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

[00tec]

Might cause a few more charges to arise....

Probably with stiff penalties

[DavieD55]

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.

[Joe_K]

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

Come on....

Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi

[Martinjmpr]

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

[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.

[Skip]

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.

[OneGuy67]

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.

[Ronin13]

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.

[Skip]

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.

[Irving]

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.