arrest based upon zero experience, training or education in DUI detection or enforcement. If there is no alcohol present, then a trained Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) is called in to conduct a more thorough set of roadside maneuvers to determine if something other than alcohol may be present, especially in California, where the DRE program was started and is rigorously trained. As a former DRE officer, I can tell you that I conducted numerous investigations to assist the regular patrol officer.
Training and experience is not immaterial. An officer does not make an arrest unless there is probable cause to make the arrest. If you don't have the experience to know that someone is impaired by alcohol or drugs, you don't make the arrest, you call someone to assist you who would. The totality of the the officers training and experience in conducting DUI investigations is the bedrock of making a probable cause arrest for impairment. And frankly, attacking the experience and the probable cause is the first thing all defense attorney's do.
She was and is a trained peace officer in the Republic of California. As ridiculous as that sounds (the link is above). She was given an unmarked car with lights to pull over the "suspect." We really don't know her training beyond that.
The training and experience is immaterial and a waste of defense resources because the evidence the DA will admit in court proves he was not impaired. He blew a 0.00. He passed two independent blood tests that found no intoxicants or drugs in his system, only caffeine.
Attacking the experience and PC is almost a disservice to the defense because the state's own blood tests work against them.
The trial will come down to if caffeine, a common food item, is an intoxicant.
Thank God it wasn't Viagra, that would be a hard one to beat in court.
Come on....
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Sometimes, people are just assholes and it has nothing to do with where they live/work. I think she stepped way out of line and should be fired. It'd be one thing to write a ticket for careless driving, but to try and slap a DUI on someone is a serious attempt to screw up their life in the immediate future, and very possibly long term.
She's lucky I'm just a nobody on the Internet or her last task at work would have been a full apology to that guy, in person, while holding the contents of her desk in a box.
Martinjmpr
12-28-2016, 15:45
Thank God it wasn't Viagra, that would be a hard one to beat in court.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/43/68/c5/4368c511c91bd50bfbd26db455cda119.jpg
HoneyBadger
12-28-2016, 15:48
California just needs to get on with it and break away from the USA, and declare themselves an authoritarian based government. The direction they're going, might as well make it official.
Trust me, you don't want that. If California breaks away, they will look like Venezuela in just a few months and then all the zombies will be literally invading the US to get away. If we're going to build a wall, it ought to be around CA.
Also, I hope this dude sues the shit out of the state.
I'm not sure what you are arguing. She may have been a trained peace officer for California. It doesn't mean she is trained in all aspects of law enforcement. She may have been given a vehicle; Colorado gives vehicles to its DOR compliance officers too. Big deal. Again, the fact she may not have been trained or have experience in DUI enforcement is a big deal and would come out for the defense. The defense would tear her up for making an arrest based upon zero experience, training or education in DUI detection or enforcement. If there is no alcohol present, then a trained Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) is called in to conduct a more thorough set of roadside maneuvers to determine if something other than alcohol may be present, especially in California, where the DRE program was started and is rigorously trained. As a former DRE officer, I can tell you that I conducted numerous investigations to assist the regular patrol officer.
Training and experience is not immaterial. An officer does not make an arrest unless there is probable cause to make the arrest. If you don't have the experience to know that someone is impaired by alcohol or drugs, you don't make the arrest, you call someone to assist you who would. The totality of the the officers training and experience in conducting DUI investigations is the bedrock of making a probable cause arrest for impairment. And frankly, attacking the experience and the probable cause is the first thing all defense attorney's do.
I was thinking a lot of this as well... I hope the defense tears this whole house of cards apart. Shocking that there was a deputy DA that would actually prosecute the case... then again, it is CA.
I know that I've come into work on 2 cups of coffee and then later downed a monster. Should I have not been on duty that day? Caffeine isn't exactly an intoxicant.
Aloha_Shooter
12-28-2016, 16:44
Trust me, you don't want that. If California breaks away, they will look like Venezuela in just a few months and then all the zombies will be literally invading the US to get away. If we're going to build a wall, it ought to be around CA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6SWofbYD90
SamuraiCO
12-28-2016, 16:48
And CA can't understand why flyover country doesn't understand their stupidity.
Unbelievable.
That's it. I'm stockpiling caffeine.
I'm not sure what you are arguing. She may have been a trained peace officer for California. It doesn't mean she is trained in all aspects of law enforcement. She may have been given a vehicle; Colorado gives vehicles to its DOR compliance officers too. Big deal. Again, the fact she may not have been trained or have experience in DUI enforcement is a big deal and would come out for the defense. The defense would tear her up for making an arrest based upon zero experience, training or education in DUI detection or enforcement. If there is no alcohol present, then a trained Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) is called in to conduct a more thorough set of roadside maneuvers to determine if something other than alcohol may be present, especially in California, where the DRE program was started and is rigorously trained. As a former DRE officer, I can tell you that I conducted numerous investigations to assist the regular patrol officer.
