Only in California. Caffeine dui 10 months after the fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

It wasn't a DUI enforcement officer, it was a compliance officer. "Joseph Schwab, 36, was pulled over on August 5, 2015, 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.abc.ca.gov/jobs/Agents.html

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skip

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy

Thank God it wasn't Viagra, that would be a hard one to beat in court.

---

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...b455cda119.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmg8550

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.