Dui on caffeine

Like Paul Harvey used to say, "Now we know, the rest of the story"...

 

I really hate to say this, being retired law, but I hope the defendant in this case sues the pants off that officer, her agency, and the DA's office over this.

 

You all are missing the point.

He was observed driving in a way consistent with being intoxicated or under the influence of some substance that makes driving unsafe,and he was driving recklessly and was a threat to the safety of others on the road.

As we all know, there are many legal drugs we can not have in our systems and legally and safely drive, even driving while tired is illegal if you can't keep it in your lane.

This guy was observed driving as if he was drunk, failed several field sobriety tests, and was arrested properly based on that.

Further testing did not show any controlled substances, although it is known that there are many that the standard tests do not test for.
The prosecution was based on the way he was driving, and that he failed the field sobriety tests, not on caffeine being in his system.

It was the news animals that made a big deal about that, because it makes them more money having stories that get people's attention.

And I suspect that they would have gone ahead and prosecuted it, and probably won, if the caffeine thing hadn't been so saturating the media. It is common for people to be prosecuted for DUI based on how they were driving and the result of the field sobriety tests, bac or blood tests are just extra evidence. (it may be pled down to Reckless Driving etc in abcense of toxicological evidence, but that is pretty common even with the evidence)

He was pulled over and charged with Dui because he was :

"weaving in and out of traffic, almost causing several collisions."

" Schwab, who was described as highly agitated, “amped up” and with pupils that were dilated."

So please don't attack the officer for reacting properly to what she observed (shame on you sexist jerks), and remember that she did not have access to the blood test results when she arrested him, and various drugs are very common in that area, so her job is to get an unsafe driver off the road and to where he can be tested.

And again, even in the absence of knowing why he was driving and acting that way, he was driving and acting as if dui, and so was treated as such.

And while maybe it was too much caffeine that did it, he wasn't being prosecuted for being dui of caffeine!
(and I know if I have drunk too much caffeine and not eaten enough food, I can get pretty wired and loopy, to the point where I would be unsafe to drive, so I am careful not to! But it is possible.)


http://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/f...efense-claim-that-dui-case-involves-caffeine/

 

Seems to me the problem was more likely a power-hungry bureaucrat.

 

td

You do realize that it is the DA that chooses what to charge a person with right?

The officer arrested for what they observed, and once in the system, then the DA is responsible for the testing and charges, depending on evidence.

It seems like there is a lot of prejudice against this officer, and their ability to conduct a proper field sobriety test, when this is a pretty common procedure, and it is pretty easy to tell when someone is not fit to drive.

This was not a case against caffeine, it was a case against someone who was driving recklessly, and appeared to be under the influence of something that prevented him from driving safely.

I found it interesting that his statements if defense were about how the delay would make it hard to find his coworkers, and how stupid the case was over caffeine, but I never heard him argue that he wasn't driving badly.

And I believe he is still getting ticketed for reckless driving

 

DUI means driving under the influence. If there is no substance present in your system, they will not get a conviction because you are not under the influence of anything. You can stumble all over the place and trip over your own feet, but when you blow a 0.00, and they draw blood and you test negative for all substances, and then they send a sample to a lab for a more in-depth look at what is there and the ONLY thing that comes back is a common substance probably present in +99% of drivers, you simply will not get a conviction for DUI. If you want to argue reckless driving or improper lane use, make your case for that. Charging somebody with DUI when the only thing they have in their system is caffeine, you have lost all credibility in the case and you won't likely get a conviction for anything. The "arresting officer" looks incompetent when the reason for the arrest is proven false, so going forward with the case their testimony will be less believable since their judgment has already been proven to be less than stellar.

 

Oh, and the news stories that were posted were mostly sensationalized or sarcastic, and were focusing on the caffeine part, so it is not surprising that they failed to mention the field sobriety tests, or the other details that the DA would be looking at.
You have to look past the entertainment articles to the local ones that covered the details.

 

When a person fails several field sobriety tests, how does the lack of a positive blood test reflect badly on the officer?

It is known that many common illegal drugs are not picked up in the normal blood tests, because there are too many to test for all of them. So when the evidence points to being under the influence of something, but you can't identify exactly what, you still are likely to have been under the influence of something.

That is like a bad guy shooting someone, and it is caught on a security camera, so you can see it, and you have the body, and gunpowder on the bad guy's hands, but the gun has disappeared, and so because you can't identify which weapon caused it, you let the guy go.