Training and experience is not immaterial. An officer does not make an arrest unless there is probable cause to make the arrest. If you don't have the experience to know that someone is impaired by alcohol or drugs, you don't make the arrest, you call someone to assist you who would. The totality of the the officers training and experience in conducting DUI investigations is the bedrock of making a probable cause arrest for impairment. And frankly, attacking the experience and the probable cause is the first thing all defense attorney's do.
I mentioned above there is no PC. That is important but again, probably won't come up. There are plenty of DUI cases where a person "passes" a breathalyzer or roadside and goes on to get nailed a blood draw. The reckless driving could be PC for a stop.
My point is it's better for the defense to play a hand they can clearly win rather than one that is questionable. The absurdity of caffeine being an intoxicant and (if consumed as most do) being an impairment is where I would go rather than trying to disqualify the "agent" (the evidence does that).
Experience set aside, an arrest was made (still can't believe it). Suspect is charged. DA isn't backing down. You seem to be saying "I wouldn't have done this" which makes since because you seem like an honest and decent LEO. I don't think that's in play here. ;)
Imagine all the intoxication which will go into the preparation of both the prosecution and defense. Would be hilarious if the Prosecutor brings in coffee to drink during trial and the Defense plays on it.
Circuits
12-28-2016, 23:57
If it wasn't clear before, it is now. California has gone FULL RETARD.
I mentioned above there is no PC. That is important but again, probably won't come up. There are plenty of DUI cases where a person "passes" a breathalyzer or roadside and goes on to get nailed a blood draw. The reckless driving could be PC for a stop.
My point is it's better for the defense to play a hand they can clearly win rather than one that is questionable. The absurdity of caffeine being an intoxicant and (if consumed as most do) being an impairment is where I would go rather than trying to disqualify the "agent" (the evidence does that).
Experience set aside, an arrest was made (still can't believe it). Suspect is charged. DA isn't backing down. You seem to be saying "I wouldn't have done this" which makes since because you seem like an honest and decent LEO. I don't think that's in play here. ;)
Court doesn't work like we think it works.
DavieD55
12-29-2016, 07:12
If Colorado voters don't pull their heads out from between their legs this is the path Colorado will go down under democrat / progressive commie control as it already is. we're about 5 to 10 years behind "kalifonya" in regards to this statism. Coming up in the midterm elections of 2018, if the democrats get a majority in the state senate, maintain the house, and another communist or RINO gets elected for a governor, BS like this will become the norm here in this state too.
The prosecutor should not have brought charges. I looks to me the defense has a case for malicious prosecution and damages.
OneGuy67
12-29-2016, 11:33
Experience set aside, an arrest was made (still can't believe it). Suspect is charged. DA isn't backing down. You seem to be saying "I wouldn't have done this" which makes since because you seem like an honest and decent LEO. I don't think that's in play here. ;)
I wouldn't have, but no, that is not what I am saying. I am saying the defense attorney will have a field day with this case, starting with the lack of PC for an arrest. You don't need PC to make a stop, just reasonable suspicion. Prosecutors always start with the officers training and experience to lay a foundation to show the officer has the required experience to conduct the investigation and any subsequent arrest. It is the same foundation that defense attorneys will want to poke holes into. I work complex investigations and the defense always wants to try to poke holes in my training and experience and usually after that unsuccessful attempt, they then attack the evidence and the procedure for collection of evidence.
BushMasterBoy
12-29-2016, 12:01
The government just wants the drivers money. And justice for all. Bleh MSM reporting.
BPTactical
12-29-2016, 12:36
Unbelievable.
That's it. I'm stockpiling caffeine.
Neckbeard....[Coffee]
California just needs to get on with it and break away from the USA, and declare themselves an authoritarian based government. The direction they're going, might as well make it official.
I keep thinking how funny it would be if California secedes, they would promptly be invaded, probably first by the Mexican fifth column already there, and then it would become a russo-sino battleground. Good luck defending that.
If this were the norm in California, it wouldn't be news on the first place.
Great-Kazoo
12-29-2016, 13:44
If this were the norm in California, it wouldn't be news on the first place.
define Norm & California.
You're talking about a state that is under water health care wise in LA and other sanctuary cities. Where cutting down trees has the potential to be charged with an EPA violation. 10 day waiting period for a firearm and soon to be BGC and a permit required to buy ammunition.
AND................ ALL wood stoves purchased in CA must be registered !!
Experience set aside, an arrest was made (still can't believe it). Suspect is charged. DA isn't backing down. You seem to be saying "I wouldn't have done this" which makes since because you seem like an honest and decent LEO. I don't think that's in play here. ;)
I wouldn't have, but no, that is not what I am saying. I am saying the defense attorney will have a field day with this case, starting with the lack of PC for an arrest. You don't need PC to make a stop, just reasonable suspicion. Prosecutors always start with the officers training and experience to lay a foundation to show the officer has the required experience to conduct the investigation and any subsequent arrest. It is the same foundation that defense attorneys will want to poke holes into. I work complex investigations and the defense always wants to try to poke holes in my training and experience and usually after that unsuccessful attempt, they then attack the evidence and the procedure for collection of evidence.
I agree there will be a field day.
