Quote Originally Posted by OneGuy67 View Post
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.