DANG!
Posted on 12/28/2016 6:15:38 PM PST by Lazamataz
A California man is in the midst of a lengthy legal battle following a driving under the influence charge that was issued almost 18 months ago for operating a car while under the influence of caffeine, reports said. I'm sorry, did we miss something? When did it become illegal to drive after consuming some espresso?
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, The Guardian reported. The agent administered a breathalyzer test which displayed a 0.00% blood alcohol level, according to Schwab's lawyer. After that test, Schwab was put into county jail and had his blood taken for an addition toxicology test. The following report concluded that he had no illegal drugs in his system.
It wasn't until samples were sent to an outside testing facility in Pennsylvania that caffeine showed up as the only drug in Schwab's system when he was arrested, The Guardian reported. Now, just about 18 months later, Schwab and his attorney are gearing up for trial.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
I’m curious. You’ve been a constant presence on the motorcycle club threads. That implies, at least to me, that you are a strong advocate for law-and-order.
You okay with a DUI conviction for caffiene?
I passed the field test, was spread eagled on the hood, cuffed and thrown into the back of the cop car and mis-handled by the CHIPS. My mouth was not a factor, I had been arrested many times before on real charges, and knew that your mouth can be your own worst enemy when arrested.
I passed the blood test, was in the process of being released, when the cops told me that my rental car had been impounded, and that they would call me a cab to get to the pound.
I gave then 30 minutes to get that car released and returned to me or my lawyer would have both of their asses. I got the car back.
Welcome to the Hotel California.
Sorry bro. I feel for my brethren that live in that hostile communist foreign nation, California.
I felt the same for my Polish friends, back in the day.
You should know the facts before posting ...
I post my observations.
Went unanswered: Are you okay with a DUI conviction for caffiene?
DANG!
“Too easy: and I really do want to debate you but, it says in the code “IF” he is arrested he has the option of which test to take.”
Obviously you quit reading when you got to a part you liked ...
C) A person who chooses to submit to a breath test may also be requested to submit to a blood test if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person was driving under the influence of a drug or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug and if the officer has a clear indication that a blood test will reveal evidence of the person being under the influence. The officer shall state in his or her report the facts upon which that belief and that clear indication are based. The officer shall advise the person that he or she is required to submit to an additional test. The person shall submit to and complete a blood test. If the person arrested is incapable of completing the blood test, the person shall submit to and complete a urine test.
“I post my observations. Went unanswered: Are you okay with a DUI conviction for caffiene?”
As I said before, you should get your facts from credible articles and not from click-bait headlines. No one is being prosecuted for caffeine DUI.
the woman was scorned...... he cut her off
The only thing found in his bloodstream was caffiene.
Yet they are continuing a prosecution for DUI.
You okay with that?
“Yet they are continuing a prosecution for DUI.”
Again, you are still relying on click-bait. The charges were dropped.
Where do you see that in the article? All I see about the status of the case is “Now, just about 18 months later, Schwab and his attorney are gearing up for trial.”
Do you have external sources of information?
I actually answered for you. Posted 8 hours ago (well after my initial post of this article): http://www.kcra.com/article/da-drops-dui-charge-after-fairfield-man-tests-positive-for-caffeine/8543519
“Where do you see that in the article? All I see about the status of the case is “Now, just about 18 months later, Schwab and his attorney are gearing up for trial.” Do you have external sources of information?”
It’s called the internet. Can be search with Google or other search engines.
I’ve pounded enough double espressos to make my hands twitch, if I’d been driving I wouldn’t have been driving well. The law is under chemical influence that adversely effects your driving, and includes anything that effects your driving.
From the article: 'According to California law, a drug is any substance that isn't alcohol that might “impair, to an appreciable degree” a driver's capability behind the wheel.'
Granted, you'd probably have to have consumed an enormous amount of caffeine to be driving-impaired, but the charge would not be without basis in law.
Caffeine is a drug.
Yer a dik.
“Yer a dik.”
LOL ...
I think they would have to prove negligence to get the case moving forward and how exactly would they do that?
It’s like legalizing marijuana. You can use it but, what is the impairment level and how would they measure that?
As of now, they have no test that can measure what would universally impair you or anyone else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.