Her incredible actions led to a breath test that returned a whopping 0.00 and two blood tests which came back clean. She could be an incompetent idiot or experienced genius, all she did was prove, by a higher standard than reasonable doubt, that the poor guy was stone sober.
That's how ridiculous this (appears) to be.
Court doesn't work like we think it works.
You think a jury would convict a guy for a cup or two of coffee? It's no ham sandwich, but damn.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/04/09/coffee-mania/2069335/
About 83 percent of adults drink coffee in the U.S., the world's biggest consumer of the beverage, up from 78 percent a year earlier, according to the National Coffee Association's 2013 online survey.
Add in tea and soda/colas (also has caffeine) and you're probably close to 90%. So 90% of the people in that court room will have consumed caffeine prior to driving to the courthouse that morning or at some point in the day.
I'd take those odds (assuming I didn't pound 10 shots of espresso) anywhere but Utah!
Bailey Guns
12-29-2016, 18:33
Unbelievable.
That's it. I'm stockpiling caffeine.
They can have my caffeine when they pry it from my cold, dead, quivering hands.
^^ EXACTLY! LOL! [Coffee]
If you think I'm a cranky bastard with caffeine, just see what happens when I don't get it. [panic]
ColoradoTJ
12-30-2016, 00:01
First off, I find this pretty flippen outrageous for an adult that has probably had caffeine many times before.
That being said, is Driving While Impaired have to be drugs or alcohol? I once heard (now this could be total bullshit) a man got a DUI from chewing tobacco. It was his first time, got all dizzy and side swiped three cars. Now as a former Copenhagen chewer, I remember my first time as a kid and holy hell. I got all dizzy, puked, and said never again. Well the next day was't bad, nor was the 15 years after that.
So so on topic of caffeine, I have a friend that is a health nut, and rarely injests caffeine. He is already a high energy person, but the times I have seen him on caffeine it is crazy. He shakes and is a nutcase. It is actually rather funny and scary to watch at the same time. On that note, would I want to see him behind the wheel of his Jeep during this? No. He knows his condition and doesn't ever drive when on this "drug",
Just playing a little devils advocate here and want your opinions.
It is very possible and quite likely that a driver can be reckless/careless without being under the influence. When enforcing a law it is useful to know the lesser charges when you do not possess the evidence to prove the elements of a more significant charge.
ColoradoTJ
12-30-2016, 09:43
I agree, and this should be considered over a DUI.
BushMasterBoy
12-30-2016, 10:06
I know a guy that got pulled over for "weaving between the lines". He told the officer that was what they were there for! No citation, nothing. Of course it was a newbie in Fremont County. True story, I swear to God.
I also saw written on a condom machine in a truck stop, "For the prevention of future highway patrolmen".
wctriumph
12-30-2016, 10:22
I was with a friend and it was very early in the morning (3:00 AM) and he ran a flashing red light at an intersection and there was not another vehicle on the road. Except the Costa Mesa police officer in the gas station waiting for someone to do what he just did. We get lit up and my friend tells the officer that he caught the light between flashes so technically he did not really run a red light. The officer started laughing and told us to get the hell out his city, no citation issued. True story.
I was with a friend and it was very early in the morning (3:00 AM) and he ran a flashing red light at an intersection and there was not another vehicle on the road. Except the Costa Mesa police officer in the gas station waiting for someone to do what he just did. We get lit up and my friend tells the officer that he caught the light between flashes so technically he did not really run a red light. The officer started laughing and told us to get the hell out his city, no citation issued. True story.
LOL! That's awesome.
I was with a friend and it was very early in the morning (3:00 AM) and he ran a flashing red light at an intersection and there was not another vehicle on the road. Except the Costa Mesa police officer in the gas station waiting for someone to do what he just did. We get lit up and my friend tells the officer that he caught the light between flashes so technically he did not really run a red light. The officer started laughing and told us to get the hell out his city, no citation issued. True story.
Phew, that was a risk that worked out well. I'd have gotten my face stuffed in the concrete no doubt... lol
It is very possible and quite likely that a driver can be reckless/careless without being under the influence. When enforcing a law it is useful to know the lesser charges when you do not possess the evidence to prove the elements of a more significant charge.
How much you want to bet the "suspect" ends up with a reckless driving citation after they get embarrassed (in or out of court) on the caffeine DUI?
Court doesn't work like we think it works.
Judges tend to err on the side of this thing called "the law." If that judge is worth anything to the people of the district in which they work, he/she would rule at a preliminary hearing or pre-trial court date, upon motion by the defense, that there was no PC for the arrest and dismiss the charges. I happen to know a few judges here in CO who would do that, and despite working in the courts for the last two years, I still have faith in our system.
Judges tend to err on the side of this thing called "the law." If that judge is worth anything to the people of the district in which they work, he/she would rule at a preliminary hearing or pre-trial court date, upon motion by the defense, that there was no PC for the arrest and dismiss the charges. I happen to know a few judges here in CO who would do that, and despite working in the courts for the last two years, I still have faith in our system.
Have you not seen Foxtrot's Caveats(TM)?
:D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.